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)

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. McNeil: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a special guest joining us in the House. I'm pleased to welcome the new head of the government's new provincial office of domestic violence, Cory Heavener. This is a critical role that'll be accountable for delivering a comprehensive, coordinated action plan to strengthen and improve supports, services and policies to those who are impacted by domestic violence.

Cory comes to us from the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, where she has led two major investigations and reports dealing with domestic violence. She has also worked with experts in the field to recommend improvements to the system and supports for some of our most vulnerable population. Cory was also previously the associate provincial director of child welfare in the Ministry of Children and Family Development and has over 23 years of experience in child welfare in British Columbia.

[1335]

Throughout her career she has focused on enhancing services and systems of supports to vulnerable children and is well suited to provide leadership in this crucial role going forward.

I'm also pleased that the Representative for Children and Youth is very supportive of this appointment, and as quoted in the news release going out this afternoon, she acknowledges the value that Cory will bring to the office. Would the House please join me in extending a warm welcome to Cory Heavener.

H. Lali: Joining us today, right in front of me in the galleries, is a good friend of mine, Kevin Anderson. He is a longtime resident of Lillooet, and he is currently serving his fourth term as councillor in Lillooet. He's out here talking to ministers and lobbying on behalf of his community. So I would like the House to actually please give a warm welcome to my good friend Kevin Anderson from Lillooet.

J. Les: Monsieur le président, aujourd'hui c'est la Journée rancophonie en Colombie-Britannique. B.C. Francophone Day. In the precincts with us today we have Ms. Evelyne Decorps, who is the Consul General of France; and His Worship Mayor Nils Jensen, who is the mayor of Oak Bay; as well as Ms. Karen Oraas, Ms. Gaynor Clark and Ms. Kim Walker, the three francophile award recipients today at lunch for their contribution towards strengthening the French language and culture amongst British Columbians.

We also have Dr. Réal Roy, president of La Fédération des Francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Monsieur Bruce Dumont, president of the B.C. Métis Nation. We've also had the pleasure to have with us today in the precincts the presidents, executive directors of francophone organizations and members of our B.C. francophone community as well as federal and provincial government representatives. Would the House please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

I have two further introductions, two young gentlemen who are here today from the riding of Chilliwack-Hope. They are William Van Hoepen and Brandon Ter Haar — two real keeners. They are not yet old enough to vote, but they're sure old enough to help out in by-election campaigns, for example. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are 28 — I assure you I will not read out all of their names — members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who are here in Victoria to attend the IBEW winter school. A resident and constituent of mine, Phil Venoit, of Local 230 helped organize this event. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome, and let's have some sparks in question period today.

N. Letnick: It's spring break and therefore the pilgrimage of my family to Victoria to visit. I'd like to welcome my wife, Helene, and my daughter Naomi. Please help me make them feel welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 30, the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act. This act contains amendments on the Oil and Gas Activities Act that will improve efficiencies for the sector and the Oil and Gas Commission. It addresses issues for municipalities and third parties doing work around the pipeline and fixes inconsistencies with other statutes.
[ Page 10094 ]

It also amends the Utilities Commission Act, changes which will strengthen enforcement, providing a broader range of investigative and enforcement tools. It amends the Clean Energy Act. The amendments will change the definition of electricity self-sufficiency to help keep rates for British Columbians among the lowest in North America. And changes to the Strata Property Act will prescribe when audit financial statements are to be distributed to strata lot owners and will clarify requirements for the first depreciation report for a new strata corporation.

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 30, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, 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.

[1340]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

McABEE FOSSIL BEDS

H. Lali: On February 25 the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources announced the formal recognition of the McAbee fossil beds, located 13 kilometres east of Cache Creek–Ashcroft, as a heritage site, thus ending the decade-long battle waged by scientists to protect the world-renowned site from development.

The process of protecting the McAbee fossil beds begins with the heritage designation. Columnist Stephen Hume writes:

"But the immense scientific value of the McAbee site lies less in the specimens prized by amateur and commercial fossil hunters than in its vast array of lesser-known plants, insects, nuts, cones, seeds and pollen that flourished when the world was much warmer…. The diversity of specimens…provide scientists with a remarkable tool for studying the ancient evolution of species and how they changed over millennia as their habitats and climate changed."

I take no credit, because all of the political work was done by someone else — Charlie Wyse, the former MLA for Cariboo South, who was the MLA for the Ashcroft–Cache Creek area from 2005 to 2009.

When supporters of protecting the site contacted Charlie, Charlie went to work and worked with Bruce Archibald, the geologist; Ashcroft and Cache Creek councils; the area director; tourist associates; and folks in the community. Charlie arranged and attended a meeting with Mr. Archibald and the then-minister responsible, the member from Prince George–Mount Robson.

The minister committed to a study, and a report was released in 2008 that confirmed McAbee's significance and now the designation. Anyone who knows Charlie Wyse will agree that when he latches onto an issue, he is like a dog with a bone. Charlie, like an ornery old dog, absolutely refused to allow the fossil beds to go to the cats.

Say what? You're thinking: "You mean Charlie didn't let it go to the dogs." No, you heard me right. I really meant that Charlie Wyse didn't let the fossil beds go to the cats. You see, the developer wanted to mine the fossil bed site and turn the debris into — you guessed it — kitty litter. Charlie was determined not to let that happen.

I thank everyone involved, especially the two ministers and Charlie Wyse, for all their hard work.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

J. Les: I am pleased to announce the proclamation of March 20, 2012, as Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. Since the House will not be sitting next week, this event was celebrated at lunch today in the rotunda. The theme of this year's celebration was "Welcome, Francophile."

A francophile can be described as a person who likes the French fact, who has a keen interest in interconnecting with our French-speaking population and their contribution in strengthening the province, both economically and socially. Francophiles are a significant segment of our society in British Columbia. They have a major impact on French demographics, and they are partners in the delivery of services.

Today's proclamation of B.C. Francophonie Day honours our vibrant and dynamic French-speaking community of more than 70,000 francophones, as well as 300,000 British Columbians who have embraced the French language.

Our francophonie is an invaluable part of our heritage and a resource that contributes to improving the social, economic, political and cultural fabric of our province and of our country.

Partout au pays, des Canadiens choisissent de vivre et de s'épanouir en français. Félicitations à tous les francophones et francophiles Britanno-Colombiens pour leur contribution! Bonne Journée de la francophonie! Merci.

[All over the country Canadians chose to live and prosper in French. Congratulations to all francophone and francophile British Columbians for their contribution! Have a good francophonie day! Thank you.]

[French text and translation provided by J. Les.]

WEST COAST LEGAL EDUCATION
AND ACTION FUND

K. Corrigan: Well, this morning several members of the official opposition were pleased to attend the annual West Coast LEAF Equality Breakfast in Vancouver, where the several hundred attendees were treated to a keynote address by CBC broadcaster Chantal Hébert and heard about the good work that LEAF does.

West Coast LEAF, the legal education and action fund, works to achieve equality through B.C.-based equality
[ Page 10095 ]
rights litigation, law reform and public legal education. In the past year LEAF was an intervener in a number of very important cases, including, for example, the polygamy reference case, cases regarding sexual harassment and the rights of incarcerated mothers.

Indeed, I think LEAF can be proud that they have, over their history, not just influenced but actually shaped Canadian jurisprudence. In addition to their many interventions in important cases related to women's equality, LEAF also tracks legislation and certainly brings their concerns to government.

[1345]

They, of course, publish their annual CEDAW report — CEDAW standing for the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women — which reports on how they feel the B.C. government is doing with respect to women, the justice system and equality. They also published three equality impact statements, assessing the effects of legislation on marginalized women.

West Coast LEAF has also been very active in education work, reaching over 1,000 young people in the past year with workshops on workplace rights and their No means No relationship workshops.

I hope the Legislature will join me in congratulating and thanking West Coast LEAF president Catalina Rodriguez and her board, as well as executive director Kasari Govender and her staff team for the important work that they do to ensure women's equal access to and full participation in social, economic and political activities in British Columbia.

COMPETITION

N. Letnick: While it may seem at times that in this House there's too much competition, I firmly believe competition is good. By driving us to outperform our rivals, competition forces us to excel. It gives us all we've got, just to go that extra mile. A healthy combination of competition and collaboration has served to achieve some of the world's greatest accomplishments, like penicillin and making mankind travel to the moon and back safely.

In B.C. we're no stranger to competition and rivalry. Just look at Vancouver versus Victoria or Cranbrook versus Fernie. And where would the Kamloops Blazers be without the Kelowna Rockets?

Competition extends beyond sports, but the benefits remain the same. Small, medium and large-sized businesses throughout B.C. are competing every day, trying to provide better value for their customers and higher returns for their shareholders. It's that thirst to innovate and compete that now sees 9,000 tech companies in B.C. generating over $19 billion in revenue, employing over 8,300 people in high-tech jobs which pay more than 50 percent higher than the provincial average.

We live in the global marketplace, so it's extremely important that our companies and institutions keep sharp and maintain their edge if they are to succeed against others who would not lose any sleep in taking over B.C. jobs. British Columbians competed for the privilege of hosting the 2010 Olympics, and we won. We competed for shipbuilding contracts and landed $8 billion large, so in B.C. we know how to compete, and we do it well.

I would encourage all British Columbians to continue to embrace competition. It makes for a better and healthier economy, more productive workers and a better quality of life for all. On that note, go, Rockets, go!

VALUE-ADDED INDUSTRY

C. Trevena: We all talk a great deal about value-added, getting that extra benefit from something, that extra bit of worth. And when it comes to our natural resources, the need for that is all the greater. Now, that value added can be something as comparatively straightforward as a lumber mill — taking logs and milling them ready for market, ready for use; each step of the way, a value is added to that log — or it could be something a little bit more elaborate.

I'd like to highlight a couple of examples where value is being added to our natural resource, creating local jobs and helping local economies.

The Woodland Flooring Company in Comox is a small family-run business near Comox airport. The wood comes from woodlots in the area. The company kiln-dries it, mills and manufactures it and then sells its product — fir, pine, alder and maple flooring. For every cubic metre of wood used, the company increases its value from between 400 and 2,500 percent. A log for which they'll pay $70 a cubic metre can be transformed into flooring worth almost $1,800 a cubic metre.

Woodland Flooring creates jobs and keeps people working in the industry and in the community. It adds value to every log it handles. Instead of a loaded logging truck being worth $7.50 at 25 cents stumpage, it's on average worth $3,000.

On a larger scale, log homes are the visual embodiment of value-added. You can see the logs being used, not being shipped. Over in Gibsons, West Coast Log Homes employs about 34 people. By taking time to choose the logs, paying over market value, the end result makes each log worth about ten times its value if it was to be simply felled and shipped offshore.

As I mentioned, value-added can be as simple as running a mill — making sure our communities get benefit from our publicly owned resources, our forests — or it can be crafted products, but it's important to recognize the value of our public resources and to value our communities. Without investing in value-added, we'll have neither left.
[ Page 10096 ]

ETHEL TIBBITS AWARDS

J. Yap: Last Friday I attended the 19th annual Ethel Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards Luncheon. Named after the pioneering first publisher of the Richmond Review newspaper, the awards are given out annually to women who make a difference.

[1350]

Ethel started her career as a Vancouver Province reporter in the 1920s, before moving to Richmond, where she married husband Orland Tibbits in 1926. In 1932 she began working at a fledgling newspaper, the Richmond Review. Within a year she bought it. Together with her husband, Ethel ran the paper out of their store, called Blundell Grocery. Orland was circulation manager and Ethel was the editor of the Richmond Review.

Mr. Speaker, 41 women were nominated in five categories: sports, arts, youth, community and business. Adrienne Moore was the winner of the arts award. Tiffany Kirk took home the business award. Denise Coutts accepted the sports award. Maggie Kong was the winner in the youth category. Lastly but certainly not least, the winner of the community award was none other than the MLA for Richmond East.

The final award, the pioneer award, was given to Olive Bassett and Jennifer Larsen for their decades of volunteer work in the community. A standing ovation was given to these two outstanding women.

A volunteer in Richmond since the 1970s and a champion for those with mental health issues, Jennifer Larsen earned high praise from her peers for her dedication and hard work. Olive Bassett recalled how her first volunteer job was folding newspapers back in the 1930s for then Richmond Review publisher Ethel Tibbits.

All moneys raised at the luncheon go to local women's charities, including the primary beneficiary, Nova House, a shelter for women and their children fleeing domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, fellow members, please join me in congratulating all the recipients of the 2012 Ethel Tibbits awards for their contributions to the Richmond community and the province of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

LOG EXPORT POLICY AND ADVISORY
COMMITTEE RULING ON TIMBER SUPPLY

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Natural Resource Operations. The law in B.C. — it's more of a guideline now, I guess — is that no logs should be exported from British Columbia unless they are surplus to domestic needs.

The minister will know that last December the timber export advisory committee, which was set up to help determine what is surplus and what is not, assessed that logs from Quatsino Sound not be exported but rather that they be sold to Teal-Jones to be used for manufacturing and to create jobs in British Columbia.

But the minister overruled that decision. He overruled the decision of TEAC. I wonder if the minister can provide an explanation as to why.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as we've said previously in the House, the question of log export policy is one that we're reviewing, one that we ensure that we need to have the balance. It's interesting, with the questions coming from the members opposite, who have shifted their policy from at one point asking for a total ban on log exports to now talking about restrictions or attacks on it…. Again, they recognize the importance that log exports play in the economic equation — a necessary part of the economic equation, ensuring we have viability in the industry here on Vancouver Island and in the Interior.

We continue to work through that review. We continue to look and ensure that we have a balanced policy, and we continue to ensure that the surplus test is applied according to the legislation.

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

A. Dix: I suppose we should be thankful the minister didn't say that Teal-Jones's sign was too big.

But that's not an answer to the question. The committee, the timber export advisory committee, made a recommendation, made a determination, and the minister overruled that recommendation. Why did the minister overrule, in that case, that recommendation?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, the timber export advisory committee, which is an advisory committee to the process, provides that advice, and it is advisory in the process. We take all of that information into consideration when looking at administering the surplus test. I have had the opportunity to discuss this with the TEAC committee. We are continuing to review the policy to ensure that the surplus test and the fair-market test are applied according to the legislation, and we'll continue to do so.

[1355]

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

A. Dix: Again, that's not an answer. The minister owes people an explanation for his decision, and this is not nearly good enough. The committee made the determination that keeping those logs in British Columbia was better for our economy than exporting them. The minister overruled them and said exporting them is better than keeping them in the province.
[ Page 10097 ]

So I want to ask the minister, give him a third opportunity, because those are not answers. The minister needs to explain specifically in this case why he overruled that recommendation. That seems to be the least we can expect from the Minister of Forests.

Let me ask him again. Why did he overrule it? Can he provide a specific explanation as to why so that we can understand the evolving position of the government on raw log exports?

Hon. S. Thomson: Actually, the evolving position on log exports is the continuing evolving position of the members opposite, at one point very clearly calling for an outright ban, then shifting to restrictions, then shifting to taxes — all policies that risk jobs here, risk jobs in British Columbia, risk jobs in forest-dependent communities. As I said, we're working with the TEAC advisory committee. We're continuing to review the policy, we're continuing to ensure that the surplus test and the fair-market test are applied according to the legislation, and we'll continue to do that work.

B. Routley: Teal-Jones, Coastland and many more B.C. mills need logs, but they just can't get them. I've been told by mill managers that more B.C. mills will be gone if this level of raw log exports continues. B.C. exported a record 5.5 million cubic metres of logs in 2011.

B.C. mills would add shifts, they'd invest for additional lines if they could get all the logs they need, but these B.C. mills are being denied fair access. The minister said he would find balance. Why is this same minister making unprecedented decisions to shift the balance towards more raw log export?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, let's be clear. The log export policy is a policy that provides for jobs in here British Columbia, ensures that jobs are protected here throughout communities both on the Island and the Interior. It's very clear that the log exports are a necessary part of the overall equation.

We do need to continue to work to ensure that we find the appropriate balance. That work continues. Again, the policies that have been advocated by the members opposite — starting with a ban, shifting to significant restrictions — risk jobs here in British Columbia.

We will continue to work to ensure that the surplus test provides that appropriate balance. That work continues. We're continuing to consult with this TEAC committee in that process.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: The Liberal government's Premier and the minister, on many occasions, have hidden behind the surplus test. They've hidden behind the surplus test, and they've said that they've got a committee in place, the timber export advisory committee, to deal with these decisions, to determine whether logs are surplus to our needs. Why is this minister overriding the decision of the export advisory committee and effectively making them irrelevant?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the timber export advisory committee is an advisory committee to the process, an important part of the process, and one that provides advice, one that we meet with regularly. I continue to meet with them regularly — as early as last week, with the committee.

[1400]

We're continuing to look through the administration of the surplus test to ensure that it is administered according to the legislation, ensuring that it is administered fairly and ensuring that both the surplus test and the fair-market test are applied. That work continues, and we're continuing to review the policy.

N. Macdonald: What we see today is how you lose 35,000 jobs and end up exporting raw logs to the tune of 5.5 million cubic metres in a single year. These sorts of decisions…. There is a process that's clear. You have a committee of experts. These experts determined that there were jobs to be found in manufacturing. You had a manufacturer that was ready, that went through the proper process, and the minister chose to override it. Why?

Hon. S. Thomson: Let's be clear. What the overall policy does, what the current policy does, is provide for jobs and economic activity here in British Columbia — $9.4 billion in export activity, harvest levels that have increased and 18 mills that are producing lumber for overseas markets, diversification of the market, making sure we continue to have that economic activity in the industry. That's what the current balanced policy does. We'll continue to work to ensure we have that balance.

But let's be clear — $9.4 billion in export activity, over 18 mills producing lumber for a diversified market. We're going to continue to work with the industry to make sure that we have that diversified market for the industry, to make sure that we have the economic equation right, the necessary economic equation to ensure that mills can protect jobs and operate here in British Columbia, including creating jobs on the harvest land base, jobs for truckers. That's all provided as part of our balanced policy.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: With all due respect, that's a ridiculous answer, because you have manufacturers that are ready. You have Teal-Jones, which has gone through the process. This is a company that produces jobs, value-added jobs. You have Coastland ready.
[ Page 10098 ]

You have a host of companies that are ready, and these are the crumbs we're talking about that go through this advisory committee. These are the crumbs, and even them…. This minister will deny those mills. There were manufacturing jobs there to be had. This minister, through his decision, which is unprecedented, took those jobs away, and the workers in British Columbia deserve a clear answer of why he did that.

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said clearly, we continue to work with the TEAC committee. They're an advisory committee to our process, and an important one. They have a broad base of input, a broad base of representation on the committee.

We're continuing to work with them as we review the overall export policy, as we review the administration of the surplus test, as we review the administration of the fair-market part of that surplus test. We are continuing to work them. I met with them last week. The policy is continuing to be reviewed, and we will continue to take their advice.

M. Farnworth: This isn't a policy question. It's a decision question — your decision, Minister, the decision that you made to overrule the timber export advisory committee that recommended keeping those logs here.

Why did you make that decision — to keep them overruled?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second, Minister.

I remind the member. Through the Chair, please.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I said, we are continuing to review the policy. We continue to work with TEAC and the industry on the administration's surplus test. It's an important part of the process. We are working through the policy, and that is part of the policy review. The current policy is administered on the basis of the legislation and the policy that's in place. We will continue to do that and continue to take that advice.

But again, I want to be clear that the overall policy, the overall balance that is part of the export policy, is one that protects jobs here in British Columbia, one that creates jobs. The process that the members opposite are talking about is one that would risk jobs here in British Columbia, put those jobs at risk. We need to make sure that we work through and have the appropriate balance.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The only job at risk is the minister's, by his poor performance here today.

The question is simple, Minister. You made a decision….

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

M. Farnworth: Through the Chair. It's through the Chair, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, Member.

M. Farnworth: Through the Chair, hon. Speaker, the minister made a decision. He hasn't answered the question. Why did he make that decision?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, we're continuing to review the policy. We continue to meet with the TEAC committee in the process. The current policy is being administered as part of the overall policy that is in place — the administration of the surplus test, the administration of fair market value in the process. Those decisions were made on the basis of existing policy. We're going to continue to review the policy as part of our review.

But let's be clear. What we are going to do is make sure the policy direction that we put in place is one that provides the appropriate balance and one that continues to protect jobs both here on the coast and in the Interior and throughout the province, because it's clear that the log export policy is a necessary part of the equation that ensures that we have a viable industry here in British Columbia.

PARTICIPATION OF ABORIGINAL GROUPS
IN MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY

J. Kwan: On her first day as Premier in the Legislature the Premier said that her government wants to make sure the aboriginal voices are heard at the Missing Women Inquiry. When the Premier refused to support the 13 groups granted standing, group after group lost confidence in the inquiry and walked.

Now the Premier has changed her position. It's no longer the voices of aboriginal women and groups that are paramount. How does the Premier justify this?

My question is actually to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Does she support the Premier sidelining the voices of aboriginal women and community groups in the inquiry that is supposed to be about the missing and murdered women, who are primarily aboriginal?

Hon. S. Bond: We canvassed this issue a number of times in question period, and we've made it very clear that we remain committed to ensuring that the commission continues its work, that aboriginal voices are a very important part of that process. In fact, just this week we certainly did regret the stepping down of one of the four lawyers that were provided by the commissioner to actually look at the issue of aboriginal concerns.

I would have thought today that the member opposite
[ Page 10099 ]
would have at least recognized that the commissioner has said very clearly that he intends to replace legal counsel, that he is taking a brief period of time so that new legal counsel can get up to speed on the file and therefore be more effective in bringing the voices of aboriginal people to the commission table.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The aboriginal community is in agreement that whoever is brought on cannot possibly go through the hundreds and thousands of documents in time to fairly and accurately represent aboriginal interests.

The head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Stewart Phillip, said: "It is clear that the B.C. Liberals do not want to hear aboriginal voices at the Missing Women Inquiry and that aboriginal community voices are relegated to outside of the parking lot."

This sentiment was confirmed when the Premier said yesterday: "The major reason for this inquiry is to look at what happened with the police in British Columbia." Virtually everyone agrees that the aboriginal women and community voices are essential to the success of the inquiry.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Does she agree with the Premier's sentiment, or will she stand up with the aboriginal community and tell the Premier that she is wrong?

[1410]

Hon. S. Bond: Commissioner Oppal has a full understanding and expectation that aboriginal voices will be included in the commission. That's why, as I pointed out to the members opposite last week, Commissioner Oppal led a series of forums across northern British Columbia. That's hardly the parking lot. In fact, he went to communities like Kitwanga, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitsumkalum, Nisga'a.

Again, if the member opposite would actually spend some time and go to the commission's website, there alone is story after story after story presented by aboriginal elders, men, women included in this process. That work will continue. We want to prevent this type of tragedy from ever occurring again in British Columbia.

L. Krog: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. We have heard answers in this House about how the commission is there to listen to British Columbians. Indeed, the Premier herself said on May 30, 2011: "All of those missing and murdered women were lost to their families and to our communities in the most tragic way possible. It's incumbent on all of us in every aspect, in every corner of our society in British Columbia, to care and to show that we care by doing something about it. That's what this government has done."

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations is very simple. Given that the chiefs from the aboriginal community have repeatedly asked this government to fund the 13 groups, how can the Minister of Aboriginal Relations sit in this House and not respond to the cries of those chiefs? Has she in fact taken the time to have a discussion with the aboriginal chiefs in this province on this issue, and if so, what have they told her and what is her answer?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, let's just review the fact that Commissioner Oppal hired two additional lawyers, and two pro bono lawyers were involved in the process, who offered to provide support and legal advice to the groups that the member opposite mentions in this House repeatedly. In fact, those groups chose not to take advantage of the four additional lawyers that were provided.

We've been clear. British Columbians to date have spent more than $4.5 million on an inquiry that is essential to ensure that this tragic occurrence does not occur again. We made a choice as a government. We chose to provide legal support to those most deeply impacted: the families of women who were lost.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It appears we're not going to get any answers out of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations defending her portfolio, so my question is to the Attorney General, who has again in this House raised the issue of the $4.5 million spent on the commission so far.

The taxpayers of this province spent tens of millions of dollars investigating the murders of Willie Pickton. This government happily paid $6 million in legal fees for two convicted Liberal insiders. How can this Attorney General stand in this House today and defend the Premier's remarks and defend this government?

My question to her is very simple. We have heard the Premier promise that all voices would be heard. Will the Attorney General stand up today and commit to funding this inquiry, to getting the funding for the 13 groups back so that this inquiry will not turn into a complete fiasco?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. The commission of inquiry, Commissioner Oppal, has very much been given the task of hearing the stories of aboriginal people, along with looking at what went wrong. That does include important and necessary testimony about and by police officers in British Columbia. That is the mandate of the commission.

To suggest that this government has not been supportive is simply inaccurate, and it continues to be repeated by the members opposite. We are committed to ensur-
[ Page 10100 ]
ing that recommendations are brought forward to the government.

[1415]

That is why we created a study commission — to allow individuals to participate in this process without the need of a lawyer. In fact, we don't equate the success of this process to the number of lawyers that are attached to the team.

INTERVENTION IN
UBC ADMISSIONS PROCESS

J. Horgan: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Advanced Education if she had taken any steps following revelations on Friday that the admissions process at the University of British Columbia's medical school had been disrupted and had led to the resignation of Denis Hughes, in part because of alleged interference and special treatment for applicants with well-connected parents. In particular, I made reference to Mr. Howard Waldner, the CEO of VIHA.

The minister has had 24 hours to review Friday's newspaper. I'm wondering if she could stand today and give some confidence to the people of British Columbia that the admissions process at the medical school at UBC is sacrosanct.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Yes, I have had a chance to review it, and I'm confident that the process for reviewing the applicants for UBC's medical school is rigorous. It's very competitive.

The applicant that the member opposite is referring to did not actually make it into UBC's medical school. The admission to the medical school at UBC is not tied to who you know. It's not tied to who your family is. I'm confident that the integrity of the admissions process for UBC's medical school is intact.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, yesterday the minister took the question on notice, as if she wasn't aware of the issue, and now the House and the people of British Columbia are to take her at her word that over the past 24 hours she has had a good look and everything's fine.

Could the minister, in place of her assurances, table in some form any review that was undertaken as a result of the interference of well-connected parents? Was there any process, internal or external, to justify what the minister just said?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: If we do something too slow, the members opposite criticize. When we appear to deal with an issue swiftly, the members criticize. I am confident that the integrity of the admissions process for UBC's medical school is intact.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
RANCHING INDUSTRY ISSUES

L. Popham: Over the past month I've raised concerns about the plight of ranchers near Big Creek who are losing their livelihoods because this government refuses to work with them on issues that are impacting them. According to Randy Saugstad, one of the ranchers whose story I brought into this chamber, his local MLA, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, said he was making a mountain out of a molehill when he spoke to her about these problems.

Does the Minister of Agriculture agree with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin? Does he believe ranchers who are going out of business because of this government's mismanagement are making a mountain out of a molehill?

Hon. D. McRae: You know, this was raised in the House, I think, several weeks ago, and it was directed to a different minister at the time. At the time I thought that, well, it wasn't really a question for myself, so I approached the member opposite afterward, saying: "It's really not my issue, but if you wish to talk about it, please come and see me. My office is in 301. You know where it is. I would be more than willing and would like to look into this issue." However, I have yet to have that visit in my office.

I'm going to give a question back. I will advocate for agriculture anytime I can. But you know what? We need to have that conversation. Are we talking about what's good for agriculture or what's good for politics in this House?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Well, I know the minister is new to his job, but ranching falls under the Ministry of Agriculture, Minister. I did very well address the Minister of Agriculture two weeks ago.

[1420]

The Minister of Agriculture has the responsibility to represent the concerns of ranchers at the cabinet table. So he should be listening to the concerns of ranchers near Big Creek — it's in British Columbia, Minister — and any other concerns brought forward by the cattle industry. But that hasn't happened.

Again to the Minister of Agriculture, will he visit these ranchers to hear their story? And in the words of rancher Randy Saugstad, will you come and see the community that you and your government policy are destroying?

Hon. D. McRae: They say we're destroying the industry. This is the same government that…. When they were in power, when they were driving jobs out of the province, when they were running up deficits and taxing taxpayers
[ Page 10101 ]
at a level that was unprecedented, they found $1 million for the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Now, $1 million is a lot of money, but in the last ten years, I'm proud to say, this government has given the cattlemen $31 million.

In case the members doubt my numbers, let me give you some details. I have the list here: $6 million for the BSE recovery program; we have $4 million for the cattle age verification program; $3 million to implement a beef industry strategy; $1 million to establish a cattle sustainability research chair at TRU; $5 million for agriflexibility funding; $2.5 million, AgriRecovery funding. Through the Ministry of Transportation, there's also been a $10 million fencing program.

We put our efforts where our pocketbooks are. We spend the money. We work with the cattlemen. They are a great organization, and they have easy access to my office.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will continue committee stage of Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act. And in Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

On section 6 (continued).

R. Chouhan: I heard that before lunch the minister answered that there was an inability of appointing a mediator because the associate chair said they could not find…. My question to the minister is: could you show me anywhere in the Labour Code where it says that the minister cannot overrule any directive, any decision made by the associate chair or the chair of the board?

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister, the point's well taken.

Members who are engaging in conversations, please do so at a tone that does not interfere with the debate in the chamber.

Perhaps I can have the member for Burnaby-Edmonds repeat the question.

R. Chouhan: My question is that…. Before lunch, I understand, the minister said they were unable to appoint a mediator, as they were advised by the associate chair that they could not have a mediator.

My question to the minister is very simple. Is there any provision in the Labour Code anywhere which says that the minister cannot overrule or override the decision made by the associate chair or any vice-chair of the labour board?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is the board that makes the decision with respect to the potential appointment of a mediator. This is an issue which we canvassed extensively earlier today, and we don't understand the relevance of the question which the member is posing.

R. Chouhan: The relevance to this whole bill is that we are talking about, under section 6, to appoint a mediator. The board already has the capacity, the ability, to appoint a mediator under four different sections. They can do it.

If you look at section 79 of the Labour Code, which also provides a bigger capacity and ability for the Minister of Labour to appoint a mediator…. It's the industrial inquiry commission, which has a clear mandate that that mediator can be appointed either from the staff that are already working for the Labour Relations Board, or it could be an outside mediator. So there is no limit where the mediator could be found under the existing terms of the Labour Code.

My question to the minister is: why were those steps not taken? Did he look at section 74 to appoint a mediator?

The Chair: Member, that issue was canvassed extensively this morning. The minister may choose to answer, but I would invite you to review the Blues Hansard debate as well.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the advice that you have tendered to the member.

Again, just to reiterate, though, for the record, the B.C. Teachers Federation requested of the Labour Relations Board a mediator, as they have the opportunity to do under the Labour Code. The Labour Relations Board investigated that issue, or that request, and they have responded with the following. This has been read into the record now twice, and I'll read it into the record a third time so that the member understands.

This is the letter of March 12 from Michael Fleming, the associate chair of mediation at the Labour Relations Board. "As noted in my letter, the bargaining position of the parties and the difficult nature of this bargaining dispute are well known. Based on Ms. Cameron's report to me, I am unable to conclude that at this juncture the appointment of a mediator under section 74 would be of any actual assistance in helping the parties to achieve a
[ Page 10102 ]
collective agreement."

So the member can indulge in hypotheticals, but those hypotheticals are irrelevant to the discussion of Bill 22.

R. Chouhan: Okay, but there are three other sections available under the Labour Code of British Columbia. What about section 79? Did we explore the possibility of appointing an IAC under section 79?

[1430]

Hon. G. Abbott: It is correct that there are alternative ways that one could pursue a settlement. All of those options were canvassed as officials looked at this issue. All of them have the same fundamental challenge which a mediator under the Labour Relations Board would have, which is: government insists that any resolution process take account of the mandate of government for net zero.

So whether it's an IIC or any other way that one would go, again, government is not going to engage a process that does not involve net zero on the economic terms. You know, if the member believes that we should pursue a process that doesn't involve net zero, I'm glad to hear him say that. At least they can be frank, then, and bold about the position that they're taking. But that is the fundamental challenge that's represented here.

R. Chouhan: Section 74 also says: "The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services can also appoint a mediator in a collective bargaining dispute if he or she feels that a mediator will likely assist the parties in reaching a collective agreement."

Then we have another section, which is section 76. It's titled "Special mediator." It reads: "The Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services has the power to appoint a special mediator, with specified terms of reference." So did the minister explore that under section 76 — to appoint a mediator with the specified terms of reference?

Hon. G. Abbott: We did explore all of those options which the member mentioned. I'm pleased to note that in section 6 we are appointing a mediator. That mediator, beyond areas (a) to (e) — or section 6(2), (a) to (e)…. Those are the areas which the mediator must bring back advice to government, but the mediator is free to explore other areas, other elements which might form part of a mediated solution.

[1435]

But again, all of that is within the context of net zero. So one can characterize the facilitator here as a variety of things, but it is what one asks it to do…. I believe this terms of reference that is in front of us is both a thoughtful and a constructive one.

R. Chouhan: The mediator appointed under section 6 of Bill 22 creates that poisonous relationship between the parties. A mediator appointed under section 76 of the Labour Code provides opportunity for the parties to come together and find common ground. It also reads further that the special mediator keeps the minister informed on the progress of the mediation. The appointment of a special mediator does not restrict or prohibit a strike or lockout unless the parties so agree.

It's very broad. It's very open. That section 76 has that ability already without going through this exercise, which is going to damage an already damaged relationship even further. Why don't we use the existing language in the Labour Code under section 76?

The Chair: Member, I would again direct your attention to the Hansard discussion of this morning. Those issues were heavily canvassed this morning.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate your guidance with respect to matters that were extensively canvassed this morning. I don't want to offend your advice to members, but just to summarize the approach that is embodied in the mediation provisions of section 6 and elsewhere….

First of all, one of the benefits we see is that it does bring an end to the strike, the phase 1 strike that has been ongoing for six months, which we canvassed this morning and which, I think, both the opposition and the government agree has had an impact on students in schools in British Columbia. We're not anxious to engage a process that would continue to see the phase 1 impact on students. We may have a difference of view there, but that's the view of government and the view of me as a minister.

Secondly — again, we've canvassed this repeatedly — the experts, the officials at the Labour Relations Board, have taken a very long look at the issues around mediation. They have concluded, and it is exemplified in the letter of March 12 from Mr. Fleming of the mediation division of the LRB, that there is no prospect of success in a mediation that does not involve net zero.

