Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 30 -- Sunday, January 27, 2002

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27 (Committee Stage)		937
	J. Kwan Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail

Point of Order		964
	Hon. G. Bruce

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27 (Committee Stage continued)		964
	J. Kwan Hon. G. Bruce

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27 (Report and Third Reading)		966

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage)		966
	J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Hon. G. Bruce J. Kwan

Introductions by Members		980
	Hon. C. Clark

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage continued)		980
	Hon. G. Bruce J. Kwan J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Royal Assent to Bills		981

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage continued)		981
	J. Kwan Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail Hon. C. Clark

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28 (Report and Third Reading)		1009

Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Committee Stage)		1010
	J. MacPhail Hon. G. Bruce Hon. C. Hansen Hon. G. Collins J. Kwan

Point of Order		1027
	Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Committee Stage continued)		1027
	Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen K. Krueger Hon. G. Hogg

Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Report and Third Reading)		1039

Royal Assent to Bills		1040

Hon. G. Collins: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I call committee stage on Bill 27.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Perhaps before we begin, the minister might actually take a moment to introduce the staff who are with him.

Hon. G. Bruce: I have with me the Deputy Minister of Skills Development and Labour, Lee Doney, and the deputy minister for PSEC, Mr. Rick Connolly.

J. Kwan: The employer, the teachers all signed off on this article in 1998. My question to the minister is: why is the government now, unilaterally, imposing a new provision that the parties had jointly agreed to for inclusion in the last collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: Could you be just a little bit fuller in your question? I haven't fully understood what article you're talking about.

J. Kwan: Section 2(1)(a)(i) speaks to the terms and conditions and renegotiations of the collective agreement. In the previous agreement, which was agreed to in 1998, that agreement with respect to this provision…. All the parties had actually agreed to this provision, the employer as well as the teachers. They've all signed off on this provision. The government now, in this piece of legislation, has imposed new terms, new provisions, which the parties had jointly agreed to in the last collective agreement. My question to the minister is: why are you imposing these new terms, which the parties on both sides, the employer and the teachers, agreed to in the previous collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: In the last round it was that the superior benefits had been legislated, and what we're saying in this instance here is that the parties will have to negotiate the superior benefits.

J. Kwan: In fact, the employer and the teachers signed off on this article in 1998. It was not an imposed provision of the last agreement. Both parties actually signed off on it, so it is therefore not an imposition.

This provision removes the special provision for junior kindergarten students in terms of the limitations for class size. Will the minister first explain to the Legislature what the makeup of a junior kindergarten is?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, Mr. Chair, I'm having a little bit of difficulty hearing. That may just be because of my age. If you would work with me, could you just be a little clearer? You're talking about junior kindergarten. Could you just be a little clearer on your question for me, please?

The question to the minister is about junior kindergarten. Could the minister please explain to the House what the makeup of a junior kindergarten class is?

J. Kwan: I'm still on section 2(1)(a)(i), which speaks to the issues around terms, continuation and renegotiation, within which the proposed legislation that's being tabled addresses the junior kindergarten class size. My question, first, to the minister is that I'd like him to explain to the House what a junior kindergarten is.

Hon. G. Bruce: Just a point of clarification. We don't have "junior kindergarten" in the act. Could you just be a little clearer? We have "kindergarten" in the act. The government doesn't cover junior kindergarten.

J. Kwan: The act that is before us — Bill 27, section 2(1)(a)(i) — is actually going to revamp the collective agreement, impacting junior kindergarten in article A.1. Junior kindergarten, for the minister's information, is composed of children who are four years entering into the school system — earlier than the age of five. That is the makeup, I believe, of a junior kindergarten class. Would the minister please confirm that information.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. As I mentioned just as I was sitting down last time, the government doesn't fund junior kindergarten. If a local district wishes to put something like that together, it's not funded through the provincial budget.

J. Kwan: The act that is before us, Bill 27, is actually an act that impacts the collective agreement impacting junior kindergarten. The act makes fundamental changes impacting children who are in that age bracket — four years old — who enter school in advance. There are schools in my very own riding that have junior kindergartens, particularly the inner-city schools, actually. This act impacts them very specifically. That's

why I'm asking this question. Does the minister know what the current maximum class size is for junior kindergarten classes?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. The class size that we have here covers K-to-12. It does not cover junior kindergarten.

J. Kwan: Section 2(1)(a)(i) is to delete article A.1, entitled "Term, Continuation and Renegotiation." Therefore, it actually does impact junior kindergarten, in which there are children who are four years old entering into the school system early. That's why they're called junior kindergartens. There are at least four schools in British Columbia that provide for junior kindergarten classes, some of which are in my own riding, as I mentioned earlier. So it does impact children. Perhaps the minister would like to confer with the Minister of Education around this issue before he answers my questions.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, to be clear: junior kindergarten is a local decision. The class size is determined by that local board. It's not covered under this act. It's not covered under this jurisdiction. It's a local decision.

J. Kwan: That's precisely the point, in that the local districts have made agreements with the teachers on the class size for junior kindergartens. That was agreed to. That was not imposed. Both sides agreed to it. So the question I go back to is: why would the minister now bring in a piece of legislation that would override a joint decision agreed to by both the teachers and the employer, by the district? It was negotiated and agreed to by both sides.

Hon. G. Bruce: I understand what the member is trying to get to, so let's be clear. This act, this bill that's before us, is dealing with K-to-12 classes in the provincial realm. Local districts — those that choose to, and not all do — can have a junior kindergarten program. If they have a junior kindergarten program, they can establish the class size, as they have, of what they feel is the best for their situation. What we're doing here does not deal with junior kindergarten. This deals with K-to-12 and the class size in the provincial realm.

J. Kwan: The proposed replacement for article A.1 removes any additional or superior provisions from, in this case, the provincially negotiated language in the collective agreement. For example, the existing collective agreement provides for lower numbers in junior kindergarten than are found in this bill and in Bill 28.

Right now the class size for junior kindergarten is actually limited to 15. With the changes here, what could be is that those numbers could increase by seven. The class size for junior kindergarten could increase by seven. That's what would be impacting the students. This section, 2(1)(a)(i), speaks to the term, continuation and renegotiation of the collective agreement and impacts that very specific area and that very component of the children in our school system.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear, again. This act does not include junior kindergarten. The School Act says that a child at the age of five…. That's where it begins. That's where we're starting: at kindergarten, K-to-12. The junior kindergarten program is a program that districts locally can choose to arrange for. The class size is then determined by that particular school district. I want to be very clear that this act does not include junior kindergarten. This act deals with K-to-12 and the class size relative to K-to-12. It does not include junior kindergarten. Junior kindergarten is not found under the School Act.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that this act overrides the collective agreement, the section that has been outlined in the collective agreement — the collective agreement that has been jointly agreed to by the teachers and by the employer. That is a fact. It will change the numbers of the class size for junior kindergarten, to the potential of increasing the class size by seven. That is the actual impact.

