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)

Monday, March 12, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 2

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

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two sets of guests in the Legislature with us today.

First, I have two constituents who are also teachers in the greater Victoria school district — Randy Dunbar and Martha Gerow. Would the House please make them welcome and thank them for their work.

Then I have a number of individuals who are here involved in the preservation of First Nations languages — and I'll say a little more about that later — Dr. Lorna Williams, Tracey Herbert, Peter Brand, Penny Brand, Shaylene Boechler, Alex Wadsworth and Susan De Stephanis. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Les: Joining us in the members' gallery this afternoon is the Ambassador of Switzerland, His Excellency Ulrich Lehner, who is visiting Victoria for meetings with the B.C. government today and tomorrow before attending the Globe 2012 conference in Vancouver this week. The ambassador is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Federica Lehner Timbal, and by the Consul General of Switzerland, Mr. Urs Strausak. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

[1335]

M. Karagianis: Today in the House I have a constituency assistant who is fairly new to my office but doing just a terrific job. Would the House please welcome Andrew Barrett.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to welcome a delegation of 15 senior civil servants from the Indian Administrative Service to the gallery today. The delegation is visiting British Columbia from India to attend a two-week program focused on competency-based approaches to human resources development and management in Canadian federal and provincial government. They are joined by two staff from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. I ask all members to join me in welcoming these guests to our House.

J. Rustad: It's always a pleasure to have guests come down from Nechako Lakes. Of course, it's a long way to travel, but today I have a number of guests down from Lake Babine Nation — Chief Wilf Adam, Deputy Chief Frank Michell, Justa Monk and Monty Palmantier. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

WORLD PLUMBING DAY

K. Conroy: Yesterday was a really important day that I'm sure everybody in the House would like to join me in acknowledging. It was World Plumbing Day. I'd like the House to join me in acknowledging the work that plumbers do across the province, but I want to specifically acknowledge my baby brother, Tom Thor-Larsen, the best plumber in the Kootenays. He will probably never get to Victoria, because he's too busy unplugging the pipes in the Kootenays. So please join me in acknowledging plumbers.

Introductions by Members

B. Stewart: Members of the House, I'd just like to let you know that my sister Andrea and her husband, David McFadden, are here in the precinct today. They're here to join me in looking at the interesting debate that I'm sure will go on here today in the House.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — CRIMINAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Criminal Asset Management Act.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to introduce Bill 28, the Criminal Asset Management Act. This bill will establish a comprehensive regime for management of assets restrained, seized and forfeited under the Criminal Code or other federal acts to improve effectiveness of criminal forfeiture in this province.

The proposed legislation will establish an explicit legislative authority to manage and dispose of assets forfeited to the government in criminal proceedings and will provide the necessary financial management mechanism to operate the criminal asset management program. The proposed legislation will enhance the province's tools for dealing with crime by removing the financial incentives to engage in criminal activities,
[ Page 10016 ]
as well as complement the distinct existing civil forfeiture program.

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

Bill 28, Criminal Asset Management Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION IN
MUNICIPAL DECISION-MAKING

L. Reid: My remarks this afternoon will focus on Women Transforming Cities: Designing an Ideal City for Women and Girls. Women and girls make up half the population of Canadian cities. In Canada, however, only 21 percent of elected municipal officials are women. Girls are not typically engaged in making decisions that affect their lives in cities. Engaging women and girls in municipal decision-making, policy-making, urban planning and budgeting can transform cities to be more equitable, inclusive and democratic for all residents.

In some cities women set up organizations and advisory councils to change these statistics by addressing equality, equity and diversity. We want to build a network with a national conference entitled Women Transforming Cities: Designing an Ideal City for Women and Girls.

The Women Transforming Cities conference will bring together elected municipal officials with women and girls active in women's groups; unions; universities; schools; aboriginals; immigrant and refugee; housing and health organizations; violence against women; anti-racist, anti-poverty and child care activists; as well as planners, architects and engineers.

This is an opportunity for dialogue and action between girls and women and local governments. We want to transform our cities into places where women are more involved in the elective process and municipal governments are responsive to the priorities of women in Canada's urban centres. We hope to offer a session, delivered by female architects, on their vision of the ideal city or community space.

[1340]

For Canadian cities to be accountable to women, we need women to be involved in decision-making at all levels. A national conference bringing together elected officials with women from equality-seeking community organizations will move this agenda forward. We're organizing this conference to take place in Vancouver before the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual conference in June of 2013.

Organizing is taking place by e-mail, Skype, phone calls, Facebooks and in meetings across Canada. Please join us in engaging women and girls to transform our cities. The e-mail is info@womentransformingcities.org, and the website womentransformingcities.org. Please join us.

FIRST NATIONS LANGUAGES

C. James: Languages represent the identity of a people, and they are the holders of cultural, historical, scientific and ecological knowledge. Sadly, many First Nations languages are in danger of disappearing forever.

But a Vancouver Island–based organization is working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. The First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council has been delivering arts, language and cultural programs to B.C.'s First Nations since 1990. The enormously dedicated team behind the council makes it possible for elders, schools, learners and children to have access to 34 First Nations languages and 61 dialects.

One of the council's projects is FirstVoices, a suite of web-based tools. The site's language archives contain thousands of text entries and many diverse aboriginal writing systems enhanced with sounds, pictures and videos. A companion set of interactive on-line games entertains while teaching. The project recently produced 12 FirstVoices dictionary apps for B.C. languages, and using groundbreaking technology developed right here on southern Vancouver Island, the project has launched its FirstVoices chat for Facebook and Google chat.

The texting app had its world's premiere in Vancouver, with His Honour Lieutenant-Governor Steven Point and his wife, Her Honour Gwen Point, exchanging text messages in their Halq'eméylem language before several hundred delegates.

It's magical to see modern technology working hand-in-hand with our most ancient history, First Nations languages. First Peoples executive director Tracey Herbert is challenging all members in this House to go to the language map on their website and identify the endangered languages in our communities. She challenges us to learn a greeting.

So in the spirit of that request, I say, "JÁN ÍY, C̸ENS TÁĆEL HÁLE," which translates to: "It's really good that you've all arrived. Welcome all."

LIFESAVING SOCIETY AWARDS
FOR BRAVERY

R. Lee: Last Saturday the B.C. and Yukon branch of the Lifesaving Society held its 100th annual Commonwealth Honour and Rescue Awards ceremony in Vancouver. I had the honour to present awards to some very brave
[ Page 10017 ]
British Columbians.

Just six weeks ago Alyse McDonald's car landed upside down in a water-filled ditch in Delta. While driving, off-duty RCMP Const. Aaron Jabs and his wife, Cherrie, noticed a wet little boy waving his arms. They pulled over and managed to rescue a two-year-old girl trapped inside a submerging car. The emergency service was called and soon arrived to treat the young family for hypothermia and shock.

Cherrie Jabs and Const. Aaron Jabs were presented with a Silver Medal for Merit and a Silver Medal for Bravery, respectively. They were also presented the Governor's Gold Medal for the most heroic rescue of the year.

Last April ten-year-old McKenzie Isaac of Merritt was playing in the shallow end of the pool. He saw eight-year-old Brayden Edwards struggling underwater in the deep end. He quickly swam out to tow him to the edge of the pool by having Braden hold onto his foot. McKenzie Isaac was awarded a Silver Medal of Bravery and the George A. Brown Memorial Medal.

Also awarded for bravery were Kevin Armstrong, Charlene Breti, Raph Bruhwiler, Kevin Carras, Wendy Cowan, Patricia Pilutik, Dean Francks and Dennis Robertson. Would the House join me recognizing these courageous British Columbians.

INCOME ASSISTANCE

J. Brar: There's a myth out there that applying for welfare is as easy as pulling up to a drive-through window to buy a meal, but I learned that the opposite is true.

[1345]

On the third day of my welfare challenge I had an interview with a worker from the Ministry of Social Development to learn about the process of applying for welfare. The application process was very complex and long. It could take up to four hours to complete the application. I also found that one must be very well educated with good math skills to do it himself or herself.

I stood in line with other income assistance applicants in front of a welfare office in the pouring rain. I got to speak with many people and hear their stories. The majority of them were there due to job loss and needed help getting back on their feet. At the end of the day I got my $610 for the month.

However, the following reductions were made before I physically got any money: $400 for rent; $20 deposit, which income assistance claws back every month until the deposit money is paid back to them; $15 deducted for the two days of January which had passed by before I got the money; $42 for bus tickets; and $25 for a basic phone. I was left with $108, which is less than $4 per day.

My biggest challenge during the month was to survive on $108. With this amount, I was able to buy food only for survival, not necessarily healthy food or enough food for a man of my age and size. That's why I lost 24 pounds in one month.

Therefore, it's hard for me to imagine as to what will happen to someone who ends up living on this amount for a longer period — even for six months. That's the question that we, the policy-makers, need to ask to ourselves.

ELEANOR NICOLL AND SOUTH CARIBOO
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD

D. Barnett: Every year the South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce recognizes exceptional members of the community with a citizen of the year award.

The recipient is someone who dedicates all of their energy to improving the lives of the people around them — an unselfish, kind and compassionate person who believes that the people around them matter more. This is a someone who never asks for recognition or gratification. Altruism doesn't come around that often, so when it does it is of utmost importance to make it known.

For many years now I've actually had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the committee that selects the citizen of the year. It's truly a difficult task. This year we had 11 highly accomplished and valued nominees who have all contributed immensely to the betterment of their communities. All of the nominees are deserving and worthy of the title.

In the end, Eleanor Nicoll, a resident of the district of 100 Mile House, was presented with the citizen of the year award. Eleanor has spent the last 25 years promoting the arts in the South Cariboo. Chairing and organizing the Festival of the Arts and teaching and playing the flute for the local choir are just a few examples of her active community history.

In the 1980s when she worked as a nurse, she put passion and determination beyond the call of duty. She worked with local organizers to recognize her fellow nurses during Remembrance Day ceremonies for the contribution in past wars.

Please join me in congratulating Eleanor Nicoll and all of the other exceptional British Columbians who make our communities a better place to live.

100th ANNIVERSARY OF DUNCAN

B. Routley: Duncan celebrated its 100th anniversary March 4, 2012, with a new flag, which was run up the pole for the first time by our well-received B.C. Lieutenant-Governor, Steven Point. We even had a Sea King helicopter flyby, and we had a contest-winning song written by Ruszel which speaks well for all of the wonderful folks who live in and love Duncan.
[ Page 10018 ]

I know it's a big world, unfolding everywhere,

and happiness is found, wherever people care.

Some people like to travel, some stay put and try hard

to find the treasures that they need, right in their own backyard.

All across the country, you find work and find friends.

That might be in Duncan, or somewhere in between.

Fate has found me where I am; I guess I've put roots down,

I'll be wherever you are, and that's why I love this town.

You can go down to the river, or down to the ocean,

up to the lake, further up to the mountains,

and still be home for dinner, and that's why I love this town.

I travelled in my younger years, and everything I saw

helped me to learn and understand just how blessed we are.

It was then that I recognized that, what goes out comes around.

Those with more can give so much. That's why I love this town.

I know the parents of my children's friends.

I know my doctor and my mechanic.

I know my grocer and my waitress

and that's why I love this town.

[1350]

We love our new song, and we have a new flag, an exercise in art by committee, which was an interesting challenge. After much discussion, the committee of 15 approved one idea that went through up to 25 revisions before everyone on the committee was happy. It was finally passed unanimously.

I know we can't have props here in the Legislature, but if we could, the Duncan flag would look a lot like this. Happy centennial, and please join me in wishing Duncan a happy 100th anniversary, hon. Speaker.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF
PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

A. Dix: Serious concerns have been raised by students about University Canada West, a private college in British Columbia. Those allegations, of course, have been the subject in the last couple days in the Vancouver Province, as the minister will know.

The minister may not know, although presumably they've been doing work in this area, that the Deccan Chronicle, which reports from the Indian subcontinent, recently published a piece about how South Asian students have suffered due to the same institution's "dubious" claims.

When this newspaper approached the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi about problems Indian students were having with UCW, the commission replied that these concerns had been forwarded to the appropriate provincial authorities. Can the minister share with this House what actions her ministry took?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: My understanding is that there are no formal complaints that have been registered with the regulatory body with respect to the issue that the Leader of the Opposition just raised, but I think that the Leader of the Opposition is aware that there are processes in place to look at any formal complaints that are filed. When any issues do arise or become known to us, these issues are dealt with very, very quickly.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, in the B.C. Transfer Guide, University Canada West isn't even listed as a "sending institution," suggesting that course work done at this institution is not recognized by other colleges and universities. So I guess the question is this. Serious concerns came through the Canadian High Commission. What actions did the minister take? What actions, if any, have been taken on this question?

Surely, the minister will agree with me — and it's the government that's made this a signature priority, even though their plan is several months late — this is a signature priority of the administration. So can the minister tell us what actions have been taken? The minister seems to not want to deal with the issue, but this is a significant matter, and I think we'd like to hear what specific action the minister will take when these complaints arrive on her desk.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The quality of our post-secondary education in British Columbia is very important to us. In fact, it's what sets us apart from other jurisdictions. We, in fact, in B.C. are considered leaders in Canada with our EQA, the education quality assurance standard that we have. It's a benchmark that sets…. The institution actually becomes EQA approved. It's an indication of the quality of the institution.

I don't know if the member opposite has read the B.C. jobs plan from cover to cover, but I believe it's on page 15. One of the areas and objectives that we have is to expand and strengthen our quality assurance framework, and we expect that we'll be implementing those changes by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, serious concerns, of course, have been raised in other jurisdictions about the holding company here as well. In fact, even the registrar of the regulator finds this "troubling" and says it's doubtful that those accrediting the school were aware of that history in 2009 when the government renewed UCW's university status.

[1355]

So I guess I wanted to ask the minister…. Serious concerns have been raised. Clearly, people do not believe through this process, where they have to go through the university first and then to PCTIA, as working for
[ Page 10019 ]
them…. There are hundreds of complaints out there, significant concerns that will hurt the reputation of British Columbia, and concerns being raised in other jurisdictions. What steps is the minister actually going to take to address these problems?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Maybe to put it into context, the business group that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to actually established business in 1995 in British Columbia. They had to receive approval to operate that business. There are processes in place to look at any formal complaints. I would encourage the member opposite…. If there are complaints that you are aware of or that perhaps you know of — allegations from others — I would encourage you to contact me or perhaps file a formal complaint with the regulatory body. That's exactly what they're there for.

The quality of our education is very, very important. The post-secondary education is considered to have a very, very high quality worldwide. That's why we're strengthening and expanding the quality assurance framework, and that is an objective that we hope to complete by the end of this year.

M. Mungall: Peter Chung left the U.S. after California state court alleged in 1991 that he had committed over 10,000 violations of the business code, including misleading students attending his private post-secondary schools. For over two years now on an online forum for international students, hundreds of students have made complaints about Peter Chung's newest enterprises here in B.C. — Eminata Group's Vancouver Career College, University Canada West and CDI College.

Many of these students claim that they were misled. All of these colleges under Eminata Group were reaccredited to operate in 2009, and all have EQA status. In January 2012 the Minister of Advanced Education wrote to University Canada West, granting them consent to continue operations after closing their Victoria campus.

These are all red flags. Why has the minister allowed UCW to continue instead of looking into these complaints to protect students today and to protect B.C.'s education brand?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I remind the member opposite that this organization received approval to operate in British Columbia in 1995. They've been in business for about 17 years, and to my knowledge, I'm advised that there are actually no formal complaints from students on this group of businesses. But again, I would ask the member opposite to work with whoever you appear to be working with, and if there is a formal complaint, please register it with the regulatory body.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: This is what the new executive director at the Private Career Training Institutions Agency says about the Eminata owner's past and the California court allegations about his practices there. She says: "That is something that would keep me from granting registration from a public's-best-interest perspective." Now, this is the organization where students would actually put forward their complaints. They've only received two, but nonetheless, this is incredibly important, according to the executive director at PCTIA.

When investigating why accreditation was renewed in 2009, the Province newspaper asked for but did not receive reports from that accreditation process. But the reporter was surprised that a senior staff member at Eminata had a copy of an e-mail he sent to the minister asking questions about those California court allegations.

Why is the minister failing to share information with the public but will share her e-mails with Eminata?

[1400]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I would just like to correct for the record…. I did not share my e-mail with the gentleman that you just referenced.

Our province has a robust private sector post-secondary industry — 330, 340 private career-training colleges, mostly well run. When there are issues, there's a formal complaint process that students can use to register and lodge a formal complaint. When there are issues, they're dealt with swiftly.

I can tell you that our private career-training schools service thousands and thousands of students every year, and some of the students that I've talked to have said great things about the private career-training college that they've attended.

But again, those that have an issue have an avenue to make formal complaints, and I would urge the member opposite to file a complaint if the member opposite has some information. We need to protect the quality of our post-secondary education. It's what sets us apart from other jurisdictions in the world.

INTERVENTION IN
UBC ADMISSIONS PROCESS

J. Horgan: Last November Howard Waldner, the CEO of the Vancouver Island Health Authority, waived all normal provisions for contracting employees and directly awarded a contract of over $160,000 to an individual. He later revealed that he was unaware that this was a violation, and the contract was terminated.

Over the weekend the Vancouver Sun obtained an internal document from the University of British
[ Page 10020 ]
Columbia, noting that Mr. Waldner had tried to interfere and intervene in the admissions process at that august university.

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Can she confirm that Howard Waldner, the CEO of Vancouver Island Health Authority, abused his power and tried to intervene in the admissions process on behalf of his son?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Mr. Speaker, I will take this on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Juan de Fuca, is there a different question?

UBC ADMISSIONS PROCESS

J. Horgan: There is. It has to do with the admission processes in general.

The minister, in her answer to a question from the member for Nelson-Creston, advised that the system is more or less on track. "More or less" is something, I think, that most British Columbians would be happy to be seeing on their mail delivery or their garbage pickup, but when it comes to post-secondary education, they expect a little bit more.

So again, my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Is she aware of any interference in the admission process at the University of British Columbia on behalf of prominent individuals in the community?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'll just state for the record, again, that there is a process in place for students that have any formal complaints to register them with the regulator. When those complaints are registered and information is made known to us, we act on that information swiftly.

M. Farnworth: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education. According to a memo sent nearly a year ago by the former admissions director, Denis Hughes, he in part resigned because of alleged preferential treatment given to a few applicants with well-connected parents who intervened on the application process into medical schools.

Does the minister think that is appropriate? And what steps has she taken to investigate this and find out exactly what took place and how many friends and well-connected individuals got their kids to jump the cue over those who worked hard to get into medical school the right way?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Mr. Speaker, I'll take this question on notice.

DRIVEABLE PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: Members of the public and members on this side of the House have been raising concerns about the government's recently implemented fitness-to-drive policies, including DriveABLE. After meeting with the Alzheimer Society last week, the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara tweeted that there are "clearly serious scientific validity issues with DriveABLE."

Does the minister responsible for the motor vehicle branch agree with her colleague?

[1405]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that everyone, I think, understands is the anxiety and how difficult it is for people who are aging and face the possibility that they may be forced to give up their ability to drive. So it's a very serious issue and one that we've taken very seriously on this side of the House.

We should point out that DriveABLE actually started in 1998 in Alberta. British Columbia didn't begin the DriveABLE process. But of course, we're concerned when there's anxiety found amongst seniors across the province.

We do need to have assessment tools that are appropriate to ensure that the safety of those seniors is protected and also the public in British Columbia. We're always going to look for ways to improve programs. I have my staff looking at the DriveABLE program as we speak.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, after meeting with Dr. Douglas Drummond and the Alzheimer Society the member for Vancouver-Langara also said: "If you had a desk test like the DriveABLE that people felt was fair, that would be okay." She continued: "The idea that you could have your licence — something so valuable — taken from you on the basis of a desk test, I think, just doesn't feel fair."

These are scientists and doctors who are questioning the validity of the test. Does the minister responsible for the motor vehicle branch agree with her colleague, the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara, that there is a lack of fairness in the DriveABLE testing process?

Hon. S. Bond: One very important fact that the member opposite left out of her question was recognizing that DriveABLE references are medical references. So in fact, physicians in British Columbia, when they see one of their patients potentially facing cognitive impairment, actually refer those individuals to the program. It does not, as some have implied in this House, target seniors in British Columbia. In fact, what it does is accept medical references.
[ Page 10021 ]

We're fully prepared on this side of the House to contemplate improvements to the program. I actually welcome the advice of my colleague who made the comments. We think that she has a lot to offer, and I look forward to working with her to improve the program.

N. Simons: Dr. Drummond raised two key concerns last August about the new screening system. He asked, "How many false positives will there be with the new tools?" and secondly: "How will these assessment tools function in the real world as opposed to the university environment in which they were developed?"

Many seniors in this province have been forced to pay large sums of money and travel long distances to get retested by DriveABLE and pay $350 to do so. Seniors from around the province say that there are problems with the new testing and that they're the ones that are unfairly shouldering the burden of those flaws. Does the minister share the same concerns of seniors across this province?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, what I think is unfortunate is when members on the opposite side of the House frighten seniors in British Columbia and, in fact, share misinformation. I can tell you that when members on the opposite side of the House gather up hundreds of seniors and imply that every one of them has to take DriveABLE, that is misinformation and fearmongering at best.

The most important thing to understand is that, unfortunately, we outlive our ability to drive safely. There does need to be an assessment tool. DriveABLE is used around the world.

[1410]

In fact, we are looking for ways to improve the ability to improve education, to offer it more widely across the province. But for the member opposite to suggest that every senior has to take a DriveABLE assessment is incorrect at best.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
[ Page 10022 ]

N. Simons: The minister should know that members of her staff were invited to the meetings. If she had attended or any of her members had attended, they would have seen that we were very clear about what the whole role of DriveABLE was.

I think what should be pointed out to this minister is that the seniors are the ones raising the concerns. Mr. Speaker, 200 seniors in Sechelt just last week raised a number of concerns, among them the fairness and transparency of the test. They asked this specific question: how is it that the person who acted as chief researcher for the new guidelines also developed the medical test that doctors are being mandated to use, and they happened to be sent to a program that happens to be very well connected to her personally?

There are a number of issues in this, and it's all about fairness. Seniors nod when we say we want safe streets in our province. They agree. But they also agree that any program must be fair, must be transparent and must be accountable to the seniors that it's supposed to address.

So once again, can the minister show us the evidence — the scientifically, independently validated evidence — to suggest that the current system is fair?

Hon. S. Bond: What is fair is finding an adequate and appropriate assessment that actually protects individuals who have a cognitive impairment. This is not about targeting seniors.

The member opposite perhaps should have outlined to the seniors that he spoke to that, in total, 1,500 individuals across the province are sent for assessments based on a medical reference. It is not about the government suggesting that every senior should take DriveABLE. That is incorrect and inaccurate. It is 1,500 individuals that actually are assessed as a result of their physician's recommendation.

All of us are concerned that seniors are treated with respect and dignity. There are improvements necessary. We are working on them, but it's important that the member opposite gets the facts straight.

B.C. PLACE BUSINESS PLAN
AND NAMING RIGHTS

S. Chandra Herbert: As we all know, last week the Liberals rejected the $40 million naming rights deal with TELUS for B.C. Place, a deal that the Liberals initiated, which has left taxpayers on the hook for potentially millions of dollars.

Now the Liberal government says it believes PavCo can replace the lost naming rights revenue with other advertising revenues from the building. The chair of PavCo, David Podmore, says that the government has to relieve PavCo of the $40 million lost, because PavCo has already been selling that advertising. So can the minister, who claimed that they can make up the $40 million in advertising revenue, explain how you can sell ads that have already been sold?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite is incorrect, as usual. There are plenty of opportunities that we'll be able to take advantage of.

Just last November we hosted the Grey Cup in British Columbia. That one single event generated $118 million in economic benefits. This is a good investment for B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just last year the minister said he was looking at a number of revenue streams to make up for the cost of B.C. Place, a cost which is being shouldered by provincial taxpayers. He said: "There's value for allowing B.C. Place to be called something other than B.C. Place." He also said that the $20 million, not the later $40 million which was being negotiated, was a substantial amount of money, and he argued that that's why it should be renamed.

So now that this deal has gone sideways, I'd like to ask the minister if he'll release the business plan for this deal, since there's been no business plan for B.C. Place.

[1415]

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite may know that we have a brand-new tenant in the building called the Vancouver Whitecaps. In fact, this Saturday they had their home opener, and they won 2-nil, which is good news for B.C. So 21,000 people took in that game. An additional $40 million in benefits each and every year….

The investment in this new roof and this new system translates directly into a $350,000 savings per year in terms of energy costs. This has been a good investment for the people of British Columbia. It will serve us well for 40 years.

M. Karagianis: I'm quite curious. It would appear that the B.C. Liberals are trying to double-count their revenue on B.C. Place, and that doesn't seem to meet the nod test on any kind of general accounting practice that I am aware of. So I think it's a clear question about the B.C. Liberals once again sort of forging ahead without a business plan for what they're going to do. We're already waiting on this side of the House for a business plan for — what? — the fire sale of public assets, the sell-off of liquor distribution.