Further, the mediator in the case of Bill 22 is free to canvass any issues which he or she believes can bring the parties to a mediated settlement. It is an open mandate. There are some things we've asked the mediator to do, and we have set out a net zero context for those discussions. But unless the opposition is saying we should depart from net zero, period, this line of questioning on the part of the opposition is, I suspect, a fruitless one.

B. Ralston: This morning the minister.... Again he's made reference to the letter from Mr. Fleming at the Labour Relations Board. The range of legislative mechanisms available in the Labour Relations Code is quite varied and fairly open-ended.

[1440]

In section 79 there's the possibility of creating an industrial inquiry commission, which is a broader form of review and mediation. It gives the minister — that's the Minister of Labour — discretion to "make or cause to be
[ Page 10103 ]
made inquiries considered advisable respecting labour relations matters, and subject to this Code and regulations, may do things he or she considers necessary to maintain or secure labour relations stability and promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes."

The commission can be bound by a directive from the minister. That would be the Minister of Labour. I'm looking at subsection (4).

"The minister must furnish the industrial inquiry commission with a statement of the matters to be inquired into, and if an inquiry involves particular persons or parties, must advise them of the appointment of the industrial inquiry commission. (5) An industrial inquiry commission must inquire into the matters referred to it by the minister and endeavour" — and it goes on — "to carry out its terms of reference...."

So within that section…. I'm interested in pursuing what the minister says is the open-ended mandate given to the mediator in section 6 on certain issues. But within a mandate that's focused, the industrial inquiry commissioner — he or she has a very broad mandate.

The minister said earlier this morning that this dispute really didn't engage his concern — I don't know whether I'm paraphrasing him correctly — until about six months ago when job action began to take place. Certainly, it's open under this provision to have done something — appointed an industrial inquiry commissioner earlier, if that was the wish.

Can the minister explain why this particular section wasn't used, given that it's anticipatory in some way — gives a very broad mandate, yet focused on directions from the minister — to begin to solve the problems in this dispute rather than letting them come to a head in the way in which they've done, and using part of the tools of the Labour Code but not all of them?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, I'm advised that industrial inquiry commissions are generally utilized for engagement on structural issues — that is, issues that relate to bargaining structures in the province. Of course, we've had a couple of those in recent years, as the member will know: the Vince Ready inquiry of '05 and the Don Wright inquiry of '02. I guess it's worth noting that the Teachers Federation has not signed on to either of those bargaining restructures.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister references the most recent analogous procedure in 2005. That's now some time ago.

Section 79(1) gives the Minister of Labour "on application or on his or her own motion...." So that's something — with advice, presumably — the Minister of Labour could have initiated.

I'm just wondering, given the background of this dispute — as anyone who's followed it in any detail over the last 20 years will know — does involve some structural elements but certainly, the mandate of someone going into this, an experienced mediator or arbitrator with a mandate like this but focused by the minister's terms of reference, I think would have some possibility of success.

[1445]

I'm wondering, given that the minister became concerned when job action commenced six months ago, why this provision wasn't enacted and why only part of it is incorporated into the section 6 that we now have here before the House at this time.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has stated on a couple occasions that I did not become concerned with this dispute until after phase 1 job action. That is not the case, and the member should look to Hansard if he wants to get an accurate description of what I said.

I have been concerned about this dispute from the beginning. My concern with respect to this dispute has deepened with every day that passed over the six months since the phase 1 job action began on September 6 of 2011.

Since that time we have seen students not receive report cards. We have seen — again, as we canvassed extensively this morning — vulnerable students, students at risk of failure, students on the bubble, who have suffered as a consequence of the absence of report cards and the absence of collaborative meetings between teachers, principals, vice-principals, superintendents, parents and so on. That is the core of this.

Again, to say that somehow launching an IIC that looked at structural issues related to bargaining at this point in time and leave the phase 1 job action underway…. It seems that we just have a fundamental disagreement with that. That would not be acceptable to me.

Further, given that the parties were invited, I gather, to utilize the approach set out by Vince Ready from his 2006 report, my understanding is that BCPSEA were ready to proceed on that basis but that was denied by the B.C. Teachers Federation. I'm not seeing this as a workable alternative to, I think, the very thoughtful, balanced and, I hope, useful structure engaged in this bill.

B. Ralston: Well, if my impression of the minister's comments is wrong, then I want to revise what I said. My impression was, without reading Hansard verbatim…. Sometimes it's necessary to parse the minister's comments that carefully because they are unusually precise. I don't mean that in a critical way. I mean that in a complimentary way.

My impression was — certainly, at the very least — that his concern deepened when phase 1 job action commenced. That's what I attempted to draw a reference to in my comments earlier.

But this avenue may be used, in practice, for structural issues. The legislation doesn't make any reference to inquiries into structural issues. It is fairly open-ended and has some real possibilities, I think.

The minister has said that the mediator appointed
[ Page 10104 ]
under section 6 would have — again, I don't want to misinterpret — the power to bring any other issues that were of concern to the mediator, if I understood it.

Is the minister referring, by that comment, to subsection 6(4)(b), where the mediator must "make recommendations, consistent with the terms of reference referred to in subsection (2), on any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties"? Because that is a limitation on the scope of what the mediator is entitled to report on. It has to be consistent with the terms of reference.

I'm sure the minister wouldn't want to leave the impression that the mediator had a completely open-ended mandate on issues that weren't specifically enumerated. Could the minister clarify that section? Is that the one he's referring to? Have I correctly interpreted what he said a few moments ago?

[1450]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Just to be clear — and the debate that occurs at committee stage is important in this respect — the sections and subsections say that the mediator will be required to make recommendations in the area of section 6(2), (a) through (e). But the mediator will be open to making recommendations on all issues which they believe may be germane to the settlement of this dispute.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that answer, but if the minister could refer me to the specific section that he's drawing on to offer that interpretation…. Is he referring to the wording of section 6(4)(b)? It does say: "make recommendations, consistent with the terms of reference referred to in subsection (2)…." So there's a limitation on that, and it is not open-ended — at least as I read the section.

The minister has some legal advice there that may be able to shed some light upon the interpretation that he's urging on the Legislature. Whether a court would accept that, I don't know.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, with respect to sub (4)(b), those are the elements that are required — that must be done by the mediator. It is our view that the mediator can…. Because of the absence of restrictions and that in the bill, there's nothing to limit the mediator's opportunity to bring recommendations in any other area.

B. Ralston: Just so I understand that, then…. There are the enumerated terms of reference in subsection 6(2), there's the direction on the contents of the report in sub (4)(b), but the minister is saying that that section is permissive and the mediator can make recommendations on any other matter that might be in dispute? Is that what I'm hearing from the minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, and I'd direct the member to the phrase "on any outstanding issues." That, we believe, achieves that.

[1455]

K. Corrigan: Well, just for further clarification, is the minister saying, then, that the mediator can make recommendations with regard to the terms and conditions of teachers' employment and restricted scope of bargaining, despite the fact that when we get to section 27 there is a provision that hollows out what can be in the contract of employment? It goes back to essentially what were the old Bill 28 restrictions — all those things that are in section 13, which changes section 27 of the School Act.

Is the minister saying that all those things that are in section 27 of the School Act can be included in the mediation?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate that the issues get complicated here because they begin to refer to sections that are further in the bill. But as we understand the member's question, it is whether class size and composition will be elements that are negotiable in the current mandate.

The answer is that class limits will not be negotiable until the round of collective bargaining beginning June 2013. However, manner and consequence of class size and composition — that is, the process and impact around class size and composition — is negotiable, and therefore it would be within the purview of discussion for the mediator.

[D. Black in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: Okay, I just want to tie this one down, if the minister can do that for me. What the minister is saying is essentially the provisions, the terms and conditions that are contained in what is going to be the new section 27 if this bill is passed — the repealed and then substituted section 27 of the School Act — those things that are in section 27(1) to (7)…. I apologize for referring ahead, but I think it's important to understand what we're talking about here. Those things that are in that section will not be part of the mediator's mandate.

Just to finish this piece, when you're talking about manner and consequences, you're referring further to section (2)(e), which will later say that "the collective agreement may contain provisions referred to in section 28 (1) (a) and (b) of the School Act." That's the manner and consequences.

[1500]

In other words, the actual terms and conditions in section 27(1) to (7) will not be part of the mediator's mandate, but because it's specifically mentioned in section 6(2)(e), the manner and consequences will be included.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.
[ Page 10105 ]

B. Ralston: Again, I want to look at and seek a further point of clarification on 6(4)(b). Ordinarily in the principles of statutory interpretation this section would be interpreted in light of the ones that precede it in the same section. So I'm interested in the definition of "any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties."

Presumably the mediator is directed to look at the elements in subsection (2)(a) through (e). Can the minister offer a definition, then, because this is a rather precise phrasing, of "any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties"?

One interpretation would be that the mediator begins to assist the parties in dealing with the elements contained in section (2)(a) though (e), and if there are any left over, those would be the ones that would remain in dispute between the parties. The minister has offered a broader definition of any outstanding issues. I'm just interested in the range and the degree to which it can be attached to any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties.

It's clear from the minister's comments — at least to me, and he can correct me if I'm wrong — that the parties are not limited to section (2)(a) through (e) elements. Since it's any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties, presumably one side could raise an issue, and if the other side disagrees, it's an outstanding issue. It's still in dispute. I'm wondering what the outer limits of that possible section are in the wording that's being offered in subsection (4)(b).

Hon. G. Abbott: Hopefully, this will provide some clarity to the member's important question. Over the course of a year the parties in this dispute have tabled bargaining positions. The mediator is seized of a number of those issues, specifically (a) through (e).

Outside of those issues that are noted in (a) to (e) there are, I guess, approximately 1,100 issues that have been tabled but are unresolved at this point. The mediator may find it appropriate to investigate and/or make recommendations on some portion of those 1,100 or, indeed, all of the 1,100, if that's what he or she wished to do.

The Chair: The Member for Delta North seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: In the gallery today are 22 of the finest grades 5 and 6 class students of North Delta. Ms. Lily Lee is here with parents from Hellings Elementary, which is actually three blocks down the street from where I live. It's the same school that my children attended.

[1505]

They are a great and wonderful school. We had a lot of fun and went down to the dungeon today and showed them what the real Legislature looks like down below. Would the House please make them welcome, and may they enjoy a wind-free ride across on the ferry back home tonight.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Member for Surrey-Whalley continues on section 6.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned 1,100 issues that have been tabled and are unresolved. Is the minister saying that it would be up to the mediator, then — or you're expecting the mediator, then — to sort through those 1,100 and decide which ones are, in the words of section (4)(b), "consistent with the terms of reference referred to in subsection (2)," and then that would be the limitation? I can't imagine — maybe it's theoretically possible — that all 1,100 issues fall squarely within the terms of reference set out in section 6(2).

Is that what the mediator is being asked to do or not?

Hon. G. Abbott: Plumbing the subtleties of the legislation is always fascinating. I'm delighted to be doing that.

If the mediator were to take one or several or all of those 1,100 that were outside of the terms of reference listed in (2)(a) to (e), it is our view that the recommendation would not be inconsistent with the intent of this legislation.

B. Ralston: Under the legislation, this is all to be accomplished, then, by June 30. That seems to be a big job, but I hope there is someone that the minister has in mind — I'm sure he has someone — who'll be capable of carrying that out.

Just for the purposes of illustration, I want to ask the minister, for example…. Looking at, in reference to the response he gave to my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake…. Section 6(2)(c) refers to: "the new collective agreement is to enable high-quality teaching and learning through." And there are a number of subheadings. Let's take the first one, "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement" — whatever "improvement" might be.

The minister has said that section 13, the proposed revisions to the School Act, would not be included in the terms of reference and would be off-limits for consideration by the mediator. It seems to me that the issue of feedback and evaluation might very well overlap some of the powers and prohibitions that are referred to in section 27.

Can the minister explain how he expects that will be achieved? What is the legislative purpose of section 6(2)(c)(i), for example? How can that be reconciled with his previous answers?
[ Page 10106 ]

[1510]

Hon. G. Abbott: It is the collective opinion of the officials assembled that it is not clear there is an overlap or an inconsistency between the matters the member references. We'd invite him to provide a more specific example for our attention, if he has one.

B. Ralston: Well, I'll endeavour to provide an example. Again, I apologize for jumping ahead, because I'm sure we don't want to foreclose discussion on section 13 when we actually do get to it.

For example, in the proposed subsection 27(3): "There must not be included in a teachers' collective agreement any provision (a) regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act, the courses of study, the program of studies or the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher."

That appears — at least to my eye, and I don't think I would be alone in this suggestion — to merge with or overlap with the evaluation of teachers. Presumably there's a correlation between selection and appointment and evaluation, and the professional methods or techniques employed by a teacher might also involve the effective feedback and evaluation of teachers.

So professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher and effective feedback and evaluation of the teacher to promote improvement — it seems to me that those two, at least in part, might very well overlap. I'm wondering how the mediator is going to be asked to stay away from the prohibited areas yet carry out her mandate set out in subsection 6(2)(c)(i).

[1515]

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a couple of points which I should make. Again, this all goes to the complexity of these matters, I appreciate. It is important to note the example raised by the member for Surrey-Whalley, and it's an important question.

In terms of the new subsection 27(3), articles (a), (b) and (c), these are all provisions which predate Bill 28. They have been in effect in the School Act since, we believe, 1988. They were not impacted by the decision by Justice Griffin. They have been put back in only for clarity, but they've never been challenged.

B. Ralston: Just so that I follow the minister's thoughts there, neither (a) nor (b) nor (c) are entitled to be included in the collective agreement, yet the mediation, this section 6 that we're dealing with, says that the new collective agreement is "to enable high-quality teaching and learning through (i) effective feedback and evaluation."

I suppose the conundrum I'm pointing to…. I confess I don't quite understand that. I'm sure the minister will enlighten me. It appears to be a flat contradiction. On the one hand, you can't include this in a teachers' collective agreement, and on the other hand, the new collective agreement — and this is part of the terms of reference of the mediator — is to include elements which, in my mind, overlap.

Is the legislation contradictory, inconsistent? I don't understand how that is reconciled. I don't think the fact that it wasn't part of the legislation struck down by the court really assists the minister, at least as I see it. I'm wondering if he could answer that.

I might further say while I'm up that subsection 6(2)(c)(iii) also refers to "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs," yet subsection (3)(a) refers to, again, a prohibited topic: "regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act...."

Scheduling a selection of teachers suited to student needs is required and a topic of concern directed to the mediator, yet subsection 27(3) says a collective agreement can't contain any provision regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this act. That again appears to me to be contradictory.

I'm wondering if the minister could elucidate.

[1520]

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope my answer can provide some clarity to the member opposite, who I know is a friend of the court, a lawyer. I am not, but nevertheless, I'll do my best here to express this in a way that….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yeah, I know. It's so often a compliment, isn't it?

Further to my previous answer — about these sections pre-existing Bill 28 and probably going back as far as 1988 — around the new 27(3)(a), (b) and (c) there has, I'm advised, been a variety of arbitrations, a variety of jurisprudence, which has established the limits to the validity of these things. There's long experience with them. The advice I'm receiving is that there is no contradiction, that it would not inhibit the opportunity for a mediator to undertake those issues which are noted in section 6 of Bill 22.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for his answer, but can he explain to me, then, how in subsection 6(2)(c)(i) "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers" differs from the sections that I've pointed out previously, "the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher" or, further, the previous phrase, "regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act"?

To my ear and to my eye, they at least potentially overlap. The "selection and appointment" would appear to involve some measure of "feedback and evaluation," so I'm curious as to how the decision might be made without that — since, presumably, one isn't always hiring teachers de novo, or with no previous experience. But typically,
[ Page 10107 ]
and often, teachers are being hired to teach in one board, having gained experience in another.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain how that phrase in section 6 that we're dealing with doesn't offend the prohibition that's set out fairly clearly in the new proposed sub (3)(a)?

[1525]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that existing collective agreements contain valid provisions with respect to post and fill, teacher evaluation. The range of those provisions varies across 60 school districts. We want the mediator to look at those provisions and to bring recommendations to us with respect to which might be the most effective.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister has given in his answer some, I would describe, specialist terms or jargon, maybe, that I don't expect everyone is familiar with. Can he first define "post and fill" so that I understand it?

Secondly, in a teachers' collective agreement…. The proposed 27(3)(a) will prohibit that. Is that, then, provisions that are not in the collective agreement but are part of the policy and procedures of the individual board of education? Of the ministry? Or is that how this division is drawn, at least in the way that the scheme is described here? I'm not clear from the minister's answer how that works.

[1530]

Hon. G. Abbott: Post and fill. For the edification of the member, post and fill would be the processes by which education jobs are posted for the consideration of those who might have an interest in them and the processes by which they are filled. I am advised further — and I'm certain this is a fascinating area of the law — that arbitrators have made a distinction between post and fill and selection and appointment.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps the minister could then further clarify that. Post and fill is a procedure to hire someone, that is, to select them — I would assume the selection and appointment of teachers. Is the minister, then, just saying that the arbitration cases draw the distinction between selection and appointment? Presumably, one selects the winning candidate and then appoints them.

I don't understand how that process can be prohibited under the collective agreement by proposed section 27(3), yet the mediator is charged with making recommendations to include in a new collective agreement feedback and evaluation of teachers and scheduling and selection of teachers. It appears to me to be completely inconsistent.

Is the minister saying that there is a predetermined…? Maybe he's not, but it seems to me one interpretation might be — and I'd ask this for his comment — that there is a certain contractual language that may be in collective agreements now that section 27(3)(a) would prohibit.

It's proposed to replace that with wording developed by the mediator for a new collective agreement — in other words, for language in collective agreements that is not favoured by the minister or the bargaining agent for the employer, substituting language that's going to be recommended by the mediator and, through this legislative mechanism, imposing it in a collective agreement.

Is that the process we're engaged in here?

[1535]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm grateful for learning more about these matters than I ever dreamed might be possible.

To answer the member's first question: no, this is not an attempt to replace language. That is not prohibited by the act. That's not the intention.

Further, I'm advised that there's an additional section, which we'd like the member to refer to, which may be helpful in assisting us in understanding the answer to the member's very good questions in this area, and that is that subsection (3) — 27(3)(a), (b), (c) — should be read in the context of sub (4), which reads: "Subsection (3) does not prevent a teachers' collective agreement from containing a provision respecting hiring preferences for teachers who have previously been employed by the board."

I'm advised this is attempting to give expression to the convergence of arbitrations, jurisprudence, etc., around this complex issue.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for his response. Just to respond briefly to the reference to subsection (4), by "the board," I presume that's internal to one board of education. I'm wondering, then, how that impacts hiring preferences for teachers who choose to apply, as they often do, holding a position in one board and then applying for a position in another board. I presume that that then becomes a prohibited practice under subsection (3).

That's the first question. Perhaps I should just sit down and let the minister answer that, and then I'll continue with a further question.

[1540]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member was getting very close to the accurate expression of the challenge here in his latter statements, that what we have are 60 different versions of post-and-fill language across the 60 agreements. As an example, there might be different language in North Okanagan–Shuswap versus Vernon or between Surrey and New West or between New West and Vancouver, and that limits the opportunities of teachers to move between districts.

One of the concerns that we're attempting to address here is that issue. What we would like, ideally, is consistency of both principle and language with respect to that, but if not language, at least, then, consistency of
[ Page 10108 ]
principle in this area. We believe that the albeit complex language here provides that.

B. Ralston: Two questions, then, arising. Can the minister then explain how that objective is to be reconciled with section 6(d), which talks about locally negotiated matters that "(i) do not affect any other school district, and (ii) would, in the opinion of the mediator, be more effectively negotiated as local matters"?

Given that the minister has made reference to local provisions, has a predetermination been made by this choice of language and the minister's comments that that kind of language should be not negotiated locally and not left to local choice but should be included in the provincial agreement — if I understand what the minister is saying? That's a question that I think arises out of the minister's comments and begs an explanation.

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of sub (d) is to provide a balanced mandate to the mediator. We know that the B.C. Teachers Federation believes that all matters other than financial matters should be negotiated locally. That is their view. This provision is put in the mediator's mandate so that he or she can give thoughtful guidance and recommendations with respect to what the appropriate division is between provincial and local matters.

B. Ralston: Just to summarize, then, is the minister saying that he expects, since we've chosen this example, that the mediator will make recommendations on selection of teachers in the manner that it might be done — whether it be local or provincial? Is he expecting the mediator to do that?

Secondly, I do have just a question of clarification on subsection (4), since the application of that to section 6 is what we are talking about. The provision refers to a provision respecting "hiring preferences for teachers who have previously been employed by the board."

Is that referring to teachers who were employed, have severed their employment relationship, seek to come back and seek employment with the same board? Or does it refer to teachers who are in one position and are seeking…? Say, if you're at Queen Elizabeth Secondary School in Surrey and you're seeking to move to Fleetwood Secondary as a teacher, there wouldn't be a prohibition containing a provision governing hiring preferences in a teachers collective agreement.

Those are two specific questions. I know I've put them together, but I'd appreciate the minister's comments on both.

Hon. G. Abbott: To the question of what under sub (4) was a previous employee. It apparently refers to those currently in the employ of a board, so it's the current employee.

Secondly, the expectation is that we will receive from the mediator guidance in the form of recommendations on (a) through (e), but again, the mediator would not be precluded from exploring other areas and bringing recommendations to the minister.

[1550]

B. Ralston: Well, if I just may be permitted to comment parenthetically, subsection (4) in the proposed section 27 seems to me to be…. It doesn't capture what the minister said. Teachers "who have previously been employed by the board" would imply that they are no longer employed, but if it means actually employed, then it should say so. Maybe the minister might want to flag that for an amendment, if that's what's meant.

Just to return to a question that I asked earlier about the prohibited areas and the areas set out in section 6(1)(3). Sub (3)(a) refers to, as a prohibited area, "the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher." That can't be in a collective agreement. Yet section 6(2)(c)(ii) refers to the "alignment of professional development with teaching needs."

Maybe there's some Delphic or ambiguous distinction that's drawn here, but frankly, I don't see how one separates "the professional methods and techniques employed by a teacher" with the "alignment of professional development with teaching needs." Surely, they both speak to teachers' skill and development of skill and technique as it applies to the profession of teaching.

So again, I don't see how this legislation reconciles prohibition of that, on one side, yet the requirement of a new collective agreement to contain what I would see as the very same thing.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll attempt to again provide some clarity around the new 27(3)(a), (b) and (c) — again, to try to explain why, from the perspective of, I'm certain, a battery of labour lawyers, this is structured the way it is.

[1555]

The clause has been in the law since, we believe, at least 1988. There have been many arbitrations, I'm advised, as well as jurisprudence around these points, hence the way they are structured in this bill.

Now, that all having been said, to the member's latter important question: professional autonomy is recognized in the provincial agreement. It provides teachers with professional autonomy, and there is no intention of taking that away from them.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to rise in committee stage on Bill 22 and speak to the issues arising out of section 6. I have a few questions for the minister, and I would appreciate the opportunity to do that.

With respect to section 6(2)(b), it makes reference that "subject to subsection (5), the new collective agreement must not create new costs that would result in a net in-
[ Page 10109 ]
crease in the total annual cost of the collective agreement." I am just wondering how that section makes sense when you look at the plain wording of it — "must not create new costs that would result in a net increase." In other words, if it's not a new cost that results in a net increase in the total annual cost, then somehow that falls within the section?

I just don't understand what this section actually drives at. It says it "must not create new costs that would result in a net increase in the total annual cost." Does that mean, in fact, that you can create new costs, but that can't increase the net annual increase and total cost?

Hon. G. Abbott: Sub (2)(b) is an expression of net zero and basically says that one can have an increase in one area, but there would have to be offsetting savings in other areas. So an example of that would have been, I think, the most recent HEU contract, wherein there were changes made to the benefit package that were able to be passed along to the licensed practical nurses that the HEU represent, in the form of a wage increase for them.

L. Krog: When we're talking about the annual cost of the collective agreement, can the minister perhaps explain to the House how that total annual cost is determined?

[1600]

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that they are determined by looking at the annualized cost of each provision of a collective agreement and then aggregating those costs to provide the figure you requested.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering. Perhaps the minister can tell the House what the actual annual cost is of the collective agreement.

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe we could provide that cost to the member in fairly short order, but rather than hold up the proceedings, if we could move on to another question. Then I'll provide it to him when it's available.

L. Krog: I would have thought the minister, being the sharp fellow he is with his incredible mind and abilities in this chamber, might have had that number at his fingertips. I'm almost surprised. I wouldn't wish to give the Minister of Education, after all, a fail in this chamber. That would be far beyond my abilities, to be so judgmental.

Having said that, I just want to understand…. We're talking about the total annual cost of the collective agreement. The minister seemed to indicate that that was arrived at — and we're talking about methodology now — by looking at the various costs. Clearly, we have a number of employers who are involved as members of the BCPSEA, the British Columbia Public School Employers Association.

I'm just wondering. When we're talking about the annual cost, is it possible, in fact, for one district to see a decrease in costs that would free up money that might enable another district, a member of the employers association, to in fact receive some benefit? For instance, if you take away from school district 68, Nanaimo, is it possible to give a benefit, for instance, to school district 69 in Qualicum Beach?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that it is possible, and it is possible because the funding formula that drives the funding of those 60 school districts is very sensitive to shifts in student population. If, for example, Nanaimo school district's population grew and others declined, there would be a shift that would see some change there.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand that then, if Nanaimo, for instance, has 1,000 students designated to receive special services because of whatever educational issues they may have and that number decreases and frees up 100 designated students, so to speak, in terms of the money coming from the ministry, then if Surrey, for instance, sees an increase of 100, Nanaimo loses the 100, so to speak, and Surrey gets the benefit of it.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not quite sure where the member is going with this, but just to introduce some new issues into his world.

[1605]

By designated students, I'm presuming that the member is referencing level 1, 2 or 3 special needs designations and the funding that would be derived as a consequence of those designations, which would then be passed along to the school districts.

The formula in that area is sensitive to the numbers, and this will shift marginally year over year — the number of designated students at level 1, level 2, level 3. The funding that will go to those districts will reflect the numbers that are provided to the Ministry of Education, so that'll go up and down from year to year.

Generally, the quantum is around $866 million for that purpose. So appreciate, depending on the number that is in the aggregate across the 60 districts identified, that that number may go up a little bit or may go down a little bit. It doesn't have anything to do with a shift, in that case, between districts. That may be just an unfortunate example that the member used, because that's not an area where you would see a shift.

Where the overall number of students went up or down, then there might be, because there may be less teachers employed. I suppose arguably there could be a shift there, but not on the special needs end.
[ Page 10110 ]

L. Krog: So I can understand this — and we'll use the example of designated students again — if the ministry's budget this year for designated students is $866 million and that is spread across the province, if we have 1,100 designated students this year as opposed to 1,200 last year, will that budget decrease? Will they be lifted up, or if in fact there are more students, will we see a decrease in the per-capita funding? How does that work?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member has a genuine fascination with this area of public policy, it might be good for us to spend some time together going through it, because there have been recent changes in terms of how funding is developed and distributed.

It's fair to say that a level 1 student with a disability…. Generally, that attracts $36,000 in funding, $18,000, level 2; and I think $9,000, level 3. Generally, within the block there's an aggregate from those numbers, so it'll vary every year a little bit across school districts. There is some consistency in what is normally expected in level 1, 2 and 3 funding, but it will vary slightly from year to year.

We don't think there's a linkage between where the member is going on net zero and that piece. I guess that's all we are saying. Maybe there's an example that the member could use that might illustrate the point better.

L. Krog: Generally speaking, the designated students would attract funding for educational assistance. They might attract the assistance of a special needs teacher. They might attract the necessity of equipment, technology, some devices that might assist the student in their educational performance. It might be textbooks. It might be a range of things.

Some districts may be further ahead of the game in having skilled people available. Others will not. Some school districts may have appropriate programs in place that are different. I'm just trying to understand how this — on the face of it, what the minister I think believes is a fairly simple formula — is in fact going to work in practice.

It says that "the new collective agreement must not create new costs that would result in a net increase in the total annual cost of the collective agreement."

[1610]

So the total annual cost of the collective agreement, which is a number the minister is presently endeavouring to obtain, with the assistance of his able staff, comprises a multitude of expenses — some of the things I've just enumerated and all the other things that go into budget of the Ministry of Education.

I'm just wondering how the minister realistically expects that this new collective agreement — working within the straitjacket, with great respect, of section 6 — can possibly take into account the myriad of costs that go into arriving at the total annual cost and how the minister can expect the parties to mediate, with the assistance of a mediator, any kind of collective agreement that might make sense.

My guess is that if you engage in this process the way it's structured, if I understand it correctly, the students are going to be the losers at the end of this. Because the mediator, if he or she can achieve an agreement, has to do it within a total amount across a range of school districts, separate out "local issues," which are presumably all non-cost — although that's, I think, always questionable when it comes to education — and keep it within a cost structure that is supposed to actually benefit students. After all, this is the Education Improvement Act, so I presume there's supposed to be some improvement for education.

If we're sticking to the net zero in costs…. I'm not talking now about — although I'm sure the minister would like to go there — the possibility of giving teachers an increase in wages. I'm just talking about the cost of delivering educational services to students in districts across this province. How does the minister see the mediator being able to work within this structure and be fair?

My fear is that there will be some money left on the table, so to speak. We already know that the government has said: "This is it. This is what you're getting for money. We don't care what the costs will be, as long as they're within this number. We don't care what the needs of the students will be. This is what you have to agree to."

My concern is that in keeping within that structure, given the complexity and range of employers, the students ultimately will be the ones who will suffer at the end of this process. In order for the mediator to successfully conclude their work — whether that results in a negotiated settlement or, alternatively, the recommendations as set out in section 6(4)(b), whatever happens — in fact, the students will suffer. Because in order to stay within that framework, they're going to have to be extremely careful.

Surely, I wouldn't expect that the minister wants to stand up in this House and tell the House that he wants to see students suffer any reduction in the moneys that are made available to educate them.

[1615]

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, we're dipping the toe in the complex area of funding formulas and the like, so this will sound like a simplistic expression, but it is consistent with what is a pretty complex funding model, reflecting the fact that we have 60 school districts, some as small as Stikine, which I think at the latest count was 204 students, 16 teachers and four schools scattered across the area of half of France. So it's one end of the continuum.

At the other end of the continuum is a very large urban district like Surrey, now with about 70,000 students. So there's a great range, and there are considerable complexities in the formula as a consequence of trying to deal fairly with the range of issues that one encounters in education funding.
[ Page 10111 ]

However, to say to the member's question…. The funding is based on the students, not on the costs that are generated. We look at each student, the level of the disability that they encounter, and try to provide appropriate support to the district.

On the issue, though, of what the mediator can do…. I'm really grateful for the member asking this question. It is really central to what we're attempting to do here. The member referenced Canadian Union of Public Employees, who represent the great majority of education assistants or special education assistants in the province.

We now have 69 agreements with CUPE BC — either agreements in principle or ratified agreements, but 69 of them — virtually the entire province. I believe Fort Nelson has BCGEU-represented education assistants, but apart from that, CUPE has signed on to 69 agreements premised on net zero.

How were they able to do that? They were able to do that because their leadership and the educational assistants and the support workers who they represent were prepared to explore opportunities which the learning improvement fund of $165 million held out to them. For example, there is the opportunity for an increase in contact hours between education assistants and the students that they serve, generally students with a special need in the classroom.

I know that they are also enormously excited by the opportunities to look at how the skill set of the educational assistant can be improved. Can we generate training, skills-training modules, perhaps, with colleges, university colleges or universities that would see their skill set enhanced around, for example, understanding and managing autism spectrum disorder?

That would be an example of how we could work with CUPE to do that. They've been very excited by these possibilities, and I am very much looking forward to re-engagement — very soon, I hope — with CUPE around building that model. Of course, this bill is based around the B.C. Teachers Federation, not around CUPE BC and education assistants.

[1620]

In the case of the BCTF, despite it being raised, I gather, at the bargaining table a number of times over the one year that the parties spent together in the 78 face-to-face sessions that the BCTF, BCPSEA and government representatives had at the bargaining table, at no point was there a discussion about how the 60 different benefit packages of the B.C. Teachers Federation might be consolidated and the benefits of that passed on in whatever way the BCTF thought was appropriate.

They didn't believe that they wanted to have that discussion, so any initiatives on the part of BCPSEA in that area were rebuffed. But I still think there's value there that could potentially be recovered for the benefit of the B.C. Teachers Federation membership. I think that's a possibility.

Again, could a mediator open that door or build some discussion in that area? Perhaps. I'd like to think that they could. There's no guarantee that the mediator could. Again, any progress here is going to be a function of the disposition of the parties to try to secure agreement or secure gains in different areas.

I appreciate how emotionally charged the debate around the Bills 27 and 28 decision by Justice Griffin has been, and I appreciate, as a consequence of that, how emotional the discussion around the learning improvement fund has been. But we were able on Bill 29 to reach agreement with both the HEU and the BCNU on a remedial package related to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Bill 29.

Here there has been no exploration. There has been no engagement around how BCTF members might benefit from the learning improvement fund. It has been rejected as wholly inadequate. I guess the parties are always free to suggest that any quantum is wholly inadequate, and therefore no substantive discussion around how it might improve the system or improve the working life of a teacher might be engaged.

Fair enough. But just as CUPE has found that there is some great opportunity for their membership within the learning improvement fund, I think there is also great opportunity for the B.C. Teachers Federation and their membership in the learning improvement fund. Again, that's a subject I hope we see engagement on. If the mediator can get the parties to a fruitful discussion of that, I think that would be a huge step ahead.

That's where I think we can go with respect to net zero. I know I've heard a variety of expressions from the opposition about net zero and whether there should be a net zero. I haven't actually heard from the opposition that there shouldn't be a net zero. One only hears indirectly expressions that indicate that the opposition doesn't believe there should be a net zero, and no one ever wants to tell me, apparently, what the view of the opposition really is on that. I know that this member is very thoughtful, forceful and direct in his thoughts on this matter, so I'm certain that I'll get some clarity on the point now.

But only to say that our government does believe that net zero is necessary at this point in time. We believe that with the province in deficit, with the federal government even more deeply in deficit, with economic challenges in North America, Europe and the world still very much in evidence, we don't believe it is appropriate public policy to have wage increases, which may prove in the very near term to be unsustainable.

If the members opposite have a different view, I'd love to hear that, and perhaps to the extent that the Chair would permit it, we could, I'm certain, have a very thoughtful, meaningful debate on that point. But we have made that decision on net zero. I believe there are very good things, again, within LIF; within, potentially, benefit packages; and within, perhaps, other areas that haven't
[ Page 10112 ]
been explored, where a mediator can do very good things for the participants, even under net zero.