What provisions does the bill make for the combined primary classes? Will the minister explain to the House what a combined primary class is?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just a point of clarification, because I think it's important. There may be some people watching and wanting to feel comfortable with or understand what's going on and what we're talking about. Let's be clear. Let's not leave anything to people's imagination when it can be clear.

That's in respect to junior kindergarten, as you have brought up. Junior kindergarten is not covered under this act. The student that's under the age of five is not covered under the School Act. It's a locally negotiated issue. If a district wishes to offer it, they may. Because it's locally negotiated — a local issue — it's not covered under the bill that we're providing right here. They can continue to negotiate that. They continue to provide it in the way they think is best for their students. That's really what we're trying to do in all of this. Whatever we're doing, we're trying to do it in the best interests of the students of British Columbia.

Further to your second question, in the primary classes it could be a mix of grade 1, grade 2.

J. Kwan: The current collective agreement sets the maximum class size for combined classes where there are kindergarten children enrolled at a stated maximum for the kindergarten. That made sense to the local parties, who understood, again, the unique needs of combined classes and the extra workload for multi-age groupings and the challenges that the multi-age groupings in a classroom would present to the teachers.

Hon. G. Bruce: To the point. They're very good questions, and I understand that, but we have three bills before us: Bill 27, Bill 28 and Bill 29. Bill 28 is the bill that will specifically deal with the class sizes. For

some order and the ability to move the House along, I would respectfully suggest, if I may, that we deal with the sections before us in this bill — Bill 27. I understand that some of them will relate as time moves on. I'd be happy to try and cover them both as we go, but the questions specifically being asked are really being asked of Bill 28. I would think it would be easier for all of us if we deal with the matter that's before us, and that's Bill 27.

J. Kwan: But the act before us changes the collective agreement that is now in place. Yes, in part it deals with class size, but it changes the terms as they are now in the collective agreement. That's what this section of the act does, which is why I'm asking these questions so that we're clear about what this section of the act will do in terms of changing the overall impacts of the school system for the students in the classrooms. That's why I'm asking these questions relating to kindergarten, junior kindergarten, primary, mixed classes, split classes, etc.

Hon. G. Bruce: Respectfully, that really is Bill 28. We're dealing here with an act that, through the House, puts a legislated settlement in place. That's what this bill is about.

I appreciate that there are some issues surrounding class size. Junior kindergarten is not part of this act; I'll just re-emphasize that. I really do believe that we will do better for everybody if we deal with Bill 27. Class size is very specific in Bill 28, and we should deal with that particular issue when we deal with Bill 28.

J. Kwan: Does this section of the act remove locally negotiated superior provisions that both parties have agreed to?

Hon. G. Bruce: This act is neutral on superior provisions. If you want superior provisions, you'll have to negotiate them.

J. Kwan: The minister is suggesting that for split classes, as an example, the local agreements between the teacher and the employer that they have negotiated would override and supersede this act.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, to be clear, we're trying to move into Bill 28. This is Bill 27, and class size is not in Bill 27; it is in Bill 28. I think, for the whole issue of trying to move things through the House, Mr. Chair, it would be good if we tried to keep those issues to Bill 28.

The Chair: I must remind the members to keep the questions relevant to this section.

J. Kwan: Absolutely, keeping the questions relevant to this section. My question to the minister was: would this section of the act…? Let me just rephrase this. He said earlier that locally negotiated provisions would still be the provisions that would apply in spite of this act. I'd like to get a confirmation from the minister, once again, that locally agreed-to provisions that have been jointly negotiated that now exist in the collective agreement will override this act, under section 2(1)(a)(i), with respect to provisions that are superior to what is being proposed under this legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: If a local provision is in conflict with this act or the School Act, then it's overridden.

J. Kwan: Just so that I'm completely clear: I believe the minister actually gave two different answers within the last ten minutes or so. Previously, when I asked this question, he said that the locally negotiated provisions would override this act. Just now he got up and said that this act would override the locally agreed-to provisions. Which is it?

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be very clear. Class size, as we said, is not part of this bill. Class size is part of Bill 28. That's where you'll find it, and that is not part of this debate here that we're having right now.

We spoke about the superior division. You're starting to get a few of the issues muddied and cross-referenced. I understand that there are technical details here, but they're not one and the same. I think we've been clear and canvassed this issue. The class size will be found in those provisions in Bill 28. That is the next bill that we're going to be dealing with, and that is overridden.

The superior provisions that we were talking about, where they can be negotiated locally if that's where they are at, are neutral in Bill 27.

J. Kwan: There are some provisions in the collective agreement that are superior to those of this act being tabled today. My question was: would the jointly negotiated local provisions that are superior to this act that have been jointly agreed-to and negotiated between the two parties override this act? The minister said yes a little while ago. The minister then got up and said no a little while ago. So it's actually not clear to me: would the locally negotiated provisions that are superior to this act override this act? Or would this act override those superior provisions that were jointly agreed-to and negotiated by both parties, regardless of the nature of those provisions?

Hon. G. Bruce: Perhaps to draw better clarity to this, the member would like to offer a specific example, because she's getting into a generalization of all this.

Let's be clear, again: Bill 27 does not deal with class size. Class size is found in Bill 28. The School Act applies, and where you have these situations you're talking about, those that are not in conflict with or in contradiction of the School Act or this bill can be locally negotiated. For clarity, so that we're not missing something here and we're all doing exactly what we are intending to do, perhaps the member could give me a specific example.

J. Kwan: Better yet, perhaps the minister could give some examples to the House of which provisions exist

now in the collective agreement that have been jointly negotiated by both parties — the teachers and the employers — that are superior to this act and that would not be overridden by this act. He's the Minister of Labour, after all. He's the man who has introduced this bill in the interests of students, so one would have assumed that he would know the details around that and would make sure there's clear understanding with respect to these issues for all British Columbians before this section of the act is passed.

Hon. G. Bruce: There are 60 agreements. There are different examples. What we are saying is that this bill, Bill 27, is neutral on those issues. Those issues that are not found under the School Act and that are not found with class size can be negotiated, but they have to be negotiated between school districts. I think that's about as clear as you can get. If you are concerned about a specific district issue and are asking to bring clarity to it for people who may be impacted by that and would like to offer that example, we'll check that right through and make sure that's not the case.