Clear question. Can the minister present the business plan here for this revenue recoup, or are the taxpayers just actually on the hook for $40 million?

Hon. P. Bell: Obviously, the members opposite don't like the fact that the B.C. Lions hosted, and won, the Grey Cup game last November — $118 million in economic impact. Apparently, the members opposite don't like the fact that this facility will serve British Columbians for an additional 40 years. Apparently, they don't acknowledge the fact that there's going to be a $350,000 savings per year in energy savings and that we've got a brand-new tenant called the Whitecaps in the facility.

But perhaps they will acknowledge that there were almost 4,000 person-years' worth of employment created when this facility was built. It is a good investment for the province of British Columbia. It will serve us well for 40 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, based on the cost overruns on this, it better serve us for that long.

Let's just take a little look at this. So — what? — a $30 million payoff for Boss Power, $6 million for Basi and Virk for their trial, $40 million gone like this because the B.C. Liberals mismanaged the renaming here, and yet not one dime for child poverty.

It is very clear that the B.C. Liberals do not have a plan, a business plan, in any way here and that they are botching and mismanaging every step of the way. Taxpayers are on the hook for $40 million. The minister needs to just stand up and admit that.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure I heard a question in all of that. But what I will say is that the option in terms of having a stadium of this nature would have cost double if you were to build a brand-new stadium. This is a facility that has served us very, very well since the mid-1980s.

The investment that we've made in this facility goes far beyond simply making it available as a major sports facility for another 40 years. It also has become the most seismically safe building anywhere in the city of Vancouver and is now a gathering point in the event of an earthquake. This has been a good investment. It will serve British Columbians well for the next 40 years.

S. Simpson: Is the minister trying to tell us here that he just saved us the $560 million we paid for this roof? We have a stadium with a roof that had…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: …major cost overruns. The government told us, first, they were going to pay for it with a casino that never happened. Then we were going to get $40 million for naming rights that never happened. Clearly, there's no plan. Will the minister produce the business plan or admit there isn't one?

[1420]

Hon. P. Bell: You know, it's amazing how the NDP can make a bad-news story out of something like the Grey Cup — $118 million in economic benefit to British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, a brand-new…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: …professional soccer team now com-
[ Page 10023 ]
peting on a global…. They wouldn't have existed in the league that they're in now, would they, Member opposite? They're actually part of this league because we have a retractable roof in that stadium.

We're seeing world-class shows like the boat show come forward. We're seeing world-class home shows come forward. We're able to incorporate an additional 50 days of use out of this stadium each and every year. This is a facility that will serve British Columbians very well into the future. We're proud of the investment.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Government House Leader.

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 22

Hon. R. Coleman: I move:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all proceedings, relating to second reading of Bill (No. 22) intituled Education Improvement Act shall be completed and disposed of on or before Monday, March 12, 2012 at 6:15 p.m. At 6:15 p.m. on the date mentioned, the Speaker shall forthwith put all necessary questions for the completion of second reading stage of the said bill without amendment or debate. Any divisions called on the second reading, or a second reading amendment, of the said bill may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16.

I further move that pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), on or before Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. all remaining proceedings relating to Bill (No. 22) shall be completed and disposed of. At 4:45 p.m. on March 15, 2012, the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining stages of the said bill without amendment or debate, and divisions called on any section of Bill (No. 22) shall be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any division called on the third reading of the said bill may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16. Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days of the sittings of the House.]

[1425]

Motion approved on the following division:

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call in this House second reading of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, and in Section A, Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development. Should those conclude we would move to the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

R. Austin: I will be speaking to this amendment. For those who are just tuning in to watch this debate in regards to this amendment and who did not see what occurred last Thursday when the House last sat, I'd just like to reiterate and put this back on the record so people understand what we are debating this afternoon.

My colleague from Juan de Fuca on Thursday brought in a reasoned amendment, and I shall read it. It says 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.'"

[1430]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Now, the reason for bringing in this amendment is very simple. We have seen over the last year or so, and in particular over the last few weeks, a lot of consternation in our public education system that has arisen in large part because of the breakdown in relationships between the teachers and the B.C. Liberal government. But also, we have seen a lot of consternation on the part of parents and students here in British Columbia as the teachers decided to go on a legal strike.

We on this side of the House believe that this amendment is a possible and very reasoned solution to this debate. Prior to Bill 22 entering into the chamber, both sides of this dispute had already, on their own, even after several attempts to try and negotiate a contract…. Nevertheless, they both said that they were willing to sit down with a mediator. The teachers asked for that, and in point of fact, so did the employers association, BCPSEA, who voted just the weekend prior to Bill 22 coming in that they also felt that a mediator was the best way to go.

This reasoned amendment speaks to what it is that both parties were seeking. We do not think that ramming through Bill 22 is going to solve all the problems — or, indeed, any of the problems — that are currently in the B.C. education system.

Just today we have seen reports of teachers around the province of British Columbia, who are so upset, moving to perhaps limit their volunteer activity within the school system. Now, I don't need to tell you that it is a critical part of our school system for our students to benefit, to have the volunteer hours and activities that teachers put outside of the classroom. So this amendment allows them to pull back from that anger.

Right now, as we are sitting here debating this, they are, I believe, having a discussion in Vancouver as to whether to make the pulling back of all volunteer activity outside of the classroom go right across the province. Just think of the devastation and the impact that will have on our students to not have teachers working outside of the classroom on a volunteer basis to do all of the sporting activities, to do all of the plays and all of the experiential learning that happens by going on trips for our kids.

This reasoned amendment is a way to recognize that agitation within the school system and say: "Let's hold off for a second. Let's just pull back. Let's go back to the drawing board, and let's have the Labour Relations Board appoint a proper mediator who can actually go and take out some of that anger in the system and bring the two parties together in a way that will avoid the legislative hammer."

Since we were discussing this last Thursday, one of the school districts right here on Vancouver Island, the Victoria school board, has come out in favour, suggesting that we should in fact not proceed with Bill 22 but do exactly what we are saying in this reasoned amendment.

I'm going to quote from the Victoria school board. Their board chairwoman is Peg Orcherton, and she stresses the need to resolve the impasse in a way that satisfies both sides. "It is unreasonable to expect that each of our stakeholders will be able to return and provide our students with the full experience of school simply by legislating an agreement. It is for this reason that the greater Victoria board of education is asking you to appoint an independent mediator."

I think what this board chair is talking about, and recognising, is that even if Bill 22 is passed in its current form, that is not going to solve the problems that are apparent in our school system. Teachers are going to be forced back into the classroom. They are going to be going against their will but as professionals will, of course, carry out all of their duties. But there is going to be huge resentment.

There is going to be the potential of them not doing all of the extracurricular activities that are part and parcel of what we expect in terms of a vocational job such as teaching. They are under no obligation to do all the extra work, volunteer work, that we see teachers do. But all of us who have had kids appreciate the fact that teachers — many teachers, on an ongoing basis, each and every day — do extra things outside of their classrooms, quite aside from the work they do in terms of preparing their school day.

[1435]

It surely harms our education system when we reach the point where we are with Bill 22, where we are generating this much anger that we're going to potentially lose that. I think that the chairperson of the Victoria school board recognizes that when she says that this is not a good piece of legislation and it won't solve our problems.

We also have the employers association, which also agrees with this reasoned amendment. Prior to Bill 22 coming in, they had stated, just the week before this came in, in spite of their challenges….

Let's understand this. BCPSEA had been at the table for many, many negotiating sessions, as the minister alluded to in his remarks. I believe it's 60-odd sessions of trying to negotiate this.

In spite of all of that — 78, he's telling me — they still felt it necessary to try and avoid using the legislative chamber to do this. I'm going to just quote here. The letter stated, from the BCPSEA's view, that:

"Mediation can, in the appropriate circumstances, be effective in assisting the union and employer to reach a collective agreement. As essentially a continuation of negotiations under the control and supervision of a neutral third party, the mediation begins with the progress to date and the necessary interests and commitment to identify the matters at issue, prioritize and conclude an agreement.
[ Page 10025 ]

"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's necessary to review the bargaining process and results to date in their totality."

So in spite of their huge challenges over 78 bargaining sessions, the employers association was also asking for a mediator. I know that it's the view of the government side and the Premier and the ministers that this bill already has mediation in it.

The difference between the mediation that's in Bill 22 and the mediation that we're proposing in the reasoned amendment, of course, is that this is what I would term true mediation without barriers at the outset and, obviously, both parties going to the table and having to put their issues on the table and the mediator having to push and shove and do whatever it is that mediators do to try and get an agreement.

I would also comment that one of the groups that is probably being dealt the harshest blow in terms of the job action that has taken place since the beginning of this school year — and I'm speaking specifically to the phase 1 job action of the teachers — is of course the principals and vice-principals.

With the teachers not doing a lot of the administrative work and the supervisory work, that has been left, then, to board officials, other members who are not in the union bargaining movement and, of course, to the principals and vice-principals. So I think it's fair to say that the principals and vice-principals have no doubt taken on an enormous amount of extra work as a result of the dispute that has been happening in our school system.

In spite of that, the president of the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, Jameel Aziz, is also on the public record stating very clearly that his group — and he speaks for the principals and vice-principals — does not believe that a legislative resolution to this is going to be helpful to them.

Why do you think that is? Clearly, principals and vice-principals must be getting fairly exhausted with the extra hours and responsibilities that they have had to take on as a result of the teachers' phase 1 job action. But in spite of that, they recognize that the end result of Bill 22, if indeed it is passed and we don't take advantage of this reasoned amendment, will not solve their problems.

Once this bill is passed, the principals and vice-principals have to go back into their schools and have to sit down with the teachers, back in management meetings, and try to rebuild relationships that have been fractured as a result of what has gone on these past few months. But in spite of that, they recognize that Bill 22 is not going to solve their problems.

Yes, the teachers will be back, and they will be doing whatever it is that the principals and vice-principals deem necessary as part of their job. But clearly, the principals recognize that in order for a school to work well, it is indicative, it's important, that professionals who work together work in a collaborative atmosphere. That is what is in the best interests of our students and our children each and every day.

[1440]

Bill 22 clearly causes so much grief to that relationship that it makes it extremely, extremely difficult. So I think….

Deputy Speaker: The member is speaking to the amendment?

R. Austin: Yes, I'm speaking to the amendment. Sorry, Madam Chair.

As I say, Jameel Aziz also recommends, essentially, that this amendment being brought in. He says that clearly, Bill 22 is not a solution. We agree with him, and that's the reason why my colleague brought in this amendment. This is an opportunity to pull back.

We saw just last week a number of teachers coming here to the Legislature. We have seen parents out there, and we've actually seen children, students — particularly those in the higher grades, who understand the complexity of what's going on — saying they don't want to see the Legislature used as a place to force the teachers back in. They recognize that the good work the teachers do for them as students is incumbent upon the teachers coming in with a willingness to share all of their skills and all of their knowledge. Bill 22 doesn't do that.

We think that pulling back and putting in a mediator is the best way for us to do this. Now, we saw this same scenario taking place a few years ago, in 2005-2006, where the two parties were at loggerheads. In fact, at that time they were out on, I believe, a legal strike action for about two weeks, and the government of the day, the same government, appointed a mediator, who went and took both sides into closed negotiations and came out with a solution. Times have changed, and the solution would be different.

What we say on this side of the House is that by using a mediator, as they did in 2005-2006, the end result will be better for our students. It will be better for our teachers, and it will be better for the system as a whole. So we don't think that it is worthwhile for us to continue with this bill.

We think that taking the time out to appoint a mediator…. It needs to be an independent mediator. It needs to be someone who is seen to have the confidence of both sides. It can't be somebody who is just handpicked by one side or is only allowed to look at issues put forward by one side. It needs to be the kind of mediation that took place in '05-06, and that is exactly what this motion speaks to.

Now, the Labour Relations Board, as mentioned in our amendment, is the correct body to be able to appoint a mediator. If we were to use the Labour Relations Board….
[ Page 10026 ]
They have, in law, the ability to go and find someone who is independent, and it takes it out of the Legislature and gives time and a breathing space.

We have at the moment a period when the public education system is taking a breather. Some school districts have a two-week spring break; others have a one-week spring break. In fact, some of those school districts, depending on which part of the province they are in, take those two weeks this week and next week, and some take them the traditional spring break — next week and the week after.

So really, what we have is a three-week period, if the government was to support this motion, for mediation to take place. That is a good period, a long time, when the parties could be sitting down and solving this problem. Then we would not need to be proceeding with Bill 22. As a result, we would have a resolution that would work for everybody, but especially for our students.

It is our students who have been hugely harmed by what's happened over the last little while. While adults here argue in this chamber…. And of course, it is adults who have been stressed out in their various roles playing out in the school system. At the end of the day, what we want to find is a resolution that helps our students to have the best possible outcome and to have the best possible public education, particularly those who are in their final year.

[1445]

We've seen a lot of debate in this chamber, both on Bill 22 and towards this motion, in regards to the effects of this ongoing job action for students in their final year. Understandably, parents are very concerned. Understandably, students are very concerned because of the activities that have not taken place in their final year.

This motion, this reasoned amendment, enables us to pull back and ensure that if there's a resolution that comes about as a result of mediation, we can go back and continue with the school year. Presumably, that would certainly help all of those students who are in their grade 12 and who are very anxious about making sure that they have everything they need as they approach university, college entrance exams and qualifications.

I'm going to conclude my remarks, because I know that there are many others who want to speak to this motion. I'm going to conclude my remarks as the critic for public education by saying that we think Bill 22 is not the right approach. We think this reasoned amendment is a much better solution. We offer it as a gesture that we think is constructive to this debate.

We think this is not simply the opposition trying to in any way filibuster but to actually offer a constructive solution to what is a very challenging time. I think, as we've watched the public debate happen outside of this chamber, there are no winners in this debate — and what's going on outside of the House.

We think that by having a mediator appointed, we can have a much more positive outcome on what's going on and a much more positive outcome for our students, our teachers and our parents.

R. Fleming: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this reasoned amendment that was put forward by my colleague from Juan de Fuca, and I want to outline some of the reasons why this amendment is actually an opportunity that the government should consider and should take.

I think that the Education critic has just concluded on many very strong reasons why this time-limited opportunity is one that is in the best interests of students and parents in the province of British Columbia.

I want to reinforce some of the arguments that he was making, to persuade, if it's possible, members on the government side of the House so that they can turn back this afternoon from a cliff of failure on negotiations with teachers that has dramatic repercussions that will carry on for years in British Columbia — for teachers, for students, for our education system.

Take this opportunity to get it right and to use the abilities of a specially appointed mediator to avoid the spectacle of the Legislature and the government admitting failure and using the most heavy-handed tool at its disposal, which is to force through a bill that will suspend bargaining and impose a solution that, in this case, neither of the two parties support outside of this House.

The employers agency doesn't support it, and the Teachers Federation doesn't support it. It's very important in this debate, as we discuss this amendment, to remember that. It is the government, the B.C. Liberal cabinet, that is offside from the two parties that have been negotiating with each other as to what the next steps can and should be.

I'll come back to that, but I think that is, in a nutshell, one of the best reasons why members on the government side of the House can think for themselves on this amendment and join with other members of the Legislature and ask themselves what is in the best interests of the province and, indeed, understand that it is this course of action, proposed by the opposition today, that gives them a way out, that is being asked for by both of the parties that have been negotiating with one another.

This is an amendment that is necessary to fulfil that request which has been made of government and so far ignored, and I think it is one that is incredibly helpful to have been suggested at this point in debate, before we see time limits invoked on debate, before we see the blunt instruments of the Legislature used to cut off debate and force through something that neither of the two parties bargaining with one another want.

[1450]

There are, of course, principles that I think not just New Democrats have in this debate but, I think it's fair to concede, that members of other parties in this House, independent members of this House, have. And that is the principle of free and fair collective bargaining in our society.

I mean, that is a defining hallmark of civilization by any standard. That is why, through the United Nations and other bodies, countries throughout the world have identified it as a critical human right in society and have seen it as a way to strengthen the functioning and success of democracy as a system of government.

That is not something I would claim — that just because I am a New Democrat, it is a principle that is not shared by the other parties.

Here we have a real, live situation playing out in the province of British Columbia today, where we see a government taking a course of action that people would find repulsive and do find repugnant when it is used in other parts of the world — where the bargaining process is suspended, where it is ended by legislative fiat. Divisions between employees, in this case — because we're talking about public servants; we're talking about teachers — and the state are poisoned and are allowed to fester.

In this case why this dispute is so important is because it can affect our kids, and it is not in their interests for this to be allowed to happen. So with this amendment, we can, both sides of the House, work together in joint opposition, really, to the principle of government legislating teachers back to work and, specifically, to the bill that this helps to make redundant, and we can move British Columbia past having further consideration of it.

It allows government to get to a process where the restrictions that Bill 22 sought to impose on the very process of mediation are removed. I think what people have found to be entirely unfair and objectionable about Bill 22 — or one of the main things — is that it referenced mediation, but when you read the clauses of the bill, it would fit no standard definition of mediation at all. It was about a predetermined outcome in favour of the employer. That is the government bill written by this government.

Deputy Speaker: I might draw you back to consideration of the amendment.

R. Fleming: It is time, through this motion, Madam Chair, to clear all of that away and allow genuine mediation to take place — mediation that is, in fact, supported by the B.C. Public School Employers Association, that is supported by the B.C. Teachers Federation — at this critical juncture in the bargaining process.

It's been tough. There's no question about it. The dispute has been entrenched on many positions. Nobody denies that. It has been made very difficult by the constraints that government has placed, and it has been made even more difficult by some of the egregious content of Bill 22.

We've gotten to the point where we are today. It is a very difficult place, but we can get out of the hole that government has dug by putting mediation back at the centre of this dispute and trying to achieve an agreement between two parties.

That is a chance that we have here, uniquely so, in this dispute at this point in time, because so many doors have been closed and shut by this government. But there is still one that is open. There is still a chance for government — and they have various means to do that — after passing this reasoned amendment today, to go forward and find a mediation process that is truly independent and that will work and add value and successfully conclude this dispute.

[1455]

So long as there is that chance, then, I think all of us as legislators need to grasp it, need to take it. Members have spoken incredibly well to how the public education system serves their communities, serves families they know, constituents they represent. They've talked about teaching excellence in our system. They've talked about all of the schools — elementary, middle, high schools, the institutions in their communities — that do an incredible job day in, day out, that provide the most important service to British Columbia today and for the future, of course.

I think that is why we have to take the place that we are at today, poisoned as it is by this government and some of the negotiating tactics they have inserted into the process, and try and get it back on track — through the use of a skilled mediator that can be appointed by government, that is independent — so that there can be some agreement, so that the discord and conflict can be ramped down and so that kids and parents and the education system come first in British Columbia. That's what this reasoned amendment is about this afternoon.

There are a few, I think, background facts that also inform why the efforts through this reasoned amendment have arisen. It has to do with some of the mistakes, I think, that were made by government, both in advance of and during the tabling of Bill 22 before the Legislature.

One of them is around the bungled implementation in the appointment of government's fact-finder. The government and the Minister of Education knew full well that the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education would not be considered neutral in this dispute. This is, of course, a civil servant whose work is respected, whose skills and expertise are beyond question, but whose reporting relationship is directly beneath the Minister of Education.

That is what government calls its effort at mediation in
[ Page 10028 ]
this dispute so far, and it was, of course, rejected by both of the parties at the table — the Teachers Federation. Its value was also, I think, commented on in a negative way by the employers association in this case. So that was a complete flop of an idea.

Now we are at a point where we can actually rectify the situation, to genuinely put in place an independent special mediator that has the confidence of both parties — that is neutral, beyond reproach, beyond question — and take the opportunity to do what the Education critic mentioned was uniquely before us now. That is, as it happens, to use this three-week gap — this sitting week and the two weeks of spring break that are scheduled around the province, in most school districts of the province.

Get back to the table. Talk about the issues that have been the sticking points between the teachers and the employers. Take the alternative to what most British Columbians find completely repugnant, which is legislated hammers being used as a way of doing business in government, and find some common ground.

Show the kids, the students in British Columbia, that there are some grownups in this dispute, that government is going to pull back from the mistakes it has made that have led us to the brink, to this point that we're at, and do everything in its power to fix the dispute. That's an opportunity that is uniquely before this House this afternoon. The government can take it.

I know that members have heard from their constituents, from students and parents that they represent, that they're elected to represent. They understand that this is an opportunity that will only come once, and it has a shelf life of a few more hours because of the debate limits that this government has imposed here this afternoon.

It's one, I hope, that they are open to persuasion about. It's the one that should be taken in British Columbia. It's the right course of action, and we should be voting on that this afternoon so that we can avoid having legislative fiats used in British Columbia as a way to poison relationships in the education system.

[1500]

The stakes are too high. The system is too important for British Columbia, and that should be avoided every time it can be.

S. Hammell: When I rose in the House around the debate of Bill 22, I declared my interest at that point in time. I mentioned to the House that my mother was a teacher and my sister is a teacher, and that I was a teacher prior to coming to this House.

Once you've been in the classroom, you never forget it. You never forget the dynamic of being there or the fact that you're with a number of children who depend on you for guidance, for support and for structuring their day so that they can be involved and learn about the things that they want to learn about and some of the things that you just want them to learn.

I listened to one of the members opposite, and there was a kind of longing for the good old days when, I guess, teachers were teachers, where their word was law and those students were obedient. That was the way it worked, and it was all good. I do remember, vaguely, some of those good old days. I remember when I was a student teacher. With the fear of dating myself, I was a student teacher with a class of 49. My very first year of teaching, I had a split class of 43. I do not long for the good old days, not for one minute.

In those good old days back then, there were not only large classrooms but there were things like — and I phrase this carefully…. Young children were failed. I remember distinctly a child in grade 2 — so this is seven years old — was failed. Using that tactic to tell children that they were not good enough was common in the good old days.

The other thing that was very common in the good old days was the strap. When the child, if they were not as successful as they might have been…. The strap was used for any kind of behaviour that was not seen by the teacher or the principal to be appropriate.

I remember, actually, when the last child in the school that I was teaching got the strap. He thought that the law had been passed. That morning he went out into the playground and lit up a cigarette. Unfortunately, the message hadn't gotten down to the school that the strap was gone, and he got the strap.

Now, I would say the kid just didn't quite understand the process from Victoria to the classroom, and he was punished quite directly for it. It was kind of ironic, I think, that the last time the strap came out in that school, that's what the child got it for.

The good old days just don't exist anymore in a wide variety of places. In my constituency, when I go to a classroom, it looks nothing like the good old days. Seventy percent of the kids in most classrooms in my community are not of a European background. They are from everywhere under the sun, every possible place and continent around this globe. They come to Surrey. They come to other places in B.C. They come into the classroom with all their baggage, all their packages that they've come from, and they are taught by these amazing teachers in the classroom.

That's why we need…

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm drawing you back to the amendment.

S. Hammell: …to make sure that this reasoned amendment is thought through before we move on and pass this bill.

[1505]

Not only does the teacher have a multitude of children
[ Page 10029 ]
from around the globe; the teacher in this new, modern world — that new, modern classroom — has special needs kids. In the good old days special needs students were not in the classroom; they were somewhere else. They were not in the classroom, so the regular classroom teacher…. That was not an issue. But now — and I think it's the right thing — what we have decided as a society is that we need to bring all of our children together, and they need to be taught as a group.

That's why we shouldn't move quickly to pass this bill. We should consider this amendment and be very reasoned about what we're doing.

In the new classroom we have a huge range of cultures. We have a huge range of abilities, and we have a teacher who's trying to manage this amazing group of kids. I have seen many teachers, walked with many teachers, been to many classrooms in my community, and I just don't think there's anything we can do that is not supportive. We need to support these amazing people who are taking our children — the citizens, the lawmakers, the workers of our future — and working with them to become solid, great citizens.

I think that my experience as a teacher and my experience in going into this new classroom…. Not only do they have a huge background of a variety of different students; they have a variety of different needs. I defy anyone to look at the good old days and try to put that against the technology and the ability of even young kids to communicate in some of our new methods, such as the cell phone, the iPad, the computer. These little kids are on it, and they are in places that we, in the good old days, never thought were possible.

I do think this reasoned amendment is reasonable. We need to stop. We need to think about those classrooms. We need to think about the teachers. We need, first and foremost, to support them, to negotiate with them in a meaningful way, to move this process to a mediation process that is more encompassing of all different points of view and to get down with our teachers and negotiate in all our best interests.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to be speaking to the amendment on Bill 22. The main theme is that it's not in the best interests of the education system in B.C. 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 the reasoned amendment is the direction we need to go for two primary reasons. First of all, both sides, the employer and the teachers, have agreed and have taken positions that they're in favour of appointing an independent mediator. So that's to start. Additionally, in terms of looking at building and strengthening our education system, it's advisable and preferential to resolve issues around collective bargaining in a consensual way.