[1625]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's soliloquy. I notice, given that it's B.C. Francophonie Day, he even managed to slip in France in comparison to Stikine in his remarks. I thought that was a very touching reference, and the member for Chilliwack, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, who was waxing eloquently about that earlier today, I'm sure will be thrilled to read that tiny snippet in Hansard.

I am delighted to hear the minister wish to engage in the debate around management of B.C.'s economy, because, after all, this government has been in power for 11 years. I don't know how many deficits we've had and how we got into this mess, but I would suggest it might be this government's responsibility and not someone else's. But that is, in fairness, a debate for the other day, and I know the Chair would be quite correctly shutting me down if I continued along that vein, and I see no useful purpose in continuing there.

Perhaps I can ask a simple question. Given that the minister can't tell me today what the total annual cost of the collective agreement is, although that information will be forthcoming, I'm sure, can he tell me how the total annual cost of the last collective agreement was arrived at?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question — and I don't know what…. Perhaps he has an informant over on this side of the House. But fortuitously, that number has just arrived on my desk. It is $2.9 billion per year. That may excite further questions from the member, now that he has that important figure in hand.

L. Krog: If the minister could answer the question I just asked, which was: how's that number arrived at? What comprises that number? You've talked about $2.9 billion, so what constitutes the makeup of that number?

Hon. G. Abbott: It encompasses all the wages and benefits of all of those employed in the system. It, again, is determined by the annualized costs of each of the provisions within the collective agreement and then aggregating those costs and arriving at that figure, $2.9 billion.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear. The minister has talked about the varying ranges of benefits within the school district. So in fact there are differences in the benefit package, the cost of it, in potentially Nanaimo and Stikine and all of those places. I'm clear on that, so I understand.

That being the case, then in order for any of the good things to happen, as the minister sees it, it would require one school district to essentially say to its dedicated teachers — who may be hard to retain, given that it's an isolated area, given that the climate isn't as salubrious as beautiful Victoria…. That would require them to say to their teachers: "Well, we're going to cut your benefit package so that the teachers in Surrey, for instance, can see a benefit." Is that what I understand the effect of this would be?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no. The member is incorrect in that supposition. That would only occur if it was the wish, for example, of the Teachers Federation to consolidate the 60 collective benefit packages and do it in a different way that attracted greater efficiency or return.

K. Corrigan: I had to go to a meeting for a while. I had asked a question, and I heard a quick answer. I'd like to pursue a question that I was asking earlier, before I left. From where I left off, I had asked a question about whether or not under section 6 the mediator was precluded from discussing the matters that are going to be in the new section 27 of the School Act.

Can I just, to start, confirm that the answer was that those issues, which were terms and conditions of teachers' employment and restricted scope of bargaining, will not be part of the mediator's mandate? I think that was the answer. I have another question, so I just want to make sure I got that right.

[1630]

Hon. G. Abbott: We just spent approximately the last hour or more on that question precisely.

K. Corrigan: I apologize for that. I did have to go to another meeting.

What I will ask, then, is: did the minister talk about the manner and consequences section in relation to that as well, which is the section 6(2)(e) — the fact that certain provisions referred to in 28(1)(a) and (b) can be discussed? Did the minister go over that as well?

Hon. G. Abbott: To summarize, in (d) to (j), which is around class size and composition, class size and composition is not negotiable in the current round. It will return to collective bargaining effective July 1, 2013. In the interim and for the purposes of this negotiation, manner and consequence of class size and composition is negotiable.

K. Corrigan: I'm just wondering on that. This will be, probably, my last question on this, but I do have some other questions.

Does the minister agree, in terms of that mandate, that it is restricted because of the decision of Madam Justice Griffin, and does he agree with the statement in her decision that says: "I conclude that the preserved ability to bargain over 'manner and consequences' was, for practical purposes, insignificant with respect to 'manner' and
[ Page 10113 ]
limited with respect to 'consequences,' given the broad scope of section 27(3)(d), (f), (g) and (i)"? Is that the way this provision in this bill should be interpreted — as either insignificant or limited?

Hon. G. Abbott: The bill does not respond necessarily to any given paragraph or section of Justice Griffin's decision. We have read Justice Griffin's decision as a whole and have attempted to honour it in all of the structure of this bill.

In terms of the issue around class size and composition, again, the act restores the right to bargain class size and composition effective July 2013, and in the interim, the act recognizes that manner and consequence remain negotiable elements in the current collective agreement.

[1635]

K. Corrigan: I guess we can't prejudge how the mediator is going to interpret, but I would assume that the minister was foreseeing that the mediator would interpret his or her job or the way they're going to apply it within the terms of the jurisprudence. The jurisprudence in this case says that the ability to bargain under that section is essentially insignificant and limited. I guess I'll just make that comment.

I wanted to ask — I was not here, but I did try to listen to it in my office between meetings — a little bit on section 6(2)(c) about the terms of reference for the mediator, which include those three subsections: "(i) effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement, (ii) alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and (iii) scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs."

I don't think I heard this question, and I apologize if it has already been asked. Is the minister expecting that these areas will be covered — that in the new collective agreement those three areas should be covered?

Hon. G. Abbott: What this section would do, 6(c), is it would require the mediator to report out on the issues contained therein and to make recommendations on the matters.

K. Corrigan: The mediator is going to report out. But is it expected that the mandate of the mediator would demand that there is discussion in canvassing of those issues — that the mediator would be expected to address those issues in the mediation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, it is the expectation that the mediator would solicit the opinions of both the employers and the union leadership in respect of these matters and report out on them and bring recommendations.

K. Corrigan: Is the ministry going to have any kind of input or guidance provided into the process about what the ministry means by these very general terms, "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement," and so on? They're very wide terms, but they could mean a lot in the collective bargaining context.

I'm wondering if the ministry is going to have any input, or whether the minister could provide guidance as to what the minister means by these three terms.

[1640]

Hon. G. Abbott: The aim of the bill is not to dictate how the mediator may wish to do his or her job. Our expectation, obviously, would be that there would be soliciting of the opinions of the employer and the employed. Beyond that, the mediator may wish to reach out to others to get a fulsome understanding of what might be appropriate in this area. That would be up to him or her to do that.

It is important to note, as well, that a government representative has attended the bargaining table. We believe that there is a general understanding among government, BCPSEA and the B.C. Teachers Federation about what all of the terms contained in this section mean.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm wondering if perhaps the minister could share briefly what is the minister's understanding of each of those three terms. What is the minister's understanding of those three terms?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to briefly, for the member, run through sub 6(2)(c). First, "(i) effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement." Here we are looking for or hoping for a greater consistency across the language in 60 school districts in respect of evaluation and feedback.

There is some considerable variation across districts, and we believe that it is in the interests of the education system to have consistent language that promotes improvement among all who are participants in the system. I'd say, further, that there are some districts that already have that effective language, and again, rather than having the current patchwork quilt, we would like to see consistency across districts that reflects that comparable effective language.

On point (ii), "alignment of professional development with teaching needs," the aim is to ensure that the content of professional development days effectively addresses the needs of teachers.

[1645]

That is, if that evaluation, for example, pointed to a larger challenge around certain types of special needs, we might want to work with all educational partners to have the opportunity for professional days that tried to address those kinds of issues.

On the third point. We had a considerable discussion in the last hour and a half on that. This is about the processes of posting and filling positions. The aim here is
[ Page 10114 ]
to…. There are districts with existing appropriate language, but the object of (iii) would be to have an appropriate balance between seniority, which is important, but counterbalanced by the need for the post to be filled by a candidate who had the requisite skills, training and education to effectively fill that.

The example I like to use…. Because my deficiency in the area of math has already been referenced by members across the way, it would be a tragedy, a travesty, were I, simply on the basis of seniority, to be able to bid into a math instruction position, when my training is all in the area of political science and history. I might be a great history and political science teacher, but one can be pretty darned sure that I wouldn't be a good math teacher. Again, this is just a matter of finding appropriate balance within the system for that.

K. Corrigan: Well, one of the questions I was asking earlier was about how the ministry feeds into this, and the minister said that there is representation at the table, I believe, or that ministry staff sit in. Would ministry staff be making recommendations — having input into the negotiations — on these and other provisions as that information was being gathered? In other words, would the ministry be making suggestions as to what the ministry thinks would be reasonable in terms of "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs"?

Hon. G. Abbott: The B.C. Public School Employers Association will be the body which will consult with the mediator in respect of the issues of government and the school district employers.

K. Corrigan: But would the ministry have input, then, to BCPSEA in this process and make recommendations and say: "This is what, from the ministry perspective, we think would be preferable"?

[1650]

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, as part of BCPSEA, as was canvassed in the early stages of this debate.

K. Corrigan: With respect to (c)(ii), "alignment of professional development with teaching needs" — and I apologize if this has been canvassed earlier — is the minister talking about who would control professional development? Is this something that would be within the mandate — whether or not teachers have control of professional development or boards have control of it or the ministry has control of professional development?

Hon. G. Abbott: There may be a range of views around that point. It will be up to the mediator to weigh those respective views and to bring a recommendation to government.

K. Corrigan: In that subsection, the word "alignment" is used. Alignment, to me, indicates that there's some management, that there's organization of it and that there's some centralization of professional development. Somebody has to do the aligning, and, of course, it's government that has brought this bill to the House. What was government foreseeing when talking about "alignment of professional development with teaching needs"?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are looking for professional development that aligns with the needs of the teaching profession. Again, as I said in an earlier answer, that might be better understanding of the characteristics of certain types of special needs or certain types of physical impairment. These are the kinds of things that might come into play.

K. Corrigan: Well, would the minister, then…? Let's ask it in a slightly different way. The minister is looking for alignment of professional development with teaching needs. Is the minister of the opinion that professional development at present is not aligned with teaching needs?

I'm wondering what possible lack or what ill there is in professional development, as it now stands, in the province. Does there need to be a change that this bill is addressing?

[1655]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think if there is a challenge here, and we think there is, it is that there's considerable variation across the 60 school districts in terms of the effective utilization of professional development days. Overall, these represent a cost of $11 million a day, and there are six of them annually, so it's a significant investment.

We think some districts make much better use of professional development days than others. The participation rates in professional development days certainly vary considerably across the 60 school districts. Again, it's not that there's a master plan here that we think needs to be identified and articulated; it is that this is an area where I think there needs to be participation by all of the educational partners to ensure that, again, we can get the greatest alignment to the needs of teachers in the system.

K. Corrigan: Unless there's a follow-up from the answer that I receive, this will probably be the last question that I ask — for a while, anyways.

Earlier the minister said that the mandate of the mediator under section 6 precluded inclusion of terms and conditions of teachers' employment as set out in section 27 of the School Act.

I guess it's probably talking about the two sections together, but since we're talking about the mandate of the mediator, I'm just wondering: has the minister satis-
[ Page 10115 ]
fied himself that section 6 and the other sections of the act are defensible in terms of a legal challenge, given that the preclusion of those terms and conditions mirrors the fatal conditions that were found to be unconstitutional — the exclusion of them was found to be unconstitutional? Is the minister convinced that this bill will survive a legal challenge?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, we do enjoy that confidence in the content of this bill. There has been a comprehensive evaluation, as you can imagine, by a range of legal advisers on the content of the bill. We believe it speaks to the issues raised by Madam Justice Griffin. Further, we believe that not only the content aligns with the decision of Madam Justice Griffin; we also believe the processes which have been engaged leading up to this bill have also been appropriate and aligned with her decision.

[1700]

The Chair: The member for Nelson-Creston seeks leave to make an introduction?

M. Mungall: Yes, I do.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: The first time I introduced this gentleman in the House we were not yet even engaged, and now I rise to introduce him as my husband. May the House please make Zak Matieschyn welcome. Wow, you can see why I may not have changed my last name. Please make Zak welcome.

Debate Continued

K. Corrigan: Well, I thank the minister for the answer, but I'm sure — at least I would have hoped — that last time when there was a challenge to the bill, Bills 27 and 28 and, in Health, Bill 29…. I would have assumed that the ministers, the government, would have done all of the surveying and all of the analysis before it came to the conclusion that it was going to bring in some acts that ultimately ended up being found unconstitutional, or provisions thereof. It doesn't give me much comfort that government has once again looked at it and said that this particular act is unassailable.

I'm wondering if perhaps the minister could just provide a little more information about why it is that government believes that this section — which, to me, is a very crucial section — and this act generally are okay, when the provisions that are imposed or the inability to deal with provisions that are imposed are almost identical to the ones that were in Bill 28.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: Though the question is an important one, without a doubt, we do believe that government has learned from the decisions of Justice Griffin and the B.C. Supreme Court with respect to the provisions of Bills 27 and 28, which were struck down. The bills in total were not struck down, but some provisions of those were struck down, and we have endeavoured to understand the reasons why that occurred.

We are also mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Bill 29, and we've attempted to learn lessons from that as well. I had the opportunity to be the Health Minister at the time in which we undertook a process and undertook a remedial package with the B.C. Nurses Union and with the Hospital Employees Union in respect of Bill 29.

In the case of Bill 29, the remedial package that was prepared as government's response to Bill 29 was also a consensual package, a collaborative package, which enjoyed the support of both government and the unions involved — and HEABC at the time, as well.

In 27 and 28, while, again for reasons which I won't enumerate at this point in time, the processes which mirrored the processes of 29…. We did not enjoy the same success in dealing with the B.C. Teachers Federation on our response to Bills 27 and 28 that we enjoyed with the BCNU and the HEU on Bill 29.

[1705]

So this bill doesn't, as the bill in the case of Bill 29 enjoyed, enjoy that consensual support. That having been said, I can tell the member that from the perspective of consultation, we are entirely comfortable that appropriate consultation has been extended here. Further, we have been mindful of, I guess, the potential judicial challenge around every provision in this bill and have mindfully constructed it in that way.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, then. Is the minister saying that because negotiations this time around have not gone well, suggesting that the teachers have not participated in negotiations around either the decision or contract negotiations — and I'm interested in which the minister is talking about — the obligation of government to consult and the other obligations that were imposed by this court decision have been met?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to be clear, we're not referring to the labour negotiation side in this — only to the response to Bills 27 and 28. Again, I want the member to fully understand my words here. At the Health table we were able to reach an agreement with the HEU and with the BCNU.

That has not been possible at the Education table. There may be points later in the bill where we'll want to explore further the reasons for that. We've had a little bit
[ Page 10116 ]
of exchange on that earlier with the member for Nanaimo, but I'm certain that the issue will be raised again. I welcome that.

Despite not being able to reach a collaborative and consensual agreement with the B.C. Teachers Federation on Bill 22, that does not relieve us of the obligation, which was imposed by Madam Justice Griffin, to provide a legislated response to her decision by April 13, 2012. What year are we in now — 2012? Yes, it gets so confusing. Yes, by 2012, exactly. The decision was in 2011, and this is 2012. April 13, 2012 is looming.

This is our response. I would have loved that this was, as with Bill 29, a consensual and collaborative bill. I'm certain it would have circumscribed the interest of the opposition in it, but that having been said, it's not, and we nevertheless feel that the obligations set out in Justice Griffin's decision have been met here.

B. Routley: Normally in mediation processes the parties come in with a clean slate, and the mediator is given the opportunity to review the position of the parties and to actually mediate, to work through all of the issues that may be in dispute.

We have an unusual situation — a hybrid, if you like — in that we've got in this case not just a mediator dealing with an employer and a group of employees, but we've got the employer and the government and the group of employees. So for greater certainty and clarity, is the mediation going to take place between three parties or just two parties?

[1710]

Hon. G. Abbott: We canvassed this a little bit earlier, but for the information of the member, it'd be between two parties — between the B.C. Teachers Federation and BCPSEA. But BCPSEA represents and has representation of, as we canvassed earlier, both the school districts in the province and government.

B. Routley: Again, as contemplated in section 6, it talks about mediation being limited to non-monetary and specifically to the concessions brought forward by the employer. So could the minister explain, given those preconditions, what other processes will be allowed in mediation? In terms of substantive issues that have not already been predetermined, are there any other preconditions that the minister intends to give to the mediator?

The Chair: Member, if I might direct you back to the Hansard Blues, we have canvassed that fairly extensively.

B. Routley: Could the minister give us some outline and detail on the full cost of mediation? I assume that the government would have contemplated the cost of mediation. Do we have any information regarding the full costing of mediation?

Hon. G. Abbott: There has been no appointment to date, so we have no agreement with respect to financial terms with any potential mediator. We do expect that the financial and other terms around any appointment of a mediator would be consistent with our experience in this area.

N. Macdonald: Just to go to section 6(2)(c), what the minister is laying out is an agenda, essentially, with those three points — right? It's not really something where we have what you call a normal mediation process. I know that's the term that the minister is using, but it's a mediation process that the government controls completely. So there's clearly an agenda here.

With subsection (2)(c)(i), you have "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement." Now, my experience with this as a principal is dated, and it's limited to the school district that I was employed by.

I guess that the question is: what does the minister…? As he looks from a higher position and he sees all of the districts, what currently exists that the minister is trying to deal with, with this initiative?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I don't want to be disrespectful of any of the members. There's been a lot of canvassing of this section already, and other members have explored precisely what we mean by that in, I think, a few rounds of questions now. I'm glad to summarize that discussion for the member, but we are on ground that has been previously trod here.

[1715]

Basically, what we are concerned about here is to have consistency across the 60 school districts in terms of evaluation and feedback. As I noted in previous answers, there are some school districts that have very effective language with respect to this, and there are others that have less effective language. I think it's in everyone's interest in what I hope we all acknowledge is a provincial education system to have some consistency across the board.

This is not, as some have suggested, some kind of veiled threat to the teaching profession. It is not at all. I know as a teacher of, I guess, probably 20 years' experience that I benefited mightily from all of the evaluation feedback that I enjoyed from students and others over many years.

I mean, the object here is to have the most effective processes possible. We know there'll be some differences of opinion or view in respect of these matters, and the mediator will look at those. But there's nothing threatening or nefarious occurring here.

N. Macdonald: But the minister has an agenda. The minister has said that there is language that he or the government considers effective, and there's language that he or the government considers ineffective — right? Now, that language came about through negotiations
[ Page 10117 ]
that actually, I'm sure, people in the House during their times as trustees would have negotiated. Clearly, there are a variety of opinions in terms of what's effective and what's ineffective.

Now, if we just go back to the so-called mediator, it's not a mediator. I had the privilege of getting a phone call from Mr. Bill King — who, the member will know very well, was a very able representative of Revelstoke. He was a Labour Minister, and the point he made is that "mediator," used properly, is a very specific term that is very different than "mediator" as used in this language.

The way this is set up, the minister chooses the mediator. The minister chooses the things that the mediator can look at and sets the agenda completely.

That's what we're set up with and, very clearly, the minister has indicated with section (c)(i) that there is language that the minister considers effective and language that the minister considers ineffective in evaluation. At the end of this process, what we see in section 6 is that anything not agreed to…. Let's be honest here. How much is going to be agreed to in this cooling-off period and in this so-called mediation?

Then the mediator will come in and will lay out their solutions, which is, again, something that is there in the bill for him to do. He's going to reach the conclusions that he reaches, whether agreed to or not.

It's pertinent to ask. The minister has said that there's good language and bad language. Maybe let's start here. Give me an example of a district and bad language, from his perspective. Give me language from a district that he considers good language.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know that the member is at a disadvantage here because, apparently, he didn't hear a couple of hours of debate in this House around these provisions.

The upshot of that discussion was that, first of all, the mediator is independent. As we discussed at some length, nothing limits the scope of the mediator to look at issues beyond what's listed in (a) to (e). There is not a limitation there; there is around the financial mandate. We've canvassed that. There is a limitation around net zero.

I know the members opposite may not like that, but I think we've had a respectful exchange around what it all means and how it means it. They're certainly entitled to their opinion that a mediator shouldn't be bound by net zero. But government has made it clear that it will be, in this case, bound by net zero.

[1720]

Beyond that — and again, we've explored this over and over in this House — if the mediator wishes to look at issues beyond (a) to (e), he or she is welcome to do that.

The mediator is going to be independent here. The member may cynically observe, "No, they're not going to be independent at all," but the mediator is going to be independent, and the mediator will be able to explore these issues.

I don't mind summarizing previous lengthy discussion on this matter for the member, but we've been over this ground before.

N. Macdonald: Well, with all due respect, if the minister wants to characterize it as independent, I don't think it means that that's a conclusion most British Columbians would reach. I mean, the minister will appoint the mediator. You're not going to get Vince Ready taking this on — right? You're not going to the normal people that we would call in as established mediators. You're going to go elsewhere, and the reason for that is because this is not mediation — which means that the minister can drive an agenda.

Now, I asked a question that I don't think has been asked before, and I've been here. I don't think that anyone has asked specifically for the minister to talk about the language that the minister deems as good language on the issue that the mediator has been asked to deal with, which is "effective feedback and evaluation" for teachers.

I understand that there is a range of mechanisms from district to district. What the minister has said is that some of that is effective, and some of it is ineffective. Therefore, the minister knows in his own mind what he considers effective. Would he give a description of what is effective language for feedback and evaluation and what he considers ineffective?

Because my assertion is that the agenda that the government has will be controlled through the mediator whom they choose and they hire and they set the parameters for — including, very clearly, the parameter here in section (2)(c)(i), which is that the so-called mediator is supposed to come and provide guidance to the government on that particular issue — let's have examples of language and examples of districts that do it right and do it poorly, in the minister's mind.

[1725]

Hon. G. Abbott: Apparently the member may have missed this discussion about the attributes that we were looking for in a mediator, in his reference to some of the existing arbitrators and mediators in the province, all of whom are great people, without a doubt.

We are looking for someone who is an educator, someone who has strong experience in this area. We are looking for someone who has demonstrated dispute resolution skills. We are looking for someone of impeccable credentials and reputation. We're not looking for someone who would be a yes-man or yes-woman in relation to these issues. We are looking for someone who can thoughtfully address these issues, who can mediate between parties on issues.

We know, for example, that when we get into the area of evaluation there will be somewhat different views on the part of the BCPSEA school districts versus the views
[ Page 10118 ]
of the B.C. Teachers Federation. We know there'll be differences. The role of the mediator will be to try to understand those respective perspectives on that issue and to try to bring forward recommendations that represent the most effective language from the perspective of providing teachers with thoughtful evaluation and ensuring that we have teachers in the classroom who can provide the most effective instruction to students.

I can't agree with the member's supposition that somehow this is all a rigged process that is leading to an inevitable outcome. I can tell him it is not.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister has to acknowledge that if the minister chooses the individual — and it's regardless of the individual — then they are putting that person in a fairly untenable position. This is not how mediators are normally chosen. They come in with respect from both sides. If this is the minister's choice, the minister is choosing through this legislation to put that individual in an untenable position.

It is not beyond the realm of imagination that this is a process that's not likely to get to a whole series of agreements. You're not likely to end up with an agreement coming out of this. What you are inevitably going to come up with — and the legislation…. It presumes that, because at the end the things that weren't agreed to…. The so-called mediator is supposed to lay out a long list of things that he suggests or she suggests are going to be done anyway.

Now, I asked the minister a question about language, and I wouldn't expect that the minister would actually know or understand these complex agreements that are in place around how evaluation works. There are high stakes. A poor evaluation has consequences for a teacher. A lack of effective evaluation has consequences for a class. So these are things that have to be thought through.

The normal process, and processes that I see members in the House, who participated in the process locally…. They know that it was a negotiation that had a lot of back-and-forth until you ended up with something. In each of these 60 districts you ended up with something that people at the time thought was effective for both the teachers and for the students — okay?

Now the minister is choosing to go a different route. In the end, I would suggest…. Excuse me for being cynical, but we had Bill 27 and we had Bill 28. I mean, I was an administrator under the current Premier. I have been here. Excuse me for being cynical about what the government's intentions are with public education. I have every reason to be cynical, as do teachers.

[1730]

What I would say is that the minister is setting up a process. If he can name language that he thinks is good language, give an actual example of what he said, then I'd be willing to listen to him.

Which are the districts that are doing it poorly, in the minister's mind, and which are the districts that are doing a proper job? A simple question. Can he give any examples of that? He made the assertion. Can he actually give examples to back up the assertion that he made?

Hon. G. Abbott: The object, from our perspective, is not to promote specific language. What we want to see in the future is more common language across the districts. What that common language will be, that will be to the parties — it will be to the union, and it will be to the employers — to discuss that issue with the mediator and for the mediator to bring recommendation to us.

[1735]

As the bill states, the object is to promote improvement. That is always the purpose of evaluation and feedback — to promote improvement. We want processes that will do that.

N. Macdonald: Okay, so here's the problem with the direction that the government is going. First off, if you're going to have real negotiations, if you have a chance for mediation, then you have to have real mediation. The minister will concede that when you set up a process that is not seen as a legitimate process, then you make it absolutely certain that you are not going to have this type of discussion that the minister is looking for.

I mean, this goes back to Bills 27 and 28. From that point on, this government has soured relationships with teachers. What are needed are the sorts of discussions that would go on between groups that show mutual respect, and that hasn't happened. And this is the inevitable result.

If the intention is to find language that works provincewide, that could be a legitimate way forward. But to have it a legitimate way forward, it has to be a fair process, and that's where this breaks down. The minister was asked if he could come up with examples of language, and I think we often are into things that as a layman it's difficult to get your head around.

This is critical to get it right. This language is something that we have a chance of getting right, because there is a shared interest — right? There is a shared interest in making sure that the teachers that are not doing the proper job are not in front of our students. That's something all teachers share with government. We all share that. But you need a proper process.

You need a proper process, and you do not arrive at a proper process until you have trust. And you cannot have trust when you set up legislation like this. I absolutely guarantee you that there is already language written. It won't be agreed to, but it will be laid out by the mediator that the minister chooses, and I'm sure there's thinking that this somehow meets an agenda. But I'm telling you it is setting up problems.

Let's move to another one of these sections that the minister is talking about and he's made comments on,
[ Page 10119 ]
which is section 6(2)(c)(iii), "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs." Here again I suspect that across the province there are districts that manage it differently, so I'll just talk to the minister about my experience as a principal.

The minister needs to realize, again, how big an impact this sort of provision in the collective agreement has on individuals. In Golden we would have laid off probably 15 to 20 teachers most years. So in June you get your layoff. They are laid off, and then over the summer the positions that are available are filled. So it is a process that's stressful. One of the best teachers that I knew did this for ten years in a row. It is a stressful part of a teacher's experience and something that's difficult for a principal as well.

In our district there were seniority provisions. The teacher that was most senior would bid on to a job, and then there was a process that over years evolved to where it was very clear, for each of the jobs, the skill set that was needed. And that skill set would have to be proven.

Now, it could be different in different districts. Sometimes the minister, on radio, talks about scenarios that just seem…. I know they're chosen to sound absurd. They do. The idea of somebody who's teaching a grade 12 class without the proper qualifications…. The minister asserts that.

I guess the question is this. I don't doubt that the minister has one or two examples, but how widespread is the scenario that the minister lays out? He uses it repeatedly, and it makes it sound like this is happening everywhere.

I don't ever remember seeing that sort of scenario in Rocky Mountain school district. I just cannot imagine that scenario. So if the minister has one or two examples that he could share with the House as an example of where this doesn't work, that would be fine.

[1740]

He doesn't have to talk about the district or the individuals, but just the scenario and then an example of how widespread across the province that sort of thing is.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member began his question with the assertion that what was needed was real mediation. Again, I cannot agree with the member's assessment in that regard, and I want to explore that a bit. We have previously, but obviously, if they want to raise the issue again, I'm happy to explore it again.

It seems to me that what the opposition means by real mediation is that the mediation must not come with any limitation on the financial mandate that is imposed on the mediator. If that's what the opposition means by that, I'm glad to hear them articulate it more fully. On every occasion when I have invited them to do so, they have declined the opportunity to get up and explain what their position on net zero is, whether they would utilize net zero in the mandate.

Again, I would be among the last to be critical of them, if they were bold enough to get up and say that, but I think they should, for the record, do that. Is that what the member means by real mediation — mediation without the bounds of net zero around it?

Apart from that, there is nothing else that constrains this mediator. He or she will be constrained by the financial mandate — absolutely. There will be a net zero mandate in this mediation, as there has been now in over 140 agreements that have been reached with public service unions in the province of British Columbia.

To the point, and we've talked about this before, the BCTF requested mediation from the Labour Relations Board. Michael Fleming, the associate chair of mediation, responded yesterday with this letter.

"As noted in my letter, the bargaining positions of the parties and the difficult nature of this bargaining dispute are well known. Based on Ms. Cameron's report to me, I am unable to conclude that at this juncture the appointment of a mediator under section 74 would be of any actual assistance in helping parties to achieve a collective agreement."

From a letter from the same gentleman, Michael Fleming, of March 2:

"BCPSEA has now provided its views regarding the BCTF request. In that regard BCPSEA accepts that mediation can, in the appropriate circumstances, be an effective tool in assisting the parties to reach a collective agreement. However, BCPSEA says that in this case, in order to reach a collective agreement, at a minimum BCTF must accept the net zero mandate. There is no indication that BCTF may be prepared to accept the net zero framework."

[1745]

The member talks about real mediation. I'll invite him, in his next response, to explain to me and explain to the House what the difference is between the mediation proposed in this bill and the real mediation that he would propose. What is it, apart from net zero, that would distinguish it? I know this will perhaps lead the member down an uncomfortable path. The members keep referencing real mediation, and I think they owe it to the people of British Columbia to explain what they mean by that.

If the opposition is going to embrace net zero in the mandate, they should be honest and say so. If they're not, they should also be honest and say so. But to undertake the calculated ambivalence that they do around this point I don't think is fair to anyone.

On the issue of the provision that the member references, we should read (c)(iii) in full: "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs." I think, actually, the people of British Columbia would be shocked if we utilized anything other than student needs in selecting appropriate candidates to teach our children. I think they'd be shocked. Of course we want to do that. I'm sure the member, as a former teacher, as I am, and a former principal, would share that view. Of course we want them to be suitable to student needs.

It may be that in Rocky Mountain school district they have great language around this that achieves this. This is what we seek: an effective balance between seniority and the training, experience and ability to teach an area
[ Page 10120 ]
of course work. Again, we discussed this a little bit earlier, where in some districts one will find that appropriate balance.

I don't have the material with me, but straightaway after the break, if it doesn't come in before the break, I'll read into the record some of the examples that we can bring from districts where selection has been made on the basis of seniority versus the experience, education, training, etc., to teach in a course area.

Again, I think we're really in the realm of common sense here. I've known this member for a long, long time. I know that his feet are generally on the ground, and I know that he would probably agree with me that it would be inappropriate for a school district to have someone, simply on the basis of seniority, whose experience had been limited to teaching high school, to suddenly take over a kindergarten class, or to have someone whose university training is in the area of history and political science to take on a math class.

I'll read some of those examples into the record. I know one can read all kinds of nefarious schemes into what's being attempted here, but it is really common sense, when it comes right down to it, that we need to have a balanced model that takes account of those things.

N. Macdonald: Well, common sense doesn't start today with this bill. I mean, the presumption that there was not common sense in the development of the language that was created in 60 districts is just not accurate. Obviously, there was a process. Over time, if there are problems that exist, then clearly there are problems that need to be fixed.

Then we come back to where we are going to run into difficulty with this. It's essentially a flawed process. The minister can say that it's a person who is acting like you would expect, somebody who is coming in to do these sorts of things normally, but it's not. It's somebody the minister chooses — right? And it's somebody that's not going to be trusted by both sides. I mean, the minister would concede that, in all fairness. You're not going to have the type of discussion that needs to take place to actually align on something that is going to work.

The minister has what is essentially a value statement — right? — scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs. Like, who would disagree with that value statement? But what's behind it, I would assert, is an agenda that that language is written in.

[1750]

What I would say, and this is my experience as a principal and as a teacher and as a president of the teachers union, is that that language is very, very important to make sure that the right person is in front of that classroom, and that language is not something that teachers ever imposed anywhere on a district. These were always collective negotiations, making sure that the full range of things that needed to be thought about would be thought about.

What the minister is setting up is a scenario where there will be one agenda, where one part of what is needed for our classes will be considered, and it will be imposed. This is not a collective agreement that is in any way collective. It's going to be imposed.

The question, then, that I have for the minister as he goes to find individual examples is on the scope. So often in these sorts of debates, where there are 500,000 students…. What's the figure? It's 520,000 students. Everybody does it. You pick one or two extreme examples and say: "Well, this is a problem that needs addressing." More than the individual examples, although I'm curious to hear that….

I would be very curious to know which administrator allowed that, because I never, as a principal, was anything but completely confident in the teachers that I had at my school. I thought that we were excellent every day and that they were top-notch. I don't think, in my district, the superintendents that I've had would ever allow a classroom to have a situation that they didn't get in and deal with. So I'd be interested in hearing that, and I would be interested, again, in hearing the scope. How big a problem is this?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the scope issue, we will try to provide the member with some advice on how much of a challenge the scope of these problems is. But I do hope that the member would also agree with me…. I know, notwithstanding his quite jaded and cynical marks with respect to this bill and this process, that generally he is a reasonable man and subject often to looking at the world in reasonable ways.

I hope he would agree with this assertion on my part that if there are, as there are, 520,000 students in the public education system in British Columbia, each and every one of them deserves to have teachers who are qualified and well prepared to teach the grades and the programs, the courses, which they've been hired to teach.

I'm sure all of us would agree with that, that it would be inappropriate…. Whether it applies to one student, to one class of students, to 100 classes of students, to 1,000 classes of students, one teacher that is inappropriately placed is one too many.

I think it's a matter of having both the clarity and the consistency in the language, because it will be no pleasure for that teacher to attempt to teach a course they're not well suited to or qualified for either. Again, it goes to the issue.

To the examples. From Victoria, and these have been anonymized, as you might expect. Teacher A had the educational preparation to teach biology 11-12 and science 8 and 10 at the secondary level. This person applied to teach in a math 10 and 11, chemistry 11-12 position. This teacher was the most senior applicant for the position and had previous experience teaching math 9
[ Page 10121 ]
through 11 for four years in an alternative program and chemistry at a private school but was not academically qualified to do so.

[1755]

There was a less senior teacher, teacher B, who was academically qualified to teach both chemistry and math. However, due to the necessity to recognize experience and seniority, the position was given to the more senior teacher with the experience.

From Sooke. The Sooke school district has spent $56,000 so far in an arbitration where the teachers union is arguing that a mathematics position should be filled based on seniority rather than qualifications and experience. The district is asserting that in order to teach advanced mathematics in secondary schools, the teacher requires university training with advanced courses.