In the intent and purpose of this bill — I think we've canvassed this now three, four or five times — I think we're very clear on what it is we're doing.

J. Kwan: Does the minister not know what the provisions are that are superior in our collective agreements as they exist now, that have been jointly negotiated and agreed to by both parties, the teachers and the employer, that would be beneficial to the students? After all, we remember that in second reading the minister actually said this was meant to be an act that improves the education environment for students. What are the provisions that are superior to this act that will still stand after it passes that would aid the students in ensuring that the learning environment is protected?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, let's be clear on these so-called superior benefits. They're locally negotiated. They're not being handed. They'll have to be negotiated between the two parties.

When we get to the next act, Bill 28, which is where most of this discussion actually should be, there is an arbitration process where there are issues that need to be resolved. We shouldn't get into that until we've dealt with this act. I think we've canvassed this on a number of occasions to this point. I think we've been fairly clear on how this issue is to be resolved.

J. Kwan: I will take from the minister's answer, then, that the superior provisions that have been jointly negotiated by the teachers and the employer would prevail over this act, given that the minister has been unable to give even one example of what those provisions might be. I'm going to take from the minister's answer that the superior provisions that exist now in the collective agreements with many different districts throughout British Columbia would be deemed to be superior to those of this act.

Hon. G. Bruce: Those superior provisions that both parties are happy with that are not in conflict with this bill and not in conflict with the School Act will remain.

J. Kwan: I have to say it worries me greatly that the minister is in a big rush to bring in this bill that was introduced on Friday, in a big rush to get through this bill this weekend, in a big rush without consulting and informing the public so that they could actually have time to go through the bill.

The minister can't even give an example of what provisions would be superior. One would have thought that the minister, whose interests are supposed to be placed on the students in the classrooms first, would have known what provisions are superior and what provisions are not. One would have expected that, but that is not the case with this government. I don't think that's the intent of this act, and that is the focus on the students. It's clear from some simple questions at the beginning of the act that the minister is unable to identify what provisions within the collective agreement that has been jointly agreed to by the teachers and the employer are superior to what this act would be and how they impact the classrooms. This causes great concern to me and ought to cause great concern for all of us. I think it clearly outlines the intent of this government, which is that the focus of this act had never been intended to be on the children and the students of British Columbia.

On the question around salary for section 2(1)(a)(ii), how does the minister expect to attract and retain teachers in a time of shortage, when these increases will do nothing to bridge the gap in salaries paid to teachers in Ontario, in Alberta, in Yukon, in provinces and areas other than British Columbia?

Hon. G. Bruce: The wage offer that has been put here in this act is 7½ percent over three years, which is a good offer in the economic climate we're currently in. I respect the question.

The fact of the matter is that with this offer that every teacher in the province will receive, it will still make our teachers some of the highest-paid in Canada, and I'm happy to say that and proud to say it. I'm hopeful, as well, that there will still be people who will be interested in moving back to British Columbia. As British Columbia turns the corner, as things become better and as we get past the difficult times that were left by the previous administration, it will be a place that will bring people back.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yeah, it's funny, and I don't want to go down this road, so I will be as reserved and as considered as I can.

We've been government here for eight months. It has been a difficult time. The previous government did a very good job of making it as difficult as they possibly could….

The fact of the matter is that what we're doing here in this act and what is before us is putting in place a legislated settlement that after ten months of negotiation was only able to resolve three issues of about 40 or 45 issues. That's clear. Section 2 and what we're dealing with here is the settlement offer. The settlement offer is 7½ percent over three years to every teacher in British Columbia. It will keep our teachers proudly as some of the highest-paid in Canada, and we're happy to do that.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that when the government took office in the new administration, there was a surplus in the budget. In fact, if the minister doesn't have that information, he might just want to check with the auditor general. That information is public. It is open for all to see. The minister might actually discover that there was, in fact, a surplus left over from the previous government.

The Chair: Member, I just want to remind you to stay relevant to section 2(1)(a)(ii). We're not getting back into second reading debate here at this point. This is Committee of the Whole. Stay relevant to the section, please.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was simply responding to the minister's question.

On the question around salary retention and attraction, I'd like to ask this question of the minister. Does he know the looming shortage that is going to be faced by British Columbians in the area of attracting educators into our system and what the number is of the looming shortage over the next ten years in professionals in the area of education?

Hon. G. Bruce: Before this salary offer goes into place, our British Columbia teachers were the second-highest paid in Canada in both the minimum salary and the maximum salary. That's before the additional 7½ percent, which we are happy to be able to offer over three years. We're proud to have that.

British Columbia is a beautiful place to live in, with a great climate. In spite of a little bit of snow every now and then here in the lower part of Vancouver Island, the width and breadth of the beautiful place we've got here and the resources we have…. We'll get the economic situation turned around. We'll get this province moving again in the right direction. I think there'll be a great number of people who will be continually wanting to move back to this province and to live here, including a number of teachers as well.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister was: what is the number — does he know? — of the looming shortage of educators in our system in British Columbia? Perhaps the minister may want to confer with his staff to get that number so he is advised of the looming shortage that is coming to British Columbia in the area of teachers and educators over the next ten years.

If the minister doesn't know the answer to that, perhaps I can refer him to Hansard. That information was provided by the Education Committee. It is important for the minister to actually know the challenge ahead of British Columbia in the shortage of teachers, and it is relevant to this section because it goes to the question of retention and attraction. Salary is one component that deals with attraction and retention.

The Chair: Minister, I believe these questions are second reading debate. They're talking about theory. We should be specific to this section, which deals with percentage increases.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We certainly are guided by your direction.

If I could just clarify the relevance of this section. This section deals with the budget that will be allocated to pay teachers. The amount applied to an individual teacher will affect the overall budget, so it does seem — in order to understand the actual costing and accounting of a 2½ percent wage increase, as the government is so interested in, over at least the next three years with their multiple accounting — that it is important to note what the pressures will be, not only this year but next year and the year after by the government's own multiple-year accounting. It's just the pursuit of that and understanding whether there will be more teachers or fewer teachers putting pressure on the wage bill.

Hon. G. Bruce: I understand what you're talking about. I think it's instructive to again take a look at the situation across the country. Our wage scale in this province is not tenth. It's not eleventh, it's not seventh, it's not fifth, it's not fourth. It's second and, in some instances, very close to the highest. Teachers in Canada are going to look at all of that, and they're going to be interested in part of the wage scale. They're going to be interested in the lifestyle. They're going to be interested in the commitment made by people in a province to education.