Part of the difficulty and the limitation and, really, the weakness of Bill 22 is adopting a mediator that limits the scope of reference and the terms of reference to settle the items under mediation. That is a fundamental weakness of Bill 22, and the reasoned amendment looks to resolve that contradiction.

[1510]

Over the weekend and today the letters have continued to pour into my office fast and furiously. I was reviewing more this morning. Really, the overwhelming, very consistent message that I've heard — it's coming from students, from teachers, from parents, from my constituency of Vancouver-Kensington, but right across the province as well — is the disappointment with Bill 22 and also, I think, the undermining of public education and undermining the relationship that Bill 22 and adopting a mediator, a government-appointed mediator, to resolve the issues….

That undermines the relationship between teachers and administrators and their ability, their role — the important role that teachers play — to bring such a whole and well-rounded experience to the classrooms.

The issue of the limited terms of reference is, I think…. The role that it plays is to be very provocative and also to pit the employer and teachers against each other unnecessarily and really frustrate that process.

Collective bargaining is meant to be an opportunity for both sides to come together to put issues on the table and resolve them through negotiation, give-and-take. Each side may not feel that they have their full list of demands met, but at least it's something that both sides can come together and live with. The limited terms of reference, which basically prescribe the outcomes for the mediation and exclude a number of concerns and issues that the teachers have, really, I think, thwart and undermine the process and also the spirit of what collective bargaining should be about.

So the reasoned amendment, I think, looks at addressing one of the fundamental weaknesses of Bill 22. It allows both sides, who have already publicly stated that they're in favour and in agreement, to have an independent mediator govern and hear their concerns. It's unnecessary for Bill 22 to legislate this aspect because it's allowed within the collective agreement.

We're seeing that Bill 22 is unnecessary legislation, a very heavy-handed approach. It's looking to exacerbate and to really undermine and bring conflict to our education system at a time when it's not needed, at a time when we should be looking at how we bring all parties to the table together — how we work with administrators and with teachers, how we work with school board trustees and all the professionals in the education system — to strengthen our world-class system that we have in British Columbia and how we meet the challenges going forward in the future.
[ Page 10030 ]

The reasoned amendment is an option that we can look forward to, and I also encourage the colleagues on the other side of the House to rethink their position, to step back from the situation where we are today and to vote in favour of the amendment.

When I visited schools over the last few days and talked to teachers and talked to parents, there was a real frustration, I think, that I sensed from parents and from teachers — the approach that the government was taking on this dispute — and also a sense that it was unnecessary when we have both parties, the employer and teachers, who have been willing to sit down and discuss matters and when Bill 22 was brought in to impose mediation with these very limited terms of reference.

[1515]

So I'm speaking in favour of the reasoned amendment. I'm looking forward to passing the amendment, addressing some of these concerns that we have and looking at how we can rebuild the relationship that we have — which we need to strengthen in our province — with teachers, with our administrators and with the employer, and to look at constructively bringing value and also putting children's needs first in our system.

I'm going to close my remarks on that note. I hope that we'll be hearing from more of my colleagues on this matter and, as well, that we'll be able to reach a consensus and have a vote in favour of adopting the reasoned amendment.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in my place and speak to the amendment to Bill 22 put forward in the name of the member for Juan de Fuca. You'll know that the purpose of this amendment is to deal with one specific aspect of the legislation, and that's around the question of mediation and how that unfolds.

Now, it's important that people understand that's clearly not the only area of this bill that probably needs to be dealt with. We know that the decision of government to essentially abandon its responsibilities in relation to class size and composition, and to those rulings, essentially, of the Supreme Court — by legislative manipulation, quite truthfully — was the decision that was made there. We'll hopefully get an opportunity maybe to speak about that when we get into the committee stage and talk more deeply about that.

The reasoned amendment deals more clearly with the other major component of this, which is the question of mediation. What we know the government has done with this legislation, in terms of the order to teachers, is to deal with a number of aspects.

Now, we know that the government has decided there will be no monetary matters, no wage matters dealt with in the mediation process, and that is an issue unto itself. But what really is part of the significant issue here, I believe, is the decision of the government to essentially rig the mediation. That's what's happened here. They have rigged the mediation.

What they've done here is…. First of all, they have ignored the wishes of both the teachers and the employers, who both said…. The teachers came a number of weeks ago and said: "We're prepared to go to mediation." The employers accepted that and were prepared also to go to mediation. They were prepared to adopt that, have the Labour Relations Board go through its usual conventional practices to put a mediator in place.

That's not what's occurring because of Bill 22. Instead, we have a situation where the government will appoint a mediator — not a mediator who's necessarily acceptable to both parties, not necessarily acceptable to either party. But they will appoint a mediator.

The other thing that the government has essentially done, in addition to saying that monetary issues are not on the table…. They've essentially crafted this mediation in terms of terms of reference, it's very clear, so that you have a situation where, in fact, the employer's interest — the concessions put on the table by the employers — is what will be in front of this mediator.

So it's not even a balanced mediation in terms of what we have in Bill 22. It's not even a balanced mediation in terms of allowing the list of things that the teachers have put on the table that, in fact, are not monetary issues.

[1520]

Interjection.

S. Simpson: The member from Kamloops, I'm sure, will be on his feet in a few minutes to engage the debate. I can't wait.

All of the issues that the teachers have put on the table that are not monetary in nature have been excluded from this mediation, and that takes away from the fairness and the balance. That's part of the problem, and that's why this reasoned amendment has been put forward. The amendment has said, essentially, that if we're going to have mediation, if the government is sincere, if the government truly believes in mediation, if the government wants to advance that, then it's critical that they allow it to have an opportunity to work. And it will only work if it is fair.

There is absolutely nothing fair about what has been proposed by the government here. It's blatantly unfair; it's rigged. It's fixed so that it will end up with one result. At the end of the day, if the mediator doesn't end up going where the government is comfortable, the CEO of the Public Sector Employers Council — a senior employee of the government — has the right to essentially write off the decisions of the mediator, should they choose to do that.

We have a government that has essentially stacked all the cards on one side. That's why this particular amendment becomes so critical, because we have the oppor-
[ Page 10031 ]
tunity here, with a fair mediation, to maybe begin to pull these parties a little closer together, maybe begin to find the common ground that we hear all the rhetoric about on the government side.

Yet all of the action is exactly antithetically connected to that. It has no connection. The government's action to Bill 22 is exactly the opposite of anybody who has said: "Let's be reasonable and fair-minded. Let's try to do this in a responsible way." The last thing they would do is Bill 22 if they actually wanted to be fair, balanced and reasonable. But that's not what the government is doing, and we have this situation where that's going to occur.

What we need to do here is pass this amendment, give mediation a real opportunity to succeed, and challenge both parties to come and sit down and do this work. We know it will be difficult. We know it won't be easy. We know it will be challenging. Challenge them to come together to sit down at the table and make this work. That will not happen if we proceed down the road of Bill 22 with this version of mediation that has been cobbled together by the minister and the government.

But we can do this through the Labour Relations Board, through the practices that they have available to them, through the tools that they have available, through the mediation processes that have a longstanding record of responsibility and success. That tool is available, and it's proven. We can do that, but we can only do it if the government moves, and for the government to move, the best way is to adopt this particular resolution to be able to do that.

What I really think is important at this time is for the government to take a step back from this bizarre ideological position they've taken with Bill 22 and say: "Okay, we're seriously going to try to address the issues that motivated Bill 22. We're going to do that by allowing mediation to maybe have a chance to work."

Again, as I said, it's something that both the Teachers Federation and the employer were heading towards. They had both agreed to it. They had gone to the board to start that process, and then it was sent sideways by Bill 22. It wasn't like they weren't prepared to go and have that conversation around mediation. They clearly were.

I know I have many, many colleagues who want an opportunity to speak to this before the hammer comes down at six o'clock or so today to end this debate.

Again, I just want to urge the government to think this one through one more time. Think about fairness, balance and responsibility. Think about the school and the environment in the school. Think about creating some kind of confidence not just in teachers but in all British Columbians that this government has some vague notion of fairness and balance and of what is good for education — certainly there is no evidence of that based on Bill 22 — and move forward and adopt this amendment.

[1525]

B. Ralston: It's my privilege to rise briefly in the debate here. The government has brought down what is called time allocation, which means that this segment of the debate is now limited, and we will be obliged to conclude it this evening. Many of us on this side will be speaking. We will be speaking briefly in order that as many of us can speak to this reasoned amendment as possible.

A reasoned amendment is a parliamentary motion which allows a member to put on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill. It's described by Erskine May as being "declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill."

By bringing forward this reasoned amendment — our House Leader has brought this reasoned amendment forward — on this side of the House we're expressing our opposition to the principle of the government legislating teachers back to work and imposing restrictions on mediation that effectively predetermine the outcome in favour of the employer.

That particular part of the bill has come under close scrutiny. Really, when one looks at it, what is being asked of the mediator, who would be appointed under Bill 22, is to basically mediate what are called government's — the employer — concessions. The employer in this dispute is the B.C. Public School Employers Association. That's the bargaining agent on behalf of the government.

What is being asked for is that mediation really mediate the number of concessions — that is, weakening of the contract in the view of the BCTF — that have been tabled during the course of negotiations. So unlike a more fair mediation where a mediator would essentially come with clean hands and a mandate to solve the dispute, this mediation that's set out in Bill 22 would effectively require both sides to mediate the concessions that have been tabled by the employer.

That obviously is not fair and not satisfactory, and that's why, in my view, both sides in the dispute agreed that an independent mediator be appointed. Indeed, that's what this amendment calls for.

The Labour Relations Board has the power, on application by both parties — and both parties joined in that application — to appoint a mediator to begin to resolve this dispute. It is perhaps striking that in the course of the very protracted negotiations thus far in the dispute, there hasn't been any involvement by a mediator to assist the parties in reaching an agreement.

While my experience in labour relations matters is limited, certainly the few occasions where I've had, many years ago and as part of my employment, to deal with a professional mediator…. I think at one point I dealt with Mr. Vince Ready. There is a tremendous power and ability to persuade that a veteran mediator can bring to
[ Page 10032 ]
a dispute and find resolution in a way others would not have thought possible. It's a real skill. It is usually applied in disputes where negotiations have broken down and where the parties, on their own resources, aren't able to find a resolution.

That's something that hasn't been tried, and that's what I think should be considered in this particular case. There was a report filed by the assistant deputy minister for industrial relations and the Minister of Labour. That was a fact-finder report. What everyone thinks of that report…. His appointment and his report were open to the criticism that he was not fully independent, in perception, at the very least, from the employer's side.

A traditional mediator possesses independence, an open mandate and a willingness to assist the parties to come to an agreement, and can really resolve disputes. Some of the more protracted disputes in B.C. labour history, of which there have been many, have relied upon the good offices of mediators in just those kinds of circumstances.

[1530]

In addition to both bargaining agents, both parties, agreeing prior to the introduction of this legislation that a mediator be appointed, the Principals and Vice-Principals Association stated on the record that they did not support legislating teachers back to work.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Within the broader community of people in the field of public education, there would appear to be a consensus that mediation, at the very least, was an idea worth trying in the sense that principals and vice-principals don't think that legislating the teachers back to work and mediating in the way that's structured in Bill 22 will be very effective.

It is important to consider the impact of this dispute in the way it's proposed to be resolved by the government in Bill 22. A residue of bitterness, of unhappiness, of general distrust will accumulate and damage the future bargaining relationship. I think when one considers what the long-term impact is, that's a very — perhaps subtly but over time — destructive impact upon the bargaining relationship and a corrosive effect on the public school system.

We speak of the importance of public education. Many of the economic goals of the government ostensibly or at least arguably, to hear some of the rhetoric, are tied to the ability to educate and to train future citizens to make them critical contributing members of society, to teach them the skills that would enable them to participate in the economy in all sorts of ways. Public education is key to a lot of what we do in the province. Particularly in provincial jurisdiction, it's one of the most important things that we do.

It really, I think, is an opportunity for the government to listen to the opposition on this occasion. There's no particular urgency, given that the teachers, following the mandate of the Labour Relations Board given to them under the Essential Services Disputes Act, have decided not to pursue job action this week.

Many schools are closed for the spring break this week, next week and the following week, so there is a period of three weeks where a good mediator could bring the parties together and begin the work of trying to solve this dispute in a way that, I think, the public would really welcome. I think the public would welcome it. This may be an opportunity.

And who knows? It may even be an advantage to the government to resolve it this way. I don't sense that they're very happy with their own position and the advances or not that they claim to have made in pursuing the dispute this way. So it's an opportunity for the government to step back, to use this opportunity, this three-week period, to take up the idea of an independent mediator, to appoint someone very senior or have the Labour Relations Board appoint someone very senior, very skilled, who could bring the parties together.

I support the reasoned amendment. I think it makes good sense. It's an opportunity that the government at this point should seize. I'm hopeful against, perhaps, all reasonable hope that they might even consider it in this particular case. Certainly, the case for mediation, I think, is made.

I think it will be to the government's substantial disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the entire public education system if this dispute proceeds forward in the way that the government seems intent at this point on having it proceed — that is, to be resolved by the legislative mechanism of Bill 22, which is very unsatisfactory in very, very many ways and rejected, I think, in large part by the public, by the teachers, by the principals and vice-principals and poses long-term deleterious effects on the public education system.

Madam Speaker, with those brief comments I am prepared to end my remarks and give way to a colleague.

[1535]

N. Macdonald: I stand to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment to Bill 22. This was moved by the Opposition House Leader. It offers, I think, an elegant solution to the impasse in our public education system.

The amendment proposes to put the labour dispute to real mediation, as has been requested by both teachers and employers. In my first opportunity to speak on Bill 22, I laid out the three objections I have to Bill 22. First, Bill 22 does not respect teachers. Bill 22 makes learning conditions in public schools in B.C. worse, and Bill 22 undermines collective bargaining in B.C.

What this amendment does is address those issues. If you look at it, it provides an opportunity to be respectful to teachers. It offers the possibility of improved learning
[ Page 10033 ]
conditions for our students, and it is consistent with the principles of bargaining in good faith. So not only are we opposing bad legislation, but we put in front of the government an opportunity to do the right thing.

We have an opportunity for real mediation, in the weeks that we have, without disruption of classes, so it's a sensible approach that you would think a competent government would embrace.

What we've seen, of course, is that the Premier doesn't really have a coherent view on public education that is in any way evident. What we see is, of course, sadly that classrooms are pawns in what is a two-year-long election campaign that she's running — and used as a gambit.

How did we start with this? It started at the beginning of the year. Teachers were free to negotiate as long as it didn't include working conditions or pay. Of course, as we know, that doesn't leave a great deal.

There are two points that I want to make in the limited time that I have. The first is that as we look at opportunities to do things better, we need to remember that the provincial government is responsible for public education. The disruption of classes over this year and, quite frankly, in previous years is a B.C. Liberal failure, and the responsibility sits with them.

If you go back, it started in 2002, with the deceit surrounding Bills 27 and 28, actions deemed unconstitutional. This attempt at mediation would offer a step back from that approach, and that's what's needed.

It continued from there, to funding changes that forced the closure of over 130 schools, in rural communities mainly, funding changes that degraded special education supports, and then a whole series of half-thought-through educational initiatives — from BCeSIS, to how the Pacific Carbon Trust works, to the physical activity requirements.

When you look at teachers and what they've been asked to deal with over the decade of B.C. Liberal rule, we really can understand why there is no trust left. The B.C. Liberals really have only themselves to blame.

What I can say is that I believe in public education. Colleagues that I have in the NDP believe in public education. We believe in the possibilities of doing better, and I think that, given the opportunity, people in this province could have a provincial government committed to a public education system, and that's what we would strive for.

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment, Member.

N. Macdonald: The second point that I would make related to this reasoned amendment is that we need to remember that teachers' working conditions, which this principled amendment would allow us to deal with, are really students' learning conditions. Composition and class-size requirements are in place to create self-welcoming, functioning, learning environments.

My experiences as a teacher and as a principal…. I heard earlier speakers talk about their experience when they began teaching. What I can tell you is that I know, from my first years teaching, that I can control a class of 40 students. But when you do that, when you have those sorts of conditions, there are compromises that affect the learning of students.

If you look at advertising…. You look at private, elite schools. What do they advertise? They will advertise things like small classes and supports for students. These are clearly things that they feel people will pay thousands for.

[1540]

If we believed in the quality of our educational system, it would be the provincial government that would be fighting for opportunities to provide that enhanced experience.

B.C. Liberals have purposely removed those standards, and that's something that in mediation could, again, be put on the table rather than with Bill 22, which leads to a very predictable result, which is a degradation of the classroom experience for students, which is something that very clearly is of very little interest to the B.C. Liberals.

All of us have, as MLAs, received e-mails and letters from our teachers, and I very much want to thank those that have taken the time to write in and express the concerns that they have with the education system that they're working in. I know that, as you read these e-mails, you sometimes think: "Why would anyone ever teach?" The odd thing is a previous speaker talked about the nostalgia that they feel for teaching, and even with this going on, as you read, the nostalgia for that experience comes through.

I have two minutes left, and I just want to share a story that reminds us of what's so special about teaching.

I was at a convention for forestry. I met a forester. I think it was just two months ago. We drifted into a conversation about the year that he had spent teaching, and he quickly started to talk about one young man who had not read well — struggled in class, very withdrawn. This forester did a hands-on project where students had to assemble a very complex model. The work suited that one troubled student, and he ended up showing first one student how to do it and then another and then the whole class. At the end of the day that student came back to that forester who was a teacher and asked if he could take the model home so that he could show his mother.

The interesting part was that as the forester was telling the story there was this welling of emotion, because through all of the hardships that we have, it's that teachable moment, that wonderful time when you connect with a student and make that difference.

So this is something I feel passionately about. This is an opportunity with this reasoned amendment to do something better, to do something better for our kids, and I
[ Page 10034 ]
would hope that the government would look at it and see it as the direction to go.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this.

J. Brar: I am very pleased to stand in this House and support the amendment presented by the member for Juan de Fuca with regard to Bill 22, the poorly named Education Improvement Act.

The amendment presented by the member is pretty important and timely. It states: "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."

The amendment would get away from the heavy-handed legislation and allow the mediation process to proceed. I think Bill 22 is not a solution. It makes, actually, things worse for students, parents and teachers. It increases class size, weakens protection for special needs students and hurts the quality of the education that our children receive.

[1545]

So it's about time, I think, for this government to step back and allow both parties to work together to find the best workable, practical solutions that are best for everyone — for parents, for teachers, for students and for the employer.

At a time when we have more than 15,000 overcrowded classrooms, we should allow both parties, the employer and the teachers, to work together to find solutions in the best interest of our kids. That's why we need to pass this amendment, because it will allow, actually, both parties to go through a mediation process that will work for everyone.

At this point in time forcing teachers back to work without finding workable solutions is not in the best interest of our children. Therefore, it's about time, I think, for every member of this House to think about this amendment and support the amendment so that we can allow both parties to work together to find a workable solution. At the same time, it is time for this government to step back and allow the agreed upon mediation process by both parties.

At a time when we have more than 25 percent special needs kids in some classes, particularly in the city of Surrey where the student enrolment has been increasing for the last many years, it is not the time to pick fights with teachers. It is the time, I think, when we should allow all parties to work together to find real solutions, not only forcing teachers back to work. There are some pressing issues in classrooms, whether it's class size or the class composition.

In my city I got a letter from a teacher who told me that there are about 30 students in his class, and out of the 30 students, almost one-third of the students are special needs students, which is quite a high percentage of students to deal with in a class of that size.

So that's why I think we need to pass this amendment. I urge every member on the other side to think really seriously about the amendment presented in front of you and to support the amendment so that we can allow all parties to work together in the best interest of our children. That's why I'm supporting this amendment, because I think it is important.

It is not the time for the government to go heavy-handed against the teachers and force them just to go into the classroom without finding those solutions. So that's why I think this side of the House wants to work together to allow parties to find solutions that are better for our kids.

Prior to the introduction of Bill 22 the British Columbia Public School Employers Association and the British Columbia Teachers Federation had both agreed to mediation. They had actually already agreed to do that. Why, then, is there a need to force them into a mediation which is not actually an independent mediation in the normal process, which takes place agreed upon by both the parties? I don't think there's a need to do that at this point in time. I think we need to allow both parties to work together to find solutions that work for everyone.

Madam Speaker, we would like to see a solution that will create positive working and learning conditions in the classroom, where teachers feel respected and motivated to teach our children, because that's very important. This government can force them — they do have the power to force — back to work, but they cannot make them happy by doing so. I think that in order to create positive working conditions and learning conditions for our students, it is important that both parties actually sit together and find solutions that work for all parties, including our children.

At this point in time teachers have actually opted to hold off on further escalated job action, so we have time. We have almost three weeks at this point in time to allow the process, and that gives us the best opportunity to allow the independent mediation process.

[1550]

I would like to conclude, keeping in mind my time, that at this point in time this is certainly not the time to pick a fight with the teachers. This is actually the time to find solutions to very important, pressing issues we have in our education system, particularly class size and composition. That is, I think, a very important issue. We need to deal with it at this point in time.

That's why I think this amendment is very important. This amendment will allow that to happen, so that's why I will support this amendment, and that's why I urge every member of this House to support this amendment.
[ Page 10035 ]

C. Trevena: I think that it will come as no surprise that I am standing in support of the amendment to Bill 22, which has the very strange name of the Education Improvement Act.

The amendment — I think it's worth mentioning again — is very clear. It asks, and I will read it into the record again:

"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.'"

Now, the reason why I'm supporting this amendment is very simple. It's a sensible approach. Imposing legislation on any group of organized labour is not going to improve a situation. By its very nature, it is a heavy-handed approach. It is saying: "It is my way or the highway. We are telling you exactly what to do. We're not going to give any scope for anything else."

We've seen it time and time again. We're seeing it more and more often. It is an extremely worrying approach to labour negotiations, to labour relations, that as soon as any organization decides that it wants to exercise its right — which is a right for a union to do, to withdraw its labour as a means of protest — they're legislated back to work.

However, the teachers in British Columbia have had a very low-key dispute for the last eight months or so. Since September they've been having a very low-key dispute, which has really had very little impact on many, many students. There has been a desire from many people for negotiation. What this resolution would do, what this amendment would do, is allow that mediation, that negotiation, to get underway.

The teachers would like to see that, the school trustees would like to see that, and the B.C. Public School Employers Association has also indicated that they'd be willing to work on that. The trustees, in their meeting just before this legislation was imposed, had said: "We'd like to see mediation."

It seems the only group that doesn't want mediation, doesn't want to try and resolve this in an amicable way, is this government. It makes not just ourselves in the opposition, who are often questioning the government's decisions and why they act…. It's making a lot of people wonder what the government is thinking, when everybody but themselves says: "Let's take a step back. Let's talk about this. Let's find somebody independent who can bring both sides together and try and find a resolution."

Mediation is really the way. In so many instances we're looking to try and find resolution. Whether it is outside the judicial system…. You try to find mediation so you don't have to go through the courts process. In family cases you try to find mediation so you don't have to take a child into care. There are many, many instances.

But in this respect, we get the government just saying: "Well, it's our way." When we had an independent fact-finder that the government appointed so they could find out what was allegedly happening, within the week of that fact-finder reporting, we had the Minister of Education stating that his staff were going to be working over the weekend to have legislation.

[1555]

Deputy Speaker: On the amendment, Member.

C. Trevena: Well, Madam Speaker, I am speaking on the amendment, because the amendment is talking about mediation and negotiation and why it's important to have that rather than accepting that we are just going to impose a settlement, as this legislation does. If we go ahead with the legislation as it is, it's imposing a settlement that is going to inflame, not sort out, this problem.

Many of my colleagues have had many, many letters from teachers who are concerned about what's happening, who are concerned about what's happening in their classrooms, concerned about what's happening to their profession. And they know that what is being imposed on them through this legislation, if it goes through without an amendment, is really going to make things much, much worse.

They are extremely worried about what this legislation will mean to them and are looking for ways that they can have a reasoned dialogue. This amendment, by allowing for mediation, by taking that step back, would allow for that.

And as my colleague from Surrey just said, now is the ideal time. We don't need to be rushing this through right now. We don't need to be closing the debate on this, this section of the bill, by the end of today. We don't have to be closing the bill off by the end of the week, as this government has said it intends to do.

We could, say, accept the amendment, take a step back. We've got spring break in many school districts. In one of my own school districts, school district 72, they're actually not taking their spring break till Easter, so they're going to be off until mid-April. There is a lot of time for discussion, for serious discussion, serious mediation to happen, if this amendment is accepted.