The grievers don't have any formal math training but are relying on recall provisions in the contract that lower the qualification threshold to "reasonable expectation" that they can perform the duties in a satisfactory manner. The total bill for this arbitration will be known when the award is decided.

General comments. Some districts default to seniority if a candidate has the minimum qualifications. Example: an elementary teacher applies to work at a middle or secondary school to teach grade 8 math or social studies. They then use this as experience teaching secondary math or social studies to get to higher grade-level assignments. The end result is an elementary-trained teacher with no additional university background teaching senior secondary courses.

From Qualicum. Another aspect of seniority is how it applies in some districts to teachers recalled from layoff. In this case a teacher was laid off because the drama program closed in a secondary school because of enrolment decline. The district was required to place the teacher in a vacant position, primary grades. Because she had a teaching certificate, she was deemed qualified. There were qualified primary teachers with less seniority available, and so on.

Again, we'll try to give the member a better sense of scope, but there are those and other examples, which I can provide.

At risk of prolonging the debate, I hope that we might all agree in this chamber that every child of the 520,000 deserves to have a teacher that is appropriate to their instruction and, secondly, that we have that appropriate balance in all districts — and it may already be so in the member's district — between seniority and qualification to teach.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for reading those. I know that wasn't a comprehensive list. There was, really, to be fair, no example there of a kindergarten teacher teaching calculus — right?

I think the member also pointed out something that's very true in terms of accountability. One day in a class where you're not suited to teach — pretty difficult. Two days, three days, that first week — I would say that you're done.

I taught my final time — I was grade 7 — across from the kindergarten room. When the teacher needed to go to the washroom, she'd say: "Just skip over here and watch the kids for a while." I would watch. She did all these things that had them all working, and within two or three minutes there was just a feeling in the room. They were all respectful, but it didn't work. They started to do things and play with things they weren't supposed to. All of that stuff happened, and it would happen in five minutes. So the idea that I would ever go into kindergarten for even a day or that I would apply for a job…. It just doesn't very often happen.

What I would say first is that we need to get it right, but the way to get it right is through a process that's proper. The second thing I would say, and I know that the minister is sincere in the work he's doing for education and that, is that we also have a ten-year legacy where we accepted having 14,000 classes that did not meet the legislated standards that we said were appropriate for children in this province.

I remember then asking the minister: "What about this?" The answer was: "Well, 95 percent of the classes are okay. What's your problem?" I agree with the minister that we should be striving to make it excellent for every student, every experience. I know that that's practically impossible, but we should be striving for it if we're serious about it.

[1800]

The way to get to language that's going to work is not through this process. It will not be thought up by somebody and imposed. It's something that needs to go through a process where there is actual discussion.

Now, I know that I've used up my time, and the minister has been good enough to go over things that other members have asked about and that, no doubt, members will ask again.

I will say one last thing. I understand the minister is going to Dalian School in China next week. There's a Mark Wilkins, who is a principal there now. That's somebody who was a principal at Selkirk school, a colleague there, but we also worked together at McKim. If you can find, after this, a chance to put in a good word…. If this gig doesn't work out for me, you know, he'll be somebody I'll talk to. So put in a good word for me there and say hello. He's a very good gentleman and loves hockey as much as the minister does.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd be delighted to catch up with him, and I certainly share the member's view that it's always appropriate for politicians to be contemplating a post-political career or alternative careers.
[ Page 10122 ]

R. Austin: I'd like to move to subsection 6(2)(d). In regard to matters that are going to be negotiated between the BCTF and boards of education, it may affect other school districts. As the minister has already alluded to, very often in a school system people are aware of what's going on in their school district or in nearby school districts. They may have some sense of what's happening regionally but very often have no notion of what's going on around the province. That, of course, is the purview of the minister and his staff — who, from Victoria, have that broad look throughout the whole province.

That being the case, my question is: how is the mediator, as laid down in section 6, going to be able to look at additional matters without recognizing how it might affect other school districts?

While I've got the floor, could I ask, also: if there are issues that will affect other school districts and which seem reasonable to that mediator, is there going to be an appeals process within this mediation?

[1805]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think what is intended here is to, again, within the mandate of the mediator, be able to look at some of the issues which have been raised by, particularly, the Teachers Federation around what could be effectively better managed or negotiated at the local level versus the provincial level. And as the member knows, because I know he's a student of history, there has been quite a long debate, which I won't launch into, about the distribution. There were some important steps taken in the 1990s around this, but there continues to be a very lively debate about what should appropriately be provincial and what should appropriately be local.

So the attempt here is to put into the mediator's hands the question of what would be more effectively negotiated and then managed at the local level. Would the negotiation of that item in school district A be applicable only to school district A, or would it be something that would immediately have a direct impact on other school districts? That is, I think, what is being asked of the mediator in these sections.

R. Austin: But the mediator, being given a task for a matter of a few months to do this and to report back by June 30…. Whoever he or she ends up being, how would they have enough knowledge and scope to understand the school system as a whole to recognize that what they are being told by either the B.C. Teachers Federation or BCPSEA is, in reality, the reality? We've already seen so much conflict in this relationship that they seem unable to even agree on figures as they negotiate something.

We've seen, clearly, certainly in the media, where the Teachers Federation says that this move in the collective agreement will result in this level of cost and BCPSEA turning around saying: "Well, absolutely not." It's completely different.

[1810]

So my question again to the minister is: how is this person going to be able to adjudicate and understand…? As he or she is looking at potential local-versus-provincial bargaining issues, how are they going to be aware…? Are they going to be getting support from the ministry? How are they going to be aware of what the truth is in terms of the effects on other school districts?

Hon. G. Abbott: Three ways in which we believe the mediator will be able to deal with this issue. The member's question is a good one.

First of all, that's why we want to see a mediator appointed with plenty of experience in the educational sector — so that they'd have a general understanding of these issues.

Secondly, the mediator will be able to work with the parties and receive representations from the parties with respect to the complex issues that may be engaged. Presumably that will be useful.

Third, the mediator would enjoy, as I advised others, under the Labour Code…. This is the power to subpoena information to enable their understanding of the issues at hand.

R. Austin: As we've seen from debate this afternoon, this section clearly has lots of issues in it, some of which have been canvassed, and we have, certainly, a different point of view on this side of the House than the government does. You know, I would hope that when this bill goes through, we don't end up in a place where the mediator ends up almost being like a sort of fact-finder as we saw in the previous process under Trevor Hughes, I believe his name was.

The challenges for whoever it is that takes this on are so great and the way that this mediation has been set up is so challenging that I think that person's job is going to be very difficult.

With that in mind, hon. Chair, I'd like to propose and move the following amendment to Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act. I'd like to amend it as follows:

[Section 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Mediation

6 (1) The Minister of Education must appoint a mediator An independent mediator must be appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code to assist the parties in settling the terms and conditions of a new collective agreement in accordance with this section.

(2) The terms of reference for the mediator are as follows:

…

(c) the new collective agreement is to include any measures which may enable high-quality teaching and learning, including but not limited to

(i) effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement,

(ii) alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and
[ Page 10123 ]

(iii) scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs;]

I have copies here for the Clerk.

Hon. G. Abbott: If we might take a brief break here to consider this and return in five? Would that be all right?

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Oh, okay. I see.

[1815]

On the amendment.

R. Austin: Speaking to this amendment, the purpose of bringing this amendment forward is twofold. I'm going to speak to the second part first, because I think it is easier to deal with.

What we are suggesting here…. The minister already acknowledged throughout this debate on section (c) that the three sections they wanted the mediator to specifically look at was not limited. What we are doing with this amendment is we are explicitly putting into the bill the notion that the mediator shouldn't simply be looking at effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement or, secondly, the alignment of professional development with teaching needs or scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs.

In fact what we are doing is explicitly saying in this bill that the mediator could look at all and any issues of non-monetary nature. What might those be, and what's the reason for us doing it? The reason for us doing it is to allay the fears of some that have been expressed, typically by the teachers, that somehow in choosing only those three topics and putting them into the bills explicitly somehow suggests an agenda that the minister or the government had.

Clearly, that is not what we want to see happen in this bill. Let's not forget that the other part of this bill, aside from the new collective agreement, is in part to mitigate all of the fallout of Bills 27 and 28. We saw how disastrous that was, and these three items here are perceived, whether correctly or not, as being a further potential stripping of contracts. Clearly, that's not in the interest of our education system or the students of British Columbia.

What we are doing in our amendment is putting it into the bill specifically, to allow the mediator to look at a whole range of topics which we believe are beneficial to all of our students. What are some of the things the mediator would be able to look at?

He or she will be able to look at layoff and recall. That is critically important to teachers. They work in a profession where at the outset of their careers most teachers do not have a full-time position for many, many years.

In fact, very often graduates coming out of universities here in the south at the University of Victoria or UBC end up having to perhaps move to Kitwanga or somewhere further up north in order to potentially get a full-time job. If they actually decide to continue to live and work where they have been raised, they may take ten, 15 years before they get a full-time position. So the whole idea of layoff and recall is critical.

They also need to be able to speak about things like job-sharing. We're now living in a world where plenty of people…. I think 78 percent of all the teachers are female, and as a result of that, many teachers choose to go off and take a break from their teaching career to go and have a family. Many of those teachers then decide that once they've got kids of their own, maybe they would like to teach part-time. Maybe they don't want to come back and leave their children at home.

Now more than ever we're seeing the potential for professionals to be working in a workplace environment where they have the potential to job-share. I think that is something else that this mediator could be looking at in addition to the three things sort of being explicitly put in by the minister.

Another thing that teachers, I'm sure, would be happy to see, and I think it would be beneficial to all of us and our students, is the whole issue of professional autonomy. We had a debate earlier on in Bill 22, in section 6, where the government has talked about aligning professional development. Now, some would say that that is removing the autonomy of professionals, and obviously, the minister has a different point of view.

I think that by bringing in the whole notion of what professional autonomy is and having there be a discussion by the mediator will certainly put down some guidelines as to what we believe is important for teachers.

One of the things that we have seen is the way that governments of all stripes treat different professions. I think one of the big problems here and the reason why we are here today debating Bill 22 is in part a feeling of a lack of respect on the teachers' part as a result of what came out of Bills 27 and 28.

[1820]

To have this mediator actually explicitly go and look at professional autonomy can only improve the relationship between the teachers and BCPSEA and the government of the day.

The other part of the amendment that I've put forward is the notion of who's going to appoint this mediator. We've had a long discussion back and forth about whether this is real mediation, imposed mediation. But here's the thing. People believe that a mediator should be independently appointed. To have the government appoint that mediator — the minister, specifically — taints that person's role right from the outset, because they are then seen to be the tool of the minister.

I realize that the minister has a different point of view, but the reality is that if a government minister appoints
[ Page 10124 ]
a mediator via legislation like this, imposed legislation that's being opposed, then inevitably that mediator is going to be taking on a role already feeling as though it's been tainted to one side or the other.

By taking this out, by bringing this amendment in and taking the role of the appointment of that mediator outside of the Legislature to an outside body, right then and there we're giving a greater sense of legitimacy to that mediator. That, I think, is critical. We've already mentioned how challenging the job is going to be here, given the history not only of the negotiations over the last year, not only of the negotiations around Bills 27 and 28, both of which proved to be fruitless after much hours and many resources put into them.

So I think that the idea of having an independently appointed mediator is certainly an improvement, a good step forward in helping this process. At the end of the day, that's what this is. This is a process. We're trying to alleviate a lot of issues, and it's taking place in a context that has been poisoned for a number of years. This is not something that's just happened over the last year. A lot of the parts of Bill 22 come about as a result of ten years of anger at what took place with Bills 27 and 28.

For a mediator to then be appointed by the minister from the same government that brought in bills that are ruled unconstitutional doesn't help in the process. I think that if we are to try and improve things here and to make this process work better, then a good step, a first step, is to say: "Let's at least have the mediator appointed by an outside body other than the government."

With the moving of this amendment, I'm hoping that we will see some movement on the part of the government. Certainly, in relation to the second part of this amendment, the minister has already spoken many, many times during this debate. He has emphasized that even though section 6 does explicitly ask the mediator to look at three specific items…. He's already suggested many, many times that the mediator is not going to be confined to that.

All we are saying with our amendment is: "Good, Minister. Let's simply put that in writing for all to see." That way, the bargaining process or the mediation process, however it goes, will at least be seen to be more open, more fair and willing to look at issues other than those that may appear to be part of an agenda.

That is the purpose of this amendment. I think that if the mediator is able to look at issues such as transfers between school districts…. That's another issue that is very critical to the school system.

We have seen in the last few years that school districts all around the province have varied hugely in terms of the number of students, either going up or down, so it is very critical for teachers to have the ability to transfer out from one district to another. There have historically been huge challenges around that.

I think that this is another topic that this mediator could look at and address in a timely fashion and bring forward ideas that will enable school districts that are having increasing numbers to be able to attract teachers from another school district, who may feel that they've got to stay there because they're tied to a specific contract and want to try and gain seniority.

[1825]

Maybe they're still on the TOC list. Maybe they've spent ten years on the TOC list in a district that doesn't have an increasing student population, and now they could have an opportunity…. If we are able to figure out how to do transfers and make it easier, they would have that ability to move from that school district and get a full-time job in another school district.

That's another issue that I think is critical in terms of what we are saying this amendment will encourage the mediator to look at, because as far as I know, the minister has already agreed in his earlier comments that these things are able to be spoken to, but I think it's important to make it explicit.

I think another one is around temporary teacher rights. We talk a lot here about seniority and those members of the BCTF who have full-time positions, but the reality is when people come out of school, as I've already mentioned, many teachers will remain temporary teachers for a number of years. I think that that's another issue that this mediator can attempt to look at and come up with some solutions that address temporary teacher rights in relation to their counterparts who have successfully found full-time positions.

I think another item is to look at and to enable teachers to be part of the process in new school planning. What we have seen over the last few years…. I'll just give a quick example from my school district. In my school district we had a new school that was approved and built and then sat empty for many, many years. I think, you know, first of all, that's a crying shame of a huge amount of capital dollars. But we need to have a better process for understanding where we need to be building new schools and how each school district can plan around either the increase or decrease of school populations.

So there are a whole host of issues that we think are important for this mediator to be able to speak to. I think what we hope to achieve by this, and we do believe this to be constructive, is to try and remove some of the anger and poison that has been in this relationship between the BCTF and BCPSEA. By moving this amendment and by supporting this amendment, we think that we are, in part, moving in a slightly better direction in improving that relationship.

I also think that we should allow the mediator or ask the mediator to speak to something that I know is very important to the Minister of Education, and that is educational change. We have seen in the last year or so the minister bring forward a document around changes to
[ Page 10125 ]
the education system here in British Columbia. It's often referred to as the Liberal B.C. education plan. So far, what we have seen is a whole bunch of quite fluffy words, most of which sound very good, but no real explicit details as to what the educational change actually means.

I think that what we need to do is to start to speak to that educational change and figure out as a society, as a community, what it is that we want to do to improve our educational system — right? Clearly, we can't simply have it come out of Victoria in a nice document with a nice slide show that says: "Here's what we want to achieve." At the end of the day, what we have to do is get down to the brass tacks and figure out what kinds of changes need to happen in the education system of British Columbia to truly make it better in the 21st century.

What does 21st-century education mean? We haven't seen that defined at all in any of the documentation, although I would agree that some of the goals, some of the frothy words are wonderful. They sound great, but we haven't seen any details yet. I think that educational change is something else that this mediator can start to attempt to look at and to come to some resolution between the school trustees and teachers, because at the end of the day, any change that happens in our school system, notwithstanding the legislative hammer, has to have the support not just of the teachers but every adult, every professional person, who works in the school system. Clearly, we're not arriving at that place by having Bill 22 imposed.

[1830]

But I think that by at least bringing in the idea of talking about other issues with the mediation, that can create an atmosphere where we can have some positive dialogue instead of….

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to move the committee recess.

Could I just ask, though…? I need to know this as we consider the proposals. The three dots following the terms of reference "for the mediator are as follows…." There are three dots, and it goes to sub (c). Are the three dots to mean that you are proposing to retain (a) and (b) as written in the document?

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, they're retained as they are written. Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, I move the committee recess for 30 minutes. By agreement, the committee will sit until nine this evening.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is in recess for 30 minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:31 p.m. to 7:05 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to take my place to speak to the amendment that has been moved in committee stage on section 6, as it relates to Bill 22.

The intent of this amendment, the purpose of this amendment, really is to accomplish two things, I believe. The first is to ensure that we appoint a mediator that in fact is truly independent. It is my view, as a member of this House, that what Bill 22 offers is not an independent mediator.

It offers a mediator who is appointed by the government, who is appointed by the minister, which is not at all the common practice that we would see under the Labour Relations Code, particularly under section 74 where in fact, mediators are appointed on quite a frequent basis. They are independent, and they usually are appointed — in the case of mediators, obviously, with the hope that both parties find that particular individual, who's appointed to that position, to be acceptable in terms of their interests and somebody that they deem will act fairly and on their behalf.

The challenge with this particular aspect is that we have a situation where if the minister, as the legislation calls for, appoints that mediator, I think it's immediately called into question. No matter the credibility of the individual, the integrity of the individual, the reputation or the experience of the individual — all of those things being considered — it's still called into question when it is the minister who makes that appointment and it's not by mutual agreement of the parties at the table — in this case, the employers association and the Teachers Federation.

Sadly, though the government clearly could make the determination at the end of debate of this amendment that they will in fact adopt the amendment, at this point that is not what's contemplated in the legislation, in Bill 22. We have a situation where that's an issue that truly needs to be dealt with.

What we're offering, and what the member for Skeena has offered in the amendment that he has put forward, is going back to the tried-and-true practice under the Labour Code, which would in fact put in place that mediator who is truly independent.

The second piece of this that's addressed by this amendment is equally important. First of all, you need to put in place a mediator who has the confidence of both parties. I've spoken a little bit to the importance of that and to how we address that. The second piece is ensuring that the criteria and the breadth of parameters of that mediator are such that they can in fact address the
[ Page 10126 ]
issues that are at hand. The minister has talked about the issue of wages. That's not what I want to talk about here. I want to talk about the non-monetary items. I want to talk about the items that are addressed in the legislation.

What we see in the legislation, in Bill 22 in section 6(2)(c), is that it lays out, I believe, a very narrow context for that mediator to address. It talks about, in section (c), what the new collective agreement needs to be. This is what the mediator's challenge will be. The new collective agreement "is to enable high-quality teaching and learning" — which nobody would disagree with.

The challenge becomes the three areas that are identified as those to be contemplated. First, "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement." Second, "alignment of professional development with teaching needs." Third, "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs." Those are all somewhat vague. Frankly, I have no quarrel with those three items being considered by the mediator. I have no quarrel with that at all.

[1910]

What I have a problem with is that the legislation, in my view, comes to a full stop at that point. That's the problem. It doesn't say here that the mediator will in fact interpret any range of other items.

What we know is part of the concern here is that while media reports seem to want to talk about what the teachers did or didn't ask for in terms of compensation for monetary terms, what they didn't talk about — and what those media reports have never spoken about, and what we know is at least as important if not more important to the B.C. Teachers Federation and to individual teachers — are a whole array of other items that are in fact non-monetary.

We know that list exists. What I would say to the minister in this context is that it becomes important…. If the minister wants to enunciate these three particular items and outline these three particular items as a specific concern, they belong in the legislation. There is a whole list of other items that the Teachers Federation would tell this minister also belong on that list.

I would suggest that there may be items outside of even what the teachers have identified that, in the context and during the process of mediation, might come to light that need to be considered as well. But once the minister, through Bill 22, starts identifying these specific items as, "These are the items that will" — as section (6)(2)(c) says — "'enable high-quality teaching and learning,'" then you start to wonder whether that's at the exclusion of other items.

Now, when I look at the list of items that the teachers put forward, none of those seem unreasonable for consideration by the mediator. However the mediator deems, at the end of the day, to deal with those, that's a whole other matter that the process of mediation should capture. But the teachers in their list of items that would be considered non-monetary, non-wage-related items, include layoff and recall, issues of qualifications, educational change, job-sharing, seniority, evaluation, the rights of temporary teachers, supervision, transfers, professional autonomy, new-school planning, staff committees and how members are appointed there.

These are all items that have equal value, quite frankly, to the issue of enabling high-quality teaching and learning. Not only that, but all of these are items that, quite honestly, are much more specific in terms of we in this House, the public and the people at the table being able to get their heads around what they actually mean.

I think most people know, if we're talking about qualifications, what we should be talking about. If we're talking about job-sharing or seniority, we know what we're talking about. What the minister has included in the legislation are items that are open, at best, to interpretation.

Effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement. That could be interpreted in many, many ways. Alignment of professional development with teaching needs. Again, very open to interpretation. These are the kinds of items that we have in front of us.

We have an amendment here. This is an amendment that talks about giving the mediator the chance to succeed. We had said at the beginning of this exercise, before the legislation was introduced and after the legislation was introduced in second reading debate, that if the government truly believes that mediation has value, if the government truly believes we should be going forward with mediation, then it is incumbent upon the government to give that mediation every opportunity to succeed.

[1915]

We know a couple of things. First of all, we know it's going to be extremely difficult, in the best of times, for this mediation to succeed. These are parties who are far apart. We have parties who certainly don't have a lot of confidence in each other's positions. We have teachers, and not the Teachers Federation but individual teachers — thousands upon thousands of them — who feel that they've been disrespected by the government.

The Chair: Member, I'm listening carefully to your submission. We are not in second reading debate.

S. Simpson: We are not, hon. Chair, and I respect that.

The Chair: We are in committee. The mover of the amendment made these points. Can I ask you to be specific to the amendment.

S. Simpson: Well, hon. Chair, I would say that I am making the points on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Hastings. Thank you for your advice, hon. Chair. I will follow it.

The situation we face is this. This is a situation where
[ Page 10127 ]
the people of Vancouver-Hastings, my constituents, have sent me here to speak to Bill 22. My constituents have sent me here to provide advice that I have from them on Bill 22. And more importantly, this….

The Chair: Member, my ruling stands. We will not engage in repetitive debate.

S. Simpson: Thank you, hon. Chair.

My comments here, then, relate to the matter of what happens if the amendment doesn't pass. What happens if we don't adopt this amendment? I understand that my colleague from Skeena talked about what happens and why we should pass the amendment, and what will happen if we do pass the amendment. I respect your ruling at this point in regard to that. So let me talk about what happens if the amendment doesn't pass, and what we do there.

If the amendment doesn't pass, we will have a situation where the capacity and the ability of the mediator is not…. They don't have the capacity, and they don't have the rules to in fact be able to achieve their objectives. They don't have the ability to do what they need to do, based on Bill 22. If we all want Bill 22 to succeed, then presumably we want the best possible language in Bill 22 to make that succeed. The best possible language in Bill 22, in fact, would be for us to have language that ensured the mediator had the best capacity to be successful.

For us to do that, it means we have to have a mediation process that is acknowledged in the labour relations community as being credible. I do not believe that a mediation process that wavers so far out of what the Labour Code says will be deemed to be credible in the labour relations community. If it's not deemed to be credible in the labour relations community, its ability to be successful here is called into question.

So this really becomes a question of: what would you look at in conventional terms around the Labour Relations Code? What would you reasonably expect in mediation around the Labour Relations Code? You would expect a piece of legislation that respected section 74 of the code. You would expect a piece of legislation that, in fact, said that we're moving forward here.

Hon. Chair, I know I'm getting to my green light.

I would say that I believe we need fair mediation. I believe we need a process that has broad enough parameters to ensure the mediator has scope to be successful. In order for that to happen, it is my view that this amendment moved by the member for Skeena begins to give us maybe a shred of hope for that to be successful. That would be what I would hope would occur.

We're not going to see that under the current language in Bill 22. We may, with some luck, see that under the amendment that has been moved by the member for Skeena. It is my position, and it is my view as the member for Vancouver-Hastings speaking for the people of Vancouver-Hastings and speaking for nobody else, as I have been elected to be here and to do — to speak for the people of Vancouver-Hastings as no other member in this place can.

[1920]

I believe it's important that we move forward with this amendment and that every member get up and speak their piece on behalf of their constituents, their constituency, as they were elected to do in this place. If they speak for their constituents and for their constituency, maybe we'll get the decision we need.

The Chair: I will caution all members in their submission to adhere to the rules of committee, which are moving away from repetitive debate.

Point of Order

J. Horgan: Point of order. Hon. Chair, I certainly respect your ruling. But as I read Standing Order 43 with respect to the rules of debate, the explicit reference is "tedious repetition." I would argue that that's a subjective term and certainly one within your prerogative.

However, as my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings stated, all members of this House are here to participate in debate on Bill 22 at committee stage. An amendment has been proposed, and I think it's appropriate that members speak to that amendment to the best of their abilities to represent their constituency.

So there. Figure that one out.

The Chair: I thank the member for his submission.

The ruling stands. The sense of repetitive debate is, frankly, not something that is acceptable in committee.

I await the next submission.

Debate Continued

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents in Vancouver-Kensington in favour of the amendment to section 6 of Bill 22. I'm pleased to hear the amendment from the member for Skeena. I think it captures and addresses the two main weaknesses and contradictions in Bill 22.

The amendment addresses the fundamental flaws, I feel — the first one being the ability of the minister to select a government-appointed mediator. The amendment speaks to allowing an independent mediator to be selected and have the ability to intervene in the process and be seen as conducting a fair assessment and a fair mediation.

The selection of the mediator previously under Bill 22, allowing a government-appointed mediator, is seen to be one-sided and also doesn't have the ability to address a number of issues that have been longstanding for a number of years in the education system.

Certainly, today the situation we find ourselves in, in
[ Page 10128 ]
this current round of negotiation, trying to resolve these very serious issues with a government-appointed mediator…. I feel it undermines the ability to reach and be able to have a constructive relationship that both parties will be able to move forward on and address legitimate concerns — certainly concerns of teachers and concerns of the employer.

[1925]

The issue of a fair, equitable and reasonable mediation process, I think, is key to being able to resolve this impasse that we find ourselves in today. The issue of adopting an independent mediator would have the ability for both sides to come together and feel that their concerns, both parties' concerns, are being addressed and are being taken seriously in an independent and fair manner.

So the first part of the amendment on section 6 of Bill 22 is quite significant, and I think it would go a long way towards being able to put teachers and the government on a path to being able to resolve a number of outstanding issues.

The second component of the amendment addresses adopting an independent mediator. The second aspect — to broaden the terms of reference and to expand the scope for the independent mediator to bring these issues onto the table and have the ability to mediate those issues.

Under Bill 22 three areas have been cited for the government-appointed mediator to address: the effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement, the alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and the scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs.

These are certainly three issues and three items that I believe, amongst a number of concerns, should be addressed and would be in the best interest of resolving this crisis that we currently have in our education system. A number of items expand the scope in those terms of reference to include these three that have been laid out in Bill 22, but also recognizing concerns and serious issues, very substantive issues — for example, layoff and recall of teachers. For the ability to have that significant item on the table, and to allow an independent mediator to reach a resolve and hear a number of concerns and issues….

This issue that we have before us, the resolving of the negotiations with the B.C. Teachers Federation, the government and the employer…. Our education system is complex, and there are a number of different items. That's why I think this amendment speaks to…. It's a real strength and a real positive that it brings, and it widens the scope of the issues to be resolved and to be mediated.

In addition to layoff and recall, I also believe having on the table the issue of temporary teacher rights — and, for example, the accompanying issues and concerns that temporary teachers have — is advantageous to allow a mediator to hear those concerns, to come onto the table and have those issues resolved in a manner that will be recognized and respected by both parties.

For example, on the issue of temporary teacher rights, certainly no shortage to address in terms of teachers teaching on call…. Teachers teaching on call — it may be a teacher new to the profession, a beginning teacher, a teacher new to B.C., a teacher returning to the profession. These are all issues, and in particular, these teachers find themselves in a precarious position without the ability to be placed in work based on seniority, for example.

[1930]

As well, temporary teachers don't receive, for example, medical coverage, dental coverage, extended health coverage, extended health benefits. These are all very legitimate concerns, important issues.

It's important not only to the quality of the working conditions and the teaching environment for these teachers, for temporary teachers, but it also contributes and has an impact and effect in the classroom.

The ability to expand the scope of reference and to bring these issues, in addition to the three in Bill 22, around temporary teacher rights; around layoff and recall; around, for example, issues of seniority, which again have an impact on temporary teachers….

That's also an issue that arises, particularly for temporary teachers. It's the issues that arise from that — the ability, for example, for temporary teachers to have their seniority rights recognized and to bring that onto the table for discussion in terms of having a standardized approach that's fair and equitable to all teachers.

Teachers that enter the profession…. I think it's more than…. I think that this process should also reflect and should really be able to recognize that teachers enter their profession…. It's a vocation. It's a calling, I think. For the ability to have…. I think it does justice. It really does justice to teachers. It does justice to our education system.

It really serves the children in the classroom for this amendment to have that expanded scope and to include these items in addition to the three that were set out originally in Bill 22.

Having these issues and the ability for an independent mediator to reach a resolution and move forward to build and strengthen our education system, I think, is a positive step forward. It would contribute to reaching a solution that I know the government, the employers and teachers want, as well as parents and students and children.

In addition, the issue of evaluation of teachers in a fair and transparent process. I think this is also a very worthy issue to be added to the list of items for a mediator to have the scope and the purview to review and also to make recommendations.

There's the issue, also, of professional autonomy. These are all items that…. I think having them on the table and expanding the scope and recognizing the full breadth of issues that arise in the classroom on a professional level,
[ Page 10129 ]
certainly in terms of professional development for teachers — concerns that also administrators and the employers have…. All sides participating in our education system certainly are concerned, in terms of addressing them. We have to be able to move forward in a holistic manner to resolve these challenges we face.

The issue of professional autonomy — adding that as an additional item and expanding the list in terms of what a mediator would have the ability and scope and the jurisdiction to mediate is also significant.

[1935]

The professional autonomy in development of teachers through a whole range of development is important in terms of how our education system is not a static thing. It's very dynamic and multifaceted. To expand the scope and recognize the challenges, in just this century, of what teaching means and how we build and strengthen a vibrant and very rigorous education system….

The ability to address these issues that encompass and really capture, I think, the wide range and just the challenges of teaching. The amendment to bring an independent mediator to be seen as offering a fair and equitable resolution — I think that that is going to be a big benefit.

Also, to expand the scope of the items to allow the mediator to really get into the meat of all aspects of what needs to be addressed in our education system and the issues on the table. The reality the teachers have in the classroom and that both sides — employers and teachers and parents — have concerns about….

I think this amendment from the member for Skeena….

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

I would again caution all members on repetitive debate.

C. Trevena: Madam Chair, I take your caution under advisement. I will recognize it and will speak in favour of the amendment to Bill 22 as proposed by the member for Skeena — as I have been speaking in favour of the previous amendment, which was tabled in this Legislature by the member for Juan de Fuca — and on the bill itself.

Bill 22 has sparked a huge amount of interest and concern in, I think, all our constituencies. I know that I've been hearing from many people across the province but from very, very many people on the north Island who are very worried and are very eager to see that there is fairness in this.

One of the things about fairness is what is being proposed in this amendment. The fairness that we have is instead of imposed mediations, imposed by the Education Minister. It's that there is an independent mediator appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code. That's what this amendment suggests — the first part of it, under section 6.

It's amending section 6 of Bill 22, deleting the words "the Minister of Education must appoint a mediator" and instead inserting the words: "An independent mediator must be appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code." The Labour Relations Code, of course, is something that employers have to abide by under the laws of B.C. And so they should.

The Labour Relations Board is also set up to try and find ways out of disputes. What we are doing here in this piece of legislation, in trying to amend it, is trying to, basically, assist the government to find a way out of this.

Under section 77 of the Labour Relations Code…. It's a section on mediation officer and services.

Section 74, under which this amendment is tabled, says:

"The associate chair of the Mediation Division may appoint a mediation officer if (a) notice has been given to commence collective bargaining between a trade union and an employer, (b) either party makes a written request to the associate chair to appoint a mediation officer to confer with the parties to assist them to conclude a collective agreement or a renewal or a revision of it, and" — I think this is a pertinent one — "(c) the request is accompanied by a statement of the matters the parties have or have not agreed on in the course of collective bargaining."

[1940]

I think everybody is very aware of those sections and issues that both parties have and haven't agreed on. It also allows for, under section 74…. This is why I do think it's a very strong amendment that should be taken seriously by the Minister of Education and the government side when considering this and not be thrown out of hand just because it's been proposed by the opposition. Under section 74, it states that the mediation officer "need not be an employee of the board," which is good because we're looking for an independent officer.

It states in (3) that the minister "may at any time during the course of collective bargaining between an employer and a trade union, if he or she considers that the appointment is likely to facilitate the making of a collective agreement, appoint a mediation officer to confer with the parties." That would be the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services that would be appointing a mediator, not the Minister of Education, who is directly involved with it. So it gives that independence.

Number (4) is also, I think, very important. There's a time limit on it. It's not just going to go on for week upon week upon week. Under section 74(4) of the Labour Relations Code, it states:

"If a mediation officer is appointed to confer with the parties, the mediation officer must, no later than 10 days after first meeting with the parties or 20 days after the mediation officer's appointment, whichever is sooner, or such longer period as the parties agree on or as the minister" — again, the Minister of Labour — "directs, report to the associate chair setting out the matters on which the parties have or have not agreed and such other information as the mediation officer considers relevant to the collective bargaining between the parties."

Under section 74, it's quite clear that there is a very ordered way for the situation to proceed. Following section 74, you are setting up a system where there'll be somebody who's independent appointed by the Minister of
[ Page 10130 ]
Labour and Citizens' Services and the chair of the mediation division to ensure that there is a mediation process in place.

It also continues. "If either party so requests of the associate chair, or if the minister so directs, the mediation officer must provide to the associate chair and the parties a report concerning the collective bargaining dispute, and the report may include recommended terms of settlement."

Finally, section (6): "Parties conferring with a mediation officer under this section must provide the information that the mediation officer requests concerning their collective bargaining."

Now, this was drawn up to try and avoid impasses such as the one we're in. Having an independent mediation officer appointed through the Labour Relations Board is an effort to break an impasse. That's why I think that this proposed amendment, which says very clearly that it's going to be appointed under section 74 of the Labour Relations Code, really does help break that impasse.

As I say, it's got the time limit. It's appointed by the Labour Relations Board. According to the Labour Relations Board, if I might quote…. This is from the Labour Relations Board. A mediator "promotes objectivity and compromise and acts as a catalyst to help the parties move away from their polarized positions."