We've made a very strong commitment, as a government, to education. We said we are going to put students first. That's what we're doing. In this particular act what we're talking about is the wage scale that you have referred to, and the fact of the matter is: this offer is 7½ percent. What we're putting in through legislation is 7½ percent over three years for every teacher in British Columbia. I think that's fair. I think that deals with your question and your concerns relative to teacher shortages or no shortages, where we are in the age group and demographics of teachers, where they would move and live.

Much of that comes back to the big picture, and we're turning that big picture around, albeit with difficulty, from what was left before us. We're going to turn that around on an even-keel basis to make British Co-

J. Kwan: The looming shortage that's coming in the area of education professionals, educators, is estimated to be about 13,000 over the next ten years. I worry that the section of this bill which speaks to a salary of 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the next three years would jeopardize B.C.'s opportunity to attract teachers and young people to going into the profession so that the shortage would not become a crisis in our education system.

I wonder if the minister knows that there are 39 school districts that have reported shortages in key areas, and they anticipate further difficulties in attracting and retaining teachers. I wonder if the minister can answer the question: how does he expect that the environment that has now been set, the salary that is being proposed and imposed by this bill, would actually address the shortages in these 39 districts?

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, Mr. Chairman, let's try this again. This offer is 7½ percent over three years. Prior to this offer, our teachers in British Columbia received virtually the second- highest amount in both the minimum and the highest categories, so this is 7½ percent on top of that. I think that's good. I, and I on behalf of the government, am proud that we are there. This is not zero-zero-and-2 as a previous administration gave; this is 7½ percent over three years. I appreciate that it's not 18 percent. This is 7½ percent. It's not 18 percent, because that would be irresponsible in the situation that we are faced with here in British Columbia, but it is 7½ percent over three years. It will make our teachers about the highest-paid in Canada, perhaps the second — it's arguable — but it certainly isn't last.

As the member opposite would know, it's more than just salary conditions that bring people into the educational field as teachers. There are other things that they take into account and are interested in as to why they go into that. I think we have about 1,700 graduates a year in the teaching profession. So you know, it's not zero-zero-and-2. It's 7½ percent over three years in a situation that economically, in this country, around the world and here in this province, is very difficult.

I believe it's a fair offer, and I believe it's an offer that, compared to what's happening across the country and around the world, will help to continue to encourage people to go into the teaching profession and, quite frankly, encourage people from other parts who are thinking of moving from one jurisdiction to another to consider British Columbia a good place to come back to.

J. Kwan: It's true that it's not zero-zero-and-2. It's true that salary alone is not the only thing that attracts and retains teachers in British Columbia, because it is also the work environment. It is also, I think, the overall impression that the employer would leave to the employee — in this case, it would happen to be teachers — in terms of their attitude and their respect for the work of the employee.

I would suggest that when you look at all of these factors combined and with the passing of this bill — especially in the latter part, which I understand to be very important to many, many teachers, above and beyond salary — the respect that they expect from the employer, from the government would be paramount to the question of them staying in the education system and attracting teachers to the education system.

Zero-zero-and-2, as it relates to the work environment, was coupled with reduced class size, and that was paramount to the teachers. The teachers went into the environment with zero-zero-and-2 and with a reduced class size. One would argue that on the question around salary, they actually took the reduction in their salary on their backs to benefit the students in the classroom so that the class size could actually be smaller and the learning environment for the students would be better. Of course, the teaching environment would also be better. It was a joint package that came together.

In this instance, we have 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years, and then we have provisions that actually increase class size, which I know we'll debate further under Bill 28. Those things will come together.

Of course, that, too, combines with back in August when the minister brought in a provision — essential services — that was supposed to bring calm to the school system, even though people predicted otherwise. In fact, it now has quite the opposite impact, and that is the key issue in terms of setting the environment as it relates to the question of the attraction and retention of teachers. Salary is one component of it, no doubt. It's not the only thing.

Does the minister expect that the best and the brightest students will want to enter into the profession of teaching with a starting salary of $41,000 by the end of the agreement, when other occupations already offer substantially higher starting salaries? I'm talking about other occupations, such as pharmacology. In fact, I know that my brother, who is completing his PhD as well as his pharmacology degree at the same time, has been offered a salary, bonuses, not only just….

The Chair: I don't think it's important to bring other professions into this. We're dealing with section 2. We're talking about a 2½ percent increase. I'd ask you to please stay relevant.

J. Kwan: I am. I'm setting up an example in terms of how 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years for teachers would attract and retain teachers. I'm bringing in an example of pharmacology. Other people in pharmacology would enter into a starting salary of much higher than $41,000, even with the 2½, 2½ and 2½, and with a signing bonus, as well — not only in British Columbia but, in fact, outside of British Columbia. In the United

States, as an example, these other professions are being sought after by other people.

How does the minister expect, with a salary of 2½, 2½ and 2½ and the working conditions that are now being imposed on the classrooms after this legislation has been passed, that this salary proposal would attract young people, particularly with a looming shortage of over 13,000 educators that will be needed in British Columbia? How are we going to fill those positions and attract young people into that profession with this proposal?

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, we as human beings are a diverse group. Some of us would like to do other things; some of us are capable of doing other things. Some people can pick up a hammer and a saw and make a creation out of a piece of wood that's absolutely remarkable. It's a piece of art. Some can pick up a hammer and smack a nail a hundred times — bang, bang, bang, bang — and they never hit their thumb once. Now, if I grab a hammer and pick up a nail, look out. Actually, you don't have to worry. I'm in a lot of trouble. I'll hammer my hand a hundred times. I'd never make it as a carpenter.

Some people are great as doctors. They go into that medical profession because they've got a feeling. They actually have a calling.

I happen to believe each one of us has a calling. I also happen to believe that the majority of people aren't driven simply because of what the dollar amount is. I don't believe that. Maybe the members opposite categorize everything as "you wouldn't do this, because it's X number of dollars," but I think the diversity and the wonder of a human being is the fact that they like to create things, and they like to make things happen. They like to build things. Maybe it is that they like to teach or they like to heal, or maybe it is that they like to build or create art. Each one of us has our own particular skill.

I don't think we wake up in the morning and say: "Well, I think that when I look at the scale, this person makes $1 million a year, this person makes $500,000 a year, this person makes $100,000 a year, this person makes $50,000 a year, this person makes $26,000 a year, and I'm going to base my decisions on what I want to do based on that." I don't really think that at the bottom of people's hearts that's how they go about doing it. I think it's by what's in them, what they've been given, the creation of what they can offer to society.