I'd hope that the government…. We've not heard many voices on the government side. I don't think we've actually heard any voices on the government side on this amendment. In fact, we've heard nothing from the government for several days about this bill, although they've all indicated that they are concerned about it. You know, we've had at least one minister — and I'm sure some of the MLAs who were former teachers — concerned about this bill. Yet they've not spoken to the bill. They've not spoken to the amendment.
[ Page 10036 ]

We have a Labour Relations Board that is set up, that offers alternatives. Mediation is an alternative. Mediation will ratchet down the anger, will allow both sides to sit down and talk. It's something that everybody but this government wants to do. I think that the people of B.C. can judge this government on that — what I would say are bullying, heavy-handed tactics. It's one of many that they've shown over the last years. They've shown many times that they've legislated people back to work without having the opportunity for mediation. Here we've given them the opportunity.

I would hope that the government looks at this seriously, thinks about it seriously, has the courage for what people in B.C. want, and says: "We will accept the opposition's amendment. We'll vote in favour of it, and we'll get back and have mediation."

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to speak in support of this reasoned amendment, an amendment calling for mediation — mediation between the employers and the employees; real mediation so that we could get to the bottom of some of the issues we've been hearing about around classroom composition, class sizes, learning conditions, working conditions; mediation that should allow us to have those discussions, because if you're going come to a solution, you need to find some way to cooperate. You need to sit down, talk to each other in a real way and put the issues aside that you can't agree on and, of course, find agreement on the ones you can.

That takes real guts. That takes real courage, and that takes willingness on both sides to move. Mediation can help do that because the facts come out on the table. The mediator helps you agree on some set facts between two opposing sides, allows debate and considerations, some back and forth and to and fro — that kind of thing — to actually happen.

I had hoped that by now we would already be at mediation. That this kind of process, which I understand was called for by both sides to this dispute and has received widespread support from the public, school trustees as well…. We could have been doing this already. If this was not just a political manoeuvre by the government to create division and to create a fight with the thinking that it might help them, we would have been in mediation already.

[1600]

If this was a challenge, I would have assumed this would have happened last fall, potentially. Certainly, it could have happened well before now. People knew that there were issues. They understood that there were going to be some challenges. You would think they would try and deal with that in a way that would bring people together first, rather than going on the divide-and-conquer kind of approach which we see here.

I definitely will be voting in support of this amendment. I understand that there's still some time today, and government MLAs may get up and share their thoughts on mediation and the amendment we brought forward. I think that would be helpful for this debate. However, I have not seen that occur in this debate yet.

I understand that the Premier has also indicated a desire to see these kinds of actions taking place. I would hope that the Premier is able to share her point of view on this motion that we've brought before us today. So far, we've not had the benefit of her voice in this debate, which is too bad.

I know there are some members on that side of the House who have shouted at us while we've called for mediation, rather than getting up from their seats and speaking. I think, again, rather than shouting across the room, it would be much more helpful if people would get up and state their piece, listen to each other and try and come to some sort of conclusion together.

That's what mediation should be about. That's what this House could, I think, be used in a better way to do, in terms of our political priorities for government in B.C. Certainly, when government puts up a bill, we respond. We've put up a motion, a proposal, an idea, something that might help in this situation, something that all parties have called for — all parties, save the government. I think it would be useful to hear the government's point of view on this.

We are calling for real mediation. Set aside the legislation, as it stands, and let's get some real work done to support our students in our schools and to support the educational experiences which would benefit us all in the future. After all, that's what we should be looking out for — the future — in this House — certainly, today and the circumstances of today, but also the future.

That's why I think mediation would go a good way, hopefully, if it was serious and people said: "All right, we're going to leave our anger about past issues aside, or our biases." But we don't see that. Instead, we get millions of dollars spent on radio ads, paid for by all of us, attacking teachers and teachers' point of view. I find that really unhelpful and quite rude. Mediation certainly would be a better route to go than spending millions of taxpayers' money attacking teachers on the radio.

I don't understand why the government has chosen that course. They would be wiser, I think, to use taxpayers' money to improve the educational experience of everybody, not through trying to spin people on the radio. Mediation is much better than spin on the radio.

Maybe some of the members opposite would like to get up to discuss why they think it's better to use attack ads on the radio than mediate. But maybe not. We may not see that, since it is really indefensible. There is no defence for that.

I look across and I hope, in the spirit of bipartisan support for mediation and dealing with issues facing our students in our schools…. I would expect this debate would receive attention from both sides. I certainly will wait
[ Page 10037 ]
until the end of today and into tomorrow and on and on, with the hope that that spirit of bipartisanship, of offering a suggestion, may be received in the spirit it was intended and folks on that side of the House will actually discuss that and say yes or no. I'd just be interested.

Mediation. Again, we use it in our own lives. We try and deal with those issues in our own communities through mediation wherever possible. Certainly, this is one of the biggest issues government is facing right now. I would think we need to look at how we deal with issues in our own homes and in our own communities, to try and come to some sense of a solution in this.

People want this solved. They want us to look at this in a real way, not in a partisan slugfest kind of manner, when of course, in the end, it should be our students and our youth that we're thinking most about here.

There may be differences of opinion. There certainly are. I certainly think class size is an issue. Some folks disagree and think that no matter how big the class, if you just pay the teacher more, it'll somehow solve the issue.

[1605]

You know, I think that's a discussion that could be had through mediation, through debate. Certainly, it would be useful. We could even have that discussion in committees, have that kind of a discussion to actually look at the evidence, rather than just assertions, rather than just might makes right. It certainly would raise the tone in this House if we were working from a more fact-based approach as opposed to an attack-based approach.

I understand that there are a number of MLAs on this side of the House who certainly are very interested in supporting mediation and a positive proposal for our students and for our teachers and for our families. I hope that there will be speakers on that side, too, but I will wait and watch. I know, certainly, my colleague for Burnaby–Deer Lake is very ready to go and to speak about this issue. She certainly cares a lot about our kids and our students and is a very able member.

I will take my place so the next speaker can support this motion.

K. Corrigan: I, too, am standing in support of this reasoned amendment, an amendment to not essentially impose a contract or restrict the areas of discussion that happen in relation to the negotiation of the contract but instead to let true, open mediation happen.

I think it's important to remember that the parties to the negotiations are BCPSEA, the employers, and the teachers, through their union, the BCTF, the B.C. Teachers Federation. Both of those parties are in agreement that they would like to have mediation — in fact, came to government and said that they would like to have mediation, or the teachers did.

It is the right path, and it was the path to try to create both movement forward and labour peace. I think it's very unfortunate that this bill has been brought down, because I think the intention of the bill was not to create labour peace. In bringing this amendment forward, what we're hoping is that we can find our way back to the road of an equal, respectful and mature relationship and take a step forward. I believe that it's this amendment that calls for mediation that will allow us to get back to true negotiation.

I also think it's critical in terms of the relationship that exists now and is going to exist in the future between the teachers of this province and the government. Several days ago my colleague the member for Surrey-Whalley asked me if I'd read the case of B.C. Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia. This was the case deciding on the challenge of the constitutionality of Bill 28.

I read that case all the way through, and the reason I'm mentioning it now in the context of our amendment is that the parallels between the choices that were before government and which were being decided upon in this case are very clearly parallel to the decision that is being faced right now. In bargaining, when Bill 28 was imposed, there was a relationship that was working.

The judge looked back on it and said: "What were the circumstances at that time? Was there, as the government claimed, paralysis? Was there a dysfunctional relationship? Or was there bargaining, and was there the ability to move forward?" And the government — this same government as we are dealing with now, continue to deal with — made the decision that instead of trying to continue on with bargaining that was moving forward, it would impose Bill 28.

The result has been a legal challenge. The result, I would submit, has been the decline in the relationship between teachers in this province and the government. It was a choice in the road exactly ten years ago, in fact, and here we are ten years later.

[1610]

We've had a decision on that case, where the judge said that bargaining could have taken place. Bargaining had taken place in the past. There was no reason to impose Bill 28, which imposed a whole bunch of conditions with relation to working conditions, class size, and so on, which had previously been bargained.

I think it is instructive that if we do not support this amendment, Bill 22 imposes exactly those same restrictions, to the word. They recreate and impose the language that was imposed in Bill 28.

So I think not only are we asking for a repeat and perhaps another legal challenge, not only are we asking for a repeat of the circumstances of 2002, but I think this is a government really poking a stick in the eye of the teachers by saying: "When we are faced with the choice again about how to move forward, we're going to go back, and we're going to reimpose the conditions that were struck down by the Supreme Court in a constitu-
[ Page 10038 ]
tional challenge."

I think it's unfortunate, because one of the sources that Madam Justice Griffin quoted in her decision about whether or not Bill 28, which was decided fairly recently, was unconstitutional…. One of the quotes that she included was from the Korbin report, talking about what the bargaining relationship had been in the past. One of the things that she said is that historically…. I'll go back just a bit.

She says in her judgment: "The Korbin report also noted that it was relatively early days in the collective bargaining relationships between teachers and their employers. Historically, collective bargaining relationships mature over time and strife diminishes." That's from the Korbin report at page 6, at the end of the quote.

So what in the Korbin report was seen as the redemption of the relationship and what needs to happen is that there needs to be maturity in the relationship, that we need to let the bargaining process move forward, as I think this proposal for mediation, as opposed to once again imposing conditions upon the bargaining process…. What needs to happen is that we need to have maturity, and over time, if we trust the process and we all really want to make it work, strife diminishes.

Unfortunately, my feeling is that now, as in the past, the government is not intending…. The government is not allowing for this relationship to mature over time. As I said earlier, I think that we are at a critical time. We're at a critical juncture.

This is just one amendment, but I think it sends a strong message about the type of relationship that we want to have in this province, the type of relationship between teachers and government.

Many of us have talked about the importance of respect. I think it sends a sign of respect to say that the choice that we're going to make at this point, the decision we're going to make at this point, is that we are going to support processes and allow processes that show we respect teachers and respect the collective bargaining process, show we believe that if people are given the chance — if the sides are given the chance — to mediate and truly bargain, the relationship will mature and over time strife will diminish.

But unfortunately, I don't believe that's really what the government wanted. I think the government, as others have pointed out, has been looking to pick a fight with the teachers, create a wedge issue. I mean, that's really what this comes down to, and I have no doubt that….

[1615]

Although I suspect there are members on the other side who would prefer to take this path which is less confrontational, which would allow the parties to go through a true mediation process, my guess is that there are many members on the other side who feel that way. But unfortunately, they are not going to be given the opportunity to exercise their vote in that way. I would love to call on some of the members from the other side to join us.

Madam Speaker, I note that I only have another minute to go. I will just conclude by saying this is a good amendment. This is an amendment which lets us find a route that will allow that relationship to mature. Let's have that kind of mature relationship. Let's not repeat the mistakes of Bill 28 and impose class-size limits, class composition, poke a stick in the eye of the teachers, increase their frustration, increase their hurt at not being respected.

Let's support — I'm certainly going to — this amendment. I think that it is the road to peace and, certainly, an indicator of respect for the teachers of this province.

B. Routley: Indeed, I too support this reasoned amendment, the idea of referring this matter to mediation. You know, in the fullness of time and through mediation, a lot can be done.

I have, over my career, had some very interesting mediation opportunities — I remember well; I'm sure they remember me — with Vince Ready and Don Monroe, sitting in a mediation where….

For the people at home that don't know the mediation process, what generally happens is the mediator will have the parties in separate rooms. You come into wherever you're going to meet. Sometime it's at the labour board. Sometimes you agree to meet at a hotel.

There are always separate rooms to get things started, for sure. Obviously, if you progress to the point where people can actually meet face-to-face, that's the ultimate goal. But that's not always possible, to actually have that happen.

But in mediation, it does require…. I've been through hard mediation. I know when we went through the crisis in the forest industry and the employer was demanding huge concessions, Don Monroe had the difficult task of explaining what he heard in the other room.

My point is, hon. Speaker, that the mediation in this reasoned amendment really does make a lot of sense when we're going into a period where there's an opportunity for a break anyway in the school year. It just simply makes more sense than having teachers who are distressed.

These are the people who we rely on, those teachers, as the experts in education that are going to provide our children with those magical moments. I heard a professor explain that a good teacher's job is like Christmas in the classroom — unveiling the Christmas tree of ideas, if you like, of having all of these new ideas and opportunities and ways of viewing the world.

It can be quite exciting. But you're stifling the creativity when you treat people with a lack of dignity and respect, and that's very much the concern that I have here.
[ Page 10039 ]

If I might. I received a letter. I got a lot of mail, but only one really talked about "Please mediate; don't legislate." This is from Mel Burgess from Shawnigan Lake in the Cowichan Valley. I think he puts it well when he talks about "Please legislate; don't mediate."

Interjection.

B. Routley: What? "Please mediate; don't legislate." Yes. Okay. Did I say it the other way around? Thank you. "Please mediate; don't legislate" — absolutely.

"I find myself grappling with the reality of today in B.C. We have a government that doesn't seem to care one bit about how working teachers feel. Eighty-seven percent of the teachers voted that they were unhappy with the current proposed legislation, and then to have government respond with: 'Accept it. Just accept it the way it is….' No mediation, no further discussion."

[1620]

Mel says:

"I find it insulting, disrespectful and even hurtful. I feel like I'm back in the halls of middle school. While most of them are outdated, I have just enough resources to get by. I have a few friends, my colleagues, who are also living an existence of constantly looking over their shoulders in fear.

"With only a couple of dollars in my pocket, this government of Liberal bullies steps in and shoves me to the floor. It feels like they have a giant plastic smile across their face. I feel like my lunch money is being torn from my hands, and I hear snickering and feel the weight of judging eyes condemning us to two more years of just accepting it."

Hon. Speaker, they are saying: "Let's mediate. Let's see if we can't have more dialogue."

"I became a teacher in 2001 and at that time was told that there would be a ton of teaching jobs for those of us graduating after five years and tens of thousands of dollars' worth of university education and training.

"Over the past decade I have watched those jobs being removed systematically. When a teacher retires, often their position is not filled. In my current position I feel handcuffed. There's much more that could be done, and it's unfortunate that we are not entering a period of mediation and taking the time to reflect and see what opportunities…."

I would add that mediators can be very innovative in, first of all, doing the fact-finding, hearing very carefully and patiently from both sides, and making a lot of notes. They do a thorough analysis and ask thought-provoking questions about why it is that you feel the way that you feel about various issues. The opportunity for a mediator to come down the hall with whatever the employer has said…. In the case of a mediation like this, they would hear very clearly what the issues are from the other's point of view, and those can be debated.

Now, we hear that there were all kinds of meetings. I know that there were all kinds of meetings, but I hear that there was very little actual mediation without a to-do list of concessions that had already been put in place instead of some listening going on, and that's, indeed, unfortunate. Ideally, with mediation you want to be able to go in and have the opportunity for both sides to hear from each other.

Hon. Speaker, it's unfortunate that we're at this juncture. I'm going to wrap things up. I want you to know that on behalf of teachers of the Cowichan Valley, I know that what we would like to be doing is mediating and negotiating a settlement. It's unfortunate.

With that, I will take my chair, but I will be voting for this and against Bill 22.

G. Coons: I rise to support the amendment before us, the one that is pushing this dispute to an independent mediator. If we look at the explanatory note…. What this amendment does is it puts the bill as being rejected and stops its progress permanently through the House.

Our opposition is to the principle of the government legislating teachers back to work and imposing restrictions on mediation that effectively predetermine the outcome in favour of the employer — basically, the government. In this amendment, as the note says, it is in the best interests of the education system that the parties be given the opportunity to continue to try to freely negotiate their own collective agreement without government intervention.

I would say that this amendment before us gets away from the heavy-handed legislation and brings a sense of civility back into the realm. I believe that what the education system needs is to give the parties a chance to try to find a mutually agreed-upon resolution through real mediation as this amendment.

Prior to the introduction of Bill 22 the employer and B.C. teachers had both agreed to mediation. Trustees overwhelmingly voted last week to go to mediation and find a solution. We've heard support from parents, teachers, trustees, students to find a solution that allows the parties to get together. British Columbians want to see a solution that has kids back in school and learning from teachers who feel respected and in classes that work for everybody.

[1625]

Again, with spring break just around the corner, there's an opportunity, a huge chance, to move away from legislation that basically has inflamed the situation and created more conflict. This amendment is an opportunity for cooler heads to prevail and the government to allow real mediation to occur.

We on this side of the House have been clear that Bill 22 weakens class sizes and removes protections for special needs students and class-size limitations, and that's why we need this amendment. It will give us time to distance ourselves from the political rhetoric and get back to ensuring quality public education is our top priority.

Under the Labour Relations Board, under section 74 the Minister of Labour could have appointed a mediator and could have done that, but this government failed to do that. This amendment allows that.

What is surprising is that both sides agreed that they should try a mediation process, and this government bar-
[ Page 10040 ]
relled ahead with legislation. One would have thought that if there is some sort of way that a third party could intervene and try to find a resolution, we would be going to that method. We haven't been doing that. That's why we have this amendment before us.

Now, some people have talked to me, saying: "Well, there is mediation in section 6. In Bill 22 there is mediation." That's basically an imposition section. It provides that the Minister of Education, not the Labour Minister, would appoint a mediator to assist the parties. The terms of reference that are outlined relate specifically to concessions brought forward by the government, by the employer. So it's a one-sided mediation.

What we want to do is to get it through to the Labour Relations Board and have real mediation, so it's not looking at only concessions. The terms of reference in the legislation, put forward by the minister, are to consider…. This is from the act that we are trying to stop right now with this amendment before us. They want to look at "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement."

Basically, that's looking at dismissal and due process clauses in current negotiated contracts that the employer wants to strip away. They want to look at teacher performance where there's no defined process.

A second term of reference in the mediation that is in the legislation — which we think is unfair, and we want to have a real mediation — says: "alignment of professional development with teaching needs." Again, this is just attacking the professional autonomy of teachers. The status of teachers as autonomous professionals has always been an issue.

I have been there, and I have fought for this for many years. Basically, it's a cornerstone of teachers' professional status and their professional practice. It basically holds to the concept that teachers have the right and judgment to develop and deliver instruction in a manner they think proper.

One of the first things that was ever bargained in collective agreements with teachers was professional autonomy. That is being attacked in the mediation process that is in the current Bill 22, which we think needs to have a real mediation, not this phony type of mediation.

The third part of the term of reference is looking at "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs." Again, we're looking at vacancies being filled without posting, seniority not a factor; principals will unilaterally determine all assignments; transfers by principals; and principals unilaterally evaluating teachers' qualifications. So there are real concerns.

The mediation process and the terms of reference that we have in the current Bill 22 just lead to more confrontation. They're designed to make teachers basically complicit in stripping protections of their own collective agreements. The mediation is one-sided, and we need real mediation.

Now, what do we have? What is surprising is that both sides have been asking for mediation. The BCTF asked for it. On February 20 they applied to the LRB. BCPSEA, the B.C. Public School Employers Association, requested it on February 24. They thought that it would be effective in assisting the union and the employer to reach a collective agreement.

The B.C. coalition of parent advisory councils support mediation. The Principals and Vice-Principals Association want mediation. Trustees voted for mediation. So here we are, looking at a process that can help and that we should be pushing towards.

[1630]

Mediation works. We've seen it in all aspects. It's an opportunity to test theories and strengths, an opportunity to hear each other, an opportunity for participants to actively participate and have creative remedies. But we need a mediator that is skilled on the subject matter, and we have to go through the LRB.

In conclusion, we need real mediation — not phony mediation where the government picks a mediator and where Charter-protected rights to free collective bargaining are abused. We need real mediation and not a phony one. It's a great opportunity. I believe that the members on the other side should join this side and the majority of British Columbians, who think independent mediation is the way to go. I hope to hear from the members on the other side that they support this amendment.

R. Chouhan: I rise in support of this amendment that my colleague had proposed on Thursday, because all parties — the teachers, the students, the employers, the trustees, everybody — are asking for real mediation. When both parties ask for mediation, it's the obligation of this government to engage the parties in that exercise and bring the parties together so they can create that atmosphere of harmony and peace in the workplace, rather than generating confrontation by this Bill 22.

I have done mediation I don't know how many times myself. Under the existing Labour Code, although the language is not that strong, at least it provides opportunity that the parties can be engaged in that process, and they can come to some kind of conclusion.

There are four sections in the Labour Code: section 74, section 76, section 79 and section 78. I have done mediations under all of those sections. It has been very fruitful, very helpful, when the parties come to the table with a person who has the experience. Many times there is so much difficulty, and people cannot come to an understanding or some common place. But then when the third party enters that picture, with that experience, they can be helped. They can be helped to understand why they have to move from their initial position and come to some kind of middle ground.

That's exactly what we need here. For example, the
[ Page 10041 ]
government can easily appoint an industrial inquiry commission, which is under section 79. It says: "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." We have that tool. Why are we engaging ourselves in this time-wasting, frustrating exercise of Bill 22?

Bill 22 has the capacity to push the parties further apart. It would create an atmosphere of not only confrontation in the short term but also a poisonous workplace relationship between the parties for a long time to come. It's not helpful for our education system and for our parents who would like to see their children get an education under the public education system. But this Bill 22 is just an exercise in that direction — to push parties apart.

What I see as also very frustrating is that rather than appointing a mediator, rather than spending our very limited resources, the government is wasting money on radio ads, media ads. They can use those limited resources on having a mediation process. Why don't they hire somebody? We have so many experienced mediators in British Columbia who can help. But they are not doing that, and I find it very, very frustrating.

[1635]

I really want to urge the Premier and the Minister of Education to please look at the situation. We have so many tinpot dictators in the world; we don't need another one. We need a responsible leader — leadership from this government to stop this nuisance that they've created themselves.

You know what? I have seen the teachers who not only are so proud and compassionate and committed and dedicated to work in the classroom, but they also do so much work outside their hours. That's what they would like to do.

Now, under this system, Bill 22, that the government has proposed, they have the legal right to withdraw their services. So what happens then is that all the students who were helped by these teachers outside of school hours now won't get that. They won't have access to it. They're going to suffer, and the parents are going to be frustrated even further, because they will see that their children are not gaining any experience or any new way of educating themselves.

This amendment that we have proposed will provide another opportunity, an opportunity to have fairness, to bring back that trust, that credibility that is sadly lacking now. We need to do that. So I will urge the government to look at this amendment. I urge all the government members to vote for that, because the public is watching them, the teachers are watching them, and all the students are watching, parents are watching.

We need leadership. So far what we have seen from this government… They are just acting like bullies. That kind of bullying we don't need at this time of our lives. We need leadership, so I ask them to support this amendment.

D. Routley: I rise to support the reasoned amendment. The amendment seeks to appoint a mediator to the dispute between B.C. Teachers Federation and government's bargaining agent, BCPSEA.

First of all, I would say that we need to examine how we got here. The parallels between what happened in the debate over Bill 28 and this debate are alarming, alarming because the Supreme Court found Bill 28 to be unconstitutional.

Had the government at that time stepped back from the legislation that they were bringing forward and appointed a mediator, perhaps even at that time we might have avoided the unnecessary costs that were incurred in losing that decision on the part of the people of B.C. So that's quite a sad outcome.

The outcome in the judgment was described as being unconstitutional because no real case had been made that there had been a breakdown in the relationship. I'd say that even in this case, although there were several bargaining sessions, there can't really be the case made that there has been an absolute breakdown in the relationship.

In fact, there is enough desire on both sides for a settlement that mediation would be highly productive or could be. Also, at that time, the time of the recent decision that was levelled against the legislation that came down ten years ago — almost exactly ten years ago — it was pointed out that there was no real urgency.

What urgency is there today when, in fact, we are headed towards spring break and the B.C. Teachers Federation has indicated they will not continue any more work stoppages until at least after that time? This is a huge opportunity. This urgency that would bring forward this kind of an approach to passing Bill 22 without stepping back and examining all the alternatives, including mediation, just isn't there.

[1640]

All sides in this dispute, as has been said time and time again, want mediation. I think, you know, that we don't offer advice to the government out of a sense of wanting to support their electoral standing. But I'm sure that if they stepped back from their current position on Bill 22 and appointed a mediator and really examined a different way of doing business here, they would find more support from British Columbians.

We offer this because we think it's in the public interest. It's in the public interest that there isn't a battleground in our classrooms. It's in the public interest that public education is not used as a political football, as an expedient place of conflict when the government wants to change the channels from its own poor standing. That, I think, is what has happened.
[ Page 10042 ]

Mediation would in fact take the pressure off of the classroom, take the pressure off of the students. We see the pressure in our students. We see students walking out of classes. When I attended a student walkout at John Barsby secondary in Nanaimo, I saw some students who were opposed to the walkout — there were very few; I think four — but hundreds who supported the walkout. This created a conflict.

So the conflict between the government and BCPSEA was playing itself out in the student body. That was very unfortunate, very unfortunate indeed, when British Columbians know that our collective future is so tied up in education, is so dependent on us being good partners in managing and administering public services as essential as public education. Mediation would give us a chance to take the pressure off those kids.

It pits teacher against administrator. It pits community member against community member. It is unfortunate. It is tragic. It is a crime that the government would, with intent, set out to create conflict in the public education system.

The ramifications of that conflict are far-reaching, as I've just described, and that's just the beginning. Those are just the first few circles in the pond as the stone gets cast — of conflict — into our classrooms. This is very, very sad, and mediation would, in fact, take that pressure away from the classroom.