That, too, is from the Labour Relations Board and is really the raison d'être of mediation through the Labour Relations Board, the raison d'être of using mediation to solve an impasse in collective bargaining, which is, as I mentioned, exactly where we're at.

We have come to an impasse. We've been discussing this for a few days. We have tabled a previous amendment which was looking at mediation and asking for mediation. That was, very sadly, rejected by the government.

We're here offering the government, really, an opportunity to ensure that future relationships with the teachers and future relationships within collective bargaining will actually work smoothly — that this isn't thrown out of hand — because it's indicative of the way that labour relations should be handled.

The mediation division of the Labour Relations Board, as I've mentioned, can appoint a mediator in a collective bargaining dispute to assist the parties in reaching collective agreement. The way it works is the mediator meets the parties and works on resolving the areas of disagreement for a new collective agreement. They've got to report to the associate chair on the outcome of mediation within 20 days, so this is not going to drag on and on.

[1945]

I have to say that I think one of the things that many people find very surprising in all of this, when we're looking at mediation and we're looking at what is under section 74 and what is there, is all the different options that are there within the Labour Relations Code — the government's Labour Relations Code which we are supposed to be working under, supposed to have respect for.

All the parties want mediation. The B.C. Teachers Federation wants mediation. The B.C. Public School Employers Association, the employers, want mediation. The B.C. School Trustees, the people who have the local governance of education, want mediation. Even the parents, as expressed through BCCPAC, have said that they want mediation.

In fact, a poll was carried out across the province and found that 82 percent of people who were polled wanted this dispute solved through mediation.

By deleting, as this amendment suggests, that the Minister of Education appoint a mediator and turning it over to section 74 of the Labour Relations Code, that problem would be solved.

We would be able to, through this legislation, through this moment — if we can accept this amendment, if the Minister of Education stands up and says that he will accept this amendment — solve a huge number of problems and make everybody very happy.

At the moment, the only group in all of this that doesn't want mediation, that cannot see that this is an important thing to be doing — the only group, I think, in the whole province — is the government.

I frankly find that very…. I was going to say shocking. Maybe I shouldn't be shocked, because we have seen legislation used instead of negotiation many times before.

Here we are, trying to find a way out of having legislation as negotiation and find a way of getting back to negotiation, getting back to a place where we can have the teachers talking to the employers through an independent mediator. It would really, really be of huge, huge assistance.

I've got to say…. We have, in the debate over this bill, quoted from teachers many, many times. I would like to quote from one teacher here that I have a letter from. It's pertinent to this debate, and it's pertinent to this amendment. It's from a teacher who teaches Canadian government to grade 5 students. So to the 12-year-olds, this teacher teaches Canadian government.

She writes: "Our government has three branches. The legislative branch passed two bills five years ago, and the judicial branch ruled those illegal. This is how our government works. The different branches keep each other in check."

She goes on: "If the government truly wishes to end this dispute, both sides have agreed to mediation. Bill 22 is unnecessary. The Bill 22 mediator is imposed on us by the government. This isn't true mediation, as I understand it. Only government issues are being discussed in the mediation. Who does this Liberal government think they're kidding?"

A teacher who teaches government to grade 5 students is shocked by this, is living it. I'm very interested to see what her course curriculum is going to be like in the next year, having lived through this.
[ Page 10131 ]

This teacher who teaches government is very straight-up. She says: "You know, we want mediation. We don't want imposed mediation. We want to have open mediation."

This is something that teachers have been saying. They've read Bill 22. They know what's in it, and they're very concerned about the prescriptive nature of the mediation. It's not just that it's imposed, but it is that it's prescriptive. It is saying to the mediator: "You are only allowed to discuss certain points."

This isn't what mediation is about. Mediation, as section 74 suggests, as others who work in mediation suggest, is bringing together what different sides can bring forward — not just: "We are only going to allow this to be discussed." That is not being straight with people. It's not giving a fair chance for mediation to work. It's not saying that mediation is going to have an opportunity.

[1950]

By limiting it to these three points rather than looking at the many, many other areas which could be discussed, which don't have a cost implication and which have been requested — such as qualifications, job-sharing, temporary teachers' rights, seniority, evaluation, layoff and recall, all these things which the teachers would like to discuss….

I have no problems saying that these are areas that teachers have said that they would like to discuss. They'd also like to talk about supervision, transfers, professional autonomy, new-school planning, staff committees. These are all genuine concerns that the teachers have, which they'd like to be able to discuss through mediation. Through this section 74, mediation would really allow teachers to do it.

We are here, without either going too far beyond the amendment or causing too much concern…. What we're discussing here in Bill 22 is our public education system.

We are also talking about our labour relations system in both ways, and in both ways the government's intransigence on this is really causing huge problems. It is really disrupting the foundations for our public education system. It's losing the teachers' trust. It is losing the ability for the teachers to be able to know that they're going to be well treated when they are having their negotiations. It also undermines the fair and free collective bargaining by not looking at section 74 of the Labour Relations Code and instead having an imposed mediator.

The amendment allows for a solution to be found. I think that if this amendment were embraced by the government, it would do what all parties in this House — the government side, our side, the independent side…. I seriously think it would lessen the chance of further instability.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I again ask the members to avoid repetition in debate.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak to the amendment. Let me begin by talking about the first aspect of the amendment, because this amendment has some complexity to it, although it is relatively brief and to the point. It seeks to address a major issue in the debate. I doubt that in the 15 minutes that I have to speak to this that I'll be able to complete all the unique points that I wish to place before the House and ask that the House consider my argument.

The amendment begins by striking the first part of section 6(1): "The Minister of Education must appoint a mediator…." This particular aspect of the proposed legislation is a problem. It is problematic for a very good reason.

What has come about through the course of this dispute is the fact that the Minister of Education, in this reading of this proposed legislation, would appoint the mediator. That has an issue of perception that goes with it.

Many would see the employer's bargaining agent and the minister as being, if not one and the same, very close. In fact, in her decision, Madam Justice Griffin — and this is the Supreme Court of British Columbia decision…. The reasons given by the hon. Madam Justice Griffin…. She addressed that very issue in considering some of the labour relations history.

[1955]

If I might quote briefly from the decision in order to illustrate this point more clearly. This is from paragraph 368 of the decision, on page 93.

"BCPSEA" — that's the British Columbia Public School Employers Association — "recognized that there were a number of traditional labour solutions available under the Labour Relations Code, including mediation, the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner that could impose resolution processes such as final offer selection or arbitration, or a third party could be appointed with authority to conclude a collective agreement. All of these traditional labour solutions would involve a process that would allow BCTF to negotiate and argue its positions before a decision or recommendation was made by a party independent of the employer."

What is being recognized by the court in this particular case — it's not necessarily my assertion on this point; this is a point that's recognized by the court — is that the traditional mechanisms of the Labour Relations Board, which includes appointing an independent mediator, which is what the first aspect of this amendment includes….

The wording of the amendment is: "An independent mediator must be appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code…."

What the court recognized is that there is a perception issue, whereby the bargaining agent of the employer and the minister — perhaps unreasonably in the view of some but in the perception of many — are regarded as one and the same.

What the court recognizes, in her recitation of this particular history, is that using the traditional labour solutions would allow the union to negotiate and argue its positions before a decision or recommendation was made by a party independent of the employer. This is key
[ Page 10132 ]
in a very deep and profound dispute, with deep labour relations history and a history of animosity and bitterness.

While this may seem like a small issue, a slight and subtle difference, it is nonetheless a major difference. The amendment is put forward with the hopes, obviously, that the government and the minister will agree with this amendment and proceed to mediation by this route — appointing someone independent of the employer, using those traditional methods. That particular aspect of the amendment, I think, is an important one and a significant one.

Now, it's not clear…. The minister has yet to speak in response to that. So I'm hopeful and I'm optimistic that the wisdom of this position will prevail and that the minister will accept this position.

The other aspect of the proposed amendment is set out in…. The amendment that's before the House would modify section 6(2)(c) to "include any measures which may…including but not limited to…." And then it goes on to list (i), (ii) and (iii).

Now, I participated in the debate earlier this afternoon, where the minister said — I hope I'm summarizing his position — that the mediator was not limited to the topics that are set out in (i), (ii) and (iii). In other words, there was a more, in his words, open-ended mandate than simply being limited by that.

There are other aspects, including the…. These are the non-monetary issues. We're not talking about the net zero mandate, but we're talking solely about non-monetary issues. The minister has said that the mediator could choose from 1,100 or so bargaining items that have been tabled, providing they're consistent with the legislative framework that's set out. So that's an open-ended.

So I would expect, given that the minister has basically confirmed, in debate, the wording of this amendment, that he would, at the appropriate moment, indicate that he accepts this aspect of the amendment and that he supports it. All it does is simply make clearer and incorporate into the legislation what he has already expressed in debate.

Frankly, the debate might be shortened if the minister would indicate his support for that. Many important speeches, all of them unique in their own way, would be avoided.

[2000]

If the concern is the length of debate, the minister has an avenue to shorten debate by indicating at some point — preferably any moment; I'm hopeful that he'll stand up — that he agrees with this aspect of the amendment, that we have correctly interpreted what he said earlier in debate, that the amendment incorporates his view of the role of the mediator on these non-monetary items, that it's an open-ended debate and that we don't need to prolong the debate on that point. The solution is in the minister's hands, if he chooses to shorten debate, but although I'm ever optimistic, I fear that he may not heed my advice. He hasn't, on occasion, in the past.

I do want to also say why this is important, because there have been a number of non-monetary items that have been tabled at bargaining that could be and should be addressed by the independent mediator, if the first part of the amendment is accepted. These are important aspects of a collective agreement. They are definitely non-monetary, so they don't offend, in the minister's view, the net zero mandate.

If I could give some examples of a few of them and perhaps make some comment on each one of them, one of them would be layoff and recall. Simply because of the way in which the education financing formula works in various districts — and it works in different ways in various districts, obviously, depending on the number of students and the availability of teachers — typically, at the end of the school year, teachers are sometimes given layoff notice and then are recalled in accordance with the collective agreement in the fall, depending on funding.

That is a practice — obviously a distressing practice if you're the subject of the layoff — and, I think, many public school employers in various school boards are reluctant to do that, but nonetheless, the financing system requires them to do that. If there's a better way to deal with the issues of layoff and recall, and since this is an open-ended process, the mediator could and should perhaps provide some helpful comments on the issue of layoff and recall. As a part of the process, I would look forward to those comments of the independent mediator, were she to be appointed.

The next issue that, again, is a frequent issue — and we've canvassed some of that earlier in debate — is the issue of qualifications. The minister has expressed some strong views about qualifications, about teachers being qualified or not to teach certain levels of instruction or specialized subjects and how that might conflict, in his view, with other aspects of a collective agreement.

These would be important issues where a skilled independent mediator could bring expertise to bear as part of the give-and-take of the parties, examine what has been already tabled, look at it and make some recommendations there. I think that example is a fruitful avenue of consideration for the minister.

A further example of something that could be considered by the independent mediator is the issue of educational change. One hears in many debates, sometimes repetitiously from the government side, frequent speeches that are almost word-for-word identical on the issue of educational change, but it's never defined. It's simply the same boilerplate repeated by each member.

Yet I think there's a real issue there about educational change that an independent mediator could bring some expertise to bear on. School boards and superintendents, the public sector bargaining agent, the executive and the bargaining committee of the BCTF have generations of expertise to bring to bear on that issue of edu-
[ Page 10133 ]
cational change.

[2005]

Both sides are deeply concerned about the future of our public education system, the 520,000 students that are in the public education system, so I think that would be a very fruitful area for an independent mediator to take up and examine and offer some potential solutions that could be incorporated into the collective agreement. The result would be a better collective agreement and a better public school system.

A further area that would be fruitful for an independent mediator to examine would be, in my view, job-sharing. Often, given the changing workplace and, sometimes, given the requirements in smaller districts, there are not sufficient instructional hours to require a full-time teacher. Those might be positions that were more suited for someone who wanted to work in a way that shared the work with another teacher.

Frequently — although this is not always the case, because men take parental leave, as well as women — women who sometimes are teachers leave the workforce on maternity leave and don't seek to return as full-time teachers but might prefer the option of job-sharing with another fellow teacher who's in the same position. That opportunity to job-share is a complicated one. It involves complicated language in a collective agreement. In my view, an independent mediator might well be able to bring some expertise to bear on that question, fashion a solution that would be helpful and make our public education system better.

One further area that I think would benefit from the attention of an independent mediator would be the issue of seniority. This is obviously a vexed issue. The minister has made representations here in the Legislature about what he views as the problem with seniority, yet the very foundation of much of contemporary labour law and historical labour law is seniority.

I could continue, but my time has run out.

N. Macdonald: I stand to speak on this amendment, and I appreciate the opportunity. I think I bring to the House a perspective that it's important to hear. I have experience as a teacher. That's my calling. That's what I've spent most of my life doing. I also bring the perspective of a principal. And I think the other part of it that's of importance in speaking to this amendment is that I also served as a local president of the Golden Teachers Association and had to work with contracts and with language.

I understand the importance of what's going on here. I think one of the things that other members don't realize is that decisions made at this level, decisions made when you vote on amendments like this, have practical implications in classrooms. They impact people in a really profound way. I spent a lot of time as a principal dealing with decisions that were made here and that were not thought through or that made the job more difficult.

I also have worked with the language that presently exists, which the minister intends to change. We've talked quite a bit about what's going on, and I think that when you look at this amendment, what it offers is the opportunity for the government to do something that will actually work in practical terms.

If this House was functioning the way that it should.... What was said in this House would be able to influence what government did. Information that comes from people on the ground — where, I would say, knowledge and wisdom actually sit, in our communities and in our schools in this case — could come forward and actually be heard by the minister and have some practical impact…. This amendment allows us to do something that Bill 22 is not capable of doing, which is to reach some sort of a position where we are improving the school system.

[2010]

Here are the reasons that I have for the amendment, and it goes back to the choice of the mediator. The mediator is a specific role. It is a specific role if the mediator is going to be used in the traditional sense. What we see with this bill is that they have a mediator that is not going to be seen as a mediator in the true sense of the word. They are not there to mediate. They are there to impose a decision. They are being chosen by the minister, and it is clear….

The minister referred to me as jaded and cynical. The time in the House gives you a certain degree of cynicism, and I'm sure it makes you somewhat jaded — not just me. I think that that actually impacts others as well.

But I certainly will reach the conclusion that there is an agenda that will flow from what this legislation is doing and that the mediator will be placed and that that mediator will impose a set of rules on the education system. What I say to this House, and what I would say to the minister, is that that is a backwards step.

Really, the word "mediator" is a misnomer. It really is an imposer. But misnomers in this bill are nothing new. We were talking about the cooling-off period that's going to get people more heated than ever. So that's a misnomer. And in fact, the name of the bill, the Education Improvement Act, is a misnomer as well.

What this amendment allows is for a real process that is seen by parties on both sides of the dispute as something that has the possibility of being fair, rather than what you have, which is — let's be clear here — a stacked process. The minister chooses who the imposer is going to be. The minister sets parameters. Then that chosen imposer — or mediator or whatever term you want to use — ends up, by June 30, redesigning the education system.

If they have not thought it through precisely, they will end up making a bad situation worse. Assuming there's a bad situation and assuming that the language doesn't work…. And I don't think that the minister has made a strong enough case that there are problems throughout
[ Page 10134 ]
the system that require something as draconian as this. But if there are problems and there are opportunities for improvement, then let's improve it. Let's not make it worse.

I guarantee you that what the government intends to do will make it worse. What this amendment does is offer us the slim hope, if the government was to listen, of doing something that might work for our kids and that might actually improve the system.

In my view, since there is an unwillingness to do that, there is no way that the government is not going to write the script for exactly what the language is that is going to be imposed on teachers. They have written this script. That language is there already. We will go through this process from now until June 30, when that script will be unveiled as the final determination of this imposer. It is guaranteed what is going to happen. And if you think that that's just going to work, if this government is going to be able to just impose that language and have it thought-through language, you're wrong.

I just want to give the House one example of something. I'm sure, to members on that side, when they talked about it, it sounded like a good idea — physical exercise for everyone. Everybody in school had to do physical exercise. That sounded great. But they never thought through how that would work in the schools. I would just invite the Minister of Education to go talk to a few teachers about how that all worked, how practically it would work. It didn't.

It makes the point that there is a need, when we make decisions here, to make decisions that actually make sense for the people that we entrust with our children and for the system itself, so that they're thought through.

Bill 22 is a flawed process. This amendment gives the possibility for finding some solutions that will actually work. There is, at the core of this problem, a lack of trust. There is a lack of trust, and the B.C. Liberals have only themselves to blame for that lack of trust.

[2015]

What, honestly, did this government think would happen with Bills 27, 28? Over a weekend, with only two opposition members, it was rammed through. It was not only poor policy; it was a breaking of a commitment not to break contracts, and it has led us to where we are today.

Almost all the members on the government side chose to follow that route. There were exceptions, and what we need here is for members to think for themselves. Does this actually make sense? Think for yourselves. Is this the direction that you want to go? Do you think it actually is going to improve the education system? And if it doesn't, then what do you get the $100,000 a year to do? You get to represent your members and to make decisions that are going to improve the system rather than make it worse.

So what are some of the things that the government is going to impose? They are going to impose, through the mediator, a contract language for teacher evaluation. Now, there are members in this House that have sat down and worked on that language. They know the amount of work that goes into it.

I think that if you look at the government benches, there are trustees. I wouldn't be surprised if they sat on those committees. I see the Minister of Justice — a long career as a trustee, no doubt sat in bargaining. I think that the member for Nechako Lakes — I'm not even sure — sat as a trustee, perhaps was there at a time when there was local bargaining.

They would have gone through the experience. They would know the language that was debated. They know the full range of views that had to come in to get it right. If you have a true mediation process, it's at least within the scope of possibility that you could come up with language that will work across the province.

As a principal and as a local president of the local teachers association, I had to work with that language. I had to make it work. I can tell you that it has to work properly to get the classes that you need, to make sure that the teachers who, remember, will have spent five years training…. These are professionals. These are people that we asked to do what I think is one of the most important jobs that can be done: look after our kids, make sure that they're safe, make sure that they're taught. I mean, this is an incredibly important job.

You think, those of you that are parents, of that first day when you take your child to kindergarten and you pass him off for the first time to somebody else to look after. You trust that individual to watch them every second of the day and make sure that they are going to be safe, that they are going to be treated properly. It is something that's really special.

When you're putting in place rules to decide whether that teacher is doing a good job or not, you better get those rules right. I guarantee you that what this government intends to do is bound to make things worse, and it's wrong.

If we were thinking about things in the way that we should, then we would look at other options, such as the one that's being proposed here, which is a sensible way to go forward. So remove the politics from it, remove what the Premier wants to do to get a wedge issue, and just look at what we should be looking at — what's important to kids — and we would come and we would move in a direction that's different than here. This has far more to do with a by-election than good government policy. That's the fact of it.

Now, the Premier said that she was going to come and speak on this issue — she wanted to start the debate — but I haven't heard her. I haven't heard an explanation from her about why something like this wouldn't work or why Bill 22 is the way to go. That hasn't been on record.

I'll tell you the second thing it deals with, and that's professional development. You know, we had a system in place, as a principal, for professional development….
[ Page 10135 ]
We had the administration that was responsible for certain professional development days, we had teachers who were responsible for others, and we met and planned out the year, what it would look like.

Again, somebody will always use an example, like on a pro-D day they taught hopscotch or something like that, but that's not what usually happens. Those days take a tremendous amount of planning. My experience was that for the most part — not every time…. When they weren't, sometimes it was my fault. I wasn't completely ready for what I was supposed to experience. But for the most part, they were meaningful days that helped me in the time to come.

[2020]

I can tell you that when I was principal at Nicholson Elementary, we had teachers that would plan, and as a school we would work on things like how we were going to teach a new type of math. It was a district project, and we had talked to teachers, so we had buy-in. The school as a whole was enthused, and the pro-D lined up.

I'm telling you: in most places, it works. If you want to change it, then change it for the better. Change it so that it's going to work better. Don't impose it without thinking or without including the people that are actually going to either benefit from it or have their time wasted. But this bill doesn't do that. This bill excludes their participation altogether.

The third thing it deals with is posting and filling. I can tell you that's a complex process. You want to remove any favouritism. What you want to do is to take the most experienced teacher that has proper skills to do the job properly. My experience was that we had language that I worked with both as a union representative and as a principal, and the language in my area worked.

The examples the minister gave of huge problems — well, what did he talk about? He talked about something that has been grieved, which is where you get the precision on how the system actually works. That's the system to get precision on the language. Do you think there are not going to be grievances if you impose new language?

I see my time is almost up. This is the wrong way to go with this bill. This amendment offers a solution. A sensible government that was actually listening to people would do something different. They would do the right thing. They would support this amendment and work to make the public school system better, rather than use it as a political plaything. It's too important a job to manage it like this. Let's do the right thing, support this amendment and make our school system better.

The Chair: I would again encourage all members to avoid repetitive debate.

C. James: I rise to speak in support of the amendment and thank the member for Skeena, our critic, for bringing forward this amendment. It's a critical amendment at a critical time in our history in education in this province.

I come to this discussion with a unique experience, I believe — an experience that I know some of my colleagues have shared on both sides of this Legislature — having served as an elected school trustee in British Columbia for almost 11 years.

I also served as president of the B.C. School Trustees Association for five years and had a great deal of experience in the education system, but also in negotiating. I've had the experience of sitting across the table during very difficult discussions. I understand that negotiations aren't coming to the table with everyone agreed. I've been there. I've seen the experience of having disagreements.

We had some very tough negotiations in the school district over the 11 years that I served as a school trustee. We had some very difficult conversations. We had all-night bargaining sessions. In fact, in a bargaining session that I remember well as a school trustee, we brought in a mediator to help us in that bargaining session, a mediator that was brought in on behalf of the employers and on behalf of the employees, something that encouraged us to sit down together because we both agreed that we should bring in a mediator.

That person was appointed together and came in and worked through the challenges that were there, just as this amendment comes forward to say that we need to look at the Labour Relations Board, the process that is in place, putting in a mediator, rather than the government and the minister choosing a mediator, which will just serve to add tension once again to a relationship that is already troubled and that is already struggling.

[2025]

One of the most important things that I learned through the process of bargaining is that the key to successful bargaining is respect — respect by both parties for each other and the roles that each other play.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Now, that certainly doesn't mean that you agree on everything. Respect doesn't mean that you come to the table and you put things on the table and you say: "We all agree on them." We can have very difficult conversations and very difficult issues to work through, but if respect is there, if the two parties respect each other, you will have a great deal more opportunity for success and an agreement that meets the needs of all parties than in the kind of situation we see right now in the province of British Columbia.

What this amendment works at doing is actually starting to build back some of that respect within the relationship, because right now it's very difficult for the two parties to come together. As we've seen, they're far apart, and that comes from a history with this government.

The teachers in this province have seen what has happened before when the Liberals on the other side have
[ Page 10136 ]
been heavy-handed and have decided to impose collective agreements and have decided to strip existing contracts. The teachers in this province and, most importantly, the students in British Columbia have faced the results of that, which has meant more cutbacks in education, more difficulties for students, more challenges in schools.

That's the context that this amendment comes forward in. This amendment comes forward to say: what could be more important to all of us in this province than our education system? What could be more important to a strong economy?

I hear the government on the other side talk a lot about the economy and jobs. Well, if we don't provide a good-quality education to our young people, we aren't going to have people ready for those jobs. We aren't going to have the creative minds to create those jobs, the entrepreneurs. We need an education system to provide well-educated students who then become functioning, creative, exciting citizens in our province, who then create the jobs of the future. So our education system is directly linked to a strong economy.

This amendment comes forward to try and improve the relationship between government and teachers so that we can get our education system back on track, and that's important to all of us.

The fact that the government is appointing the mediator is a sticking point for good reason. It's a very difficult thing for the teachers at this point, when the relationship is so strained, to say: "Oh, it's all right. We believe that it'll be someone independent." When the government is appointing the mediator, how can anyone look at that and say that that's independent? That's not independent, and this amendment that's coming forward tries to begin to address that.

Now, I don't believe this is going to be a fix to it all. This amendment is not going to repair the years of this government's lack of respect for teachers, the years of the challenges in education. But it is a constructive approach to come forward, from the opposition doing our job in bringing forward ideas and approaches to try and improve things in education. That's what this amendment attempts to do.

It attempts to try and say to government: "Here's an opportunity for you." Here's an opportunity for you to be able to take a step back and say to the teachers, "We understand. We recognize we need some independence as well," and let's look at putting in place a mediator through the Labour Relations Code that would actually provide some support to start to build that relationship.

[2030]

The second piece that the amendment looks at is broadening section 6(2)(c), where there are three specific areas the minister has included in this legislation that he has said are important and that the mediator must address when they bring forward the report.

I'd just like to read those three areas. The new collective agreement is to "enable high-quality teaching and learning through (i) effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement, (ii) alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and (iii) scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs."

I think the question that arises for teachers, and certainly arises for me and the people that I've chatted with, is why those three sections were identified. Why were those three pieces put forward by the minister when the minister has a whole range of issues that he could have included in this piece of legislation — a whole range of areas that impact education, a whole range of areas that would, in fact, enable high-quality teaching and learning?

Some of the things that aren't included in those three points are things like qualifications — a critical piece that I think people could argue would enhance high-quality teaching and learning and would be a good discussion to have, would be a good piece to include. That's what the amendment attempts to do.

The amendment attempts to broaden those three pieces, to actually say to teachers that there are more things that can be talked about to improve learning — to enable, as the legislation says, high-quality teaching and learning.

One of the other areas that could be looked at is the whole area of job-sharing. Flexibility for teachers. That's certainly an issue I hear a lot about in my school district right here in Victoria, but I hear it around the province as well. Teachers are interested in more flexibility in their life and work, and for many of them, the opportunity to look at job-sharing would address the issue.

The amendment looks at including those pieces, broadening the definition of what we mean by enabling high-quality teaching and learning.

Now, when I was listening to the debate — and I spent the afternoon here listening to the minister and others ask questions — I heard the minister say that these three areas, yes, were included but that in fact he was open to having a discussion around other issues, that the legislation wasn't limiting by including these three pieces.

Well, that's exactly what the amendment comes forward to do: to say to the minister that if that's accurate, if there really isn't a limitation around what the mediator can look at to enable high-quality teaching and learning, then let's open it up. Let's put the amendment forward to actually open it up.

Again, to come back to what we're trying to do here, we're trying to improve the relationship between teachers and the government. We're trying to build more trust between teachers and the government, because that ultimately will build a stronger education system. Why would the minister not agree with the amendment that's here? Why would the minister not say: "That makes sense"?

That's exactly the kind of conversation we had this
[ Page 10137 ]
afternoon. The minister himself said that we should broaden the three areas. Yes, the minister put forward these three areas, but that didn't preclude anything else from being talked about within the mandate that the minister has put around the legislation.

Well, if that's accurate, then this amendment should be just what the minister wants. It should be exactly the kind of thing that the minister is looking for. If that's the message that the minister is trying to get out, that this isn't limiting through these three areas, then surely he'd want to support the amendment that's in front of us.

[2035]

The amendment that comes forward from us, the amendment that I'm speaking to and supporting, is an amendment that not only gives government the opportunity to do as the minister says and broaden this section.

It provides an opportunity to once again say to teachers, "We respect you. You have knowledge and experience in your field, and we want to include that in our education system," because the person who is in front of our children, who's there in the classroom day after day, comes with a wealth of knowledge and experience, brings important experience that should be included.

In fact, I can't imagine having a discussion around the importance of education or enabling high-quality teaching and learning without including the voice of teachers. Surely, anybody on both sides of this House would understand how important that was.

I'm proud to stand up and support this amendment. This is an amendment that will begin, I hope, to rebuild what is a damaged relationship — to rebuild it, show the respect that teachers deserve, strengthen and improve our education system, and recognize the value that students and our education system have to all of society in British Columbia.

That's the kind of strength that we should be talking about. We should be spending our time in this Legislature talking about the importance of public education and how we can strengthen it together. That's what we should be spending our time in this Legislature doing.

This amendment is put forward in that spirit. It's put forward in the spirit of: "Let's look at how we can start to work together to strengthen public education. Let's look at how we can make sure that we're serving all the students that come to the education system."

The strength of our education system is that every child has an opportunity to be able to attend. That takes trust and respect and resources, and we need to make sure that those are included and that they're there.

This amendment comes forward to broaden the discussion, to give teachers the opportunity to bring forward more ideas about improving education and high-quality learning, not just limiting it. The minister says he doesn't want to limit it. He's open to looking at other ideas. Well, here's an opportunity for the minister to do just that.

S. Fraser: Before I begin, if I could ask for leave for an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: As we are standing here debating the amendment to Bill 22, it is my wife's birthday, Dolores, and I'm not there.

If by some chance she is actually watching this debate instead of doing something that she should be doing on her birthday: happy birthday, Dolores. I love you.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Thank you, Member. Proceed on the amendment, please.

S. Fraser: Thanks, everybody, for the leave. I was going to take 15 minutes, but I decided not to. No.

I take my place in the debate on the amendment to Bill 22. I will be supporting the amendment from my colleague, who is the critic from Skeena. I think it is a measured and balanced amendment and a solution to a series of problems created by Bill 22. It's with that in mind and with that spirit that I take my place in the debate.

I'd just like to mention that the previous speakers, both the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and for Columbia River–Revelstoke, have informed me as I listen on this debate — as other speakers have, certainly. But they have experience in these issues: the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill with regards to negotiating and a lot of experience in dealing with this on the ground and, before, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, with a long history of teaching and experience as a principal. I am informed by those conversations.

I do not have that experience, but I do spend time speaking with the teachers in districts 69 and 70 and the parents and the students, and I encourage them to come here. I will not be bringing, maybe, the vast experience of the other two speakers, but I will bring a perspective.

[2040]

I do know that the bill as it's laid out, Bill 22, will be causing problems and will not be finding the solutions that we need for the educational system in this province. I do believe that the amendments, as laid out in this amendment, are a possible solution to a big problem that this government has.

For those who have tuned in recently, the amendments to section 6 of Bill 22 make two changes to section 6. The first, the amendment to subsection 6(1) removes the requirement that the Minister of Education appoints the mediator. Instead the mediator will be "appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code."

Just beginning with that one section. There is a cred-
[ Page 10138 ]
ibility problem with this government. Certainly, it's seen through the teachers and their reaction to Bill 22, it's seen by the students' reaction to Bill 22, and it's seen by the parents' reactions to Bill 22. The question is of trust and of credibility of this government. Imposing a mediator from government does nothing to alleviate that trust or credibility problem that exists right now in the province of British Columbia with so many people with regards to this Liberal government.

It goes back to Bills 27 and 28. In 2002 the Premier was the Education Minister, and she brought in a very heavy-handed set of bills that ended up breaching the Charter of Rights, the Constitution of Canada. Certainly, that's been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. That has led, over the last decade, to that distrust of this government with regards to collective bargaining and, certainly, with regards to the teachers' bargaining.

I would suggest that Bill 22 actually makes the situation worse. Rather than addressing what, I think, the spirit and the intent of the court decision was, Bill 22 makes it worse. Bringing in a mediator was a natural.

While the government claims that a mediator is part of Bill 22, it is not captured…. The amendment captures what was requested by both sides of the bargaining table. By all sides — by the opposition, by both sides at the bargaining table, by the Teachers Federation, by BCPSEA. And certainly, it's been requested by the parents and the students that I have talked to.

The problem is…. A government that already has a trust problem and a credibility problem imposing a mediator after the fact with a very restrictive mandate does not do anything to alleviate that trust problem. Therefore, anything imposed by the mediator at this point in time would already be suspect. So I would suggest that we're starting off on the wrong foot.

This amendment as it's stated would provide for a mediator that, since it would be appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code, takes away the politics of that appointment. It goes a long way towards building back the potential for trust. I would suggest there's a long way to go with this government to get there. But to actually listen to this debate and if the minister would heed the advice that we're giving….

We're the opposition. We always oppose. This is a friendly amendment. This is a gimme. We are always opposing. This is a gift, I would suggest. Providing a mediator could avert a lot of problems in the future with an imposed settlement. And it would be potentially considered an imposed settlement if Bill 22 goes through as it is, because the mediator would be chosen by and for the government. It would be perceived that way, rightly or wrongly.

The history, as I've said — Bill 27, 28. That minister who imposed that — who breached, basically, the Constitution of Canada in so doing — is now sitting as the Premier. So there is an extra level of credibility problem here and an extra problem with trust.

[2045]

Going back a step, as this amendment suggests, taking the option that we're giving in the amendment, to provide a mediator that's brought into place in an objective way — not in a biased way, not in a political way — would be a very, very wise decision, I think. It has been affirmed by all sides already, as I've mentioned.

The other amendment to the bill that we're suggesting is in section 6(2)(c), and this expands the scope of the terms of reference for that mediator with regard to no-cost items. Now, it permits the mediator to address any measure that may enable high-quality teaching and learning, including but not limited to the three issues included in the subsection of Bill 22.

This is also very important. To impose a mediator that is chosen by the government, as I've mentioned before already, is a setback in trust and credibility. I do not think that will be received with any assurance that there will be an objective opinion at the end of the day.

Furthering that, having that potentially biased mediator, or perceived biased mediator, and having a mandate that does not allow a whole range of issues to be discussed at the negotiating table with the mediator also causes a lot of problems in this discussion.

The three sections that the government allows for in Bill 22 are too restrictive — three sections only, which it says in Bill 22 will allow the mediator only these three: to provide "(i) effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement." That's to deal with "(ii) alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and (iii) scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs."

Now, the B.C. Teachers Federation has stated that these three employer concessions strip collective bargaining rights that were gained in previous rounds of collective bargaining. This is not going to bring labour peace. This is not going to provide better education for our children, for our students. This is causing more friction in an already very damaged negotiation.

The credibility problem could be alleviated through this amendment. If the amendment were allowed to be given, I think, its due in this House — by all members of this House, by government members of the House, by the minister — I think we could find a way to start regaining some credibility of the government with the teachers, to show that they have learned from the Supreme Court decisions.

What's more is that it allows for some discussion with the mediator on issues like layoff and recall, qualifications, educational change, job-sharing, seniority evaluation, temporary teachers' rights, supervision, transfers, professional autonomy. None of these, in my read of the Bill 22, are permitted as something that the mediator can deal with under Bill 22. The amendment would allow for that. There are more issues that could be allowed,
[ Page 10139 ]
important issues that could be discussed, if the amendment were to go through.