Boy, what a calling it is if you can teach. You can see the difference between people that can really teach and really offer. You can see the difference when they walk into that classroom and how that class responds and how that school responds to the talent of those individuals. It's a God-given gift, absolutely, and they don't wake up at night and say: "Boy, I'm going to rate what I'm going to do based on how much money I'm going to make."

The fact of the matter is that on balance, what we're talking about here, to come back to the specifics of what's being offered in this settlement — and I digressed; I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman — is 7½ percent over three years. It keeps our teachers as some of the highest-paid in Canada — if not the highest-paid, then right there at the second level. We have a province here that's turned around. It's starting to go in the right direction now, in the proper direction, after years of going in the wrong direction. I think we're going to find we still have people going into teaching. Like I say, it's a God-given gift.

J. Kwan: Does the minister recall that the first act of the government was to give deputy ministers large increases in salary? Does he remember what the percentage range was for deputy ministers and why? How does that compare to the salary proposed here for the teachers at 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's true, you know. The atmosphere that was built here over the past ten years…. There were professional people that looked at British Columbia and said, "No, thank you" — "no, thank you," for how the public service had been treated, "no, thank you," for turning the deputy ministers sector into a political arm, as the previous government did. It's true.

What we're at here in this respect is that we're on this bill — Bill 27. We're dealing with the wage package. What we're talking about is that this wage package that's been offered is fair and competitive across Canada. What we had to do in respect to the deputy ministers' scales was to make them fair and competitive across Canada, just as we're making this one fair and competitive across Canada. They're balanced. They're difficult decisions, but they're balanced. This is a fair and equitable offer. It's 7½ percent over three years. It's not zero-zero-and-2. This government has made education a high priority — its highest priority. We are putting students first. That's what we're setting out to do here. We do have some damage. We do have some difficult challenges ahead of us left over by the members opposite, but we are going to get at each one of those and get this system turned around.

J. Kwan: The fact is that the deputy ministers' increases ranged from 18 percent to 32 percent — the first act of this government. The rationale was: "We've got to attract and retain high-calibre professionals in government." Well, of course, as the minister well knows, many of the deputy ministers that are now in government are the same people that were hired under the previous administration. So much for the notion of politicizing, because those high-calibre deputy ministers are still here working for this new-era administration. The argument on politicizing, quite frankly, doesn't work, with the exception of Andrew Wilkinson, I think. We didn't hire him. He was the president of the Liberal Party. The new-era government hired him.

The deputies got an 18 percent to 32 percent wage increase on the first day. Teachers are now being forced into 2½, 2½ and 2½ imposed over three years. That is the reality. That is the reality of what this government is doing, and their intention to attract and retain teach-

ers in our education system…. One would argue that teachers are very paramount in impacting the future of young people. They spend a lot of time with children and foster the children's growth. The salary of teachers is one component of the attraction and retention formula, along with working and teaching conditions and education conditions for the students.

Can the minister name one or two districts that are now faced with shortages in the teaching profession? How will he advise those 39 districts on how to handle the shortages that exist now, not just future shortages coming down the pike?

Hon. G. Bruce: There were 32 positions that were vacant after a canvass of 51 districts.

J. Kwan: The question was: are there any districts faced with shortages right now in our school system? I know there are at least 39 districts that are faced with shortages. One is Stikine. The Stikine area is faced with huge shortages. They have a hard time right now retaining teachers. Yesterday in second reading I mentioned some facts about that district: within a one-, two- or three-year time span, students in schools in that district could be faced with a number of different teachers in terms of the turnaround. That is what's happening in the area of Stikine. With 2½, 2½ and 2½, at a $41,000 starting salary for these districts faced with particular difficulties in attracting and retaining teachers, how will the districts manage to attract and retain? Even now as we speak, they are faced with that difficulty — never mind the future.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all due respect, I'm happy to talk about this. It's a difficulty that we're faced with in this country, in this province, in all sorts of occupations and regions, because of the regional differences.

I have to remember my own sister and brother-in-law. He was a teacher in his first job, having lived here in southern Vancouver Island in this very gentle climate — compared to much of the rest of British Columbia's climate during the winter. Their first teaching assignment was in the little village of Kitwanga with huge amounts of snow, bears around the trailer — the place that they were living in.

It was a complete change in life, obviously, from what they were accustomed to, growing up and living here on Vancouver Island, but they went there. He's a great teacher. They went there and started their career in the teaching profession. I don't think he would have been driven by the money. He had studied long and hard to become a teacher. He loves the students he deals with, and that was his first opportunity.

Now, you mention other regional areas that we can talk about. Yeah, those are problems. Those are challenges for us at all times, not just in the area of teaching but in all walks of life. There are challenges for all of us in all the professions that we have to deal with.

This offer — 7½ percent over three years, making our teachers nearly the highest-paid in Canada — is a good and fair and balanced offer in respect to the situation we're in and, like I say, in regard to the national average. It's one that we gladly make.

J. Kwan: The minister speaks of the national average. The fact of the matter is that if you compare the highest-paid categories information in terms of what other provinces are doing and how much they're paying their teachers relative to British Columbia, there are a number of situations where other provinces are paying a higher pay rate than that of British Columbia — Ontario and Alberta, to name just two provinces. I know this government aspires to be just like Ontario and Alberta. Their pay grid and their salary is actually higher than that of British Columbia.

It's outlined here in the bulletin. These are the facts. Of course, in Alberta they are up for negotiations. In fact, in February there might even be a strike in Alberta. As to the salary question, as you compare British Columbia to other provinces, the fact is that other provinces do have higher pay scales than that of B.C. That makes the competition for attracting and retaining teachers even more difficult. Those are the facts. I would urge the minister to check out the facts, because they're there. I didn't make them up. These are facts; these numbers exist. They are published; they are public. Anybody can get this information and check that out.

The teachers in seven of the nine districts which will have their agreements amalgamated under section 4 of this act are going to lose moneys, starting in the second year of the agreement.

The Chair: Member, we'll get to section 4 ultimately, but will you please stay with section 2. Thank you.

J. Kwan: I am bringing up this question now, because it relates to the salary question.

The Chair: Member, I ask you, please, to bring that question up in section 4.

J. Kwan: I want to get assurance from you, then, hon. Chair, because I don't want to go to section 4 and then be advised that we can't talk salary anymore because the salary is under section 2. I just want to get assurances from you, then, that when we go to section 4 on the amalgamation question I would be able to bring up the salary questions as they relate to amalgamated areas.

The Chair: If the question is relevant to section 4, we will bring it up in section 4.

J. Kwan: No worries, members, because I have lots of questions. You may as well just sit back and relax.

J. Kwan: I'm just informing the House that I have a list of questions, and it will take some time for me to get through the list.