But I think the fact that the government members aren't even speaking to the bill, aren't even speaking to the amendment, shows that the goal all along has been to create and continue conflict. Mediation would in fact end the stress and take that conflict away. It would allow real discussion between the parties.

Mediation was needed here because the very title of the bill is misleading. We need to step back. We need to reassess the approach the government is taking.

Why would the government oppose mediation when both sides of the disagreement are calling for it? Why would they oppose mediation, impose a pseudo-mediation that in fact only imposes their own agenda?

Well, they would because it suits their political purposes. Mediation would be a tool that would take public education away from this government as a weapon, a political tool.

All British Columbians want to see continued excellence in our public education system. They want to see that cooperation and partnership, and they know that there must be partnership in order for us to advance ourselves.

Finally, we need mediation so that this Premier can live up to her promise to British Columbians. She promised to do business differently in this province. She promised to listen. This is not listening.

She said: "We'll listen." Well, listening is more than hosting screened phone calls on phony telephone town halls. Listening is listening to the two sides of a serious dispute in an integral public service and responding in a way that suits the progressive principles of this province.

She said that there would be responsive government. Well, how responsive is this government to the calls of the teachers, its own bargaining agent, BCPSEA, when it refuses to support an amendment like this?

Finally, this Premier promised open government, not just sharing a little bit more information but open to the input of British Columbians.

I went back to my constituency, and I talked to a lot of constituents about this dispute. There wasn't a single one who didn't support the notion that mediation was a positive step and could be productive.

[1645]

Everyone is shaking their heads in wonderment as to why a government would resist an effort to peacefully and civilly settle a dispute. This is the example that we should be setting for our children: mediation that can sort out this problem in a way that suits the principles we teach them.

Instead, what we have is a government that has chosen to bully, brought in Bill 22, right about on Anti-Bullying Day, and now has behaved in exactly the manner of a bully in passing it.

Mediation is the perfect solution to any kind of dispute where two sides have failed to listen to each other, but two sides both seem to want a solution. The background player, the B.C. Liberal government, is refusing this because they have a political expediency and an agenda to change channels, and they're using our children as pawns to achieve their goals.

Please, Members on the other side, support the amendment, and let's move to mediation. End the conflict in the classroom.

M. Sather: I rise to support the amendment to the euphemistically named Education Improvement Act. This amendment would bring forward mediation that would have some chance of success, some hope that we could arrive at a positive conclusion to this long and bitter debate that has taken place.

The minister has referred to some of the nefarious comments that are being made with regard to his bill, comments he made on MPTV recently. You know, I'm sure that he feels a little bit nonplussed about some of the things that have taken place during the passage or the discussion of this bill. But it can only be said — straightforwardly and fairly, I think — that the government has brought it upon themselves.

There has been lots of talk about the brink and coming back from the brink and who's falling over the brink. Maybe the government has analyzed the situation, and maybe they will make some changes. I don't expect they're going to support our amendment, but maybe they will come up with their own in order to come to
[ Page 10043 ]
some kind of conclusion that might have some positiveness about it.

In school district 42, where I hail from, in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, our school district has written to the minister calling for just the kind of mediation that we're calling for. They're not a bunch of lefties on the school district in Maple Ridge. I wish there were a few more, perhaps. No, they've looked at it in all honesty. They know they have to deal with the nuts and bolts of overseeing the running of the school district, and they can see that it isn't going to work.

I think that the government needs to look at it again. However they want to maybe pull back from the brink…. I think they really would be well advised to do that.

You know, a number of residents also in my constituency have written to me and expressed their views about mediation and what they see — for example, Bradley Thiessen. He's not a teacher, but he writes:

"I urge you to rethink the back-to-work legislation introduced yesterday" — so this was written a little while ago — "and work with the BCTF to appoint a mutually agreed-upon mediator. Do not bind the mediator's hands with artificial restraints and limits. The B.C. Labour Relations Board ruled that the teachers had the right to strike, and within one hour, your government starts the process to take away that right and appoint a mediator that is required to work within the government's set guidelines. How is that a fair mediation?

"You say that you want to give the union a chance to back away from the cliff" — there's that metaphor again — "but you are providing the only path the union can use to back away."

[1650]

I think that those are well-chosen words from a member in my constituency, saying to the government that the process that you've set in place, whereby the discussion of subjects can only be those that the government approves of, can hardly in any democracy be considered a fair process or a real mediation. It's a kind of faux mediation.

I don't know who's going to accept being the mediator, but it's not going to look good on the resume, that's for sure. So who knows. I'm sure the people that we might normally expect would take up mediation probably are going to be unlikely to accept in this case.

Here's another letter, from Meghann Kenkel. She's a teacher in my district, and she says:

"Through the introduction of Bill 22, we have seen many proposals completely ignored by our current government. I feel that, as a teacher, I am often talking about the importance of working together with my students. I tell them that they may not always agree, but that it is important to work together to find a compromise that is suitable to everyone.

"After 78 meetings, it appears that the government and the BCTF are not able to come to this compromise that will work for everyone. As a result, I feel that mediation is the correct route to take. I feel that an independent mediator would be able to listen to both sides and help everyone to come to a solution to this problem that works for all the parties involved. I feel that the sooner this happens, the better it will be for the thousands of students in this province."

I certainly second those comments.

Another short one, from Steve Halfnights, another teacher. He says:

"Teachers have no rights to arbitration if the bargaining process does not work. We are at the complete mercy of the provincial government. The mediation process that Bill 22 initiates is not a fair, impartial process. It is rigged in favour of the government. The mediator must report back to the government within a very narrow set of terms, which include addressing all of the contract strips around class size and composition, seniority, professional autonomy and due process. This is why teachers are further enraged by this legislation rather than ready to enter into a cooling-off period as suggested by the minister."

That cooling-off period is one that I hope to make comments on later, if the occasion arises.

This one is from another teacher in the district, who says…. He teaches English, and he's talking about his students learning about the meanings of words and so on. He says:

"The ones with good memories also know the root of the word 'mediator.' It is 'medi,' meaning 'middle.' A mediator is one who is in the middle of two parties. It is an unbiased person who seeks to find the middle way between two forces that cannot or will not compromise.

"A mediator is most decidedly not someone who is appointed by one side to offer recommendations on only the contentious issues approved by one side. There is nothing middle about this. This is clearly a one-sided scenario in which the word 'mediator' can never be correctly applied."

I think I haven't a lot of time. I have one more short piece here from another teacher, Patrick Ingleman, in my district, who says:

"With regard to mediation, how can you suggest we are getting what we asked for when you will be appointing the mediator without any consultation from the BCTF? We do not trust or accept this mock mediation process. Furthermore, when the terms of mediation are only focused around teacher evaluation, pro-D and seniority issues, how can you expect teachers to buy into this process?"

Definitely, the government is on a crash course here. And it's not just a trivial issue. It really isn't. As I say, I'm not highly optimistic, but I remain hopeful that somehow there can be a resolution found to the issues before us. Clearly, it's not going to happen through this kind of so-called mediation process that the government is putting forward.

[1655]

That's why I think it's essential that we put forward this amendment, and that's why we've done so. If we didn't do so, we certainly would not be living up to not only our mandate but, you know, common sense or fairness. It just has to be thought again. It has to be rethought, and I'm certainly calling on the government to do that.

I think maybe they're even considering, themselves, where this is all going to end, because it is not destined — in fact, it's not designed — to end in a happy place. Whether that comes about sooner or later, I don't see any positive end to it. Whether it's in the fall or whether it's earlier than that, the bottom line is that it doesn't look good.

I don't know what the calculations are of the playing out of this thing, on the other side. But clearly, there's been a lot of support not just for teachers but, more importantly, for our education system, ensuring that we do
[ Page 10044 ]
continue to be the top-notch education system that we are in this province now.

So once again, I'll just finish with calling on the government to come back from the brink, to rethink this and to actually support this amendment.

H. Bains: It is once again my pleasure to be part of a debate that actually is directed towards resolving a dispute that has been created by this government. I am standing in support of these amendments that are proposed by our House Leader. For the record, I'm going to read this amendment, and that will show why I am supporting this amendment. It says 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.'"

How better can you be reasonable than with the proposal that we have before us? I've been involved in so many negotiations, and I've been in a situation where we were locked in a dispute. I can tell you that — in any given day or any given set of negotiations — a party can actually box itself into a corner, and sometimes you need face-saving. I recognize that.

I think this is a perfect opportunity for this government to face-save and get out of the dispute and allow the two parties that actually should be negotiating now, rather than us debating this draconian bill that is before us…. It undermines our teachers, undermines our education, undermines parents and undermines this House, actually — the democracy that is very near and dear to us.

I think if this government pays a little bit of attention…. Our leader and everyone on this side have been saying that we not only stand here and oppose government policies; we actually propose solutions, real solutions. This is a real solution to a dispute that is affecting not only all of us here but our children and teachers and actually is pitting community against community. It is causing stress for our parents because they are looking for some ways to make sure that their children are in school, but they are not because of the strike that was caused by this government.

[1700]

I think this is a reasonable approach. It's a commonsense approach that is being approached by our very able House Leader, I might add. I say this. It will solve, if you allow the two parties who actually have asked for independent mediation…. The BCTF has asked for mediation. The employers association has asked for mediation. Then why stick your nose in there and cause this dispute that is before us today? Get out of the way. Get out of the way, and allow those parties to actually bargain in good faith. They both are showing interest in negotiating.

Madam Speaker, in negotiations, I can give you another hint. I think some of those and the minister, who could actually pay some attention to this…. Two parties — if they put their heads together and if they come to the bargaining table with, "We are going to conclude a collective agreement," chances are they will. But if there's a third party or a fourth party lurking over their heads and sticking their affairs into negotiations, then you will not have a collective agreement. You will not conclude the bargaining in as fruitful a manner as it should be.

That's exactly what happened in this dispute. Teachers were willing to negotiate. They were demonized by this government from day one. Soon they went on to the negotiating table. Guess what. This government was out there demonizing: "They are going to bring this province down on its heels, and there won't be any money left for anything else. They're too greedy, and they're not listening to the needs of the province and the teachers."

I think they need to understand that if they had allowed the employers association to go to the bargaining table with clear instructions to go and negotiate a collective agreement, I'm sure that we would have a clearly negotiated agreement before us, an agreement that both sides could live with. Our children would get the education that they deserve. The teachers would get the resources that they need in order to provide the support that our special needs children need and ESL students need.

In my own constituency my colleague from Green Timbers has laid out a bit of a demographic of where I come from. I'll tell you: 70 percent of the population are visible minorities. Can you imagine the students in the classrooms where 70 percent are those who probably have some sort of English-as-a-second-language need?

And what's happening? By imposing this collective agreement, by not agreeing to the amendment being proposed and before us that we're debating, what we are doing is that we are actually going back to Bill 22.

Bill 22 imposed conditions, conditions that are not conducive to the good education of those students who are of ESL backgrounds. It is not good for creating long-term labour relations in our school system. It's not good for our communities. It's not good for those students who have special needs, for example, and who need support in the classroom.

If the teachers are not able to negotiate a collective agreement that includes some sort of support for our students who have special needs, and also if there's no negotiated settlement on class sizes, what happens? The education of our children will suffer. We as a society will suffer, because when those students come out of the classrooms, they may not have all the tools and the skills that they need when they come out of high school.
[ Page 10045 ]

I'm suggesting that the government pay attention to this amendment. It is a very commonsense amendment. It is an amendment that actually will lead us to solutions that are absolutely necessary for the classroom education of our students.

I think we as politicians all have some egos. I'm suggesting to the minister: part with your ego. Get away from your personal strategy you may have or egoism or…

Interjection.

H. Bains: …feelings of insecurity, as my colleague is suggesting.

Whatever the personal interests are on that side, I'm saying: park that for a few minutes. For the sake of our education, for the sake of our students and for the sake of our society, agree on this amendment. I'm hoping that they are listening, and I'm hoping that they will be agreeing with us on this side, so that our students will once again say: "Hey, something good came out of this debate."

[1705]

M. Mungall: I rise to support the amendment that has been put forward by the NDP opposition.

First, if I can just beg your indulgence for a quick minute, I'll explain to my constituents who are watching at home why I'm speaking to the amendment when I haven't had the opportunity to speak to the full bill.

That is because we are under time allotment today. We will be wrapping up all debate on second reading of Bill 22 by the end of today. I was one of the last few speakers for the full bill, and that means I will not get a chance to speak to that, so I'm very grieved to say that I will not be able to represent all the concerns that my constituents have on this bill.

I will speak to their concerns about mediation over legislation, and that's exactly what this amendment is about. It's about bringing the two parties involved with negotiations for the BCTF collective agreement back to mediation and to remove the restrictions that are imposed by Bill 22.

I think part of the reason why it's so necessary to go this route is that the very nature of Bill 22 and its legislation, unfortunately, demonizes teachers in this province. The very act of doing this fails to recognize that they truly are indeed working for the best interests of all of our students.

Nothing reminded me of that more than a letter I received from Debbie Sabourin, from Salmo. She writes that she has been teaching for 28 years, and she says: "I love the parents I see every day, and I love the community I work in. The students in my current class and over the years of my teaching career mean the world to me."

Her words are reflected in the dozens and dozens of letters that I've received over the past few weeks in my office. I was hoping to do more and share more of them with us here today, but unfortunately, time prevents me from doing that.

Here we have the fact, and a good example here from Ms. Sabourin, that teachers are truly working in the best interests of their students. They want to be able to put those items that they have a particular concern around, like class size and composition, onto a table for mediation.

They're not alone. The B.C. Teachers Federation is not alone in calling for mediation. In fact, the B.C. Public School Employers Association feels the exact same way. They are the ones who have been negotiating. They are the provincial agent to negotiate with teachers on their contract, and they have also called for mediation.

In fact, I will read a quote from the Nelson Star. It's from Mel Joy. Mel is not only the chair of school district No. 8, but she also chairs the B.C. Public School Employers Association.

This is what she has to say: "Our board believes that legislation is not the answer." She goes on: "Having a negotiated agreement is the best for both parties." The BCPSEA and the BCTF are both clear that they are willing to get back to the table. They are willing to work with the mediator, yet this government has ignored that and chosen to go with legislation.

What I find most interesting about this are the words from Joel Bakan. He is a UBC law professor, and he wrote a very interesting article on March 6 in the Vancouver Sun.

He puts forward that this type of legislation that the Liberals have put forward is actually breaking international treaty law and puts into question our constitutional laws as well, and this government's ability to adhere to both. I'll just share what he says in his article.

[1710]

"Bill 22 also flies in the face of Canada's international treaty obligations. On no fewer than ten occasions, half of which concerned teachers, the Freedom of Association Committee of the United Nations International Labour Organization has found the B.C. Liberal government to be in breach of labour treaties.

"In a recent report concerning legislation similar to Bill 22, the committee noted as particularly problematic the tendency of this government to legislatively prohibit strikes, impose rates and working conditions, circumscribe the scope of collective bargaining and restructure the bargaining process.

"The proposed Bill 22 does all of those things and more. As such, it almost certainly violates international law as well as constitutional law."

Joel goes on to say:

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

Madam Speaker, it is clear to me that Bill 22 in its current state, as proposed by the Liberals, is woefully inappropriate to deal with the current dispute between the BCTF and the provincial government on their contract.
[ Page 10046 ]
We need a mediated settlement. It is possible. Both sides are willing to go there. So why won't the Liberals?

I implore them to please support this amendment so that we can do a better job in this province of working with the very people who put our children's best interests first and foremost every single day when they walk into that classroom to teach our future generations, who will one day be in this House and hopefully will learn from the lessons of today that mediation is always better than legislation.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Stikine. [Applause.]

D. Donaldson: Thank you to my colleagues and members from the government side for that applause.

I am very happy to take my spot today in the debate on this amendment to Bill 22. I know we have a very short time to speak about it because the government has decided to institute a form of closure called time limitation. So I'll be very quick with my comments and speak to the amendment and mediation, as prescribed in the rules of this House.

The amendment was introduced by my colleague the official Opposition House Leader, the member for Juan de Fuca. I'm going to quickly read the motion so that we know and people know what we are talking about.

It deletes all words following the word "that" in Bill 22 and substitutes 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."

That is what we're debating today, and I'm very happy to express my views on it and my support for this amendment. Unfortunately, the government members have not taken the opportunity to express their views on it. I'm sure students, teachers and parents would be interested in knowing what the B.C. Liberal members' position is on this.

It is called a reasoned amendment, and it provides an opportunity to get beyond the impasse and think about the students first and to get an independent mediator in place. We could do it right away, with the support of the B.C. Liberal MLAs. This could be happening tomorrow, and we could bring some kind of rational debate to the impasse that we have right now.

The options are there under the Labour Relations Code for this kind of mediator that I'm speaking to in the amendment, and it provides a cooling off for the Legislature. It provides the ability to move forward in a positive manner, and it's nothing to do with further delay. It's about getting a positive resolution to the situation we face right now and the students face right now. That's what this amendment is about.

[1715]

There are tools within the Labour Code. Under section 74, mediation is one of them. The appointment of an independent mediator is the important part. Also, in section 74 it says that a time limit can be part of that as well. So here we have the opportunity, as my colleagues have pointed out on this side, over the next few weeks where many of the school districts will be on spring break, and it affords about a three-week opportunity for this mediation to occur.

As I said, there is an opportunity in section 74 of the Labour Relations Code to have a time limit on this mediation as well — all positive developments.

When you think about the history of how we got here, the B.C. Teachers Federation, on behalf of teachers, in early February requested an independent mediator and saw that as a positive way to resolve the impasse and impact students in a positive way. The employers association, the B.C. Public Schools Employers Association, also backed up the B.C. Teachers Federation's call later on in February. So we had the two parties who are in this dispute and trying to come to a resolution but haven't been able to do that, calling for an independent mediator.

What did the government do? Despite both parties wanting this independent mediator, they legislated the teachers back with Bill 22.

Speaking to the amendment and speaking to mediation, the government also had in Bill 22 what has been called mock mediation, because they've put restrictions that impair a mediator's ability to move this impasse forward. They put restrictions around what could be discussed around class size and composition by the mediator with both sides. That is not true mediation and doesn't help to move mediation forward.

Speaking to the amendment and to mediation, I would say that the amendment, as proposed by our Opposition House Leader on behalf of this side of the House, is an attempt to resolve this impasse in a positive way and through true mediation as set out in the Labour Relations Code.

I would like to speak to the amendment and mediation in one other way. I've received a number of responses from my constituents, from people in the constituency of Stikine, on our amendment and our efforts to put students first by moving this impasse forward. One, in particular, was from a student. I'd like to read part of that, because it has to do with speaking to the amendment and to mediation. This is student Arctica Cunningham. She's a grade 11 student at Smithers Secondary School. She writes — she is also very interested in politics:

"As a member of the B.C. Youth Parliament over the last Christmas vacation, I was very fortunate to gain a thorough understanding about how our Legislative Assembly works and how bills are passed. I've always been very proud of the strong democratic principles the Canadian government system is built upon, both federally and provincially.
[ Page 10047 ]

"However, lately I've not seen a democratic and fair provincial government that is looking out for all B.C. residents. Instead, recent government actions appear to be more of an autocracy than a democracy. This may seem extreme, but frankly, so does legislating teachers back to work without attempting to bring in a non-biased mediator to make fair contract negotiations."

A non-biased mediator. Exactly what I'm speaking to in this amendment and mediation.

She goes on:

"It makes me angry when I hear the government is blaming the opposition for holding up the bill when it is the opposition's job to critique the government and make sure that the government is passing legislation that benefits all of British Columbia. I thoroughly support the amendment to Bill 22 proposed by the opposition, to appoint an independent mediator to resolve the collective bargaining dispute without legislation."

So here is a student speaking to our amendment and speaking to how positive an effect it could have on what she's experiencing in a school.

Finally, and I'll sum up here quite quickly, she writes:

"We need strong teachers to have a strong province, and we don't get those teachers if the government continues to treat them with such disrespect that they won't even sit down and negotiate fairly with them.

"I support my teachers because they have given me the most important gift in the world, a strong education, and I feel that they deserve the support of the government to be able to continue giving students the skills they need to succeed in life. For all these reasons, I sincerely hope the amendment to Bill 22 will be passed."

That's a grade 11 student in my constituency. I think she brilliantly wrote about this amendment.

[1720]

What I say is that I ask the members of the government side of the Legislature, the B.C. Liberal MLAs, to join us to work together in this Legislature to demonstrate that we can find resolutions to this impasse in a positive way. A positive way would be to see them support our amendment to Bill 22 to appoint an independent mediator and not have to go through a legislative process, a legislation of the teachers back to work through Bill 22.

N. Simons: I appreciate the opportunity to add my not entirely original thoughts at this point in the day. But I don't think it does any harm to anyone to repeat some of the very well reasoned arguments my colleagues put forward against the idea of legislating people to an agreement and in favour of allowing a mediation process to take place — a real mediation process, not one that is unbalanced or tilted in one particular direction.

Most of my career I've worked in situations where we've had to find agreement where two parties started off with a fundamental disagreement. That, in and of itself, is not a problem. It's the approach to addressing that problem, I think, that determines whether or not a resolution will be a good one, whether or not the resolution will be a long-lasting one and whether or not that resolution will have a positive impact on all parties to be considered.

In the case of teachers, we have to think of not just the parents but the students and the teachers and the administrations. I think we need to recognize that when the opposition is calling to amend legislation to allow a process that has yet to occur, to have its opportunity to occur, it seems to me that is the appropriate course of action to take.

When we see conflict, and we hear it on the radio, and we see it on the television, and we see evidence of it, it's our responsibility as the legislators in this province to attempt to find a reasonable way out, a way that can meet, as best as possible, the needs of all parties. This amendment, as proposed by the House Leader of the official opposition, puts forward such an opportunity for government to consider.

Now, I don't hold out great hope that the government is going to consider it, but that does not mean I shouldn't have the opportunity to make the case and to speak on behalf of school districts 46 and 47, the teachers there and the students there — that I was here supporting a process that we could have some faith in. Unfortunately, if I'm unsuccessful in convincing the members opposite of the rightfulness of this option, I'm going to have to report to them that we've tried. We simply tried. And we will try because that's our responsibility.

Now, the impasse could be seen as an insurmountable impasse were it not for the fact that the two parties in question are willing to engage in this negotiation process through mediation. They are willing to do so. It's not as if we have one party in a dispute of two who refuses to speak. In this particular case, we have the best conditions possible for mediation to take place.

We could not ask for a better situation. Both sides want to avoid acrimony. At least they say they want to avoid acrimony. I have seen evidence, perhaps, to the contrary among members of the government side. But I believe that the fact is that the teachers would like to see mediation as an option.

[1725]

So when you have the perfect conditions to stave off what could be a conflictual relationship, a resolution that leaves many very unhappy, a resolution — and I have to use that word cautiously — a solution that leaves unanswered, unaddressed concerns on the table, I think, can only be seen as negative — negative for the students, negative for the teachers and negative for the parents and guardians and foster parents of the kids who are in these classes.

So I wonder why it is that the government refuses to take their foot off the gas pedal a little bit, have a look around, use their mirrors and see that the landscape isn't so bleak as they might perceive it to be, that in fact we have a wonderful education system. We have wonderful people working in our education system.

Our job in this chamber should be to do what we can to improve it, not do what we can to ensure it stays exactly the same. And this is where I find the argument of the government to be somewhat cynical, in that they start off
[ Page 10048 ]
with this idea that legislating back-to-work legislation is better, somehow, than allowing for a perhaps more protracted but more meaningful opportunity to negotiate through mediation.

I've seen people try to take shortcuts to resolutions only to see agreements fail. I've seen people say it's timely. It involves energy and contribution of time and thought and process. That's not, in and of itself, bad. In fact, when we're dealing with an issue of such significance — that is, the education of our young people….

I always say it's not just that the young people are our future; they are our present. They are part of our present. They are part of our existence now. We want to make sure that our children are taught and nurtured and supported and encouraged and inspired now, because the result later will be better.

They're looking at us, saying: "What are the people who make decisions about something that takes up most of our days…?" If you're in grade school or high school, you spend a lot of time in classrooms — high school or elementary school classrooms. I'm thinking that they hope the people that make decisions about their day-to-day existence are doing so with the kind of thought and the kind of pensiveness that the issues deserve.

But instead of that careful and considered thought, we have almost a bulldozer instead of a shovel. I think that's what they are going look at, and that is what makes me somewhat disheartened.

I hope that the young kids in schools across this province know that in this Legislature there is a large number of us who believe that their teachers are valued and that we believe that their classrooms, the conditions of their classrooms, the quality of their supplies and the environment for them to learn in is important. I would like them to know that in order to make sure that that can continue, the best resolution for the conflict — over which they have no control — is through mediation and discussion and contemplation of the important issues that face us.

Now, I know that my colleagues on this side of the House are strongly in support of the non-confrontational resolution to the current impasse. I have yet to hear anyone from the government side say anything positive about their legislation. They're preoccupied with criticizing us, and that doesn't do anything for the debate.