I stopped, before I got to the end of a very substantive list, at professional autonomy. The reason that I stopped there is that I have a correspondence from a teacher in my constituency, district 69, and I am just going to quote from this letter. This is to deal with professional autonomy, and this is an issue that would not be allowed to be discussed through mediation the way that Bill 22 stands.

The amendment would allow the issue of professional autonomy to be dealt with. It's important for these reasons, and I'll read the letter, or a portion thereof.

[2050]

"I am a teacher in a grades 1 and 2 combined French immersion class. I am currently taking my master's and am very interested in innovative teaching methods. I'm spending lots of time thinking and reading about how to change our education system to meet the needs of our students.

"As a teacher-inquirer, I develop and adapt my teaching practices continually. Having the professional autonomy and freedom to improve and adapt my teaching practices without fear of being reprimanded for trying something new is what helps me to achieve excellence in teaching.

"Since I have started teaching and thinking this way, not only has my excitement about being in the classroom skyrocketed; my teaching practice has improved exponentially, and I have begun to take on the role of helping other teachers and encouraging others to try new methods. I often think how powerful it would be…."

The Chair: Member. Member. I am just questioning the relevancy to section 6.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I've probably covered enough. I won't read the rest of the letter. The relevancy was in dealing with professional autonomy.

The Chair: Carry on, on the amendment, please.

S. Fraser: Our amendment would allow for that discussion to occur.

But noting the time, Madam Chair, I move adjournment of the debate.

S. Fraser moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 8:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LABOUR, CITIZENS' SERVICES
AND OPEN GOVERNMENT

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

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $66,974,000.

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

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I do. I'd like to begin by introducing the senior staff who are with me here today. I'm accompanied by Kim Henderson, the Deputy Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government; as well as Dave Nikolejsin, the associate deputy minister and chief information officer for the province of British Columbia; Brad Grundy, the assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer, corporate services division of the ministry; and Bobbi Plecas, the assistant deputy minister, logistics and business services division, Shared Services B.C.

I'm pleased to introduce the budget estimates for the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. The ministry is committed to providing British Columbians with safe workplaces and easy access to excellent government services.

The Labour side of the ministry supports a modern, stable and safe work environment for families, employees, employers, unions and businesses in British Columbia.

The Citizens' Services and Open Government side of the ministry unites the responsibilities for service delivery, technology and access to information. Open government is a major focus for the ministry, and in the upcoming year we'll continue to put open government front and centre.

Shared Services B.C. delivers the infrastructure and services that the government needs to operate — buildings, technology, procurement and supplies. In addition, effectively managing the provincially owned real estate
[ Page 10140 ]
portfolio will remain an important part of the work of Shared Services B.C.

Government communications and public engagement will continue to lead and coordinate external communications with a goal of engaging with and informing citizens about government policies, programs and services.

We've built a budget for the 2012-13 fiscal year that supports the mandates of all parts of the ministry. The ministry will operate with a net budget of $548.586 million. Along with the rest of government, we remain committed to meeting our fiscal targets during the upcoming year.

This ministry is broad in scope, and I look forward to taking action on the opportunities that fall under my responsibility. I would now be happy to answer questions about the budget estimates.

D. Routley: Can the minister please explain to me how her budget stands now, as opposed to last year, and what the major changes have been?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the 2011-12 estimates last year it was $565.722 million. Restated, as per the blue book this year, it's $542.824 million.

The main explanation for this change is the transfer out of funding for B.C. Ambulance Service. The shared service, which is the cost, has gone to the Ministry of Health. That's $19.555 million.

There are some other smaller transfers to other ministries, but that's the main reason for the change. The total of all those changes is $22.898 million.

[1435]

D. Routley: What other transfers in and out of the ministry have there been?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The others include a transfer out of mandatory operating equipment funding back to ministries. Those ministries include the Ministry of Attorney General, which is now the Ministry of Justice; MCFD; and the Ministry of Agriculture. That's $2.5 million.

Transfer out of public service initiative to the Public Service Agency, $1.436 million. Transfer out of funding to Jobs, Tourism and Innovation for office space costs to replace London House is $30,000. Transfer in funding for board resourcing and development office from the Office of the Premier to our ministry, which is $447,000. And the transfer of two information technology staff from Forests, Lands and Natural Resources to support the open data initiative — again, that's a transfer in — $176,000.

D. Routley: What exactly was involved in the transfer from the Premier's office?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The board resourcing office was transferred from the Premier's office to the ministry.

D. Routley: The mandatory operating equipment — would this in any way change the role of Shared Services in the potential sale of assets and their involvement in that initiative, as described in the budget?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: No, it would not.

D. Routley: The transfer of public service — is the entire involvement of the Citizens' Services Ministry with public service ended?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes.

D. Routley: Have there been any large staffing changes in the ministry, or can the minister describe any staffing changes that have occurred in the last year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The largest change was about 20 staff, and that would be the change with the public service initiative.

D. Routley: In management what changes have there been?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The chief operating officer of Shared Services B.C. — that position has been eliminated.

D. Routley: What specific changes have there been at the senior bureaucratic level in the ministry as a whole?

[1440]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd just like to take a moment to introduce another senior staff member who's joined us, Athana Mentzelopoulos, the deputy minister of government communications and public engagement.

There are two new assistant deputy ministers in the ministry, Bobbi Plecas and Jay Schlosar. New deputy minister at government communications and public engagement — that's Athana Mentzelopoulos. The deputy minister left and the Deputy for Citizens' Services assumed the role of Deputy Minister of Labour as well, Kim Henderson. There are two new assistant deputy ministers at government communications and public engagement, John Paul Fraser and Kelly Gleeson.

D. Routley: Can the minister explain the duties of Ms. Mentzelopoulos for me, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The deputy is responsible for overall government communications and public engagement. There are staff from GCPE in each of the ministries, and the deputy is responsible for overseeing their work. The ministry has responsibility for communications and also for public engagement. An example of that would be the public engagement with respect to the jobs plan, so interacting with the public in various different ways.
[ Page 10141 ]

D. Routley: I'll have more questions about that later.

The name Jay Schlosar has popped up here, there and everywhere in the estimates of this ministry over the last three years. Can you explain the current duties of Jay Schlosar?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Mr. Schlosar is responsible for a division called strategic initiatives. This was formerly called the business and workplace transformation. Strategic initiatives develops corporate strategies, training and support across all government ministries in the following areas: the area of open government, which includes open data, open information, our citizen-centric web services and citizen engagement; as well, the area of corporate data management and web services; and lastly, integrated planning and policy development.

D. Routley: That's a very broad title. The last time I asked about this gentleman's duties they were more restricted to the public engagement on the social media side. What was the reason for this expansion of duties?

[1445]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This gentleman's role has changed in the ministry. He previously had a different job with a different job description. As of this past fall he became the assistant deputy minister, so he has a different list of duties now.

D. Routley: His duties range from what I would understand to be government public engagement duties around communications but then also data management duties, which would seem to be more in the realm of FOI or data archiving management of records. What is the focus of Mr. Schlosar's duties — the main focus?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's true that it is a diverse group of duties, but really the main focus is to support our government's commitment to open government. Our commitment to open government is…. There are a number of different programs, as I've mentioned briefly.

Open data, which is the Data B.C. website. This is new to government, where we have a catalogue of machine-readable data from all of our ministries across government. It can be licensed, reused and repurposed by the public. It helps them to inform their decisions and public dialogue, and also for them to develop new tools and applications, if they wish.

Open Information is a new website and policy that allows the proactive disclosure of general requests that have been provided through our Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. These are, as I think the member may be aware, available 72 hours after they're provided to applicants, when it's appropriate to release them.

We've also got the routine release of monthly summaries of expenses incurred by ministers and deputy ministers.

The other area of open government is the citizen-centric web. This is a new approach to government web design that better connects citizens to the services they need.

So the main focus would be on open government, but it is in several different areas.

D. Routley: Mr. Schlosar's duties under former Premier Gordon Campbell, as I understand it, was to review FOI requests. It was often a question of the Premier's office's role in determining what FOI requests would be held back or released. Now his focus seems to be directed more towards — at least as the minister has described — open government. It seems a massive shift in focus.

What particular area of the open government initiative will Mr. Schlosar be responsible for, or is it the whole thing?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just to be clear, he became the acting assistant deputy in the fall, and more recently he is actually the assistant deputy minister in this area. With that comes the responsibility for the entire file, all the open government initiatives, working, obviously, with the staff in this area.

D. Routley: What role would he have, say, for example, in the IBM issue — the ongoing issue of the IBM FOI requests from BCFIPA?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: He does not have a role in that area.

[1450]

D. Routley: In 2004 BCFIPA, the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, requested a copy of the IBM workplace services agreement, which is a $300 million contract, and it was denied. The OIPC ruled in 2008 and again in 2010 that the government must release the contract in full. The government has continued since then to fight that release in court, appealing all the way to the Supreme Court.

I would like to ask the minister what the costs have been to the taxpayer of that fight not to release the IBM contract in full.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is in the Ministry of Attorney General's budget. There was on the public record a couple of weeks ago the amount…. At the time, the amount that was quoted was $124,000 to date. But the member opposite would need to canvass this with the Ministry of Attorney General to get the exact amount. It's not within our budget.
[ Page 10142 ]

D. Routley: Since this dispute over the IBM workplace services agreement began in 2004, other alternative service delivery contracts have been released. How many, and of what value?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We consistently post contract summaries, but the only contract that government has proactively posted was the recently awarded contract with TELUS. The value of that contract was approximately $1 billion over ten years.

D. Routley: My estimation is that since that time the government has been forced to release a total of $1.8 billion in other alternative service delivery contracts in total, in that time. That's probably a bit of an estimation, based on what we could find.

[1455]

Since there have been other contracts released in full and their value exceeds the IBM contract, what makes the IBM contract so special to government that government is willing to wage an eight-year campaign not to release its contents in full?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Government has released almost all of the 535-page contract with IBM for workplace support services. We certainly respect the orders of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and we consider a judicial review, as we have done in this case, only if a fundamental principle in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has been brought into question.

Government is seeking judicial review on a very specific set of information within the contract to protect government's IT security assets. These would be server names and locations, network addresses and specific software requirements. No other portions of the contract are at issue. Of the 535 pages released, there are five lines of text and specific information from several columns of information that have been withheld.

We are committed to the principle of openness and accountability, and we're taking every step to ensure that the protection of privacy is being achieved while at the same time meeting the requirements of the FOIPPA act. Security, however, is paramount, and we're performing due diligence in the public interest by protecting a small amount of information within the contract that should be withheld for security reasons.

D. Routley: It seems difficult to accept these answers year after year, when the reasons for withholding information have shifted and the efforts to avoid sharing the full contract have been so longstanding and so expensive. The reasons given to the court and to the OIPC have changed over the years.

Really, I think there are a number of stakeholders in the province and the media and British Columbia taxpayers who are shaking their heads and wondering why at this late date the government is willing to again engage in a resistance to the order continually given both by the OIPC and by the courts of the province to fully release the contract.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have not had the pleasure of participating in the estimates for this particular ministry in the past. But what I can say to the member opposite is that security is of paramount importance. There is a very small amount of information in this 535-page contract which we believe needs to be kept back. There are security issues at play here, and that is why we have taken the rather unusual step of seeking judicial review.

D. Routley: Has the minister made recommendations to the government Finance Committee, which finances the OIPC office, to increase the funding to the office given these continual court challenges?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That is not the role of the minister. The Finance Committee makes their determinations, and it's not the role of the minister to direct that committee.

D. Routley: The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia is the most litigated office in Canada, according to the officer herself. Her concern around the bill, which amended the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act last year, was that it would lead to continued and increased challenges of a more detailed, complex and specialized nature, and that these costs would only increase.

[1500]

So it seems that as the ministry has a role in fulfilling the Premier's commitment to open government and has the role of facilitating the mechanisms of disclosure, the minister might support the officer's requests to the government for increased funding. The officer has made it clear publicly and to me in conversation that the demands on the office are increasing and that the complexity of those demands is increasing.

Her need for resources will likewise increase, and so much of what has been promised in terms of open government and fulfilment of promise depends on that office being able to fully fulfil its mandate.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite has made a comment about the office being the most litigated. We don't have information about that, but what I can say is that as a province, as a provincial government, we receive more freedom-of-information requests by far than any other jurisdiction in Canada. Our legislation covers the most public bodies of any jurisdiction in Canada, over 2,000. It is the most extensive in Canada.

We also have the most open government in Canada.
[ Page 10143 ]
It's not a competition, but we are leading in terms of the provincial governments across Canada. I'm very proud of that, and I think everyone in the ministry is.

With respect to the legislation, there was extensive consultation with the commissioner, which was very much valued on our side. There was extensive consultation, and she was supportive of the new roles and responsibilities she would have when the amendments were passed in the last legislative session.

I want to conclude by saying how much we value the good and constructive working relationship we have with the commissioner and the valuable work she does on the part of British Columbians.

D. Routley: Well, last year the Canadian Association of Journalists ranked B.C.'s freedom-of-information performance as tenth in the country, and so claiming to be the most open government…. It may or may not be the case, but in that measurement, certainly, it wasn't the case.

Does the minister believe that open data is equivalent to facilitating freedom of information?

[1505]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd just like to talk a little bit about the Information and Privacy Commissioner's report to us, to our government — her report card on the timeliness of government's access-to-information responses from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011.

She noted that our government responded to FOI requests 93 percent on time, which was a 31 percent improvement over the 2008 figure of 71 percent. Last year she noted that government made "extraordinary efforts to meet its timeliness obligations." In her 2011 report she noted that this government "has done even better."

Given our success, the commissioner has actually stated that she will not produce an annual report on timeliness for 2011-2012. She's going to look at other areas.

Now, with respect to the question from the member about open data versus open information: how does this tie in with freedom of information?

These are all part of our open government initiative. The open data is the provision of government data sets from across all ministries. There are, I believe, over 2,700 presently. That is not about freedom of information fulfilling requests that come to us, but it certainly is providing a lot of government information that's freely available in a searchable fashion with an open data licence. That's available for British Columbians.

On the Open Information website is where we are posting FOI requests within 72 hours of them being provided to the requester, as long as it is appropriate for them to be posted — in other words, as long as there's not personal information that should be held back.

D. Routley: Well, I guess the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner works within the laws regarding information release of this province set down by this minister's government. It is the only government in Canada which allows 30 working days to fulfil a release, rather than 30 calendar days. As a result, it skews the numbers.

In fact, the newspaper audit said that it's very difficult to make any comparison because of that difference in the baseline. And if you were to make that the standard, as it is throughout Canada, then the B.C. Liberal government only fulfils that mandate 13 percent of the time. If you extend it beyond 30 calendar days, which would be overdue in any other province, 88 percent of the time the B.C. Liberal government is overdue. So I guess it's all how you measure.

Of course, the Information Commissioner can only respond to the performance of the government within its own rules. But the government changed the rules, as it so often does. It's a little bit like too many speeding tickets, so we'll raise the speed limit.

Is there any thought given by the minister to moving towards the generally accepted standard in Canada — and the standard that used to be in place in British Columbia before the Liberals changed it — of 30 calendar days rather than 30 working days?

[1510]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I did mention in my previous answer that here in British Columbia we receive more FOI requests than any other jurisdiction in Canada. I've also mentioned that the on-time completion rate for responses to access-to-information requests was 93 percent in 2010-11, which is up from 71 percent. So a considerable effort is being made.

The number of requests is increasing substantially. The number of FOI requests received by government in 2010-11 increased by almost 20 percent from 2008-2009. What I was trying to get for the member are comparisons going back farther than that. I don't have all that information at hand.

But certainly, the processing time for requests is decreasing. In 2008 the average processing time was 35 days. In the last fiscal year it was 22 days, although we're getting more and more requests every year — substantially more requests every year. That trend has been continuing, in fact, since we began our open government initiative.

This is not unique to us. This happened in the United States as well. But when we began that initiative, the number of requests began to increase even more. So we are decreasing the number of days it takes us to respond, in spite of the fact that there's been a considerable acceleration in the number of requests.

D. Routley: I understand, through work on the committee which reviewed the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that a large percentage of the difference in requests in B.C. can be attributed to the
[ Page 10144 ]
fact that we have a public auto insurance corporation. I'd like the minister to tell me what percentage of overall freedom-of-information requests is coming from ICBC or is directed towards ICBC.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to auto insurance, that is not part of core government. In fact, the numbers I referred to don't include that. We don't process them. I was referring to core government. The statement I made about British Columbia receiving more FOI requests than any other jurisdiction — it's per capita. That's something that happens per capita.

But what I can tell the member is that with respect to the substantial increase we've had with general FOI requests, in fact, for core government, political party requests accounted for over 85 percent of the increase we received in 2011-12.

D. Routley: Okay. How many FOI requests in the past year, or what percentage, have been directed towards the Ministry of Environment?

[1515]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We thought we might have that exact number with us. We don't, but we should be able to provide it shortly.

D. Routley: There were requests made for information to the Ministry of Environment pertaining to Enbridge Pipelines. Some of the requests have been fulfilled, but the names of other governments involved in those requests, or information pertaining to other governments, was withheld. What was the reason for withholding the information around the identity of other governments?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: To the member opposite, with respect to his previous question, the Ministry of Environment received 252 FOI requests in 2010-2011.

With respect to the other question, in terms of the specifics, I believe the member would have to canvass it with the ministry who handled the request. What I can tell the member, just speaking generally, is that we have a policy that we sever the personal names of the requesters so that we're not publicizing personal information. That's a general policy. As to the specifics, I think the member would have to canvass that with the Ministry of Environment.

D. Routley: In terms of the policy issues at stake in those particular requests, the names of individuals were not severed. The names of individuals within government and within public bodies that were petitioned for information were not severed — only the names of other governments.

How does policy explain the severing of the names of other governments — these are not individuals — be it foreign governments, local governments or First Nation governments, when it comes to requesting information about Enbridge Pipelines?

[1520]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the case of public servants that information is publicly available, so people who are public servants in the province of British Columbia — their names would not be severed. In the case of the requester from an outside government or someone from outside of the province, it's that information that's considered to be personal information — the personal information of the requester. That's the information that generally the policy is to sever it, to not include it.

D. Routley: Understanding that it would be policy to sever the name, keep the individual anonymous who makes a request, why would it be policy to sever the name of the government that is making a request?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's my understanding that in some cases there can be things such as in section 16 of the act, harms to other governments — that revealing that kind of information could potentially cause such harm.

But as I mentioned previously, it's really not possible for us to talk about the specifics of the request to the Ministry of Environment. The member would have to canvass it with that ministry.

We don't know the information. We can hypothesize, but it's not particularly helpful. All I can say is that it could possibly be that some part of the act, such as harm to another government, was taken into consideration.

D. Routley: One of the troubling indicators in the timeliness report was an increase in the "no records released" response. That has increased by about 5 percent. I wonder if the minister could explain why there would be an increase in "no records" responses.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly appreciated the commissioner's review into the number of requests that were closed as "no records released." The findings show that a significant number of the "no records released" responses were attributable to requests from law firms to the Solicitor General concerning residential school claims.

The commissioner provided to us a recommendation as to how we could more accurately categorize these requests. We adopted her recommendation, and we began implementing it immediately.

She also found there does not appear to be a significant increase in the number of "no records released" responses issued from any particular ministry. She noted a 4 percent increase in the number of "no records released" responses in the absence of the residential school requests.

The modest 4 percent increase is largely because of increased volume of FOI requests and the ease with which
[ Page 10145 ]
citizens can now make FOI requests to multiple government ministries. In other words, instead of the citizen thinking specifically, "Which ministry should I be asking?" they would just blanket a number of ministries with requests, and a number of those would come back as "no response" records.

[1525]

D. Routley: In the compliance report card summary, the ministries or areas of government that were below average in their compliance were Office of the Premier, Health, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Finance, and Jobs, Tourism and Innovation — fairly significant areas of government when it comes to potentially politically sensitive freedom-of-information requests. Can the minister explain why offices and ministries such as the Office of the Premier and Finance would be at the bottom of the heap?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just to put a bit of perspective on this, the report card on timeliness of government's access-to-information responses from the commissioner, dated April 2010 to March 2011, has an appendix in it which shows the scoring scheme. Average, in the commissioner's view, is 85 to 90, where 85 to 90 percent of requests are processed on time. Above average is 91 to 99, and excellent, in her view, is when 100 percent of requests are processed on time.

I would take the member opposite back to her report, which noted that the on-time completion rate for responses to access to information was 93 percent overall in government. That was up from 71 percent in 2008. The results, in her view, were so good — in fact, so excellent — that she is no longer going to do this kind of report and is going to look at other areas of open government.

D. Routley: The minister's interpretation of the commissioner's overall impression is certainly shining the apple of the government. If the government were to obey its own statutes only 78, 82 or 85 percent of the time in any other area, it might be cause for even greater concern. If airplanes only landed safely 85 percent of the time, we'd have a really big problem on our hands. It's all a relative issue.

In British Columbia if there's a response requesting an extension of the deadlines, it's considered a response on time as long as that response is made within 30 calendar days — the 30 calendar days being longer than in any other province, as noted in the newspaper audit. The context of the remarks and the measurements needs to be taken into consideration. This province grants itself more time, by up to 50 percent if you consider how weekends can fall in a calendar month, versus 30 working days.

It grants itself 40 to 50 percent more time to perform within its limits than any other province. Right there, that would explain the fact that according to the newspaper audit, 88 percent of the time, under the standard of any other province, the B.C. government would be failing. Then that would bring an entirely different tone and context to the measurement of the government's performances.

[1530]

There is a troubling continuation in the slow response to political party requests. The minister mentioned law firm requests as a reason for some of the incomplete responses. Law firm requests are handled at an average of 93 percent, but political party requests are fulfilled on time only 78 percent of the time. Can the minister explain the difference?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd like to point out to the member opposite that this particular department is a $10 million area of government. Since 2009-2010 government's processing time for political party requests has declined slightly from 89 percent on time to 87 percent on time in 2010-11. In 2011-12 requests from political parties have increased by 75 percent over the same time period for the last fiscal year. The increase is 75 percent. The requests from political parties tend to be more complicated requests that require more extensive consultation, consultation with cabinet and sometimes with other public bodies. That certainly could be partly due to volume and partly due to the complexity of the requests that we receive.

D. Routley: The quote from the commissioner was: "Government is still taking too long to respond to requests from political parties as compared with other groups. I am urging government to address how quickly it responds to requests by political parties. While government has improved its response time to media applicants, its response time to political parties is declining."

That was from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Can the minister explain how the response time to political parties might be declining? I don't imagine that the complexity is any greater now than it was the year before this report.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think the answer to that question is pretty straightforward. Last year alone, in the requests from political parties the volume increased by 75 percent. If we want to go back a little bit further in history, in 2010-11 compared to ten years earlier, there was actually a tenfold increase in the number of requests from political parties.

This is a very diligent area of government for people that do this work. It is a $10 million budget, but we are not diverting resources from other parts of government into this area. They're working very hard, and I would point out to the member opposite that the decline was in fact a slight decline from 89 percent to 87 percent.
[ Page 10146 ]

D. Routley: The $10 million budget that the minister refers to — is that specifically for handling political party requests?

[1535]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We don't have a department that deals specifically with political requests or requests from political parties. The budget that I refer to is the FOI and records management branch.

D. Routley: What percentage of that budget would be consumed by the government's efforts to handle FOI requests from political parties?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The ministry does not keep records in this way, nor do they assign staff in this way. Any FOI request could take minutes to process, or it could take many, many days to process. We don't keep track as to whether the source was from a political party or some other body or individual. We don't sort it out that way, and we don't keep track of the hours spent. It's just that things are not collated in that way.

D. Routley: How is the government able to then track its performance if it's not able to answer questions now about how it's apportioning resources and staff to handle various types of information requests? How is it going to be able to fulfil the requests by the commissioner to routinely disclose reports and performance audits of FOI compliance?

[1540]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, we're aware in the ministry that we receive FOI requests from various different sources. For example, of the general requests received in 2010-2011, 30 percent were from individuals, 24 percent were from media, and 23 percent were from political parties. Those are of 35 percent of all of the requests that were for general information.

We do track where it comes from, and we do keep very careful track of our processing times. But we don't take the processing times and divide them up as to this is how we did on this, and this is how we did on that.

I certainly am very proud of the staff, and in case any of them are actually following the estimates, I want to say how very much I appreciate what they have been able to do. They're diligent, very hard-working, very dedicated people, and they have been able to take us from 71 percent on-time completion rate for responses to access to information in 2008 up to 93 percent of requests completed on time in 2010-2011. So hats off to the people who are doing that hard work on behalf of the people in British Columbia.

D. Routley: Absolutely, let's congratulate the people who are responsible for doing the work. The issue that I'm canvassing here is not the performance of the individuals doing the work but the effective policy on the outcomes.

If the policy in B.C. is to grant ourselves 30 working days rather than 30 calendar days, well, we have just given ourselves at least a 40 percent head start on the rest of the country in terms of compliance. That seems hardly reasonable grounds to make comparison.

If we're not keeping track of where resources are going and how they're being apportioned to deal with some of the different segments of the issues we're talking about here, how can we keep a measure? In the movie Caddyshack Chevy Chase's character, I think, was asked: "What's your golf score?" He said: "I don't know. I don't keep score." The person asking the question said: "Well, how do you measure yourself against other golfers?" He said: "By height."

If we are just measuring ourselves completely out of context with those we're to be compared with, if we're not keeping track of information that can help us put the measurements of progress and performance into a context that means anything, then I think we're failing. If the commissioner is saying that for political party requests the compliance is in fact declining, then it seems reasonable to ask how many resources are being apportioned to deal with that decline in response time.

Can the minister give me some indication of what the ministry is doing and what government is doing to increase its performance in areas where our performance declined?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It seems the member is perhaps somewhat confused, and I certainly apologize if anything I have said has led to that confusion. Timeliness is definitely tracked by ourselves and has been by the commissioner as well. While what the commissioner has to say may not be meaningful to the member opposite, it is certainly very meaningful to those of us in the ministry.

The commissioner noted in her report card of 2010-11 that the government responded to FOI requests 93 percent on time, which was a 31 percent improvement over the 2008 figure of 71 percent. Last year the commissioner noted that government made "extraordinary efforts to meet its timeliness obligations." In her 2011 report she noted: "This year government has done even better."

Again, while the member opposite may not find that meaningful, certainly over on this side we found that very meaningful. The fact that the commissioner had stated that given our success, she was actually not going to provide an annual report on timeliness for 2011-2012…. She noted substantial improvements, and she complimented us on that. We are very pleased about that.

[1545]

D. Routley: In question period the other day we were referred to the success of B.C. Place being measured by the fact that the B.C. Lions had won the Grey Cup, and
[ Page 10147 ]
our criticism of spending on the B.C. Place Stadium roof meant that we didn't support the B.C. Lions. I think the same minister would be less likely to jump forward to take credit for the Canucks not winning the Stanley Cup.

So it's rather preferential for the government and for the minister to say, "Look, we've increased to 93 percent. The commissioner says that we've made exemplary efforts to meet our timeliness goals," but then ignore….

Those are meaningful statements to the minister. Less meaningful to the minister is the quote from the report that said there was "a slight increase in the number of requests closed as 'no response' or 'no records released' and a slight decrease in the number of requests where government provided 'full disclosure' of records." Those are concerns to me.

To carry on with the quote: "This is troubling as this same trend occurred in last year's report as compared to our first report." She also said: "Government is still taking too long to respond to requests from political parties as compared with other groups. I am urging government to address how quickly it responds to requests by political parties. While government has improved its response time to media applicants, its response time to political parties is declining."

Those would be statements that might be less meaningful to the minister. I would think if they were meaningful to the minister, she would be able to tell me what steps the ministry and the government are taking to improve the performance when it comes to political party requests.

I can give the minister an example of a request. It took seven months for an official opposition request regarding the TELUS $1 billion IT contract that was signed recently. The request was related to the complaints from other agencies, other corporations — the process that was available to them to register complaints with the process.

There were eight companies that complained about the process after the government removed itself from the request for a tender process and went to a direct award. Those were City West, Bell, InterCall Ontario, IBM, Navigata, Shaw, Northwestel and Rogers, as well as two communities — Cranbrook and the city of Coquitlam.

All of those parties complained about the government and felt that there was an unfairness to the process. They had all invested resources in participating in the request-for-proposal process around the TELUS contract.

Why would it take seven months for the government to release that information? It's an example of information that might be sensitive to the government, might be embarrassing to the government. It takes seven months for the opposition to get that request. The commissioner is obviously pointing to responses to political parties as being a problem area for the government.

What can the minister tell me the government or her ministry is doing to improve the performance when it comes to requests from political parties?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite has asked a few questions about this area previously, about FOI requests by political parties. I'm certainly happy to go over that information again. The commissioner did notice a slight decline in the on-time fulfilment of such requests from 89 percent to 87 percent. So that was a slight decline. At the same time, the volume of requests was up by 75 percent.

I think I mentioned to the member opposite previously that there are issues around volume, quite significant issues around volume, and also the complexity, in some cases, of these requests, where consultation with cabinet and other public bodies is involved.

[1550]

I thought it might be helpful to anyone who is interested in this area just to go over the volume of political party requests, because we do have data on that. So back in 2001-2002 there were 59 requests. In 2003-2004 we had 86 requests. Moving forward to 2005-2006, there were 335 requests; in 2008-2009, 174. Then last year there were 1,117 requests from political parties in our province. The graph is impressive. The curve is very sharply upwards, for those of you who are watching at home.

Certainly, the volume is substantially up, and during that same time frame there has been really a slight — 2 percent — decline in the speed with which we are able to fulfil these requests.

D. Routley: In that extraordinary increase in the last two years, how much of that was requests related to HST, and how much of that was requests related to the Enbridge gateway pipeline project?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We don't have that specific information at hand. It would probably take a little bit of time, but we'll certainly be happy to attempt to provide that for the member.

What I can tell the member is a substantial increase, in particular, in areas such as the number of political party requests for calendars across governments. In 2008-2009 there were 41 such requests. In 2011-12 there were 528 such requests.

Another significant increase area is number of political party requests for travel expenses. In 2008-2009 there were three such requests. In 2011-12 there were 147 such requests.

As for the other specific details that the member has asked for, we'll certainly attempt to get that. It likely will take a bit of time.

D. Routley: How long does the minister expect it would take to get the information related to how many FOI requests related to HST and how many FOI requests related to the Enbridge pipeline project proposal?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I feel as if I should be saying:
[ Page 10148 ]
"Operators are standing by."

At any rate, I believe we would be able to get that information for the member. It's a very diligent group of people. I believe that before the estimates are concluded, we should be able to have that information provided for him.

D. Routley: One of the other recommendations that the commissioner made in the timeliness report related to CRTS reports, which gauge the government's performances in these areas. The recommendation went:

"Each year government provides my office" — this is a quote from the Information and Privacy Commissioner — "with various reports generated by CRTS that enable us to analyze how effectively government is meeting its timeliness requirements under FIPPA. These reports are essential to the production of our timeliness reports.

[1555]

"As part of government's open information and open data initiatives, I recommend the government proactively and regularly publish all the CRTS reports that it provides to my office so that the citizens of British Columbia can track government's progress in responding to access requests under FIPPA."

Has this been done?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly agree with the commissioner. I'm pleased to say that the first report of this kind will be available on the open government website within two weeks. Then our plan going forward is to provide such reports on a quarterly basis.

D. Routley: The information that's being released on the open government websites…. Most of that information so far is information that's been available on other sites, in other ministries, just consolidated onto these sites. What steps are being taken to satisfy the principles of routine and proactive disclosure of information other than that already available on ministry sites elsewhere?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just to clarify, there are two areas of open information — just so that I'm clear that we're talking about the same things.

One of the areas is the proactive release of information. Proactive disclosure is when we publish general information that's been requested and has already actively been released through the freedom-of-information process.

Proactive disclosure using on-line technology can supply citizens with information that most interests them in a form that is easy to access, read, search and understand. This is one of the ways that we believe we're going to give information to citizens so that they are empowered to actually engage with us, with government, in conversations about policy, service delivery, innovation and their priorities.

We started the proactive disclosure program back in July of 2011 as part of our Open Information program and website. So there's information that is released proactively in that way.

The other kind of information, which I think the member opposite may have been talking about, is open information that we're routinely releasing. This is not based on any kind of freedom-of-information request. We're routinely releasing information that…. We're actually publishing information of specific categories about government regularly, without there being any formal requests from anyone.

We're using on-line technology and providing citizens with information that, again, is interesting to them and, again, in a format that is easy for them to access, read and search and understand.

This routine release includes things such as monthly summaries of expenses accrued by ministers and deputy ministers. In the first six months of this program we had over 270 expense reports that were posted.

[1600]

Combined with the proactive disclosure of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requests, altogether there've been over 17,000 information packages that have actually been downloaded for use and reuse by citizens of British Columbia.

D. Routley: What the minister has described as proactive disclosure has been described by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association of British Columbia as reactive disclosure — that an FOI request is made; the government fulfils that FOI request, then within 48 hours reacts by posting it on a website.

Proactive disclosure seems to be something that would be released without request — that as the information became available to the government, it would proactively release that information. "Routine" would be, as the minister describes, regular reporting, cyclical information that recurs.

Can the minister address the issue of proactive disclosure of information not requested and not routinely released in the form of annual audits or monthly reports and that sort of thing?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think we're just using words differently here. What the member would describe as, I guess, proactive is something that we are calling routine. It's just using different words to describe something.

D. Routley: With respect, I would differ that what the minister has described as routine is something that happens chronologically on a regular basis — a regular report, an audit that's annual, a monthly summary and that sort of thing. Then what she's describing as proactive is the posting of FOI requests on open data websites within 48 hours of the applicant receiving the request. That would be reactive to a request.

Proactive might be, for example, releasing a copy of the HST pamphlet when it was available, rather than waiting and fighting the media against releasing that information.
[ Page 10149 ]
Proactive might be releasing the complainants of the process of the TELUS contract being removed from a competitive bid process.

Proactive might be information that comes available related to environmental considerations, around Enbridge, of a public interest and important nature to citizens or bodies in this province.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

So it seems to me that what the minister has described is reactive, and I'd like to know what steps are being taken to instruct ministries to be proactive about releasing the information that they have that is not routine — not released in regular reports, annual audits, calendar-related routine — but information that's available to the government and heretofore has had to be requested through FOI.

[1605]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We've consulted with, I believe, Webster's dictionary and discovered that for "routine," the definition is: related to or being in accordance with established procedure.

We are actually working with the Information and Privacy Commissioner now to determine what kinds of information could be routinely disclosed from various ministries across government. We've made a commitment to do that. It's actually in the legislation, and we are working on that with the commissioner at this time.