Why is there no increase to the daily rate for teachers on call, when the services of these teachers are already, of course, in short supply in many of the districts?

Hon. G. Bruce: As long as the member wants to sit here and ask the questions, I'm prepared — these are important matters — to do the best I can to answer her questions. I'm glad that she does have lots.

In reference to Alberta and Ontario, I think that particular magazine that you have here — and your wage scales…. Alberta and Ontario have made some pretty difficult decisions during the past years — the past ten years, in fact — while this particular province, under your guidance as a government, basically drove down the opposite direction that one ought to go in, virtually taking this place apart person by person in the wrack and ruin that you were able to spread from one end of this province to the other. People did leave, undoubtedly.

Had we not had that ten years, that decade of decline, in fact I would say, standing here, that our teachers would be far and away the highest-paid in Canada. We would probably have the best health care system in the world. We probably would have a ferry fleet that runs on time and on budget. We probably would have economic development happening throughout this province. We probably would have people moving into this province.

We probably would have a very bright, shiny day here in British Columbia, but — respectfully — your party chose a different path. Your government chose a different path, opposite to what was necessary, unable to make the difficult decisions, unable to represent all of the people of the province. That's why you will see those anomalies of specific issues, but across the board, on average, our teachers will be, right here, one of the second-highest-paid or highest-paid in Canada.

In respect to your grid question in regards to the casual teachers, the call-out teachers, most districts have local agreements where, when a teacher is called out — I believe it's two or three times; is that correct? — on average two or three times, they would move onto the grid system.

J. Kwan: On the question around the decline that the minister has brought up, the fact of the matter is that when the previous government left office, the economic growth was at 3.9 percent. It was just reported out today. I urge the minister to go and look at those facts and understand them. If he doesn't understand them, maybe talk to the auditor general; I'm sure that he would be prepared to assist. I'm sure of that. I'm sure that David Bond would be prepared to assist and explain to the minister that when you squander taxpayers' money for the biggest tax cuts for the wealthiest of British Columbians and say that magically the revenues will just come back, in fact they won't. I'm sure that David Bond would explain that to the minister.

On the question around salaries, the fact of the matter is that if you look at just one example…. In Ontario some of the schools, where their salary is actually higher than that of British Columbia — higher than that of British Columbia…. Some of the districts, some of the schools where the teachers receive a higher salary….

I'll give you some examples. Superior North's collective agreement in Ontario is higher in salary than that of the teachers in British Columbia. Thunder Bay Elementary, Thunder Bay Secondary, Toronto Elementary, Toronto Secondary, Windsor Elementary, Windsor Secondary are just some examples. There's a whole list of them relative to the salary as they compare British Columbia to another province — in this instance, Ontario. There is a stark difference in terms of their salary pay rate as they compare to that of British Columbia.

I asked the question: why is there no increase to the daily rate for teachers on call when the service of these teachers is in short supply in many districts? As districts compete for this category of teacher, why is there no pay increase in the daily rate for these teachers?

Hon. G. Bruce: On average, teachers on call-out, if they've worked the three days, go onto the grid system. The grid system, by this proposal here, is a 2½ percent increase per year. It's 7½ percent over the course of the next three years.

J. Kwan: Is the minister suggesting that the teachers who are on call would receive the same pay rate increase?

Hon. G. Bruce: Once that teacher moves onto the grid system, they would receive that increase.

Hon. G. Bruce: Every district has a grid system. It varies according to that district. A teacher comes on and moves through the grid system according to the years they're there. Grid systems are found in a number of different professions.

J. Kwan: Within the grid system, what is the range? Is it step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? What is the range within the grid? Could the minister also explain the categories for the evaluation for salary for teachers?

J. Kwan: That is for the grid system, for the categories for evaluating teachers as they relate to salary.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all due respect, the relevance to this is the 7½ percent over three years that's been put in this act, which will be the settlement for the teachers. Basically, we have a variety of grid systems, as were mentioned — different qualifications of experience,

qualifications as they go through that grid system. In respect to how you came to this question in regards to the teachers on call, on average it's three days. That's on average, because every district's a little bit different. Then that teacher would find themselves on the grid system. I believe that's the relevance of what we're talking about here.

J. Kwan: The question is relevant in terms of salary. We're talking about increases in teachers' salary. I'm wondering how the government, how the minister, arrived at this salary increase and what factors he took into consideration. One would have assumed that the issue around the categories…. The categories, for the minister's information, are that the teachers' training and experience are taken into consideration and form the categories within the teachers' evaluation in terms of their salary rate.

The other piece is the grid system, which varies from district to district as it relates to salary, which is why I asked the question as it relates to teachers on call. When a teacher is called into the school system to teach, the daily rate for the teacher varies from district to district also. When a teacher first starts in the system, where does this on-call teacher arrive within the grid, in the category formula as it relates to salary? Then there's the question on the salary increases and their application.

Hon. G. Bruce: To be specific, as this bill applies, we are not making any changes to the grid system. We are not making any changes to qualifications. What we are doing through this act is implementing a settlement of 7½ percent over three years to every teacher in the province.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I didn't quite get the minister's answer. Did he respond to the question about the on-call teachers when they first get into the system? Where do they land within the grid and the categories? The application of the 7½ percent — the 2½, 2½ , 2½ increase. I'm sorry. I missed that answer.

Hon. G. Bruce: They land on the grid according to their years of experience and qualifications. As I mentioned, every teacher in the province will receive 7½ percent over the course of three years.

J. Kwan: Can I take the minister's word that the teachers on call will receive the increase of 2½ , 2½, 2½?

Hon. G. Bruce: Once a teacher moves onto the grid system — experience, qualifications — they get 7½ percent over three years.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all due respect, we actually dealt with that about 15 minutes ago. For one further time, the districts are somewhat different, but on average it's after three days on call.

J. Kwan: The question about the teachers who are on the daily rate: does the 2½, 2½, 2½ increase apply to the daily rate?

J. Kwan: Irrespective of the fact that the on-call teachers have moved onto the grid system, the daily rate at which they are being called to work would not receive the 2½, 2½, 2½ increase.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's try this again, with all due respect. A teacher that moves onto the grid system, is there for a month as a substitute and lands in their proper position on the grid according to qualification and time, will during that period receive the 7½ percent over the course of the three years. On a daily rate, there is no increase.

J. Kwan: The teachers' on-call daily rate would receive no increase for three years. Is that correct?

We've actually canvassed this thing, but it's okay. I'll stay with you. We've gone around it, and we can go around it again however many times you wish to go around it. That's fine. I'm quite prepared to do that with you.