We are asking that mediation be the option we choose. We're putting into law — that we think that the government side should vote for, to make it law — that that mediation process take place.

[1730]

So I want to offer my colleagues as much opportunity as they can, to make that case, because I'm not going to do it on my own. My colleagues, who have been eloquent in their submissions to the attentive ears of all members on the other side of the House, I'm sure….

My hope is that they have heard, that they will actually consider the possibility of changing their mind and that we will be able to bypass what is a bumpy area in our road and that we'll use the smooth shoulder around it in order to get to where we need to go. That requires cooperation, it requires maturity, it requires an adult approach, and it requires thought for what is in the best interests of students in this province.

I think that my colleague is prepared to begin his comments. I have made mine, and I appreciate that opportunity. I ask all members of this House that if you have a vote, vote in favour of mediation.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

H. Lali: I see that there's a changing of the guard that is also taking place, so I want to also say hello to the new Speaker who is replacing, for a little bit of a break here, the old Speaker that was there.

I am standing here to…. I don't think that actually came out the way I wanted it to, so I apologize. It didn't come out the way I wanted it to.

Interjection.

H. Lali: I'm going to be ruled out of order, says the member for Chilliwack. I probably am going to get ruled out of order. No offence was intended, so I hope that nobody is offended.

I will start off by taking my place in this debate on the motion that is before us. I stand, actually, in support of the amendment that is put forward by my colleague, the hon. House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Obviously, it is an amendment, a reasoned amendment, and I'll talk about that in a minute. Definitely there are a lot of different ways to go at this than the kind of way that the B.C. Liberal government has been looking at this whole issue of education here in this province.

Now they want to bring in formal closure that says: "Here, you have until 6:30 to debate this thing tonight." Really, it's not the first time that this government has actually brought in closure, whether it's on the main bill or it's on estimates or an amendment or a reasoned amendment. This is just, unfortunately, the way that they do things.

I want to actually read into the record what it is that we're debating in terms of this reasoned amendment. The Opposition House Leader has moved that 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.'"

It's really important to understand what this means, because what we have is a Liberal government that pre-
[ Page 10049 ]
fers confrontation. When the teachers wanted to negotiate, it went on. There was no way that the government's representative, BCPSEA, was negotiating anything. They were basically told "no" to negotiation.

The teachers wanted mediation. They wanted mediation. They wanted to have somebody brought in who is going to sit both parties down and act as a mediator to say: "Look, why don't we start checking off on things that both sides agree on and start putting those aside; find other areas of agreement, put those aside; and leave the toughest issues for last as we start whittling away on all sorts of demands and counter-demands that take place in a negotiated process."

[1735]

That's what negotiations are about. Two sides come forward with demands, counter-demands, changes that they want, things that they're looking for. Then both sides sit down and try to reason with each other and try to negotiate their way towards getting an agreement. That's negotiation. If that doesn't work, the parties decide…. In this case both parties did, BCPSEA and the B.C. Teachers Federation. They said: "Why don't we actually have some mediator come in?" They wanted that.

Hon. Speaker, do you know what the government's response to that was? Their response to that was Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act. If there was ever a misnomer, this would be it. It should have been appropriately called the education destruction act. That's what it should have been called.

The government says no to negotiations. The government of British Columbia turns around and says no to mediation. There was another avenue that was available, and that was arbitration. The Teachers Federation, the representative body for teachers across this province — 41,000 teachers — said they would have gone for the arbitration, but the government's response to that was again no — no to negotiation, no to mediation, no to arbitration.

What do they come up with? They come up with confrontation. They want legislation. They say, "We're going to legislate teachers back to work," when they weren't even off the job.

This reasoned amendment is here before us. A reasoned amendment actually allows a member of the Legislature to put on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a particular bill. This reasoned amendment fits into the category of reasoned amendment described by Erskine May as being "declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill" on page 474.

The effect of carrying a reasoned amendment is that no order is made for second or third reading on a future day. In other words, the bill as presented is rejected, and its progress through the House is permanently halted. That's what a reasoned amendment is.

We're waiting, members on this side of the House. We've been speaking reasonably, very reasonably. Nobody's lighting their hair on fire — nobody, not the House Leader, not the former Liberal House Leader. Nobody's trying to light their hair on fire over this. The Minister of Transportation and highways is another one. He's not trying to light his hair on fire either.

We're trying to have a reasonable debate, and even at that, the government has decided that they're going to cut off debate. They're going to put a closing time for the debate, a guillotine, an axe, bring it right down. They said: "No, no." Instead of the usual 30 minutes that members on both sides of the House each can have at speaking, we've been told: "Oh, you've got to cut it down to just a few minutes." I can't get my thoughts across in just a few minutes. I like to take my time. But that's not what the government wants. And nobody from the other side is getting up to speak on this reasoned amendment.

We're sitting here on this side, and we're wondering why it is that the government would not have actually let the Labour Relations Board appoint an independent mediator, even though they brought forward a bill that imposes a mediator handpicked by themselves to predetermine the outcome they want. That's not independent.

What this reasoned amendment is calling for is an independent mediator assigned by the Labour Relations Board, because that's the process we have in place. Anybody in a negotiated settlement where they can't reach a negotiation can ask the Labour Relations Board: "Why don't we have a mediator?"

[1740]

Both sides, in this instance, agreed, except for the B.C. Liberals. One wonders why the government won't…. They won't even get up to debate. That's the other matter. They won't even get up to debate this issue.

The amendment puts forward the view that it's actually in the best interest of the education system that the parties be given the opportunity to continue to try to freely negotiate their own collective agreement without any intervention from government. It puts forward vital options such as mediation by an independent mediator or other options under the Labour Relations Code that still exist for them to be able to do so.

Prior to the introduction of Bill 22, the British Columbia Public School Employers Association and the British Columbia Teachers Federation both had agreed to the mediation. But no, the government wants confrontation. They don't want it to go through a whole democratic set of principles here. They're shutting down debate. They don't want us to get up and actually talk.

There's got to be at least one person…. There's got to be, and I'm holding out hope. I have this much faith. There has to be one person, one reasonable person, on that side of the House, on the B.C. Liberal side of the House. There's got to be one who will actually get up and speak
[ Page 10050 ]
in favour of this reasoned amendment.

My colleague across the way is shaking his head and saying no. There's nobody on that side of the House that's reasonable enough to speak on a reasoned amendment.

So what do they prefer? What does the government prefer? Well, the government actually prefers, and this is my final point…. The flag is being waved here that I've one minute. I know colleagues want to hear a lot more from me, but their side doesn't want to speak.

It's through this reasoned amendment that we are expressing our opposition — the NDP — to the principle of the government legislating teachers back to work and imposing restrictions on mediation that effectively predetermine the outcome in favour of the employer.

So in other words, what are we objecting to? We're objecting to cheating, a legalized form of cheating. That's what the government has done. You have BCPSEA and you have the Teachers Federation both agreeing to wanting a mediator to come in, appointed independently by the Labour Relations Board. Instead, the government says: "We're not going to let you have an independent mediator. We're going to cheat. We're going to bring in Bill 22, and we're going to impose a mediator on you that is not independent but is a mediator of our own choosing."

They were going to legally cheat. That's what they were going to do, and that's what this Bill 22 is all about. That's why we're proposing this reasoned amendment. That's why we're opposing Bill 22.

I know others will speak, and I'm going to stand here when the vote comes to actually support this reasoned amendment that my colleague the House Leader put forward on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

C. James: I rise to speak in support of this amendment — as others have said, a reasoned amendment — being put forward.

This amendment comes forward as a constructive approach to actually resolve the mess that the B.C. Liberals have created in education. This is an approach that actually was asked for by the employer and the employee.

Now usually, if you have agreement by both the employers' side and the employees' side to do something, most reasonable governments, most reasonable employers, would jump at the chance. They would jump at the opportunity to say: "Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that terrific?"

We have both the employer and the employee agreeing that we should look at coming forward to a mediator. Yet no, that's not the response we get from the B.C. Liberals. We get the B.C. Liberals saying no, saying no to agreeing to what the employer and the employee have said.

This is an opportunity to end the fight, to end the confrontation. Surely, as others have said in this House, you would think that the other side would think that that made sense, that they would understand how important that was. Because what do we see right now in the education system? We see a bill brought forward that has created a situation that benefits no one.

[1745]

It certainly doesn't benefit teachers. It certainly doesn't benefit the government. Most importantly, it certainly doesn't benefit students. Students do not benefit from what you see right now — the confrontation, the mess, the disagreement.

We have a dispute that has demoralized the education system. Why wouldn't the other side agree to something that could actually increase support for the education system? This amendment gives a chance for the government to step back. It's a solution for the government, and it's a rare thing in this House that you see the opposition bringing forward something that will actually benefit the government, that could actually end the argument and say to the teachers and to the education system: "You're important, and we recognize we have to look at another solution."

I think it's fitting that we remember that we teach our children to solve their problems. That's actually something that's taught in the education system but taught by every parent everywhere — that we should solve our problems, that arguing and fighting doesn't help, that we should sit down and solve our problems. And here's an amendment that does that, that brings forward something to recognize the importance of education, to recognize the importance of teachers. It's an amendment that recognizes that confrontation doesn't benefit anyone. It doesn't benefit teachers. It doesn't benefit education. It doesn't benefit our students.

This amendment is an opportunity to move away from all the conflict that we've seen. And what have we seen in the last week, Madam Speaker? We've seen rallies on the legislative lawns. We've seen students speaking out. We've seen parents speaking out. We've seen people uniting around a solution that is recognized in this amendment, an amendment that calls for something so straightforward as mediation.

What are the reasons for choosing mediation? Well, mediation is more likely to produce a win-win solution. Win-win — wouldn't that be incredible in education?

I think it's interesting that if you take a look at the Minister of Justice, there's an entire section on mediation on the Minister of Justice's webpage. It says: "Why mediate?" It talks about support for mediation on the website. The Minister of Justice's site says if you use mediation, "time and money can be saved and emotional stress can be reduced." I agree with that.

What else does the Minister of Justice's website say? It says that if you use mediation, you separate the people from the problem. "The mediator helps to separate the personal dimension from the issues in the dispute," therefore "reducing tension and making settlements more likely." Well, who would argue with that?

The last piece that's there on the Minister of Justice's site says that mediation helps preserve relationships.
[ Page 10051 ]
"Many parties to a dispute must continue to deal with one another" after the dispute is over. Mediation, therefore, is important because "it tries to avoid polarizing the parties and can help…preserve a working relationship." Well, who would argue that? Who would argue pulling people together to be able to resolve a dispute?

That's what this amendment brings forward. This amendment provides an opportunity to be able to step back from the dispute and to recognize how important education is to our province, to our children, to our economy. Surely that's something that we would see members on the other side want to support. They would want to support strengthening our education system, but we haven't seen that. We haven't seen that kind of support coming forward at all.

In fact, we've seen just the opposite. We've seen confrontation, we've seen debate, and we've seen picking fights, which doesn't benefit students and doesn't benefit our education system.

So I rise today to support this amendment, to give this government a way out, to give this government an opportunity to solve a dispute, to stand up and say, as we say on this side of the House: "We respect teachers. We respect the public education system. We believe it's important to recognize the education system."

[1750]

I've heard children speaking out over this last week. I've heard parents speaking out over this last week. We've all received letters. I'm sure that individuals, MLAs, on both sides of this Legislature have received letters pleading for this Legislature to put aside the confrontation and to agree on mediation, to bring the parties together, to model what we would expect our children to do.

We've all gone through challenges. We've all seen what happens when you deal with confrontation. You don't end up with a solution, in the end, that works. Well, we need a solution, in the end, that works. Nothing is more important than finding a solution that works for the students of British Columbia, and I look forward to voting in support of this amendment.

A. Dix: It's an honour to rise in this House to speak about an amendment put forward by my colleague from Juan de Fuca, the House Leader of the official opposition. I think the amendment, which we often call — or characterize in the descriptions of the standing order — a reasoned amendment….

Today what we're going to attempt to do and what we've been attempting to do on this day is to apply reason to convince the government that they are going in the wrong direction and that they should, in fact, accept the principle of this amendment in one of two ways: one, not proceeding with their legislation at this time and allowing the mediation process to go ahead or, two, actually accepting the reasoned amendment.

It says: "…'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.'"

That is the very thoughtful amendment put forward by my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

J. Horgan: No Malahat.

A. Dix: No Malahat. He's just Juan de Fuca now, but I know that he cares very much about the Malahatians, hon. Speaker.

I thought it appropriate — as I was reflecting on this bill and this motion this weekend and preparing, as other members have, to speak — to develop a full set of reasons why the government should follow the right path, listen to the member for Juan de Fuca, listen to members of the opposition and support this amendment.

Originally, I had a list of 28 reasons — 28 reasons in memory of Bill 28, which is essentially the reason we are here today: the failure of the government to protect classroom education over the last ten years, the failure of the government to respect the rights of teachers over the last ten years, the failure of the government to respect sufficiently on the education file.

However, as members will know, earlier today the debate on this particular amendment, and in fact the entire debate, has been truncated, so I have been forced — and I know that members would have liked to have heard all 28 reasons — to reduce that number of reasons to ten to allow members of the opposition, the member for Chilliwack and others, to reconsider their position — I presume, since there haven't been a lot of government speakers in this debate — and support this amendment.

The first is that mediation makes sense. On February 20 the B.C. Teachers Federation sought mediation. On February 24 the employer agreed to mediation. On that very weekend school board trustees voted for mediation. It makes sense to allow that process to succeed. It makes sense, when people are reaching out and trying to seek a solution, not to say no to that solution.

[1755]

This amendment brought forward by the member for Juan de Fuca does precisely that. It allows that process to go forward. Members on the government side repeatedly say: "Well, that wouldn't work." Well, they have guaranteed it wouldn't work by bringing in this legislation, going down this foolhardy path of more confrontation, after ten years of confrontation caused in the wake of Bills 27 and 28.

So reason 1 is pretty clear. Mediation seems to make more sense than confrontation. If they'd agreed to mediation two weeks ago, we wouldn't have had a three-day strike. If they'd agreed to mediation, we wouldn't have this growing bitterness in the public debate. So that's a
[ Page 10052 ]
good reason — reason 1.

But reason 2 is just as useful for a government that seems not to listen to the choice between talking to people and confrontation. Reason 2 is to avoid again yet another legal mistake in collective bargaining. Now, my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was here in this House — I was not — when we debated Bill 28. But what, at that time, the member from Mount Pleasant did — and this is important to consider in this debate about the reasoned amendment — was put forward a reasoned amendment of her own.

Imagine what the last ten years would have been like if the government had accepted that reasoned amendment at the time, if they had followed, as they should today, what the member from Mount Pleasant was proposing then — specifically, that the bill not be read a second time and that the opportunity be granted for consultation with students, parents and teachers. That is what the member from Mount Pleasant said at the time. That's what they moved at the time.

The government, in the name of the Minister of Education, said that Bill 28 — this bill that ten years later has been found to be illegal in the courts…. The person who is now the Premier and was then the Minister of Education referred to that piece of legislation — and we know, and we don't need to go over the quotes of the judge in the case — as, in her view, balanced and reasonable. Balanced and reasonable — it was, I submit, neither of those things, and it's had grave consequences for all of us.

But the reality is that if you look back at that time and at Bill 27, Bill 28 and Bill 29, introduced on January 25, 2002, doing virtually exactly the same thing — in fact, with many of the same provisions as in this piece of legislation — what happened subsequent to that? Well, Bill 29, which is similar legislation but dealt with health care, was ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada. That bill was found to be contrary to the law. The government had to sue for peace and, in fact, spent $75 million of public money later on in 2007 as a result of that.

They didn't listen to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. They didn't listen to Joy MacPhail, the former member for Vancouver-Hastings, who argued in that debate for a little bit of restraint. They did not listen, and parents and patients and students and teachers and health care workers paid the price.

The reality is that by April 12 there's going to have to be a response to the Bills 27 and 28 decision by Judge Griffin. Instead, the government is proceeding exactly down the same path as the legislation that was found by the courts not to be consistent with the appropriate legal practice. That's why, to avoid just such a repetition, the government should allow the mediation process to go ahead. To protect the taxpayers and to protect the public interest, they should support the motion by the member for Juan de Fuca and allow it to go ahead.

The third reason is that I think this legislation is completely out of step with public opinion, and — this is an important question — in contrast, the amendment put forward by the member for Juan de Fuca is entirely consistent with public opinion.

What did the public say in a recent Environics poll? It was sponsored by the B.C. Federation of Labour — yes, indeed — but the poll was brought forward, and it's consistent with other public polls. It said as follows: "Bring in legislation — supported by 15 percent. Use mediation — supported by 80 percent."

[1800]

That view…. The Minister of Education — 15 percent. The member for Juan de Fuca — 80 percent.

We have had this approach for too long, and that view, prior to the coming in of the legislation, was supported by the president of the Principals and Vice-Principals Association, supported by school trustees in a vote, supported by school boards and, yes, very importantly, supported by the public. The public doesn't agree. They don't agree with the government's position, which is mediation that only mediates concessions that we ask for. They support mediation.

I think that when a piece of legislation of this significance, one that affects every single classroom in British Columbia — the rights of people who work in those classrooms, who learn in those classrooms…. That piece of legislation so significantly opposed in principle by the public, as opposed to the amendment by the member for Juan de Fuca, should be given a second thought.

This amendment says to the government: go to mediation. Do what every employer would see happen if they went to the Labour Relations Board normally. If an employer or a union went to the Labour Relations Board and asked for mediation, they would be granted mediation. It is the government's legislation that has stood in the way of mediation, and it's this amendment by the member for Juan de Fuca that will allow that road to open up again.

Now, my fourth reason to support this important amendment is inspired by a famous quotation. It could be the most famous quotation in history, hon. Speaker, certainly near the front of every book of quotations. It will probably be the last time in my parliamentary career when I compare words of the Minister of Education and the words of St. Augustine. As you know, St. Augustine, in those famous words, was famous for saying: "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet." That is essentially the principle of the legislation that we are trying to avoid dealing with in this particular amendment.

What does the legislation do? It deals with the stripping of class size and composition from collective agreements by reimposing those provisions. Now the government says — and this is why this amendment is so important — that one day — that day apparently is Canada Day 2013 — we are going to allow teachers to negotiate class
[ Page 10053 ]
size and composition, but not yet. Not yet.

This legislation, in fact, unlike the mediation proposed in this amendment by the member for Juan de Fuca, says they can't talk about class size and composition in the months to come. Surely that's not good enough. Surely it's not good enough when Bill 28 is ruled out by the court. Surely it's not good enough when the government acknowledges by this legislation that Bill 33 hasn't worked.

Surely we need a different approach to deal with this problem, that the government was mistaken in 2002, just as they were mistaken in 2006, and they're now mistaken in 2012. They say that in 2013 we'll allow people to proceed and discuss class size and composition, but not yet. Why don't we have a mediation process that allows them to discuss it now? That's what was proposed, and that's what is proposed in this amendment.

A fifth excellent reason to support this important amendment by the member for Juan de Fuca is that it will avoid the use of threats to try and create the public action that the government wants. This legislation, and we all know it, has as its purpose, in part, to fine teachers if they go against the government.

Now, this provision, like other provisions, has its history in the past. In 2005 there was a confrontation between teachers and the government. The government was unhappy about how much teachers got fined. They felt it wasn't enough. So this time they're making sure that no mistake is made — $1.3 million for each day, $475 for each employee, $2,500 a day for each officer representative of the BCTF.

[1805]

This is not the way to improve public education. If this amendment, the amendment put forward by the member for Juan de Fuca, is accepted and the parties go into mediation, as they asked to do, then we could avoid the passing of such provisions, which in a democracy, I think, are problematic in this way, in their extreme measures, and surely will not help us to build the public debate.

Hon. Speaker — tick-tock, tick-tock — we're running out of time. But we have five more reasons, so let me get to reason 6. The passage of this amendment will allow all of us to turn a new page. You know, when you think of the famous saying by Laozi — it has almost become a cliché, it has become so part of our thinking — that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In fact, the correct translation has been noted many times — that the journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one's feet.

That's what we need now. After all of this confrontation, all of this anger, surely what we need now is a step by the government in the direction of a better future. Not a step behind. Not a step for more confrontation. Not a step for the negative, but a step for the positive — to support this amendment.

The seventh reason is that the government here, in our view, is bargaining in bad faith and that this amendment put forward by the member for Juan de Fuca saves them from themselves. It's a huge task for one amendment, but it saves them from themselves.

I just have to cite the Bill 29 court decision, which says that:

"A basic element of the duty to bargain in good faith is the obligation to actually meet and commit time to the process. The parties have a duty to engage in a meaningful dialogue, to exchange and explain their position and to make a reasonable effort to arrive at an acceptable contract. However, the duty to bargain in good faith does not impose on the parties an obligation to conclude a collective agreement; nor does it include a duty to accept any particular contractual provisions."

What it does impose, and this is very important, is that "a failure to comply with the duty to consult and bargain in good faith should not be lightly found and should be clearly supported on the record."

What is happening here in this legislation, and what we are trying to avoid in this amendment, is bargaining in bad faith as it was with Bills 27, 28 and 29. It is not good enough for the parties to ask the LRB for mediation, to have that process overturned and overwhelmed and not go ahead. It's inconsistent, I think, with the principle of the court decision, and this amendment allows the government to come back from that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What is happening right now — and this is reason No. 8 — is the poisoning of the debate. We have the government spending public funds — and they're always talking about how few public funds they have — to advertise, criticizing a particular group in society. Not just legislate, but advertise, spending thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on such a purpose, poisoning the relationship even more — surely a completely unnecessary and unfortunate thing to do.

Yet that's what they're doing. They're not listening to the public. They're not listening to the debate. They're not listening to teachers. They have a message. They think they're right all the time. They're using the power of the purse to impose that message, but this takes us in a different direction.

This amendment put forward by the member for Juan de Fuca takes us in a different direction. Surely it is well needed now — an end to this approach where the government loses in court, is forced to sue for peace and then advertises, attacking teachers about their proposed offered settlement. What an unfortunate attitude on the part of the government.

[1810]

The ninth reason why I think the government has to reconsider its position — I mean, we're guessing as to its position, because they haven't been taking part in this debate — of apparent opposition to the motion of the member for Juan de Fuca is this: laws — we all know this — are blunt instruments. Sometimes they're effective at imposing minimum standards — and boy, in some areas
[ Page 10054 ]
we could use some of that right now — but minimum standards, unfortunately.

When you are imposing, over the opposition of a group, a solution and refusing mediation, refusing what has been proposed in this amendment, when that's what you're imposing, unfortunately, the minimum becomes the maximum.

All of us have read, over the last number of days, messages from teachers who talk about what they do in their classrooms. It's way more than what's there in their collective agreement, every single day. And that's what we want. We shouldn't be imposing legislation that puts a cap on imagination, that pushes people down, that makes the minimum the maximum.

Our school system is more important today than ever. We want the maximum, not the minimum, and it seems to me that the government has not understood that.

This piece of legislation — opposed by the public. This opposition to real mediation — opposed by the public. The public supports what the member for Juan de Fuca and the members of the opposition side have put forward in this debate. They want real mediation. They want the two sides to come to an agreement so we can have the public school system our children deserve.

The tenth reason is this: surely we can do better than this. A child who was in kindergarten when this government passed Bill 28, the mistakes of which they're repeating here now, is now in grade 11. The government suggests in its legislation that they'll wait till July 1, until that child graduates from grade 12 — July 1, 2013 — before we can get and overturn the fundamental mistake of Bill 28. It is not good enough, not nearly good enough.

That child and all the other children of British Columbia, those children who came to school at that time and have gone through this period, have benefited from the extraordinary work of public school teachers, of administrators, of teaching assistants, of everyone in the system. We know what they can succeed in doing every day in spite of these challenges.

But I think we've had enough "in spite of" in our public school system. Why don't we try cooperation? It seems to me that students and parents and teachers are asking the government to take a second look. They are asking the government to go in a different direction. They're asking the government, in fact, to precisely support what the member for Juan de Fuca has proposed in this amendment, what members on the opposition side have put forward in this debate.

They are asking for MLAs on the government side to have a second look at what they've done, to come to their senses, to use reason to support a reasoned amendment. That is what they're asking them to do. And I think that as members of this Legislature, we should avoid making the mistakes of the past. We should learn from the mistakes of the past.

When the government rejected the reasoned amendment by the member from Mount Pleasant ten years ago, everybody paid a price, including the government — caught out in the courts, embarrassed, wasting time, needless confrontation. Now we get more of it, more of it in this legislation? No, hon. Speaker.

We say that members of the government should join with members on the opposition side, would join with 80 percent of people in British Columbia, join with principals, join with vice-principals, join with students and vote yes on this amendment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members. Members.

Hon. Members, pursuant to the time-allocation motion adopted earlier this afternoon under Standing Order 81.1(2), I shall now put all questions for completion of second reading of Bill 22.