With respect to some comments that the member made about freedom-of-information requests, the way these were managed in the past was that someone — a political party or an individual — would put through a request. The request would be fulfilled, the information would be provided, and that was the end of it.

What's different now is that we are proactively disclosing that information and making it available, but it's not as the member suggested. It's a different website. It's the Open Information website. That information is now available to anyone who would like to look at it, whereas in the past the information only went to the requester.

D. Routley: There has been criticism of this system when B.C. Ferries brought it forward. There's been criticism of it since the B.C. government brought it forward, particularly from reporters, from the media, as they are often met with steep fees for freedom-of-information requests but then only have 48 hours to process the information and use it to their competitive advantage. The recommendation from the Information and Privacy Commissioner was for a two-week period. Why did the government decide that 48 hours was appropriate?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The description that the member has given is actually incorrect. The proactive disclosure program was launched on July 19, 2011, as part of our Open Information program and website.

With this program, government is required to wait a minimum of 72 hours after an applicant receives their requests before posting the request to the website. The Information and Privacy Commissioner had actually recommended a 24-hour delay.

D. Routley: Does the minister not agree with the media that 72 hours is not enough time to use the information, particularly for weekly publications, and that it is in fact acting as an obstacle or a disincentive to FOI requests from media outlets?

[1610]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The commissioner recommended that the information should be released within 24 hours of the requester receiving the information. We've taken a bit longer — 72 hours. We do think that that is reasonable, and we're not contemplating changing that.

D. Routley: How many staff in total are handling FOI requests?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The information access operations has 149 full-time equivalents, but the actual FTE complement in the information access operations area in fiscal year 2011-12 has been about 163. This increase is due to an increase in general FOI requests, the need to resource the open government initiative and the implementation across government of improvements to the administrative records classification system.

D. Routley: The minister seems to be indicating that that number of staff also includes the records management staff.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, it does.

D. Routley: How many staff would be working on FOI versus records management?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are 108 FTEs doing this work.

D. Routley: Does the minister agree with Commissioner Denham? Last year she said that the finding of "no records" would, in effect, assist ministries when they're under the gun for FOI requests and don't have the staff to fulfil them. We've just heard that staffing issues are a problem in fulfilling the increases in various FOI requests — in particular, political party requests.

If an under-resourced ministry is under the gun to perform according to the lower B.C. standard of 30 working days, rather than 30 calendar days, a "no records" re-
[ Page 10150 ]
quest would, in effect, help them meet their requirement under that compliance standard but also be attributable to the low number of staff managing records.

[1615]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I want to make sure that I'm clear about what the member opposite is asking. Is the member opposite asking if people who are public servants, who work for the people of British Columbia, within the ministry, are deliberately sending forward non-responsive requests? In other words, they are not doing their job? Is that what the member opposite is suggesting?

D. Routley: No, I believe that I'm suggesting that they can't do their job if they're under-resourced and that one of the responses that would comply with the requirements for timeliness would be "no records" or "no records found" — "no records" responses.

Since there's an increase in "no records" responses and since the minister herself has indicated that staffing is an issue when dealing with increased requests, could it be the case, as the commissioner has suggested last year, that the finding of "no records" would assist the ministries, particularly if they're under-resourced?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm not sure if the member opposite is familiar with the most recent commissioner's report from this calendar year, in January or possibly early February. The commissioner put out a report on the lack of government records. She was reviewing the number of requests closed as "no records released."

Just before I talk about her review, I'd like to state that the amount of time it takes in any given ministry to search for records…. There's not more time taken whether they find records or not, so the search time is still there even if they don't find any responsive records.

What the commissioner said was that the findings show that a significant number of the "no records released" responses were attributable directly to requests from law firms to the Solicitor General concerning specific residential school claims.

The commissioner provided us with a recommendation so that we could more accurately categorize these requests, and we've adopted that recommendation. It's been implemented already.

Further, in her report from this calendar year she stated that there does not appear to be a significant increase in the number of "no records released" responses issued from any particular ministry. She noted there was a small increase, about 4 percent, in the number of "no records released" responses, and that was in the categories separate from the residential school requests.

This is largely attributable to increased volumes of FOI requests and how easy it is for citizens to make a request, instead of to a specific ministry, across a whole bunch of ministries — so rather than sort of thinking through as to where the record most likely would reside, actually asking a whole host of ministries and, thereby, getting a number of "no records released" because there are no responsive records available.

D. Routley: What steps have been taken to increase the government's capacity to handle information? The fees for mainframe access in calculating FOI requests have remained at $9.60 per minute since they were introduced — oh, how long ago is it now? — 15 years ago, at least.

Given that technology has advanced and, presumably, the government's capacity for handling information has advanced but the fees have stayed the same, what steps have been taken to increase the efficiency of the handling of information within the government?

[1620]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to things that have been done within the ministry to improve efficiency, focus has been made on improving business practices. There's been increased staff training to improve on efficiency. The team has been centralized.

Furthermore, a number of suggestions have come forward from the staff themselves as to how further efficiencies could happen. Those suggestions, in many cases, have been implemented. That's why we've made such improvements in our timeliness.

With respect to the fee policy. The member alluded to when the fees came into effect. The fees which can be applied to a request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act have not been changed since the act came into effect in 1993. Only large and complex FOI requests normally would generate a fee estimate.

The act does not permit fees to be charged when an applicant requests access to his or her own personal information. Unlike some jurisdictions in Canada, B.C. doesn't charge an application fee for simply making a request.

When a fee is appropriate, the head of a public body must provide the applicant with an estimate of the proposed fee and may waive the fee if an applicant is unable to pay the fee or if the requested records relate to a matter of public interest.

If we look at statistics from the fiscal year 2010-11, they show that of the 7,939 access requests that were processed, about 1.6 percent resulted in the payment of a fee. The average fee paid was $385, and approximately $49,000 in total fees was collected for a program that actually costs the taxpayer of British Columbia about $10 million to administer.

D. Routley: The minister wasn't a participant in the committee which reviewed the act recently or the previ-
[ Page 10151 ]
ous committee which reviewed the act. Fees were definitely a major point of concern for many of the people who presented at that committee.

The minister seems to want to minimize the effect of fees. The second reading of the bill, when it was introduced, was very clear that fees should never become an obstacle to freedom of information, but in fact, that has occurred.

[1625]

On the committee that reviewed the act, we heard from UVic Environmental Law about requests that had fees in excess of $100,000. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant of the official opposition made a request for all the information regarding the torch run celebrations in various communities in B.C. and was handed a bill of approximately $10,000.

Fees were recognized by the committee reviewing the act as a major obstacle to applicants for freedom of information. We were told by environmental groups and by other presenters to the committee that fees had been an obstacle to them pursuing freedom-of-information requests. So for the minister to stand and say that fees aren't an issue, I think, is showing a lack of information. In fact, it's very clear that fees are a major obstacle to many freedom-of-information requests.

The minister has indicated that centralization has assisted in meeting the goals of the government's performance under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The centralization of staff was meant to provide efficiencies. How has the centralization of staff been dealt with in terms of training? What specific training programs have been offered over the past two years to bureaucrats to cope with the changes that have been brought forward?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite made some comments prior to his last question for me, and I just want to reference some of those comments.

The member was discussing fees. Again, I want to state for the record that where a fee is appropriate, the head of a public body must provide the applicant with an estimate of the proposed fee and may waive the fee if an applicant is unable to pay or if the requested records relate to a matter of public interest.

[1630]

We are aware, from last year's report, from fiscal 2010-11, that only about 1.6 percent of the requests that were processed actually resulted in the payment of a fee. The average fee paid was $385, and the total fees collected for this program in that fiscal year were $49,000. I just wanted to speak to that. Further, government is developing changes to the schedule of maximum fees to implement recommendations that were made by the special committees that have reviewed the act in the past. So that work is underway.

The member opposite asked some questions about the centralization of services. This was done back in 2009.

There are a number of different kinds of training that are provided for staff. There recently was a two-day conference with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and staff from legal services. Their course is on archives best-practice training, on records management, on freedom-of-information training and on leadership training. There's also training that happens on an ongoing basis across government with respect to freedom of information, dealing with freedom-of-information requests as well as record management.

All new staff have a two-week orientation. Lastly — and this is something that is relatively new — the ministry is working with a post-secondary institution here in British Columbia on an IAO certificate or diploma. That work is underway, and people in the ministry are actually very excited about it.

D. Routley: What is the total amount of resources devoted to training programs?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The ministry allocates approximately $1,000 per staff person for training.

D. Routley: Is all that training devoted to freedom of information and information processing?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Every employee has a training plan that's individualized for them and for their needs. The investment in training…. As I mentioned, there are some areas.

[1635]

Just to give a few examples again. It would be things like conferences, such as the conference with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and staff from legal services, things like training in archives best practice, records management, freedom-of-information training, leadership training and then training right across government in the area of FOI and records management.

D. Routley: I'd like to move on to some privacy-related questions. The integrated case management initiative has been the subject of considerable concern and huge investment on the part of taxpayers. What can the minister tell me about the current status of privacy impact assessments related to ICM?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The ICM. The program lead for this is the Ministry of Social Development, and I understand that this matter was canvassed with the minister in estimates recently. So that's the area, that's the ministry where the responsibility lies.

What I can tell the member opposite is that this has been a very successful collaboration with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and that the
[ Page 10152 ]
current privacy impact assessments are publicly available. They're posted on the ministry website. There is also a link on the commissioner's website to those privacy impact assessments.

D. Routley: It's understood that the responsibility for implementing ICM within Social Development is their responsibility, and I presume within Health it's their responsibility. But the responsibility for policy development, as I understand, is with the Minister of Citizens' Services. In fact, the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is with the minister.

What role does the minister see for herself and her ministry in the ongoing implementation and actualization of the integrated case management and other data-sharing initiatives of government?

[1640]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Ministry of Social Development is the program lead for ICM. The member opposite is correct. Our ministry sets privacy policy for all of government, and the ICM exists within that privacy policy. The ministry would certainly work closely, would be there to provide advice, policy, direction, explanations, any help that was requested from the ministry.

There's also one specific area that the ministry is involved in, and that is through Shared Services. We provide the technical facilities that are required for ICM — for example, computers and other kinds of equipment — through Shared Services. Those would be the ways in which we would be involved.

D. Routley: Integrated case management with disintegrated responsibilities for its implementation, it seems. This minister is responsible for privacy policy throughout government, but I'm being told I should ask questions elsewhere when it comes to implementation of integrated case management because another ministry is the lead ministry. But in fact the minister is responsible, I understand, for ensuring that the requirements of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are upheld throughout government.

What role does the minister have ongoing with data-sharing initiatives? What steps are being taken to ensure that privacy is adequately protected as government moves towards ever-greater data-sharing initiatives?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Across government every ministry is accountable, and it's their duty to understand government policy and to be in compliance with government policy. That would be certainly true of our privacy policy, but it would also be true of things like financial policy, and there would be many different areas of financial policy.

It's the responsibility of each individual ministry to be familiar with that, to understand it and to make sure that they're in compliance with it. That's the accountability that every minister and every ministry shares.

[1645]

But again, I would say that certainly our ministry would be available to give advice about the policy. If there were questions that the Ministry of Social Development or other ministries had, we certainly would be available as a resource.

D. Routley: The minister seems to diminish the role of her own ministry in ensuring that privacy protection is adequately maintained. This government has a history of quite horrendous privacy breaches, from Wainwright, where 1,400 vulnerable British Columbians had their personal information stolen, to the dumpster breach of this past year. The B.C. Lotteries on-line gambling breach did huge damage to people's personal well-being.

The information officer at a recent conference pointed out, very rightly, that breaches of private information by government are even more serious than breaches of financial information by private companies. Private companies are increasing their privacy protections in order to protect their wallets — their assets, their liability — because they must make customers whole if they've had a privacy breach, whereas with government, if there's a privacy breach, the implications are much deeper and much more profound for individuals.

Their personal health information, for instance, might be breached. Their income information might be breached. Their housing or employment information might be breached. And that bell can't be unrung. It's an extremely important issue.

This ministry is responsible for protecting the privacy of the citizens of British Columbia. It's not good enough just to say: "Well, every ministry is responsible. They know they have to be responsible under the act, and that's good enough." Well no, it's not. It's not good enough because it hasn't been good enough. We've had terrible outcomes.

I'd like to know from the minister what she feels her role is in ensuring that recommendations from the investigations — into Wainwright, into the dumpster breach, into the on-line gambling fiasco…. How are those protections going to be increased, and how is the capacity of public servants within those various ministries going to be upgraded so that they can adequately handle information in a secure way?

[1650]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: To the member opposite, I certainly agree with him that any privacy breach, particularly when it comes to people's personal information, is a very difficult thing. They shouldn't happen. Occasionally they do happen, but I agree with him that such things need to be taken very seriously. And we do take them
[ Page 10153 ]
very seriously.

Within the ministry we have a number of things. We certainly, as the member is aware, have policy. We have guidelines to help the ministries with the implementation of the policies. We have tipsheets for ministries that will assist them with the basics. There is a help line that people can call if they require specific assistance.

Also, ministries must do a privacy impact assessment on every systems project that they are going to undergo. Those privacy impact assessments come to our ministry. They are reviewed by the ministry, and until they are acceptable, the projects actually cannot proceed.

I certainly would want the member to know and would want everyone to know that this is an area that we take extremely seriously. It's one of the most important functions of the ministry. We take it seriously, and there are a lot of things that we do, some of which I've outlined here, to make sure that we're doing the absolute best we can with British Columbians' private information.

D. Routley: I believe it was the Canadian Medical Association that warned doctors of their increased liability if they didn't advise patients that they weren't able to control their information once it's given to them, given that with the integrated case management system, they lose direct control of their patients' medical records.

The notions of opt-out clauses from the system were discussed in its early days. The notion of building a wall around doctors' offices, in a sense, from the system was discussed.

Being a medical doctor herself, is the minister comfortable with the fact that there is a concern from doctors in terms of their ability to control patients' information, given the implications of integrated case management and other data-sharing initiatives?

[1655]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to the integrated case management, I know the member opposite is aware that the responsibility lies with the Minister of Social Development. But what I can say is that our ministry does have a support and advisory role.

As the member opposite has mentioned, people's private information is part of this, and that's why the privacy impact assessments are so vitally important. Certainly, there's been very close work with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

One of the things about this kind of case management is that when individuals do access records, they will only be able to access information that they are truly authorized to see. There could be sections of the information that some individuals are truly authorized to see, but there would be other parts that they couldn't.

Again, it goes to the importance of the privacy impact assessments. It goes to the importance of working with the commissioner. The ministry does have and will have an ongoing support and advisory role with this program.

D. Routley: The minister diminishes the role of her ministry. It seems odd, because the responsibility for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is with the minister. The responsibility for review of the act, the implementation of policy decisions from government, is with her ministry. The responsibility for management of information is with her ministry.

The chief information officer is the one who appears to be the office responsible for responding to recommendations from the investigations into the various privacy breaches. One of the recommendations from the investigations into the privacy breaches — the Wainwright breach in particular from a few years ago — was that government establish an independent chief privacy officer.

[1700]

The government has refused up until now to do that, and those duties were being carried out by the chief information officer. Can the minister tell me why the government has refused to appoint an independent privacy officer?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have to say that I think, really, what the member is doing is diminishing the responsibility that all ministries have. All ministries are accountable. They are obliged to understand the policies around privacy, and they're obliged to adhere to them.

There is definitely policy that comes from the Ministry of Citizens' Services, without question, and there is support that's available. I've outlined a number of the different kinds of support. As seriously as we take this, it has to be taken seriously right across government, and every ministry has to be very clearly accountable and understand their accountability.

With respect to the question the member asked about the chief information officer, in government we're not contemplating any change in this area. We believe we have a substantial and strong policy role with the government chief information officer.

To give just one example of something that has happened, to demonstrate how very seriously we take the protection of privacy and how deeply concerned we are about breaches, we have now…. Every government employee is required to take a mandatory training course on privacy and information-sharing.

The training for executive and managers is complete at this point. Training for employees is underway, and it will be completed by the end of the year. We're also developing training for contractors and for service providers.

We do take this very seriously, and we feel that what is present now in the office of the chief information officer is robust. We're not contemplating making a change.

D. Routley: I guess it would be logical to assume,
[ Page 10154 ]
then, that we can't ask questions about health spending of the Finance Minister. Of course, each ministry must be aware and responsible for their spending, so it would be inappropriate for us to ask the Finance Minister about health spending.

This is one of the core responsibilities of the minister — the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. Its implementation and the adherence to it throughout government is a primary responsibility of her ministry.

[1705]

It's clear to me that the minister would like to deflect her role or minimize her role and not be open to questions about integrated case management, even though for the past four years it has been the subject of debate in these estimates of this ministry, and the review of the act in the committee that reviewed the act that she's responsible for was one of the primary areas of concern. But the minister would like to share that responsibility rather than be the primary lead in being responsible for the adherence of her government to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

We have seen that the government's record has been abysmal when it comes to privacy breaches. There have been serious breaches, one after the other. Investigations have been carried out. One of the recommendations from one of the largest breaches was that the government appoint a chief privacy officer. The government had the duties recommended by the acting commissioner, Paul Fraser, who undertook the investigation. The government delegated those duties to the chief information officer.

Could the minister tell me if the chief information officer is still responsible for the duties that were recommended by Paul Fraser, acting commissioner, in his investigation into Wainwright?

[1710]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I understand that the member opposite is referring to a report from 2010, although I wasn't the minister at the time. In the last couple of years I understand that this issue has been canvassed between the member and the minister of the day on at least one occasion, if not two.

The recommendation from that time is not an active recommendation from the current commissioner. Again, we're not contemplating a change.

I would like to just finish by once again saying, for the record, that we absolutely take privacy breaches very seriously. They are taken seriously by government; they're taken seriously by the ministry. I believe that the chief information officer has a strong and important policy role in government in this area.

D. Routley: The history is that they've been taken very lightly by the government, that in fact they haven't even been recognized by the government and that once recognized, huge mistakes were made in addressing them. In the case of Wainwright the notifications of the privacy breach were sent to the wrong addresses, so it even compounded the privacy breach. In the recent dumpster breach it took five days for the government to even respond to the person who found the files in the dumpster.

The minister speaks in ideals. It's idealistic to say that all of government respects privacy protections and adheres to them without fail, because that's just not the case. There have been notable failures that have been very costly to people's well-being. For the minister just to say simply that, you know, that's not an active recommendation, not of the current commissioner…. It's still a recommendation that came out of the investigation into probably the largest privacy breach in the history of the province, so it shouldn't be dismissed so lightly.

There is an issue of conflict when it comes to the chief information officer — not personal conflict, but conflict of the intent of his office to increase information-sharing and increase information availability. The chief information officer is one of the proponents of increased data sharing across the lines of government, whereas this can, at least, be said to challenge the government's capacity to protect privacy and could increase the potential for breaches. The chief information officer could be asked to be working at cross-purposes if he's also responsible for ensuring privacy protection.

So has the minister given any thought to what could be done to increase the capacity of government to protect privacy?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite has referenced amendments that were made to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 2011, and among the amendments that we made in the act, the role of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was substantially strengthened. We worked collaboratively with her, and we continue to work collaboratively with her, with the new powers that she has that came into force with these amendments.

[1715]

Some of the things that have happened as a result of Bill 3. We've increased the office of the chief information officer's budget to add additional resources to its privacy protection program.

With the additional resources that have been provided, the office is going to launch an expanded and proactive privacy program to support government ministries in meeting their increased privacy responsibilities, because this does go right across all of the ministries.

The expanded program includes: the development of privacy best practices, cross-government policies, guidelines and tools, and the delivery of ongoing training, project support and advice. I have already referenced some of those things, but it certainly doesn't hurt to say it more than once.
[ Page 10155 ]

D. Routley: When the minister says, "We've increased the budget of the OIPC," does she mean herself, her government, her ministry? Earlier in the estimates debate I asked the minister what she thought of the increased responsibilities to the OIPC and whether she would advocate for greater funding to support those responsibilities. Her answer was that it's up to the officer, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to go to the appropriate committee and make a request on her own behalf.

Now that the question begs a different answer, it seems that the minister is saying: "We've increased the budget to the OIPC." What exactly does she mean?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We'll have to check the record to see if I misspoke, and if I did, I apologize.

Specifically, the budget that was increased was the office of the chief information officer's budget, and the different things I spoke about are being done by the office of the chief information officer.

The member opposite asked earlier about the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner's budget. That is a budget that is determined…. I do not have influence, and the ministry does not have influence or jurisdiction over that budget. There was a discussion that occurred with the Select Standing Committee on Finance, and that is where the direction comes for the budget for the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

D. Routley: So the chief information office budget was increased by how much to accommodate these extra duties? Can the minister describe the amount and how much was appropriated for the extra duties?

[1720]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The budget has increased by approximately $500,000. We'll get you the exact number.

With respect to a previous question that the member opposite asked about. With respect to FOI requests on HST since April of 2010, which is almost two fiscal years, there have been a total of 100 FOI requests, 29 of those from a political party. On Enbridge, since April of 2010 there have been ten FOI requests, and one of those was from a political party.

D. Routley: One of the recurring recommendations throughout my experience as critic to this ministry — through the FOI review committee, the FIPPA review committee, and through the investigations that were undertaken and from the OIPC during the time that Bill 3 was debated — was that there be public consultations, in terms of the privacy amendment act that was recently passed, around the formulation of the regulations.

What steps has the ministry taken to engage in public consultations?

[1725]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I understand that the member opposite is asking about the public consultations that occurred prior to Bill 3, the amendments of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As I recall, this was discussed. This was canvassed at length during the debate on that bill. The government is not contemplating any further consultations at this time, given that the bill has been passed. Specific to this, we wouldn't be planning on any further consultation.

D. Routley: The minister did indicate that during the debate there was concern that so much of the detail of the bill was left to formulation and regulations, and so much of the impact, as was noted by the commissioner, would be only determined by the regulations that were put into place. During the debate the minister did indicate that there would be further public consultation around the formulation of those regulations.

Generally, in her ministry, what resources of money or staff time have been allocated to public consultations of any kind during the coming year?

[1730]

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Our government has made a firm commitment to public engagement. The ministry itself does not have particular dedicated staff or a budget dedicated to projects like this. Within the government communications and public engagement area of the ministry, the jobs plan is already underway. That public consultation is already underway. The Justice Ministry is going to be doing a consultation on policing strategy. Within Citizens' Services there is going to be public engagement consultation on citizens' expectation of service delivery.

These would be a few examples. Some of them are within the ministry, and some of them are going to be supported by GCPE. But they will actually be run out of other ministries. Again, there is not a specific line item in the budget I can refer to, or dedicated staff. The department out of which the public engagement would be run will vary, depending on which ministry it's in and the specific public engagement. Certainly, I'm aware of a number of public engagements and consultation processes that will be happening over the year coming up.

D. Routley: How much of this ministry's budget is devoted to public consultations?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is not something that I can refer to a line item. There is not specific, dedicated staff. Even the department that's responsible for the public engagement will depend on the specific engagement that we're talking about. So it's not possible for me to give specific details such as the member has requested.
[ Page 10156 ]

D. Routley: The government's public engagement unit controls approximately 22 percent of the STOB 67 budget, or about $3.5 million. What will this money be directed towards?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're struggling a little bit with the question and hoping the member opposite will be gracious enough to clarify it for us. The ministry doesn't have a specific line item for public engagement. The member opposite referenced a STOB and 22 percent, and we're not clear. We wonder if the member would be kind enough to try to give us some clarity on what it is he's wondering about.

[1735]

D. Routley: It's my understanding that the government's communication and public engagement unit has control or a role in the spending of $3.5 million of STOB 67 spending, which is information advertising. Where would that be directed?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The STOB 67 funding. The priorities within government that it would be used to support would obviously vary from year to year. This year, just to give a few examples of where funding is going, there's communication about forest fire prevention, a gaming review and also the B.C. education plan. Those would be some examples of government priorities that would be funded out of the STOB 67 funds.

D. Routley: Would another example be the jobs plan?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd just like to take a moment to introduce another one of the senior staff who've joined us: Denise Champion, the executive director from corporate services within the government communications and public engagement department area.

To the member's question with respect to the funding for the jobs plan advertising: this was announced by the Minister of Finance. It's within the budget for this year — $15 million over two years. This is not a budget item for GCPE. This would be something, if the member had further detailed questions, that could be canvassed with the Minister of Finance.

[1740]

D. Routley: If the spending is not from this ministry, what ministry should I canvass? Which ministry is doing the spending?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I just mentioned that the Minister of Finance announced this in the budget, but the minister who's been speaking to the jobs plan and this funding, who's had responsibility for it, is the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

D. Routley: Is the advertising for the jobs plan from the JTI budget?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The funding was announced in this year's budget by the Minister of Finance. The campaign is being led by the JTI ministry, and questions about the funding and the plans for the campaign would best be directed to the minister responsible. That would be the minister of JTI.

D. Routley: The government's communication and public engagement unit is responsible for government communications. Will there be activity in the Port Moody or Chilliwack constituencies in the time leading from now up until the by-elections?

[1745]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Government is guided by the rules of Elections B.C., clearly, and would abide by those. The government, at the same time, will certainly continue to do work throughout the province in all ridings. That would include the places that the member opposite has spoken of.

D. Routley: The B.C. Liberals have made commitments in the past not to use government spending around elections. In fact, I think that former Premier Gordon Campbell committed to 120 days before an election, not to be spending government money advertising government.

So it seems an important question for these estimates. Would the government communications and public engagement unit be involved in any advertising in Chilliwack or Port Moody in the coming months? If so, what advertising is planned?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The previous question from the member opposite was with respect to government activity, and my answer to that question was that government will continue to do its work throughout the province, as is entirely appropriate.

To the specific question about advertising, there are some government initiatives underway at the moment: the jobs plan that we've talked about, the education plan. Those advertising campaigns are provincewide, and they're currently underway. So that's happening now, and that's happening in every part of the province.

With respect to what would happen going forward, again, we would absolutely abide by all rules of Elections B.C. when it comes to any by-election or any election in the future.

D. Routley: The promises of abiding by Elections B.C. rules from the current government are difficult to accept when now there have been very well-noted cases of failure to do just that in the recent provincial election and in
[ Page 10157 ]
the 2011 by-election in Point Grey. The previously public affairs bureau, the government communications and public engagement unit, was heavily involved in staging a cluster of announcements in the Point Grey constituency immediately before the by-election.

There were complaints made to Elections B.C. There were letters written. There were questions asked, and it's a matter of public interest. It's something that the government has promised not to do.

Leading up to the by-elections that are upcoming, it would be nice to know exactly what ad campaigns have been engaged. What ad campaigns have been contracted through this ministry over the next three months in the Chilliwack and Port Moody constituencies?

[1750]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, the provincewide campaigns that I mentioned previously — the jobs plan and education plan advertising — are not specific to any riding. They are underway now. I'm not aware of any other…. There are no other advertising campaigns contemplated, and specific to those ridings, there are no advertising campaigns planned for those specific ridings that the member opposite has referenced.

D. Routley: So we will not see the government communications and public engagement unit involved in staging, say, an opportunity for the Premier to masquerade as a coffee shop waitress in Chilliwack over the next couple of months, or a special announcement of funding for other constituencies to take place in those constituencies and arranged through public resources by the government communications and public engagement unit?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member's been talking about advertising and the advertising budget for GCPE and then talking about events and the work of government as if those things are interchangeable, and they very clearly aren't.

With respect to advertising and the budget for advertising, I've talked about a couple of provincewide campaigns that are underway. That information is going out to British Columbians right across the province.

With respect to the work of government — events, with providing information about programs to British Columbians — that work will go on. There's no prohibition for the work of government to go on. The work of government does go on, regardless of where we are in the election cycle. I know the member opposite is aware of that.

The specific rules from Elections B.C. about advertising clearly will be adhered to. We are aware of those rules, and they will be adhered to. But I do think it's important to distinguish between the work of government — events, providing information about programs — versus specific, targeted advertising.

[1755]

D. Routley: Can the minister assure me that there will be no increase in the rate of placement of ads in those constituencies, Port Moody and Chilliwack, and no increase in the frequency of government announcements coordinated by her ministry and the government communications and public engagement unit in the time leading up to the by-elections?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I can assure the member opposite that government will continue to do its work over the next while, and I can assure the member opposite that the rules that are in place by Elections B.C. will be adhered to.

D. Routley: The rules that are in place from Elections B.C. pertain to the time immediately prior to the by-election. Between now and when the writ is dropped, will there be any increase in the rate of government-placed ads or government-coordinated announcements of funding? Will there be an increased rate of those ad placements or funding announcements in those constituencies?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I really can't think of anything to add to my previous answer that government is going to continue to do its work. I've already referenced the provincewide campaigns that I'm aware of that are underway, one of which is the education plan, and the other is the jobs plan.

Across government these two campaigns are underway currently. They're provincewide campaigns. Those are the advertising campaigns that I know about at this moment.

But with respect to the other question from the member, again I would say that government is going to continue to do its work and continue to keep the public informed about government programs and other similar things that we do throughout British Columbia.

D. Routley: The minister is referring to provincewide campaigns. I'm referring to ad placements and announcements and press opportunities for the government to showcase its programs in those two particular constituencies in this time leading up to the dropping of the writ.

Can the minister just say no? Can the minister just say: "No, there will be no increase in those ad placements"? Can the minister just say: "No, there will be no increase in the number of government-coordinated announcements or functions in those constituencies in this time leading up to the dropping of the writ"?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, I would say to the member opposite that there are some provincewide campaigns underway now, which I've spoken about. The ad-
[ Page 10158 ]
vertising in those campaigns is going to every area of the province. If people have a television, it would be on their television station around the province.

The government is continuing to do its work and will continue to do its work around the province, and the rules that are in place from Elections B.C. will be adhered to.

[1800]

D. Routley: Can the minister provide me an itemized list of costs for any work done by the government communications and public engagement unit related to the jobs plan?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to the jobs plan, I'm not sure exactly what the member is getting to, so I'm going to answer this in two ways.

With respect to the jobs plan, it's a key priority of our government. It actually is part of the work of a number of different ministries. There's work being done on the job plans in, for example, JTI, Advanced Education, our ministry, the Ministry of Education, and Energy and Mines. That's just to name some of the ministries. There would be many staff across many ministries whose work has been impacted.

I think it would be very difficult to give an itemized list of time spent and those kinds of things. Suffice to say, with this being a key priority of our government, there is work underway across many of the ministries.

If the member opposite is specifically talking about the advertising budget, we certainly can work with the Ministry of JTI and come up with a detailed list of the expenses to date for the member, if he wishes.

[1805]

D. Routley: Thank you for that offer. I would like to know from the minister how much resources, how much money from her ministry and from the government's communications and public engagement unit will be spent on the jobs plan, either in promoting the jobs plan or coordinating the communications of the jobs plan. How much has been spent to date? How much will be spent in the coming fiscal year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Within GCPE we don't have any staff that are dedicated to the jobs plan. The responsibility they would have would include that, but there would be many, many other areas that they would have responsibility for. With respect to the advertising budget, it's very transparent. It's $5 million allocated for this fiscal year and $10 million for next year.

With respect to the work right across government, the majority of ministries have got some responsibility for the jobs plan. It impacts on and is being worked upon in the majority of ministries. So there would be staff within GCPE assigned to ministries. That would be part of their responsibility. There would be other people working on policy. We are not aware of anyone that is specifically tasked to the jobs plan — certainly not in our ministry. I guess it's possible there might be in other ministries, but we're not aware of it.

D. Routley: Does that mean that the commitment on the part of the Citizens' Services ministry and government's communications and public engagement unit to the jobs plan is simply insignificant, and it's not relevant? Can the minister tell me how much resources are being directed to supporting the jobs plan?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, I think in every ministry people would say this is a very significant part of their work. It's the key priority of government. We believe it's making a difference in the lives of British Columbians, and it will continue into the future. All of us, I think, think this is very important and very significant.

In our ministry, and I believe this would be true for others, we don't allocate time the way that lawyers do, with billable hours to files. That is not something that we do.

[1810]

While there are people certainly working very hard on the jobs plan — the communication, the policy around it — because it's so important to the future of the province, it just is not something that's possible to say…. At least within GCPE, there are not any individuals that are tasked purely with the jobs plan. They are doing other work as well.

D. Routley: Well, it seems the minister wants her cake and to eat it too. You can't, I think, have it both ways, where the jobs plan is such a hugely significant component of our future and our present and the government's overall plan, yet we have no idea how much we're spending on it. We have no idea how much staff time we're allocating to it in the minister's own ministry.

It seems that on the one hand, it's not important enough to say: "Well, we're spending X percent of our time devoted to supporting the jobs plan. We're devoting this many people, this many hours or this many days to the jobs plan." But on the other hand, it's the most important thing that government is doing, and it's very significant and will have an ongoing impact on people's lives from now and into the future.

We have it both ways: it's hugely important, hugely significant, but on the other hand, not significant enough to have had time allocated or budgeted. The resources haven't been accounted or audited or planned.

So to the minister: what is the plan? How much effort from her ministry is being put into supporting the jobs plan?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think the question the mem-
[ Page 10159 ]
ber opposite is asking really illustrates a difference between the philosophy that our government has and the philosophy that the members opposite would have.

The member opposite is asking about input: how much time, how much money, how many people, how many FTEs, and why don't we use government resources to track that? What we are doing is we're actually looking at output.

[1815]

For example, what has happened is we've released a sector strategy on tourism. We've released a sector strategy on LNG. Today there was a six-month progress report released with significant detail in it.

It is very clear that there is a great deal of work going on across government with respect to the jobs plan, and it's making a difference. We really ask the people working on GPCE to do a lot with limited resources. This is a group that has considerably fewer resources than the same department had under the NDP. We have 197 FTEs with an estimated operating budget of $26.1 million compared to the NDP, where there were 322 employees and $40 million.

Just to give another example of inputs versus outputs, the Leader of the Opposition has talked about what his goal would be if he was governing with respect to health. His goal would be to be the province that spends the most money on health care, whereas our goal is to use taxpayers' dollars as wisely as possible. We're looking at the outcomes. We're looking at some of the best cancer outcomes in Canada, some of the best cardiovascular outcomes in Canada. It's a different way of looking at things.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

D. Routley: Yes, it's a different way of looking at things. We'd rather on this side have some accountability from the government. The government's way of looking at things is: "We'd rather not be accountable. We'd rather just spend the money and not keep track of where it's gone. We'd rather just have you forget that we promised to put a roof on B.C. Place Stadium for $150 million and that it actually cost $570 million. We'd rather just not bother with that nasty little thing called accountability."