Hon. G. Bruce: Teachers on call would vary from district to district, but let's be clear. I want to get this straight, because the questions come in a number of different ways. I understand what you're trying to get across.

A teacher going onto the grid system to teach on call has been, on average, like three days. They would then land on the grid according to their qualifications and time. In most instances, they would get that rate for the prior three days, as well, if they're on their period. That is a 7½ percent increase over three years. Now, if teachers go to work on a call-in basis — if I get this correct — and they're there for longer than the three days, they would land on the grid system according to their time and qualifications. While they're on that system and working that period of time, they'll be receiving the rate that was there, which is the 7½ percent.

J. Kwan: Many of the assignments for the teachers who receive a daily rate and who are on call do not receive long enough hours to actually be put on the grid, so this legislation does not include them in terms of the pay increase. Their pay is on the basis of a daily rate, and that's excluded. That's zero percent for three years for teachers who are on call. They will receive a zero percent increase over three years on the basis of this legislation, because they are on a daily rate and because they don't get assignments for them to accumulate enough hours to get onto the grid. Why do

these employees, whose daily rate is not tied to the grid, not receive an increase in the next three years?
I'm asking the question of the minister. Why do the teachers who are on call on a daily rate and who are not tied to the grid not receive any increase? They're getting zero over the next three years.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm pleased to carry on this debate on the same point. We'll go around again.

For the teacher that is on the very casual basis of one day, there is no increase. I've said that. I'm very clear about that. We've said that.

J. MacPhail: You just said that now for the first time. Teachers out there don't understand that.

Hon. G. Bruce: So here we are. We'll be clear on this. I'll try and answer every question you have as best I possibly can.

Teachers who go in on a call-out and are there for three days will go onto the grid system as it applies to their qualifications and their length of service, and they will receive that increase by virtue of being on that grid system. In most instances, as the local agreements are, they receive that retroactively for those three days. A teacher on a one-day assignment will not receive that increase.

J. Kwan: The employer offered $190 as a daily rate for the teachers on call. Why, at least, has this minister not included that rate for those who are currently paid less?

Hon. G. Bruce: There were varying things; there were 45 issues on the table. We elected on this to make sure that every teacher in this respect on the grid system would receive 7½ percent over three years. That's what we've decided to do. That's 2½, 2½ and 2½, and it makes our teachers here in British Columbia amongst the highest-paid in Canada.

J. Kwan: The question was about the teachers who are on call on a daily rate. The minister had just said in this House that they will receive zero-zero-and-zero for the next three years. That's what the minister said. The employer at the negotiating table has offered $190 as a daily rate for teachers who are now on call who receive less…

J. Kwan: …under this offer. The employer at the negotiating table actually offered $190. My question is: why didn't the minister include what the employer has already offered in negotiations?

Hon. G. Bruce: It was a decision that we felt was important — that our full-time teachers receive a 7½ percent increase over three years. That was our decision. I appreciate that perhaps you don't like that decision and that maybe others don't like the decision — very clear about it. All of the teachers that are full-time that are on the grid system are getting 7½ percent over three years — okay?

The question was first asked in regards to the casual teachers on the one-day category, whether they'd be getting an increase, and I stood up, and I said no. That was clear. You got the answer. You asked the question; I gave you the answer. I said no. That's clear. You understand that. Now we're talking about this other aspect of going around again. It's 7½ percent over three years, and that's what the increase will be.

I'm pleased to have the members opposite here question what's in this legislation. I know it will be long and lengthy, and that's what this House is for. I know there will be some difficulty in getting all the answers clearly through to the members of the opposition as well as getting everybody to understand what we're attempting to do here. I understand that, but that's what this House is here for, and of course, that's what you're here for: to ask those questions to make sure that people understand it. It's also important, when we do answer the question, that, in fact, you reiterate…

Here, let's just recap: no on the casual — zero on the casual. If you're on the grid, that's usually after three days, in most of the districts, on a local, negotiated contract basis. You would go onto the grid based on your time and qualifications. Because of that grid, as a teacher you would receive that 7½ percent over the three years in that grid situation. In most instances, the way the local contracts are, the first three days that you are there are retroactive, and you would get that. I believe that's pretty clear.

J. Kwan: Was $190 the last offer by the employer to the teachers on call on a daily rate?

Hon. G. Bruce: A teacher that's a casual teacher, that goes on the grid system — we're together on that — after three days will go on the grid system, and according to their qualification and their time will receive that 7½ percent.

J. Kwan: I'm asking the question to the minister for the teachers who are on call, on a daily rate, who are

not, not, not — I repeat, for the third time, for clarification, for the minister — on the grid system. What will they receive now under this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: The daily rate, if you're not on the grid…. I'll try this another way….

J. Kwan: Let me explain this to the minister: the teachers who are on call, on a daily rate, who are not — and I repeat, not — on the grid, received, at the last offer from the employer, an offer of $190 from the lowest rate. The minister seems to be fixated on the grid; I'm talking about the group of teachers who are not on the grid. The lowest rate — that is, for the teachers who are on call, who are not on the grid system — is in Merritt. They are the lowest in the province. The employer offered $190 to increase their daily rate, and they also offered 7½ percent for those who were receiving the $190. So that we're clear, who in the educational system will not receive the increase of 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years?

In British Columbia, there are over 6,000 teachers who are on call, receiving a daily rate, right now. They will get zero, zero and zero for three years. Of those 6,000 teachers, they tend to be young, and they tend to be female. Approximately 60 percent of those 6,000 are young, female teachers in our system who will be receiving zero, zero and zero over the next three years, even though at the bargaining table, the employer offered 7½ percent and to top up to $190 for those who are now receiving the lowest rate in the province. This legislation on the 2½, 2½ and 2½ does not apply to those 6,000 teachers right now in our province who are on call, on a daily rate, throughout British Columbia.

How does the minister expect that those 6,000 teachers will be attracted into our system on a long-term basis? How does the minister expect that other people who might be looking at the education system as a profession and who might have to enter into the system first on an on-call basis with this proposal…?

Hon. G. Bruce: Okay. For a teacher on the daily rate, there is no increase in the daily rate. There is no increase for a teacher on a daily rate. If, though, that teacher on a daily rate ends up on an assignment that's longer than one, two or three days — and that's only an average; in some districts it's a little bit different, but on average that's about what it is — then they land on the grid of where their qualification time puts them. In that instance, they would receive that higher level pay relative to the grid. That would be the 7½ percent over three years.

The member opposite talked earlier on about teacher shortages and looming shortages. As we know — with these numbers, within the Ministry of Education, and what you have — there are also, in fact, at this point, 6,000 teachers on a casual basis here in the system.