The first question is on the amendment to second reading moved by the Opposition House Leader, Thursday, March 8.

[1815]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1820]

Mr. Speaker: The second question is on second reading of Bill 22.

Second reading of Bill 22 approved on the following division:

Bill 22, Education Improvement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:22 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. McIntyre in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

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

C. James: I know that the minister began with Community Living and ran through the Community Living budget. Just a thank-you to the minister and the minister's staff, for the next while, as we go through the ministry and the areas within the ministry.

I'd like to just start with the ministry budget and the budget overall, to ask some general questions and then move into income assistance areas and the employment training areas as well.

The minister stated at the start of estimates on Thursday, as the Finance Minister did, that the government will provide an additional $294 million over the next three years to address growing demand for disabilities and to respond to the high number of single employable people receiving assistance.

I just wonder if the minister could identify where those numbers are in the budget and whether they've gone into program areas or the general ministry budget itself.

[1435]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just before I start, I neglected to introduce the staff that's with me today — Deputy Mark Sieben on my left; on the right, ADM Wes Boyd; and behind me ADM Molly Harrington and ADM Sharon Moysey.

To answer the member's question, the additional $294.1 million for assistance programs show up in the lines for temporary assistance, disability assistance and supplementary assistance. It's split between the three fiscal years — $68.4 million in fiscal '12-13, $114.6 million in fiscal '13-14 and $111.2 million in fiscal '14-15.

C. James: Just to ask an additional question, then, around the supplementary assistance. The minister mentioned $51 million for supplementary assistance. That was what the Finance Minister had said was put into the
[ Page 10056 ]
budget. I'm just curious, because if I look at the budget for the coming year for supplementary assistance, it appears that there is a reduction.

I wondered if the minister could explain where the additional $51 million over those three years for supplementary assistance is.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The $51 million figure that was mentioned is over three years. We can get you a better breakdown of how that works. We have backed out some of the program delivery costs, so that's why it's a bit confusing. For example, this year the difference in supplementary assistance will be an increase of about $14 million. We can get you those numbers.

C. James: Actually, that would be great, from the minister, if I could get those details for those areas. That would be good.

In a general sense for the ministry for this year's budget and for this year's programs, have any program areas been moved to other ministries from this ministry?

[1440]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Nothing this year. The last significant moves were in the '11-12 budget, and those were the moves of multiculturalism to Jobs, Tourism and Innovation and of social innovation from Labour and Citizens' Services to Social Development, although that didn't have a dollar transfer with it.

C. James: The minister mentioned one program that had moved in. Are there any other programs that have been moved to the ministry? In the same way that others may have been moved out, are there any that have moved in?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No, there aren't any changes.

C. James: Just a general question, then, for the minister around FTEs, the total number of FTEs within the ministry, so we can get an idea of numbers as well.

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are managing these days to the salary budget as opposed to a detailed FTE count. We have approximately 2,200 employees in the ministry at any given time.

C. James: Can the minister tell me: is that a decrease or an increase over last year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: It's about the same, and we're not anticipating any decrease over this year.

C. James: I understand the overall increase in the budget over the three years. Could the minister tell me, based on this year's budget, the number of areas that have been reduced within the ministry budget and what the impact of those reductions will be?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just to ask the member opposite if there's a clarifying question there, if there is something in particular you're concerned about, because we don't anticipate any changes.

C. James: I just wanted to check: within the program areas existing in the ministry are there any reductions? As money gets juggled between program areas, are there any major program areas that have reduced to provide support in other particular areas?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No, there are no changes.

C. James: Perhaps we'll get into some specifics around programs as we move along.

[1445]

Continuing on, then, with the minister in the general sense around the entire ministry and all the responsibilities.

If we can just touch, for a couple of minutes, on the performance measures…. I wonder if the minister could tell me, based on this year's performance measures, if any have been changed or removed from last year. And if so, what's the rationale around that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The service plan that we had before was really the remnants of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, which included housing and gaming.

What we've done this year is that, actually, we've added four additional measures relating to the new employment programs of B.C. That is in an attempt to more accurately reflect the programs of the ministry and the lines of business of the ministry and to be more accountable.

C. James: Just continuing on, then, with the performance measures in the purpose of the ministry. One of the areas in the minister's statement talks about the establishment of the minister's council on employment and inclusion.

Now, I understand that's a replacement of a previous council. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about that, about the rationale for changing that council, the rationale for changing the name of that council and whether the purpose of that council has changed.

[1450]

Hon. S. Cadieux: First off, a note. After we signed off on the service plan, we have revisited the name of the council. The new council is the Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility. The previous council was solely focused on employment. We have a slightly new vision.
[ Page 10057 ]

The council will look at or will have a broader mandate beyond employment to look at a full circle of supports for individuals with disabilities. Necessarily, as such, the council was reconstituted to reflect that broader vision and that broader mandate.

C. James: Could the minister tell me a little more about that broader mandate and the reconstitution? Were the members changed on the council? How was it reconstituted, and how was it changed?

[1455]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Really, the council has just been reset. It was somewhat inactive for the last while.

We have an ambition to address employment issues, not only for those who are accessing services from the ministry but that are of importance and raise awareness around the issues facing those 700,000-plus individuals around the province with disabilities that also face issues in their communities and in accessing employment. We want to look beyond employment as well, and beyond our ministry, and look at issues across government — issues of concern or interest to members of the panel and their respective circles of influence — to look at how, perhaps, they are accessing or not accessing their community's services across government.

I'm pleased to report that the new council has had one opportunity to meet since I requested their participation. I look forward to them having a number of productive meetings this year moving forward.

C. James: Could the minister tell me how many members are on the council? Were the members appointed? What's the budget for the council?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The council is currently made up of 13 individuals, with provision for 16 to meet the needs as we move forward, if we find we need to add in a certain area. They do not have a budget as such. We are covering per diems and out-of-pocket travel expenses with secretariat support.

C. James: Can the minister tell me if members from the previous council were reappointed to this council, or is the council made up of new members? Are there other areas that were included this time, compared to the previous council? What are the changes around the individuals who are sitting on the council?

[1500]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm just going to read this, as I think that would be easiest. Then I will follow it up.

The minister's council is going to build on the achievements of the last council, but there are a few differences in the structure. There is a chair and deputy chair from the community, stronger representation from families and individuals with disabilities. A minimum of 25 percent of the council are persons with disabilities. The council is going to lead their own planning process and develop their own workplan.

There are four quadrants within which we have slated individuals: government, not-for-profit, individuals and family members, and business.

I'm sorry. I forgot one part of the question that the member opposite asked: if any of the members were past members on the original council. Two of the members have carried over.

C. James: The minister mentioned that this will broaden the mandate, compared to the previous council that was in place. The minister mentioned areas of accessibility — that it won't simply focus on people who are receiving service from the ministry. It will look broader than that.

There is one additional piece that is mentioned in the service plans for the ministry, and that is that the committee will also "serve as a platform for discussion as possible reforms to the disability assistance system." I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about that and tell us a little bit about what may be contemplated there, what areas are being looked at.

[1505]

Hon. S. Cadieux: What we see is that we anticipate that if the committee and the committee members have interests and ideas about how to make the system better for individuals like themselves or for individuals that they work with…. We would like to have those discussions, and we would like to hear those ideas. I think it's an opportunity for the council to share with us their ideas on how to improve the system so that people with disabilities can move quicker or more effectively into employment and into other participation in community as a whole.

If the committee has ideas about ways in which we can improve access to services, certainly we will look to them to provide those ideas to us for further discussion. I think one thing that might be different about this committee over the last is that there is a much broader range of disabilities represented at the table. I would hope that that will lead to a great discussion of ideas and circumstances and different experiences in the community.

C. James: The minister talked, again, about accessibility issues and a broader group on the committee, but I thought the wording in the purpose of the ministry is very specific when it talks about reforms to the disability assistance system.

My question would just be: is there anything specific that the ministry is looking for, since this is coming from the purpose of the ministry? Second, what kind of consultation or discussion would occur?
[ Page 10058 ]

I would certainly believe that although the minister says there is a broad range on that committee, which I'm sure there is, the larger committee, in seeing the issue of reforms to disabilities programs, would be interested in having some kind of involvement, some kind of consultation. So I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about what the specific wording of that means within the purpose, and then what kind of broader consultation could occur from the committee itself.

[1510]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We're not envisioning anything specific at this time. We have, however, begun engaging interested parties in the disability community and folks that we have regular communication with for any number of reasons, back and forth about issues and interests. It is certainly no secret that there are lots of views about what is and is not working in the system. It's been the way it is for quite some time, so there has been plenty of time for there to be lots of opinions formed.

I'm happy to be starting to have that dialogue with individuals in the community. The council is one venue for that, but it is certainly not by any means the only venue for that. There are plenty of opportunities for engagement and discussion about how we can make the system better.

C. James: Just to clarify with the minister, then. There is nothing specific at this point meant by the potential reforms. This is just a general review of ongoing programs and services.

Hon. S. Cadieux: That's correct.

C. James: Just another general question around the ministry budget. Could the minister tell me how much money is put aside for advertising in this ministry's budget?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are no advertising dollars in our ministry budget. That said, there is a small amount of advertising that will be done as a part of the employment program. We can speak to that in more detail when the ADM for employment programs is here later.

[1515]

C. James: I'll then begin to look at the income assistance area and the disabilities area. I want to start off just with a statement that was in the budget document from the Finance Minister that relates to the minister, relates to this budget. That is the statement, and this is related to the $294 million, that "we intend to find new ways" to be able to get people to work. This is from the budget document.

"In coming months the government will unveil a strategy to help connect people who are able to work with employers having difficulty filling job vacancies in, for example, the province's…north. In some cases this may mean providing support for things such as transportation, accommodation and training to allow unemployed individuals to take full advantage of employment opportunities."

I wonder if the minister could please say how this is going to impact the ministry — I'm expecting that this is related directly to the ministry — and what the strategy is about.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The topic that the member is referencing is still in development. It's a somewhat aspirational program that we expect to become more tangible later in the year. It is in partnership with our colleagues at Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

As the Finance Minister noted, the goal is to help link those who have skills to offer with job opportunities in other areas of the province and to assist them to become job-ready when they might not otherwise be able to either travel or train to take advantage of job opportunities that present.

There isn't a budget allocation for this. Both ministries are anticipating leveraging existing programs and working within existing budget parameters for this project.

C. James: Could the minister let us know whether anyone else has been involved in this strategy, whether there's been outside consultation? The second piece is that the minister said: "later in the year." Are there any specific timelines around the rollout of this program?

[1520]

Hon. S. Cadieux: No additional consultation has been done at this point. It's really just conceptualized, reflecting on the fact that there are employers who are talking to us, and publicly, about hard-to-fill vacancies, hard-to-recruit-for jobs, and certainly our desire to offer those opportunities to individuals on our expected-to-work caseload and others. Staff are currently working between the ministries now to develop a timeline and provide that information to myself and to Minister Bell a little later this spring.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, the Finance Minister's statement does talk about unveiling a new strategy, so it appears that that's a strategy that has been discussed across government. I understand, as the minister said, that it isn't developed yet and isn't coming out yet. But just so I'm clear, for people out in the field, there is no additional money that will be going into this strategy at this stage.

Hon. S. Cadieux: At this stage the discussion is about leveraging the existing budgets we have in our ministry and in JTI and programs in our ministry and the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation as well as, potentially, Advanced Education. The deputies have met to start having those discussions, but at this time there is nothing concrete that I could share.
[ Page 10059 ]

C. James: The minister may not have heard these concerns yet, but I certainly have, from people in the field who are worried about potential removal of benefits if people are offered jobs and are told they have to move to be able to go to jobs. I'm sure the minister understands that there have been previous times when people have been expected, over the history of our province and income assistance, to move for jobs in a situation that may not work. I think there is some concern being raised around the words used, that that could lead to people being told: "You're removed from income assistance unless you take this opportunity that we're providing to you."

[1525]

I wonder if the minister could commit to some opportunity for people to be able to give feedback or some opportunity to revise the program or look at the program — for consultation once the program is announced? I think it is very important, particularly in this community, that people have the opportunity to be able to give feedback, to be able to let the government know how they feel about what may be a new direction or a new program or something that could impact their benefits — the direction that they're looking at.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, we can share and hear, also, the member's concerns — the concerns the member has heard from the community about the announcement. Our intent is strictly to provide people more opportunity to link to jobs that they would not otherwise be able to because of their circumstances, and we already have in legislation the requirements for active job searches. We're not anticipating any changes to what is already there.

[1530]

We also anticipate a relatively, sort of, modest number of people for whom this might be an opportunity. As such, we certainly believe that given that modest uptake, there'll be plenty of opportunity for individuals to help us shape the design of that program.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I think it is important, as people in this field are receiving benefits and struggling on the benefits they're receiving, that they have the opportunity to be able to give that kind of feedback. It is reassuring. I don't want to leave the impression that the individuals I talked to weren't interested in going to work or weren't interested in employment. In fact, they were very keen on that.

As the minister would understand, there are issues for people with disabilities and otherwise who may need to stay in their own community, may need to be close to their family, may have a spouse that's working somewhere. There was a concern raised that if there was any kind of requirement around benefits being removed, that could cause difficulties. That's reassuring to hear from the minister, and I think that's important for people in the field to hear.

To talk for a little bit of time around income assistance rates themselves, perhaps I can start off by asking the minister how income assistance rates are set, how they're assessed and how they're reviewed.

[1535]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, certainly, rates were last raised in 2007, so it's a fair question to ask. Our focus has been on providing opportunities for employment. That continues to be our focus.

When setting our rates, we're obligated to take a balanced approach between what we can do for those needing assistance and what taxpayers can afford to pay. Like many other provinces, B.C. is not in a position to consider increasing income assistance and disability assistance at this time.

While it has been a while since rates were raised, we are still fourth in Canada overall. We're still the middle of the pack.

A number of different factors are looked at when we are looking at setting rates or doing our ongoing assessment of where we sit, including the consumer price index — so the basket of costs of goods — and the shelter range, a full range of shelter costs across the province.

Then we also take into consideration that for the expected-to-work category, the temporary assistance category, assistance is just that — expected to be temporary and not a permanent income replacement.

C. James: Could the minister tell me whether she believes the rates are sufficient?

[1540]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think we can't have a conversation about the adequacy of rates without taking into consideration the rest of the supports that are available to people on low incomes in British Columbia. Those things, of course, as the member knows, are things like subsidized housing, child care subsidies, dental and optical care for children in those families, child and seniors benefits, the employment programs, and the bus pass program, which doesn't exist anywhere else in the country.

As well, I think we want to take a look at some of the things we've done that have enhanced the system, including the fact that we increased the number of people that are eligible for persons-with-disabilities assistance. We're now serving over 81,000 persons with disabilities in the province with support, and we've raised the incomes exemptions for that cohort of individuals. The rates have increased twice since 2001. Benefits for people with disabilities through the tax system have also been expanded broadly to improve their bottom line.

You know, we have to keep in constant check with all of the things that
[ Page 10060 ]
are available and all of the things that we're doing in the province to support people. This last year we increased the minimum wage. We've created more than 17,000 affordable housing units, with another 3,000 planned or in construction, since this government took office. We've helped more than 26,000 B.C. families stay in their homes through market rent supplements and subsidized housing.

I think the reality is, as well, when all things are considered, that British Columbians also have one of the lowest — if not the lowest — tax burdens in the country, which also affects all income earners.

C. James: I'd just remind the minister that "lowest tax bracket" doesn't mean anything to anyone on income assistance, because they're not paying taxes. It doesn't have an impact on those individuals.

I just wondered, given all of that, then, given the additional supports that the minister mentioned…. Given those, does the minister believe that the rates are sufficient?

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think what I'll say is that the rates are what they are. They're what the province can afford for the rates to be, within our financial reality.

I think that we, again, have to remember that for individuals who are expected to work, on the temporary assistance caseload, that is meant to be a temporary form of assistance while we support people through our employment programs to find work and be able to support their families the way they want to.

For people with disabilities and those who perhaps aren't going to be able to work, we've done our best to expand the system of supports to provide other supports to those individuals, recognizing their unique challenges.

C. James: The minister mentioned taxpayers — that it wasn't a time that rates could be reviewed. So I just wanted to ask the minister, then: does the ministry regularly review the information that the minister talked about that is used for setting rates or assessing rates?

The minister mentioned CPI, food basket. Certainly, anybody who saw the report that came out a couple of weeks ago from the nutritionists saw the statistics there that talked about the average of almost $900 for an average food basket per month for the province — $944 in the Lower Mainland, which is a huge amount.

The cost of living, when it comes to housing. The minister mentioned subsidised housing, but as we all know, there are huge wait-lists for subsidised housing, up to five years in some areas, including here in the capital regional district.

So I wondered…. The minister said that they won't be reviewing rates this year, but will the ministry review the information that comes in to assess the rates and have that information at hand so they understand the reality of clients who are struggling on income assistance?

[1550]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We do, certainly, in the ministry keep apprised of all the indicators that were mentioned, as well as noteworthy reports relating to rates, to issues facing individuals who are receiving assistance, and so on. We do also participate regularly in federal-provincial meetings to monitor B.C.'s performance as well as to learn from and keep apprised of the experiences in other jurisdictions.

As I mentioned or alluded to earlier, although this isn't a time where we are able to look at rates, given the financial realities in our province and others, this is a time where we can be looking at the other things that we can do to improve the system of services that we provide to individuals through this ministry.

So as I say, notwithstanding our lack of ability to look at rate increases at this time, there may be opportunities and ways to find other ways that we can help individuals to increase their independence, employment, inclusion in community and to achieve better outcomes for themselves and their families.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that. Just so I'm clear, then, the ministry and the minister are not looking at rate changes over this next year. Does the minister have any kind of timelines? Is there anything within the three-year plan or the three-year budget plan to review rates? I wonder if the minister could respond to that.

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I mentioned, we will continue to keep apprised of all the indicators and information available. At this time we are not anticipating any increases in rates in this fiscal plan. There's no room in the fiscal plan to entertain that at this time. As I mentioned before, again, this is the time, however, to be looking at the other things we can do to improve the system and improve outcomes.

C. James: Could the minister talk a little bit more about what she means about other things that could be looked at to improve services?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Really, what I'm saying is that anything other than rates are things that I'd be interested in having discussions about — so access to services, policy adjustments or changes that would positively impact families while not having an impact on the fiscal plan. We are beginning that conversation now. I believe that there are individuals and organizations that have ideas, and I'm happy to hear them and see what we can do.

[1555]

C. James: I wanted to chat with the minister a little
[ Page 10061 ]
bit about this area and hear about the direction from the ministry itself.

One of the areas that we as MLAs get a number of concerns about is the services to clients. I know we'll talk about ICM coming up.

The number of complaints has increased around accessibility to staff, around the ability to be able to get to an office to fill out forms, about the long lineups that people are facing. I think probably in the last six months in particular, but over this past year there have been huge pressures on staff within the ministry and pressures on people receiving service who just aren't able to get access to the service.

I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about that area — the concerns that may be coming into the ministry and any strategies that the ministry is looking at to deal with those.

[1600]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We feel quite fortunate that, unlike many areas of government, we've actually been able to maintain and even slightly increase our staffing. Notwithstanding that, there have been caseload increases, which create challenges for us.

We would like to be able to be bold and say that we are working to eliminate lineups. Continually our goal is to work towards continual improvement in services. We have some limitations on us in that area based on the current information systems that we run, so we are looking forward to improvements that will come through the ICM systems. I know we'll be talking about that later.

We have experienced some improvements to our phone services. We anticipate more of those in future as well. Our self-serve application process has proved to be very popular, which is great. Now that we know it's accessible, we also are looking to continue to improve that and make it more efficient and effective.

C. James: What kind of assessment is done of clients around the service they've received, around how things have gone for them in the system?

I appreciate the minister's comments around the improvements needed to the system, but I wonder how many clients have had the opportunity to be able to give feedback that then comes back to the ministry to be able to help improve services.

[1605]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In my opinion, this is an area for improvement. We do have metrics that we measure on an ongoing basis, and some of those things are how we monitor timelines for service on the phone — average wait times and that sort of thing. But that is also one of the reasons we added more measurements to the service plan. It's to be able to make sure that we are actually delivering services and improving on our service delivery.

We have in the ministry, at both the provincial and regional levels, ongoing engagement with advocacy groups that are active with the recipients of services from the ministry, to share information that helps with ministry planning. I certainly, personally though, think there needs to be more engagement with individuals who receive the service directly.

I've asked the ministry to look at how they're going to engage to receive that feedback from clients as we move forward in looking at our channel delivery programs.

C. James: That's important — to hear from the individuals receiving the service. Certainly, from my perspective, the best way to improve the service is to hear directly from the individuals.

Does the minister have a timeline around that review, around the minister's request to the ministry to review that?

[1610]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As you're aware, phase 2 of the ICM implementation is imminent. While that is underway, there will be the need to collect feedback from both staff and recipients on how that's working — what's working or what isn't.

Moving forward beyond that, I have asked that we set up a process that will engage on an ongoing basis — a lasting presence, so to speak — for that kind of feedback from our service recipients. I have asked for that plan on what that's going to look like to be delivered to me by the end of May.

C. James: One of the areas that the minister stated earlier that she was looking at is feedback in improving the system and feedback on improving things for clients always. I recognize that while she wasn't looking at the rates, there were other areas that could be looked at, understanding this has a budget implication. But certainly, the feedback that I've received, and I'm sure the minister and the ministry have received over the last while, is this issue of earnings exemptions.

The ministry recognized the importance of earning exemptions for people with disabilities and made that change and provided that support for people with disabilities, but it isn't there for people on temporary assistance, who are receiving income assistance. I wonder if the minister could explain the rationale for that, and whether that issue is being reviewed within the ministry.

[1615]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think it's a topic worth discussion. While B.C.'s experience has been fairly positive in assisting our temporary assistance clients to find work….
[ Page 10062 ]
Certainly, ministry research has shown that clients who leave assistance for employment have higher average incomes and lower rates of poverty. Their incomes have tended to increase in subsequent years if they stay off assistance.

Obviously, as you mentioned, we do provide earnings exemptions to clients that face serious barriers to employment. Certainly, quite often that is a circumstance that prevents them from working in a full-time or consistent way. The earnings exemptions there are intended to help these clients participate as fully as possible in the workforce.

There are competing views on whether earnings exemptions work as a barrier to getting people off assistance and moving them to full employment, or whether they can be properly used as an incentive and a stepping stone to full employment.

While the ministry is not actively reviewing earnings exemptions, we are participating in cross-jurisdictional discussions on the topic on an ongoing basis, as well as with stakeholders in the sector.

C. James: I would certainly encourage the ministry and the minister to continue those discussions. I think the statistics that the minister shared around the links between people getting into employment, paid employment, well-paid employment, maintaining employment, are all critical and, in fact, provide that support for individuals.

I certainly also believe that, given the economic circumstances that the province is in right now, to provide the opportunity for people to make that connection with employment when they may not be able to get full-time employment because of the economic times makes good sense for individuals to be able to move into work, to be able to make that connection.

I believe as well, from the research I've read, that there are also very good links for people who have been on income assistance for a period of time and helping them connect back to the workforce as well. The difficulty of simply moving into the workforce when you've been on income assistance can sometimes be a barrier in itself.

Earnings exemption provides that part-time ability for people to make that shift and to make that move. I certainly believe it's critical that the government continues to look at it, because I think it does provide not only a financial ability to manage on the income assistance rates at the rate that they're set, but I believe that, even as important, it also provides people with a boost — mentally and physically — to be able to have that connection.

I think that's critical, so I would certainly encourage, just as the ministry did in their review of the disabilities clients, that they also look at the income assistance area when it comes to earnings exemptions.

I just want to talk a little bit about people with disabilities, PWD — a little bit of a review.

Does the minister want to continue on, or do you want to take a break? I'm fine to take a break, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess, then.

The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll resume the Committee A estimates with the Ministry of Social Development.

C. James: Just moving on to the area of people with disabilities, I want to touch on something that was a previous decision of the ministry's but impacts the budget this year — so has an impact. The minister will remember — not as a minister during the time, I don't believe — that there were a number of cuts made to services and supports for people with disabilities back in 2010.

Those were cuts of everything from medical supplies to health supplements to shelters to orthotics. There were a whole number of areas that were reduced in the budget. Orthotics came back in 2011. The ministry made the decision to put those back.

But there was a statement made by government when those cuts were made that there would be savings from those cutbacks. The statement talked about a savings of $15 million that would be redirected to support and shelter costs. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether those dollars were put back into the ministry and if those savings, as was identified, went into supports for shelter costs.

[1630]

[C. Hansen in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer is no. The savings didn't go into income or shelter assistance. The changes that were made in 2010, less the orthotics reversal, allowed us to support the additional volumes of requests for medical supplements in the ministry.

In fact, right now we are spending more on health supplements than we were before the change.