It seems to me that's the role of opposition, particularly in estimates. Yeah, I'd agree with the minister. It does display an absolute stark difference between this side and her side. In fact, her leader promised to do politics differently, to govern differently, to listen to people, to communicate more.

Yet what do we see here? We see a minister who's unwilling to commit or to say in estimates how much her own ministry is going to work in a certain area. It's just too expensive for us to keep track of how much we spend or how many staff hours are appropriated to whatever project. That would be just too bothersome, wouldn't it?

I think the sarcasm of my answer suits the implied arrogance of the answer that the minister gave me: the Leader of the Opposition would like to commit the most resources to health care in the country. Well, what a terrible thing to say. It must indicate that all he wants to do is spend money. It must do, I'm sure. Whereas the stellar B.C. Liberals, who have the record of having engaged in a half-billion-dollar overrun on the convention centre, want us not to think about those things. "We just don't want to measure. We want to measure outcomes, not what it costs us to get there."

It seems it was a disrespectful answer, and I apologize for the disrespect in the question that I'm asking. But it seems hard to resist, given the answer that I just got from the minister, which was disrespectful not just to the questioner but to the people of B.C. who expect that we will be accountable for their tax dollars.

For me to stand here and be insolent enough to ask the minister questions about how her ministry is going to spend money, how she's going to devote resources of her ministry to something that she says is the most important core program of her government…. Somehow there's a problem with asking a question as to how the resources will be allocated.

[1820]

How much time on the part of the government's communications and public engagement unit will be spent supporting the government's jobs plan? Apparently, it's just not a relevant question. I would ask it again of the minister. Does the minister know how much her own ministry is going to be spending supporting her government's core program, or is that just something her ministry doesn't keep track of?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, I will say that within the ministry of GCPE there are no staff that are specifically dedicated to the jobs plan. There is no FTE I can point to, and there is no specific part of the budget.

What I can say is that there are a number of people that are working on this, not only in this ministry but across government. The evidence of that is very clear. There has been tremendous work done, there has been product of that work, and there will continue to be work done in this area. We will continue to see the output, things such as the sector strategy which, so far, we have seen for tourism and liquefied natural gas, but which we'll see in other areas.

There are many people across multiple ministries who are working in this area. But the detail that the member is asking for…. Again, because the ministry does not function on a billable-hour model such as you would see in a law firm, it is not possible to give that kind of information. We don't track it in that way.

D. Routley: Well, you know, I don't think I asked for the billable hours or an exact number of hours. I asked for what amount of resources — a general question.
[ Page 10160 ]
What percentage of the time or what percentage of the resources of the ministry will be devoted to supporting the jobs plan?

The minister has indicated that it's a core program. It has an enormous significance to British Columbians both now and on into the future. If that's the case, it seems only reasonable to think that there would be a plan. The plan would say: "We're going to spend this much time and devote this many people generally for this period of time to support that program." Or are we just doing things as they pop up — shooting from the hip?

Are we just responding as needed, or do we have a plan? Is there a plan? Is there a plan for exactly what the government communications and public engagement unit's role will be in promoting the jobs plan, in communicating to British Columbians the jobs plan, the education plan? Or are we just sort of waiting and seeing?

I mean, we have a budget. There must have been consultations with all of these bureaucrats at various levels as to what their needs would be in terms of meeting the goals put in front of them by the government. I think that it's reasonable and responsible for me to ask the minister to detail those plans, but the minister does not seem to want to be accountable for those plans.

[1825]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Government released a very detailed jobs plan some time ago, and in that jobs plan it's laid out very clearly what the expectation is, what will be done, what has been committed to.

The staff at GCPE understand what their roles and responsibilities are. They certainly are accountable. There are key deliverables for the various people that work in GCPE, but there are other things that they do as well. So this is part of their responsibility. They do have other responsibilities.

But if the member opposite is wondering what the plan is, it is all laid out very clearly in the jobs plan. It's easily accessible, and I would refer him to that.

D. Routley: Well, I've seen travel brochures thicker than the jobs plan that was released. To say that what has been released as the jobs plan is a detailed document that can suffice to be accountable to the estimates of billion-dollar budgets is laughable. What has been released is a promotional document.

The purpose of estimates is to drill down into the detail of the projections of the government and its planning. So I would assume that a government that has staked claim to be the only credible fiscal managers that B.C. can ever, ever have or hope to have would have had adequate plans in place and could describe them in detail, could describe how that program would be supported ministry to ministry, how it would be communicated, how it would be implemented.

But that would be assuming that the government has any interest in being accountable to the people who are actually paying for the jobs plan. It's not their jobs plan. It's not their government. It's not their money; it's the taxpayers' money. I think the minister has a duty to those taxpayers to be accountable, so asking questions about how the minister plans to carry out the goals of government seems reasonable, but maybe I'm wrong.

Are we going to adjourn then, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: We're going to take a recess for about half an hour.

Do you want to take a recess now? Okay.

This committee will recess for about half an hour. We'll reconvene it at 7 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:28 p.m. to 7:05 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening. We'll resume our debates for the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. I believe that the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan was speaking.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about Shared Services B.C., and I'm not sure if that requires a change in staff or not? No? Okay, thank you.

In the 2012-2013 fiscal plan there is an indication of a $700 million sale of assets. I'm wondering what role Shared Services will have in the disposition of those assets?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: While there is staff that is assigned to this project, the accountability is with Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. I would invite the member opposite to ask these questions of the Minister of Finance during those estimates.

D. Routley: The Provincial Capital Commission was moved into the ministry recently. Will the Provincial Capital Commission be the agent or the vehicle of sale of the assets?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The responsibility for this particular project lies with the Minister of Finance through Treasury Board. I would invite him to ask these questions of the Minister of Finance.

D. Routley: What role will the Provincial Capital Commission have in the sale of any assets in the coming year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: While there is staff that's assigned through Shared Services B.C. to this project, the accountability is through Treasury Board to the Minister of Finance. I would invite the member opposite to can-
[ Page 10161 ]
vass these questions with the Minister of Finance, who is accountable and responsible for this area.

D. Routley: The branch of Shared Services called asset investment recovery is responsible for the disposal of surplus tangible assets of the province of British Columbia, such as buildings, vehicles, boats, heavy equipment and office furnishings.

What can the minister tell me about the activities and plans for asset investment recovery?

[1910]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm not sure if the member opposite has moved on to a new area or if he's still canvassing what he was canvassing previously.

With respect to the asset investment recovery area, they're functioning in the same manner as they always have. They're doing their work as they always have. There hasn't been a change in that area of the ministry.

D. Routley: There are no particular special projects in asset investment recovery? There will be no change in the historical operations of asset investment recovery?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are no changes contemplated at this time. There's nothing planned. This area of government is functioning the way that it has in the past.

D. Routley: What was the purpose of the move of the Provincial Capital Commission into Shared Services?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: By spring of 2012 Shared Services B.C. is going to assume property management and leasing responsibilities for the Provincial Capital Commission, including the visitor information centre, Crystal Garden and several parks and green spaces. The Provincial Capital Commission is going to continue to hold title to the properties.

Shared Services B.C.'s assumption of these services, along with the transfer of financial operations to the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, is expected to save the Provincial Capital Commission about $200,000 annually. Shared Services B.C. provides real estate services to broader public sector clients, including health authorities and the RCMP, on a fee-for-service basis and will enter into a similar arrangement with the Provincial Capital Commission.

Shared Services B.C. is working closely with the Provincial Capital Commission to develop a transition plan that does not impact existing site operations. During the transition it will be business as usual for tenants of the Provincial Capital Commission properties.

D. Routley: The minister doesn't appear to have responsibility for the Provincial Capital Commission's role in the disposal of assets in the coming year or is not willing to share that information. If the Provincial Capital Commission is part of Shared Services, it appears, at least, that it would be under the minister's responsibility.

So is the minister not able to share any information as to what plans she has or what plans the Provincial Capital Commission has in terms of property disposal?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The responsibility for the Provincial Capital Commission falls under the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. What Shared Services B.C. is going to be doing is assuming property management and leasing responsibilities, just as we do for some other clients, such as health authorities and the RCMP.

D. Routley: In a previous answer the minister included the words "real estate services," I believe, not just the leasing services. So can the minister describe exactly what type of services her ministry and the Provincial Capital Commission will be responsible for in terms of management and disposal?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Real estate services would include things like property management and leasing responsibilities. It would be things like janitorial services, upkeep, routine maintenance — those sorts of things.

[1915]

D. Routley: It's been understood by several journalists writing about the transfer of the Provincial Capital Commission, as well as other commentators, that Shared Services B.C. was taking over the responsibility for that agency, which would presumably include the disposal of assets and sale of property. So the minister is telling me that that's incorrect — that there is no role for Shared Services in the disposal of properties?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Our general rule, the general rule of Shared Services B.C., as I've said, is to assume property management and leasing responsibilities for the Provincial Capital Commission. However, as I've also said, there is a part of Shared Services B.C. that is involved in the project that the member opposite has mentioned previously. And he is correct. I'm not responsible for that project. The responsibility for that project lies directly with the Minister of Finance through Treasury Board.

D. Routley: Will Shared Services play a role in the asset sale of the Liquor Distribution Branch?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, we have been asked to be involved with the procurement.

D. Routley: And what involvement would that be?
[ Page 10162 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The ministry has been asked to assist with developing and evaluating the RFP.

D. Routley: Will the ministry be involved in any way in the promotion of these assets? Or will, perhaps, the government communications and public engagement unit be involved in the sale in any way, in terms of promoting the sales?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, I would say to the member opposite that we do have staff assigned within the ministry, but I'm not the minister responsible. The minister responsible through Treasury Board is the Minister of Finance. These questions need to be asked of the Minister of Finance during his estimates.

D. Routley: So does that mean that staff and resources from the Ministry of Citizens' Services are, in effect, being seconded to another ministry without actually transferring the responsibility for the budget, without actually transferring the functions? Is the minister's ministry simply providing services to other ministries — accountable in terms of a budget item but not accountable in terms of answering questions as to how those resources are being used?

[1920]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The nature of Shared Services is that that's exactly what Shared Services does — provide services across government. With respect to this particular project, the accountability is very clear. It is through Treasury Board with the Minister of Finance. So in this case, the staff are working on that project, but the minister responsible is the Minister of Finance. The staff remain within the ministry. They've not been seconded or removed from the ministry.

D. Routley: That concludes my questions of the minister related to Citizens' Services, that portion of her ministry. But in concluding those questions in this session, I would first like to thank the staff for attending these estimates. I know how exciting it is and how fun that must be for them. For the lack of interest and engagement that I could provide them, I apologize, but I do thank them for the information that they provide to me and the service they give to British Columbians.

British Columbia is fortunate to have excellent people working at all levels of government. I've been here long enough to realize the great capacity of these people and how dedicated they are to serving British Columbians and how lucky we are that they choose public service when so many of these people, including the people sitting across from me now, could probably become more wealthy working in the private sector but have chosen to serve the people of B.C. I think they all deserve to be congratulated and thanked for that. So I thank them on behalf of the opposition.

In terms of the minister, I thank her for her responses. I'm unsatisfied with the responses. I think that the ministry needs to be more accountable for the resources it receives and that simply referring the accountability to other ministries to which it provides services is, I don't think, an adequate satisfaction of our duty to these budget estimates.

Personally, I thank the minister for her willingness to participate and her patience with me. I would close my remarks with that and hand it over to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, I'd like to acknowledge the member opposite who was previously questioning about Citizens' Services and say to him, through you, Madam Chair, thank you very much for acknowledging the hard work of the staff of the ministry, both those who are here with me and those who are behind the scenes. They certainly are a wonderful, dedicated and talented group of people, and it's great to hear them acknowledged.

I would like to take a moment just to introduce some staff from the Ministry of Labour who've joined us. Barb Walman is the assistant deputy minister for labour programs. Trevor Hughes is the assistant deputy minister for industrial relations, and John Blakely is the executive director, labour policy and legislation.

R. Chouhan: Maybe you can instruct some members to be quieter, Madam Chair.

[1925]

The Chair: I would like to remind some of the members that are in the gallery right now to be a little bit more quiet, please.

Go ahead, Member.

R. Chouhan: Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to engaging myself and engaging with the minister and the ministry's staff to talk about the budget estimate portion of the Labour Relations Board, employment standards and Workers Compensation Board.

I also want to thank the staff for taking time to be with us today. I'm sure that you are going to enjoy every moment of it as we will be, the minister and myself.

I will ask the first question. What is the budget for the Labour Relations Board this year under the new budget?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The total gross expenditures for the ministry are $4.181 million. There are total recoveries of $275,000, so the net expenditures estimates are $4.206 million.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister also tell me how many FTEs there are, including the chair, vice-chair, mediation
[ Page 10163 ]
department and support staff. What is the total number of people that work for the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are a total of 39 FTEs, and eight of those are OIC appointments.

R. Chouhan: Is there any difference between the FTEs and the OIC appointments this year from the last year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is no change from last year.

R. Chouhan: One more question I was supposed to ask about the budget. That $4-point-some-million budget that we have this year for the labour board…. Is there any change from the last year to this year, or is it the same?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The budget is unchanged from the previous year.

R. Chouhan: Under the eight OIC and other staff that we have at the labour board…. Is there any increase in their compensation this year or any increase in their compensation contemplated in the near future for any of those 47 people who work there?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: To be clear, it is 39 FTEs, of which eight are OICs. There has been no change in the compensation for any of those people and no changes contemplated.

[1930]

R. Chouhan: Now, how many unfair labour practice complaints were filed last year at the labour board?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: For the calendar year 2010 there were 361. For the calendar year of 2011 we have just information up until September, so I'll give the member opposite the 2010, the full-year number.

R. Chouhan: How many complaints were until September last year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There were 166.

R. Chouhan: So that was not even a full year — 166 until September. Could the minister provide me a breakdown of these unfair labour practices and under what section they were filed for last year and also in 2010?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are four different categories of complaints of unfair labour practices. The first is "Complaints regarding internal union affairs." That's under section 10. Then "Complaints regarding duty to bargain in good faith," which is section 11; "Complaints regarding duty of fair representation," section 12; and then "Other unfair labour practice complaints," which are sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister tell me: how many complaints were filed under each of these sections that you have illustrated?

[1935]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just to make, actually, not only the member aware but others aware as well, this information is all publicly available on the website, the LRB website. From the period of January 1 to September 30 of 2011, under the category of "Complaints regarding internal union affairs," there were two. Under the "Complaints regarding duty to bargain in good faith," there were 17. "Complaints regarding duty of fair representation" — there were 49. And then in the category of "Other unfair labour practice complaints," there were 98.

R. Chouhan: How many applications were made for new certifications for last year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: For that same time period, from January 1 to September 30 of 2011, there was a total of 96 certification applications.

R. Chouhan: And how many out of 96 were granted?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm going to give the member a little bit more information than he asked for, which is quite unusual. So the number of applications that were granted — I'm in a really benevolent mood this evening — was 44. The number that were withdrawn was 25. The number dismissed was 29.

R. Chouhan: I thank the minister for her benevolence. Could the minister be more benevolent and give me the five-year trend, please? How many applications were made, and how many were granted in each of the last five years?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: So on the number of certifications granted, in 2006 there were 89; in 2007, 121; in 2008, 96; in 2009, 88; in 2010, there were 72; and in 2011 there were 58.

R. Chouhan: In the budget, is there a sort of departmental allocation of money for mediation, complaint investigation and adjudication? Or is there just one global budget for LRB, and the chair decides where the money is to be spent? Or is there a division of or allocation of funds for different departments?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The budget is a global budget, and the chair determines where the allocation will be throughout the year.
[ Page 10164 ]

[1940]

R. Chouhan: The current location where the Labour Relations Board is situated — how long is that lease for? When is the lease expiring at that current location for LRB offices?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm advised that a long-term lease has been signed and that there are either eight or nine years remaining on that lease.

R. Chouhan: Just a couple of questions on that area. Even though there is no change in the budget this year from last year, there is no change in the number of FTEs working there and there is no change contemplated in the compensation for these employees, what about other expenses like hydro, gas, and all that? Those rates must be increasing, as we have seen in other areas.

How will the board budget out of the global budget to deal with those kinds of inflationary costs that they will be experiencing over the next year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We don't actually have details on the specifics of the budget that the member is alluding to, but the expectation is that the chair would manage within the budget that's been allocated, and it hasn't changed.

R. Chouhan: The eight order-in-council appointments that we talked about earlier — what is the process to make those appointments?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just like other OIC appointments, or many of them, these appointments are advertised. The board resourcing and development office assists in the selection of candidates, and then those are brought forward to cabinet.

R. Chouhan: In the appointment of the chair of the board, Mr. Brent Mullin, what process was used and what steps were taken when he was reappointed?

[1945]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the case of the chair of the board's reappointment, I was not the minister at the time. I am advised that the minister at the time brought forward the name for reappointment. The decision was made by cabinet, and Mr. Mullin was reappointed.

R. Chouhan: In 2006 when Mr. Mullin was appointed to a second term, that appointment was not supported by either labour or employers. Then the Liberal government told the labour relations community that next time an appointment took place, both the stakeholder communities would be consulted. This time when Mr. Mullin was reappointed, again the labour and employer communities did not approve his appointment. Why was that appointment made again?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: My understanding is that the minister of the day brought forward this appointment, and a decision was taken by cabinet. I don't have any further details than that.

R. Chouhan: The Labour Relations Board regulations state that the chair of the tribunal of the board "may be appointed by the appointing authority, after a merit-based process, to hold office for an initial term of three to five years." What steps were taken to make sure that it was merit-based, when all the stakeholders were saying that he was not suitable for that position?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Hon. Chair, this was a reappointment, and I've given the member opposite as much detail as I can. The reappointment would have been brought forward by the minister of the day. The minister responsible at the time brought it forward to cabinet, and the appointment was made. The decision was made.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister tell me how much the chair is paid, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The total compensation is approximately $220,000 annually. I don't have it down to the penny, but this information, again, is publicly available on the website.

R. Chouhan: Are there any other senior officials up for their contract renewals?

[1950]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are three of the OIC appointments that are going to be posted shortly.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister tell me what those positions are, please, so we know on the record?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The positions that will be posted shortly are three of the vice-chair positions.

R. Chouhan: Section 110 of the Labour Code requires appointment of members from the community to participate in the adjudication part of the board work. Are there any members appointed under section 110 currently working for the board?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are not currently any community members, and there have not been since 2006.

R. Chouhan: If that section has not been utilized since 2006, I'm sure the labour relations community has been
[ Page 10165 ]
asking for that. Are there any steps the ministry is contemplating or thinking about to make sure that the community's participation is considered under that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, with respect to members, I understand that there is interest in seeing members reintroduced on these panels at the LRB. My staff are continuing to review this, looking at some possible options to move forward but recognizing at the same time the difficult fiscal times that we are in at this moment.

R. Chouhan: Now, just about a month ago we have seen the Minister of Labour appointing the assistant deputy minister to assist the teachers and their employers to resolve their dispute or make recommendations as a fact-finder. Under what section of the Labour Code was he appointed?

[1955]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This appointment was not done under the Labour Code. This was a request from the Minister of Education, and the assistant deputy minister was asked by me to do an inquiry. So it was not a fact-finder, as we use that language in the code.

R. Chouhan: Would the minister share with us her understanding of section 74 of the Labour Code, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Section 74 refers to the ability of the minister to appoint a mediator or, if parties in a dispute request a mediator, for the LRB to appoint a mediator.

R. Chouhan: So when the teachers, their employers, trustees, all asked a mediator to be appointed under section 74, why did the minister not take that opportunity to appoint a mediator under that section?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I believe that this is not a line of questioning that we are actually at liberty to pursue, given that the legislation is currently before the House.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

R. Chouhan: Just one more question. I know we are debating Bill 22. Section 79 also provides opportunity to appoint an industrial inquiry commission in a dispute arising of any nature if parties ask for that. I'm sure that the minister will consider appointing certain individuals under that. Were there any appointments made under section 79 in the last three years?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the last three years there's one time that an industrial inquiry commission has been appointed. That was to review service delivery models with respect to the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia.

R. Chouhan: That for the time being concludes my questions about the Labour Relations Board, so we can move on to the employment standards branch. Do you want to change staff or should I continue?

[2000]

I have several questions about the Employment Standards Act. Let me go over the list of issues that I have, and then we'll explore them one at a time, individually.

Since 2001 the B.C. Liberal government did a complete overhaul of the B.C. Employment Standards Act by using the term that they wanted to bring more so-called flexibility into the system.

The government reduced the minimum shift from four hours to two. They introduced new overtime-averaging agreements which meant a person could be pressured to work 12 hours a day for seven straight days without being paid any overtime.

The B.C. Liberals also changed the criteria to qualify for statutory holidays with pay. An employee now had to have worked at least 15 of the previous 30 calendar days to qualify.

The government withdrew the requirement for employers to post notices of employees rights in workplaces. They also mandated that any employee who wished to report a violation of the act must first confront their employer on their own, using the complicated 16-page so-called self-help kit, before being allowed to file a complaint with the branch. Complaints plummeted by 46 percent the year these provisions were introduced, and the following year the complaints dropped further, by 61 percent.

The Liberals eliminated the requirement for the director of the employment standards branch to investigate every complaint received. The Liberals created a new fee for persons wishing to appeal a determination of the employment standards branch, and they substantially restricted the grounds for appeal. The government also terminated the skills development and fair wage compliance program, eliminating proactive enforcement of working conditions in the construction sector.

They also reduced the labour protection for children, aged 12 to 15. In the previous government, under the NDP, an employer could not hire a child without first obtaining a permit from the director of the employment standards branch, which required parental and school consent as well as an assurance that the workplace and working conditions would be safe.

The B.C. Liberals replaced this permit system with provisions that allowed children to be hired so long as they had obtained the consent of one parent. This shifted the burden of assessing the safety of working arrangements to parents.

Between 2001 and 2004 the employment standards
[ Page 10166 ]
regulations were amended several times to exclude occupations from some or all of the protections under the act. For example, foster care providers were added to the list of excluded occupations.

Overtime rates of pay were reduced for long-haul truck drivers working more than 60 hours per week. Short-haul truck drivers were excluded from core provisions of the act. Fish farm workers and livestock brand inspectors were excluded from hours of work and overtime provisions. Oil and gas field workers and surface miners were excluded from core provisions of the act. Police recruits were excluded from the prohibition against deductions from wages of employers' costs for training.

The last one that I have on my list: overtime rates of pay were reduced for several categories of oil and gas field workers working 24-hours shifts, taxi drivers working more than 120 hours within a two week period and silviculture workers required to work on statutory holidays.

[2005]

All these changes took place over the last ten years or so. Is the minister contemplating any action to restore any of these cuts and services that were taken away in the near future?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're not contemplating making the kind of changes that the member opposite has alluded to in his comments. Certainly, as minister and previous ministers before me we're always interested in hearing from workers and employers regarding improvements that we could make. We're anticipating that we will be hearing ideas and engaging with both employers and workers in the year coming up.

R. Chouhan: We'll explore that further in a few minutes. Let me ask first, what is the budget allocated for the employment standards branch in this year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The budget for this year is $7.8 million.

R. Chouhan: I assume this is the same as it was from previous years — no change. If that's the case, is there any room for addressing the inflationary costs that may occur this year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, the budget is the same as last year. Just like other programs and other ministries across government, the expectation is that managers will manage within their budget.

[2010]

R. Chouhan: How many FTEs are there in the employment standards branch?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: For the most recent five-year period, including 2012-13, the salary budget for the employment standards branch has been relatively consistent. It's been averaging about $6.2 million annually, and the planned resourcing levels over the next three years continue to be stable.

We have a staff complement that has fluctuated between 94 and 105 over the recent five-year period, so it's been a little bit up and down over the last years, including 2012-13. But the average budget has been stable at $6.2 million.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister tell me how many — total number — employment standard branches we have in B.C. now?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The employment standards branch is in nine communities across the province, and those include Victoria, Nanaimo, Richmond, Langley, Kelowna, Nelson, Prince George, Terrace and Dawson Creek.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister give me the number of employment standard officers and industrial relations officers we have, total, in B.C.? Give me the total number.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The total number of officers is 44.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister provide information about their workload, number of complaints that each officer has dealt with — I hope that information is also publicly available — for the last five years? Has the number of complaints per officer gone up or down? If that information is available, could the minister share that with me, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We don't keep these numbers per officer. Some of the issues are much more complicated than others, so we don't do it that way.

What I can tell the member is the complaints received annually. So in 2006-2007 there were 6,540. In 2007-2008 there were 6,359. In '08-09 there were 7,100. In 2009-2010 there were 7,183. And in 2010-11 there were 6,607.

[2015]

R. Chouhan: How many of these complaints were dealt with directly by an officer, and how many of them were dealt with through a self-help kit?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We do have information about the self-help kit downloads from the website. I won't read all these numbers into the record, but for the 2010-2011 year, there were 13,139 downloads.

If the complaint is able to be resolved between the employer and the employee using the self-help kit, then those don't ever go forward to become a complaint. So the other numbers I've read with respect to the com-
[ Page 10167 ]
plaints received doesn't include…. They're separate, in other words. There may have been some people that downloaded the self-help kit, weren't able to accomplish what they needed to and then came forward with the complaint, but they are separate.

R. Chouhan: Can the minister provide me any information breakdown on how many of these self-help kit complaints were resolved? Was the percentage available?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is a resource that can be used by employers and employees to resolve disputes directly in an informal way. There is a step-by-step guide. If that process is not successful, then workers can make a formal complaint to the employment standards branch.

We actually don't do any kind of research or monitoring as to what happens when people download the self-help kit. They download it. They are helping themselves. In some cases they may come forward and make a formal complaint. In other cases they may not, but we don't have the data that the member is asking for.

R. Chouhan: So that means the branch will not have any idea about the success rate under the so-called self-help kit mechanism. If there is information available, could the minister share that with us? About how many people would have dropped out of frustration? How many people continued to pursue their case and contacted officers? Were they able to get help when they were helped by a living person rather than the computer self-help kit?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What I can tell the member opposite is that the vast majority of feedback that we've received on the self-help kit has been very positive. The branch is, however, continually reviewing the kit to see if there is anything that could be done to change it, any changes that would be appropriate. But the vast majority of the feedback has actually been very positive.

R. Chouhan: Let's talk about the self-help kit. For an employee who may not be literate in their own language and has no access to a computer, or is working so long, like a farm worker…. In that case, what steps or what mechanism is available if they need help? They cannot really go to a computer, or they don't know how to use a computer. So what other steps are available for them to help themselves?

[2020]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Vulnerable employees and those who have language barriers are exempt from the requirement to use the self-help kit. There are various categories of employees that have been exempted from the requirement to utilize the self-help kit. These would include children, agricultural workers, domestics, garment textile workers, or where the issue relates to a leave entitlement.

R. Chouhan: Some people who work in the hospitality industry and restaurants…. I have received some complaints. They are not excluded from that category. When they contacted the employment standards branch to seek repayment of their wages or to recover their lost wages that their employer refused to pay them, they were told they have to go and have a self-help kit and download it from the computer. They had no access. Some of them didn't know how to do it.

So in that situation, could they not also be exempt, and could somebody be available to help them?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's not necessary for a worker to download this using a computer. There are hard copies available through the mail or through any of the employment standards branch offices. There is help available for employees either in the offices or via the 1-800 number. In the event that a worker is having a difficulty, they certainly can receive an exemption from using the self-help kit.

We certainly are continuing a number of ways to support education and awareness of employment standards in British Columbia. We collaborate with stakeholders on a variety of education initiatives so that we can increase awareness and compliance, including existing memorandums of understanding with the B.C. Agricultural Council and the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

Just to give the member opposite a bit of a highlight, in this past fiscal year the employment standards branch delivered 82 education seminars on the Employment Standards Act to both employer and employee groups. That was as of January 31 of this year. We've got fact sheets and guides available on ESB topics in ten languages. There is information available for teachers to use in the planning 10 course so that high school students will have some knowledge. And we have that 1-800 toll-free information line, which is responding to over 100,000 inquiries each year.

R. Chouhan: I think there is one requirement in this self-help kit that the employee must go back and try to negotiate some kind of a settlement with their employer. In one case, this individual who contacted me was working for a coffee shop — I won't name that place — and she was a young worker. The employer told the employees they must share their tip money with the employer, 50 percent of it. When the employee refused to do it, they threatened to terminate her.

She contacted the employment standards branch, and the employment standards branch said: "Here's the self-help kit. You go try to negotiate with your employer. If you can't do it, come back to us." How can, in this case,
[ Page 10168 ]
an 18-year-old, 17-year-old with the kind of intimidation that she had already experienced with her employer, do that? So she dropped it out of frustration. She didn't pursue it. She contacted me.

So in a situation like that, what is the ministry prepared to do to assist these employees who may not be able to deal with their own employers? What should they do in a situation of that nature?

[2025]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What we hope would happen in that situation is that the worker, if they're not able to resolve things using the self-help kit and talking things through with their employer, would come back to the employment standards branch and pursue a complaint if they haven't had a satisfactory resolution.

What we understand from some people who use this kit is that in some cases there is just a misunderstanding of the act between the employer and the worker and that they are able to resolve these just by getting some plain information. In some cases there's an actual misunderstanding of what the act says, and so resolution does come. But in a case like this, what we would hope would happen and what we'd encourage the worker to do is to come back to the branch for assistance, and it would be pursued.

R. Chouhan: I have also had some employees contacting me who, when they contacted the employment standards branch, were told: "Sorry, you have to wait for a long time. We don't have enough staff to help you right away." So the question was asked: how long did they have to wait for this? And they said: "We can't tell you. It could be a week, or it could be weeks."

Can the minister enlighten us? What kind of help is available for an employee who needs immediate help but can't get it?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: My understanding is that the complaints, as they come in, are dealt with in the order in which they came. The target for the employment standards branch is that files will be closed within 180 days. In fact, over 80 percent are, and many of them are resolved much sooner than that.

R. Chouhan: Were there any orders written by officers against any employers in the last year to recover lost wages or compensation?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In fact, yes. Orders were written regarding recovery of wages. I'm just going to give the member the numbers for the last three years. In 2008-09 the amount of wages recovered was $6.568 million. In 2009-10 it was $7.177 million. And in 2010-11 it was $7.11 million — actually, to be precise, $7,110,651.

R. Chouhan: How many cases were there where the order was written and money still not recovered?

[2030]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm not going to be able to answer the member's question exactly in the specific way that he's asked it. What I can say is that there are some complaints where money is found to be owing, and it is paid. There are some cases where, in fact, money is not found to be owing when there's a complaint. And there are some cases where money is owed, but it's not collected.

The employment standards branch is extremely diligent, and I think the member opposite is aware of this. They pursue very fiercely moneys that are owed on behalf of employees — where money is owed. But we don't have a specific breakdown in the way that the member has asked.

R. Chouhan: In the past we used to have a practice that if the employer was not willingly paying the wages owed to their employee or employees, the officer or the director had the ability to seize their assets. Do we still have that ability — the director? If he or she does it, how many orders of that nature were written last year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, the power to seize assets, where assets are available, is definitely still there. We don't have the specific numbers that the member is asking for, but we will try to get those for him and provide them to him.

R. Chouhan: In 2010 Khaira Enterprises, which employed workers in the silviculture industry, had a camp near Golden, and 57 workers were employed. It was found that they were living in squalid conditions, and they were not paid. When that case became public, the employer declared bankruptcy.

[2035]

In a situation like that, what remedy do employees have to recover their wages from an employer like that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In this case there were some assets that the employment standards branch went after. They obtained some moneys, but the member opposite has rightly stated that the business in question is out of business, bankrupt, and there are not any known assets. Neither the organization nor any of the directors is known to have any assets that could be sold in order to provide the outstanding balance to these workers.

Certainly, the employment standards branch vigorously pursued payment on behalf of these workers, and approximately $126,000 has been disbursed to date — all the moneys that we were able to obtain.

R. Chouhan: My understanding is that only $105,000
[ Page 10169 ]
was recovered and $130,000 is still owed, outstanding to the workers. That money has not been paid. What steps is the minister taking to ensure that the remainder of the wages is recovered and paid to the workers? Are there any steps being taken?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The numbers that I have are that $126,000 has been disbursed to the 46 workers. There is an outstanding balance of $115,000, and the branch is continuing to pursue this outstanding balance. However, there is a bankrupt business, and there aren't any other assets that we know of. So at this point there's no other money that can be disbursed to these workers.

R. Chouhan: Are there any other companies in situations similar to Khaira Enterprises that we have seen?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The answer is yes. There have been circumstances like this before. I don't have any specific examples, but there have been cases where moneys have been owed to workers and assets have been seized to pay them. There have been cases where there has been a bankruptcy or there were not enough assets to cover the costs, so there has been money owed to workers which has not been paid to them.

R. Chouhan: Can the minister advise us if there is any system in place or if there are any steps that the minister is taking to ensure that when an employer like Khaira Enterprises declares bankruptcy, the workers' wages are secured and they are able to get that money back? Is there any ability that these workers have, under the current system, to help themselves?

[2040]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just speaking specifically about the situation with these employees at Khaira, on March 8 of 2011 the employment standards branch issued determinations for personal liability against two of the directors of the company because there were insufficient assets recovered from the company to cover the total amount of wages that were found owing to the workers.

In the event that there aren't sufficient corporate assets to satisfy the claim once the appeal's been resolved, the director of employment standards can pursue collection against the personal assets of the company directors. A director and/or officer of the company can be liable for up to two months' wages owed to each employee.

When one of the directors in this case tried to transfer his assets, namely his home, into the name of his spouse, the director of employment standards immediately filed a court action to have the transfer of the assets declared invalid. The branch has now settled the court case and received payment, and the amount of payment that was available was disbursed to the employees.

There are situations where there's bankruptcy or there are inadequate assets or some combination thereof, and at times workers do not receive all of the wages owing to them. What I'd like to be really clear about is that the employment standards branch does everything they possibly can. Understanding how important this is, they're very diligent in really leaving no stone unturned in order to obtain payment for workers when it's owed to them.

R. Chouhan: Does the B.C. government require a bond in this case, when silviculture employees are hired, employers hire them to work for them…? In the U.S.A. some states require 10 percent of the amount of the contract to be deposited as a bond. If the employer goes bankrupt, then the workers' wages will be paid out of that money that they have deposited in advance.

Are there any steps taken like that? Do we have a situation in British Columbia where employers are required to deposit a bond so workers' wages can be safe and secure?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the area of silviculture, such bonds are not required to be posted. However, under the Employment Standards Act with respect to farm labour contractors, it is required.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress on the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:44 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