C. James: Could the minister tell me if the ministry has done an assessment of the impact of those reductions, those changes that occurred in 2010, on clients?

[1635]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There has been monitoring ongoing. I'll just note that items and services that were previously available through the provincial health care system — so prescription drugs and diabetic supplies — continue to be there. That hasn't changed. The ministry staff have kept a constant watch on the changes that we've made.
[ Page 10063 ]
We pay attention to the needs that come up through the day-to-day work with clients and things that come in via letter and other sources. As a part of that monitoring, the ministry also has been working cooperatively with the Ministry of Health to ensure that the needs are being met.

Two things changed immediately — right? — as a result of that. The ministry revised the orthotics program on August 2, 2011, and then, as well, we're providing nebulizers for people with severe medical conditions like cystic fibrosis. As well, there were a number of other items that were added to the list of things that we are able to provide, including suction units, percussors, food thickeners, lancets, floor-to-ceiling poles, foot abduction orthoses, transfer belts, positioning items for use in the bed, tracheotomy supplies, humidifiers for tracheostomy, and the nebulizers, as I mentioned.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. It appears to me that a large number of portions have been put back from some of the cuts that occurred in 2010, which I think speaks to the fact that many of these services in fact save resources in the health care system if those services are in place. So I certainly would encourage the minister and the ministry to continue to look at those areas because for many people on PWD, on disabilities, those additional health supports are what keep them going, and the resources that they get on PWD are, in fact, life-savers in many cases.

I just want to ask the minister as well around some other services and supports that aren't funded that I certainly hear concerns from clients in both temporary assistance but mainly in people with disabilities. That would be the whole area of mental health. There are huge concerns and a growing worry out there about the number of individuals, people with disabilities, who are receiving supports from disabilities but who are not able to receive any counselling supports, although recommended.

I met with an individual last week — recommended by her psychiatrist that she get ongoing counselling supports. There is no funding and no support to be able to receive that kind of mental health supports which, again, is a prevention issue rather than an intervention issue. So I wondered if the minister could talk a little bit about supports for people struggling with mental illness who are receiving disability supports.

[1640]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member opposite will know, in 2002 there was a change to formally recognize mental health as a criterion for application for persons-with-disabilities supports. That said, provision of psychiatric supports, counselling and other mental health services is the purview of the Ministry of Health.

That said, we also participate with the Ministry of Health in the ten-year framework for mental health and substance abuse. But our focus in our ministry remains on the income supplement, which is income assistance or disability assistance in this case.

C. James: I understand that mental health is part of the Health Ministry, but I would certainly expect that there would be, as the minister said, some discussions, but even more so than that, some advocacy on behalf of the clients on PWD, people with disabilities who are struggling with mental illness.

It makes no sense to me — I think even less sense to clients — that someone can be classified for service and support from this ministry through people with disabilities by having a mental illness but then is told: "We have no money to give you for supports. You can't get counselling. You can't get psychiatric services. We can't give you ongoing mental health supports. While we recognize your disability in one area to provide you with some supports to be able to manage, we can't recognize the service and support that you actually need to be able to manage day to day or week to week or month to month."

I just would like to ask the minister whether her ministry has done any advocacy work or done any research or presented any discussion papers to the Ministry of Health around the importance of this issue to the clients that are served by this ministry and by this minister.

[1645]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The ministry, if the member is not aware, does provide supports for individuals involved in alcohol and drug programs. We provide that additional support by providing higher per diems. We supported the development of supported-recovery homes and are now in active discussions with the Ministry of Health regarding the needs of all of those clients.

Of course, the link is that many of those clients are also clients that are suffering with mental health issues. As well, we are participating, as I mentioned, with the Ministry of Health on the ten-year framework for mental health. Our ADM of policy here in the ministry sits on the ADM steering committee for the implementation of that ten-year framework.

C. James: I certainly believe that it's an important issue to be raised at that table on behalf of clients. It's certainly an issue that I continue to hear about out there.

Just a couple other pieces around a lack of transition supports for people who are on income assistance, whether it's people with disabilities or whether it's temporary assistance. One of the issues that the minister talked about earlier in this process was the importance of people transitioning to work and the importance of people getting jobs.
[ Page 10064 ]

I think that we would all agree — including the clients on income assistance — that they would much rather be working than be receiving income assistance. But we also hear a lot about the barriers to being able to get off income assistance and the challenges of supports that aren't there to help people transition.

I'll just mention a couple for the minister and ask the minister if she could comment on them. One of the areas that we hear a lot of concern about is the area of education — people going back for training, people who are on income assistance who then get into a program at a college, a university, a training facility, who are then cut off income assistance, receive no supports, and yet this is their ticket, so to speak, to be able to get off income assistance. I wonder if the minister could comment on that area.

Then the other two areas that I just want to mention are the issues of child care supports and medical service premiums. Again, many people on income assistance move into jobs that may be just high-enough paying to be able to not receive the subsidy and the support, but low enough income that they're still struggling in poverty rates, still struggling to be able to manage in that shift between income assistance and work.

I think that all of us would agree that that's a shift we want people to make, that we want to encourage to happen, but these, in fact, provide barriers. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about those challenges for individuals who are on income assistance.

[1650-1655]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm going to break this into two sections. For the education-related piece, the short-term assistance that we provide through the ministry — the temporary assistance, as it is intended to be — is meant to be assistance between jobs and not intended to be an income while re-educating. That said, we can canvass this much further when we talk about employment programs and with the ADM of employment programs about what supports are available while people are training or retraining.

As it relates to other benefits for individuals who are leaving assistance, Medical Services Plan premium coverage is continued until people are earning $22,000 a year. It's not until they're earning $30,000 a year that they would be asked to pay full premiums. The other things that they can keep in terms of benefits are 70 percent of their PharmaCare costs, the B.C. climate action tax credit, the harmonized sales tax credit, the federal GST credit and the working income tax benefit, which has been enhanced and redesigned for B.C.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Clients with children, who re-enter the workforce, continue to receive their federal and provincial child benefits. Depending on the income, they may be eligible for the child care subsidy, which is managed, as you know, through the Ministry of Children and Family Development; the B.C. earned income benefit; and the dental and the optical coverage of children through B.C. Healthy Kids.

Families with children may also become eligible for the rental assistance program by going off assistance and into working incomes, because the rental assistance program is there for families who have low incomes but are not on income assistance.

C. James: Continuing on, on the issue of supports. I'll come back to the education piece when we get to the training piece. That's no problem.

On the issue of bus passes. I'm sure that the ministry gets these calls, because we get these calls probably more than almost any other call. I'm sure the minister and the ministry see these calls as well, and that's the issue of people on CPP or receiving CPP benefits who then lose their bus pass.

If you take a look at the economics of the situation…. I mean, individuals who are receiving CPP, but get a top-up from the ministry, get a bus pass. People who are on PWD get a bus pass. People who go on CPP and get an increase in their CPP — therefore don't receive the top-up — lose their bus pass.

I had an individual describe it to me really well when he said: "I received an extra $15 a month from CPP, which meant I'd lost my top-up, which meant I lost my $1,800 bus pass for the year." It's certainly an issue that we get often from individuals that seems to make no economic sense.

I understand the issue between federal and provincial jurisdiction, but both point fingers at each other around who is responsible for removing those bus passes. So I wondered if the minister could speak to the issue of eligibility for a bus pass and the challenge for individuals who lose their bus pass.

[1700-1705]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are approximately 85,000 individuals that are benefiting from the ministry's bus pass program — or benefited last year. The ministry spends about $44 million a year to make this program available. As I mentioned, it is the only one in the country of its kind that provides this level of subsidization for transit passes for clients.

While I understand the challenge that the member raises and the circumstances that do occur when clients or individuals transition to CPPD, the reality is that the boundary is somewhat arbitrary. As with any program, there has to be a boundary somewhere. There are limits, and those limits are set in place to manage the fiscal realities as well. It costs a great deal of money to subsidize these programs. We have to have boundaries somewhere,
[ Page 10065 ]
and that's where they're set for now.

C. James: Perhaps this might be one of those areas where the minister was talking earlier this afternoon about the committee and the committee looking at improvements for people with disabilities in the province. This may be one of the areas that might want to be reviewed.

Certainly, for many people who have disabilities but are not receiving, perhaps, support from the ministry — and those are the groups that the minister was talking about earlier — the bus pass is the difference of being a shut-in and being able to get out in the community. Certainly, the CPP resources don't provide the support to be able to receive a bus pass either. That may be one of the areas that the minister and the committee could take a look at, if they're looking at recommendations.

Moving on to another area for people with disabilities, another program area that the ministry has brought in, in the last year or so is the community volunteer supplement program. This is a program that I understand became very popular, that ended up with a huge wait-list.

A wait-list built up, and in August of this past year the ministry says that they would put in $5 million to try and deal with the backlog of people on the community volunteer supplement wait-list and $10 million in future years, to be able to ensure that everyone who wanted to, everyone who was eligible for the program, would be able to fully participate in the program. I think it's important that people on the wait-list were eligible. These were individuals who were eligible.

I wonder if the minister could tell me if that money has gone into the budget in this current year.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In relation to the CVS program, yes, there is money in the budget this year for the program. It is less than the $10 million referenced by the member, and that is due to the fact that less people who were on the wait-list took us up on the opportunity to participate in the program. We are anticipating this year to spend between $7 million and $8 million.

C. James: Could the minister tell me, then, the status of the wait-list, what the status is currently? I also understand that a program review is being undertaken. Could the minister tell me about the program review and timelines?

[1710]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In August of 2011 the ministry announced the funding that you referenced in your last question for the community volunteer supplement. Clients who were on the wait-list at that time were given until October 31 to apply to be assessed for eligibility for that supplement. In July, before the additional funding was provided, there were just over 4,000 clients receiving this supplement. That increased to about 6,400 in December.

We are no longer accepting applications for the CVS program. That is because there is a review underway as to what that program might look like in future. I am anticipating to be taking recommendations, on what this program may look like in the future, to cabinet within the next couple of months.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, the minister said the numbers increased to 6,400 by December. Are those people currently on the wait-list, or are they currently part of the program?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member: I have a correction. The actual number is 6,948. Those people are now all on the program, not on a wait-list.

C. James: So the program has basically been cut off. The people who were on the wait-list as of December are now being served, and no one is any longer being accepted until the program review takes place. And the minister said a couple of months.

Are there more specifics around that, or is there still further community consultation to do? Or is the minister now reviewing the information that was received in the field?

[1715]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are still engaging in discussions within the ministry and with some community groups about the community volunteer supplement and potential modifications or changes. The one major limitation is that the budget is set, and so any changes or modifications are likely to be incremental. There is no new money added beyond the money that is in the budget to support the number of people that are currently receiving the CVS supplement.

As I stated in my last answer, there is no set date for a decision, but I am anticipating that we'll have a decision on how best to use the dollars, as the money becomes available going forward, within the next couple of months. The intent is still very much to use those dollars to support people with disabilities and their opportunities to participate in the community.

C. James: It appears, then, from the minister's comments, that the program would either have to provide less support to the existing people if the program wanted to expand or would basically provide the existing support to the existing clients without any kind of expansion. Did I understand that correctly? If there is no budget increase, it appears that that's really the only solution to the budget.
[ Page 10066 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member is correct. There is no increase in the budget. The intent is to continue to honour the volunteer opportunities that individuals are engaged in now. What we do in the future will be based on what we can do as dollars become available as people leave the program.

C. James: It certainly appears that the program has been popular, that the program has been a success, with the number of people who have applied and were on the wait-list. Just a question for the minister: was there any consideration, then, since $10 million was promised and committed to…? I understand it's not this minister. I understand it was the previous minister. But $10 million was committed.

I understand that the budget has been reduced based on the number of people. But obviously there is a need. Obviously, people are interested in this program. Was there ever any consideration in hanging on to the $10 million, recognizing that a program review was going to occur and that the dollars were committed and promised to and could be used for further expansion in the review of the program?

[1720]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The $10 million figure that was referenced previously was an estimated figure based on the wait-list and the intent to ensure that individuals who wished to participate could participate.

In the end there were fewer people who took us up on that offer than had been on the wait-list. The amount currently in the budget is there to support the individuals who did indeed wish to be participants in the program. We are capped at that amount in terms of what that program can look like moving forward. The flexibility that we have to make changes or do things differently in future will depend on how many people continue to participate in the program as it is and so on.

That said, there are other potential opportunities within the ministry to look, perhaps, at ways we can supplement this using opportunities and innovations that we may consider through the social innovation side of the file and things that are bubbling in that regard in the ministry and outside with partners. I think there is potential opportunity to supplement what we can do as we move forward if we're starting to look creatively at solutions.

C. James: Just a couple of questions now around caseload, and then I'll turn it over to some of my colleagues who have individual constituency questions.

The ministry projects, obviously, future caseload numbers. I wonder if the minister could tell me how those are calculated, and then how the budget numbers match up to the future caseload pressures.

[1725]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The forecasts for the ministry are built using the monthly administrative income assistance data and incorporate information on caseload flows — the people starting and ending in our programs; labour market trends; policy changes; and the latest research. All that said, the main factor in the expected-to-work caseload is the province's employment rate. The main factors in the persons-with-disabilities caseload are population and demographic trends for population growth.

We have been historically very accurate in the forecasts. We also use trend analysis on that, based on the 30-year caseload data that we have. That also informs our processes.

That said, as it relates to our rates and our budgets, we take the average caseload cost based on the forecasts and apply the rates. That's fairly straightforward. But of course, as the member knows, these are statutory responsibilities that the province has, and we will meet those.

C. James: Hon. Chair, I'll turn it over to my colleagues for the next little bit while we get some specific questions on caseload.

K. Conroy: I have a local question for the minister. This is an issue that has been going on for a year. The constituent called and e-mailed our office. He e-mailed the ministry a year ago. He has a son who's a person with a disability, so he's on a persons-with-disabilities monthly stipend.

His son is a 38-year-old now, a graduate from UBC who was diagnosed as bipolar. He was working as a teacher and, due to his illness, had to quit working as a teacher and is on the disability pension. Last January he received, on his income tax refund, a repayment from moneys that were held by the B.C. teachers pension plan.

[1730]

The full amount, over $1,000, was taken off of his monthly stipend, because he knows he can earn an extra $500. The additional money was also taken off for the next month. So the next month's cheque, he only earned $200.

His father wrote to the minister at the time, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, and just asked him, you know, why this happens. It's a monthly amount that he would have gotten as a pension amount. Why wouldn't it be taken off annualized over the year, instead of him having to take it all off of his monthly stipend? It caused considerable problems for him financially.

This father was very persistent. He didn't hear anything from the ministry, so he wrote again in March of that year. The minister did respond. I'll just quote from the minister. He said: "The logic of your recommendation is very clear and sensible. My colleagues and I in elected office certainly have a zeal to amend policy or legislation wherever these deliver flawed results." He was certain that the person would have an update soon.
[ Page 10067 ]

He also heard from the ministry's correspondent, saying you will hear soon. Your deputy, who's very conscientious, did respond to the constituent. He says:

"We are currently reviewing our earnings exemption policy and will take your suggestions into consideration as part of this review. Any changes will require cabinet consideration and regulatory change. We will definitely take into consideration the circumstances that you have outlined here that your son is facing as part of this review, and give serious consideration to earnings exemptions being considered on a yearly, rather than a monthly, basis."

Now, there was correspondence back and forth between the father and the deputy. That happened in March, in June, in November — with assurances that it was being reviewed. As of February of this year, the constituent still hasn't heard whether this policy is being reviewed or if it's being changed.

He understands that it's not going to help his son anymore. But he's very concerned about other people in very similar circumstances and wonders if this has been reviewed. It's a cabinet decision. He has wondered if it has been reviewed, if it's going to be changed and if PWD — persons with disabilities — in the future won't be penalized in this manner. That's my question.

[1735]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member: the short answer is that the statutes require that income tax refunds be declared as income in the month in which they are received. As referenced in the correspondence, though, this is something that might be considered in future policy changes that are recommended, but at this point there's no set date for that to move forward.

[1740]

There are conversations on an ongoing basis about things like this, which are brought to the ministry's attention by individuals who are clients of the ministry. It is still in the state of an item we are aware of that can cause a challenge for individuals when it occurs. It is not something that occurs really regularly, but certainly, for those for whom it occurs, it is a challenge.

That said, it is an income. Our income assistance or persons with disabilities benefits are meant to be an income to support that individual in the month in which they are living, and if they receive other income, that should be used first. That is the challenge that we're faced with, but I do understand that for individuals who face that situation it is concerning. It is something that we are aware of in the ministry.

K. Conroy: This is not a question. I just want to clarify that the ministry has been looking at this for the past year and will continue to look at it. If I was going to ask a question, I would say: How long does it take for regular changes to be brought in? It just seems like a long time.

So the ministry is going to keep looking at this situation, and there might someday be…. From the answer I am gleaning that someday there might be a change but that at this time there is no change and that the status quo shall remain for persons with disabilities.

Hon. S. Cadieux: What drives the reviews and changes or reconsiderations to policy is primarily things that we know will increase people's independence and participation. Added to that now is the additional driver, of course, that any policy changes that are considered must be cost-neutral to government, because there isn't room in the budget to make changes that have fiscal impacts.

At this point it remains under consideration. There are other similar issues relating to earnings exemption that are under ongoing policy work to see how we might adapt the system over time. At this point there is no set date for there to be a policy change in this regard.

C. Trevena: I have a question about people with disabilities on welfare and medical needs. I've got a constituent who is on PWD. He has had the cost of an injectable drug that he's taking covered by the ministry, but the ministry he has asked won't cover the cost of a replacement pill or patch.

He says he's spent about a quarter of his income on drugs which aren't covered by assistance. This is having an increased need because of what's happening with Sandoz drugs being shut down. He is not having access to the drugs he needs and will have to pay for the extra. He says that it is a policy issue that he's not able to get the replacement pill or patch at the time being which would replace the Sandoz.

I wondered if the minister could explain just what the ministry is doing at this time when we don't have that supply of drugs from Sandoz that people are using. Are they going to have to use their assistance to pay for the drugs, or will they get it covered? Will there be any extra money available to cover it?

[1745]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Sounds like it's probably a PharmaCare issue. However, that said, if you'd like to forward us the particulars of the case, we'd be happy to look into that for the constituent of yours.

C. Trevena: I appreciate that. I will give the minister the details of this. I'm sure he'd be very happy to know that you'll take it on.

Seeing as I was very quick on that question, I'll throw in another one. Again, it's an issue of support for people who are on income assistance or on disability who need to travel when they're not actually seeing a specialist but this is the only person that they can see.

We've had many cases in my constituency office.
[ Page 10068 ]
Children who need dental surgery — they have to go to Nanaimo. That isn't covered at all by the ministry. The parents have to pay for that. I have heard of a constituent who needs to go to the sleep clinic in Nanaimo. Again, it's travelling from the north Island down to Nanaimo, but because the person at the sleep clinic is a GP, it's not covered under assistance. Somebody who had needed assistance with their prosthetics — because they weren't seeing a specialist under the terms of what a specialist is, again, they weren't covered for transportation.

I was wondering if the minister would consider looking at the policy that would have a wider interpretation of how people could get to see the medical assistance they need. I think the particularly egregious one is for children who need dental surgery, and their parents simply can't afford to take them down to the dental hospital.

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is medical transportation assistance to assist with meeting extraordinary transportation, accommodation, meals and other costs associated with essential medical treatment. Whether or not individual circumstances fit that, I think, is the question here.

As with your other question, if you'd like to bring those ones to the attention of my office, I'm happy to look at those specifically. I think the answer may be yes, or the answer may be no. But I think it's important that we have a look at these and have it inform the policy.

[1750]

J. Brar: The minister is well aware that I chose to live on the welfare amount of $610, the amount given to individuals expected to work. During that month I met a lot of people. I met single mothers, teen mothers, farmworkers, people with disabilities, people with mental health, refugees and many more. I listened to their stories, very painful stories, and the issues they're facing.

Part of the purpose was to experience firsthand what life is like to be poor or to live on income assistance in the province of British Columbia. One of the issues which I heard from everyone, and I experienced myself, is to basically find a place to live with the amount that is given to individuals expected to work.

That amount is $375. My experience, as related to the experience I heard from people, was that you cannot find a place in Vancouver with that amount. Even, actually, in Vancouver to find a single room with a kitchen and washroom attached to it…. The amount you will end up paying for that is around $800.

So my question to the minister is…. At this point in time, as per the policy, altogether $610 is given to an individual expected to work. Out of that, the rental portion is $375, and you cannot find a room for that amount. So I just want to ask the minister, is the minister aware that one cannot find a place to live for $375, the amount given to a single individual expected to work in Vancouver and the rest of the province?

[1755]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member knows, for the expected-to-work clients, the assistance that's provided through the ministry, the income assistance, is meant to be a temporary form of assistance for people who are between jobs. It is not meant to be a permanent income.

That said, we also expect, as a matter of course, that individuals will do what it takes to explore a range of housing options that might be available to them. The housing strategy in the Ministry of Energy and Mines, now through B.C. Housing, also has increased the options available to people, especially for people in the Downtown Eastside, and has harmonized rates with income assistance to allow for that, for those most in need.

Certainly, I understand that it would be extremely challenging to find housing in the province at that rate, and the demand would probably outstrip the supply. I recognize that. In some communities more than others it's a challenge as well, based on the cost of living in various parts of the province. Certainly, we understand the challenge, and we do the best we can to ensure that folks have what they need to bridge that time that they're with us on income assistance.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the response.

During this time I met a person who told me his story. He told me that he came to Vancouver about ten years ago, and he started working in the construction industry. He worked there for ten years, and after ten years he was laid off. Because of the bad economy, he couldn't find a job again. He ended up on welfare.

He is a single individual expected to work. What he told me was shocking for me to hear. He told me that he lives in an SRO building, which is a single-room occupancy building, with seven storeys and 15 rooms on each floor — altogether 105 rooms in that building. There are about 105 people living in that building, and there is only one shower working.

So I understand the argument of "this is temporary," and even temporary for one month for that person. How can we expect that person to find work in that situation, where this person is living with 105 people with one shower? His room does not have a cooking facility. The money he has after the rent and bus pass and a phone is about $100. He cannot cook on his own, and he cannot go out and eat at a restaurant with that amount of money for one month.

What is that person supposed to do? How can that person deal with that situation? I would like the minister to respond. Is the minister aware that the people on income assistance are being put in that situation, where
[ Page 10069 ]
they have to live in that building — so unsafe and so insecure — where there is only one shower for 100 people?

[1800]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, I think the reality is that we do the best we can with what we have. We have a provincial income assistance rate for expected-to-work clients, the single employables, of $610 a month. There is a range of other services available to individuals as well.

In relation to their housing, our housing integrated task team is there doing outreach, primarily in the Downtown Eastside. That was the area the member referenced.

The residential tenancy office is available to anyone who is renting, to place formal complaints against their landlord.

Indeed, there are other services available through the employment services of the province that will be available in an easier way through the employment program that will launch April 2. There are services available to clients who are seeking employment, and if they require access to showers or assistance with clothing and things to be able to seek employment, that is certainly available to them.

[1805]

Our primary responsibility in the ministry is to assess the eligibility for individuals to access income support, and we do that. Approximately 30,000 people are receiving that benefit monthly.

J. Brar: I'll ask one more question, and then I'll leave it to my colleague here.

Well, I think the reality is this. In Vancouver alone there are 5,000 people living in SROs. A significant majority of those people are on income assistance, and there's nothing for those people when it comes to renting a room. That's the reality out there, and we cannot deny that. The minimum amount they pay for that is up around $450 — for a room which does not have a cooking facility. They don't have the money to go out and eat outside, because that's the amount of money they get. That's the reality. We can say it's temporary, you know, or whatever, but that's the reality out there.

The last question I wanted to ask on the housing. This is a story of a single mother. Her name is April Wheeler, and her son is Nicholas. This story speaks volumes when it comes to the affordability of housing and the amount of money given to people on income assistance for their rental portion. I would like to quote this story from the Vancouver Sun.

"April" — a single mother — "has had to give up her son to foster care because she's unable to find accommodation on the welfare allowance of $570 a month." That was reported in the Vancouver Sun on February 27, 2012. Now, I understand the "temporary" word. But what does it mean to a mother who has to basically give away her son to foster care because she couldn't find accommodation for the amount made available to her through income assistance? Even if it's for one week, temporarily, I can't imagine how that mother felt when she had to give up her son to foster care.

I would like to ask the minister as to why this is happening. Is there any communication between this ministry and the Ministry of Children and Families, particularly to deal with the kind of situation which this single mother had to go through?

Hon. S. Cadieux: A very short answer to that question. It is, of course, a troubling story, but I would say that a lack of housing would not be a reason for a child to come into care. There would be a crisis grant, or some other situation would be made available to the family. If there is a specific case, the member is welcome to bring it to our office, and we can look at it. It certainly isn't something we are able to address sort of broadly, because it doesn't, on its presentation, make sense to us from a policy perspective.

Hon. Chair, 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 6:10 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