Let's just put it all together again. You're asking me the daily rate. There is no increase in the daily rate. A teacher that works one day, whatever that daily rate is relative to the district they're currently in, will receive that same amount of money. If that teacher, however, works longer than a day — depending, again, on what that may be in the district they're in; there are 60 contracts here…. If it's a three-day qualification, and they go onto the grid system — they're now on an assignment that's longer than the three days — they, of course, would receive the grid level that now has encompassed in it the 7½ percent over the three years. Those days that they first worked, the retroactive days, would also be included in it.

J. Kwan: There is fierce competition now between the districts and the services of teachers on call. Those who are on a daily rate, especially in the more remote districts…. Even the employer recognizes that fact. They have proposed in negotiations to increase the daily rate for teachers on call to $190. They have recognized the difficulties, especially in the remote areas, of ensuring that they're competitive in trying to attract teachers to the table who are on call on a daily rate. They have proposed an increase of the lowest salary to $190 and for those who are making $190 now, to increase it by 7½ percent.

Why wouldn't this government, this minister, accept the employer's proposal, especially when the government suggests that they respect local district differences and want to give them flexibility? This legislation limits the ability of local districts, especially those in the remote areas, to attract and compete for teachers on call who are on a daily rate.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all due respect, I'm really trying to get to the answer this member is looking for. We've canvassed it a number of different ways.

We chose not to accept the employer's offer. We chose not to accept the BCTF offer. We have brought through a proposal here in legislation. We thought it was incumbent that every teacher receive a 7½ percent increase over three years. I'll qualify that so that we don't have to go through this again. That would be every teacher on the grid system. We understand that there are teachers on call. There are about 6,000. You've mentioned that. We know that. It's been said.

We made that decision because we thought it was important that every teacher who's in that category on the grid would receive a 7½ percent increase over three years. That was our decision. That's what this legislation says, and that's what we're doing.

J. Kwan: I think it's unfortunate. The minister and this government claim that they want to put students first in the classroom. They want to give flexibility to districts to attract and retain teachers, and yet on the issue of on-call teachers, those who are on a daily rate — of which there are some 6,000 in British Columbia, and approximately 60 percent are young and female — would receive a zero, zero and zero increase over the next three years, in spite of the recommendation and the suggestions made by the employer at the negotiating table. That is for the rate to be changed to $190 in-

stead of for those who are now lowest in the province — the city of Merritt actually has the lowest rate right now in British Columbia — and for those who are at $190 to receive a 7½ percent increase.

The minister has chosen not to accept that and include that in this section of the bill — to apply the 2½, 2½, and 2½ over three years for all teachers, not setting two classes of teachers, those who are on call and those who are not. I think that's most unfortunate. I think the minister and the government should recognize the recognition the employer has already made at the bargaining table in terms of the importance of this provision as it relates to salary for teachers on call.

I'd like to move an amendment to section 2(1)(b). That section is amended to read:

This amendment has been tabled with the Clerk. I would ask the Clerk to please give a copy of the amendment to the minister for his information.

Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you for the copy of the amendment. Does this amendment add cost?

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, speaking to the amendment.

The Chair: As far as our understanding, this amendment does not add cost to government, and it is in order. Would you like to respond to that?

J. Kwan: I'm sorry; I didn't hear the minister's response to the amendment. I was wondering whether or not the minister is interested in accepting the amendment. The amendment does not add cost. It speaks to a process question.

The Chair: I have ruled on the acceptability of the amendment, so I'm putting the question now.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, as I mentioned earlier, the amendment does not add cost to the collective agreement. It simply speaks to changing the negotiation process and the provisions that have been negotiated and accepted by both parties during collective bargaining. The major change is to ensure that, whether or not such acceptance was conditional on acceptance of another bargaining proposal. It's a change to the process. I think it is an important component to add to the process, so of course I would urge the government members to support this amendment. It is not substantive in nature. It is a minor amendment in relation to the bargaining process.

Hon. G. Bruce: There were three items that both parties had agreed to. Those three items are included in this bill, so this government on this side of the House will not be supporting this amendment.

	YEAS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

The Chair: We'll just give a few moments for members to go about their duties before we proceed with section 3.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister…. Does he need to wait for his staff?

Hon. G. Bruce: What section 3 does is provide for a dispute resolution process. There were three items that the parties had agreed to. What this does is allow that if there's any misunderstanding or misinterpretation by

the parties in this respect, there's a dispute resolution process in place to deal with those three items.

J. Kwan: What possible purpose would this serve if there are only three items agreed to, as the minister says? Can the minister tell us what those three items are?

Hon. G. Bruce: The first item is article A.8. This states that any legislative changes that impact the collective agreement will be reviewed by a committee. The parties will meet to make modifications to the collective agreement that are legally possible in order to achieve the intent of the collective agreement. If the parties cannot agree on the necessary modifications, it will be left up to an arbitrator to add, delete or amend the articles affected by the legislation.

The second is letters of intent and understanding on school district housing. For those districts that provide housing for teachers, a committee of local teachers and school district officials will be made to address any issues. If the local committee cannot resolve the issues, a provincial committee of representatives will address the issues. The provincial committee will also prepare a report for government four months after its first meeting to address and/or outline any issues arising from school housing. This relates to remote communities and is a relatively small number. I believe there are 17 districts.

The third issue of agreement was that the provincial sexual harassment language will apply to the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association. In 1996 the parties agreed to a provincial policy on harassment and sexual harassment. One school board, the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association, was red-circled and not party to the provincial language. With this agreement, the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association is no longer red-circled and is a part of the provincial policy on harassment and sexual harassment.

J. Kwan: The minister acknowledges that there were only three items agreed to. One may ask: why is that? Surely the minister must agree that the government's constant interference in the process by removing the incentive for the employer to get to the bargaining table is a major problem in impeding progress at the bargaining table and in the negotiation process.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not sure I see the relevance, in respect to that question, to section 3. We've canvassed it in second reading. The member knows all too well how long the negotiating process has taken to get to here and how little movement there was by either party over the course of the life of this process of ten months.

J. Kwan: Actually, the government brought in essential services legislation back in August. At that time the minister said this was going to accelerate negotiations, perhaps, and that it would not disrupt the negotiation process. It would, in fact, resolve many of the issues at the table. Many people predicted at the time that that would not happen, that it was going to encumber the bargaining process.

At every turn, when government interferes and intervenes in the bargaining process, it inhibits the employer's incentive to actually get the matters resolved. Perhaps that's why we've only been able to arrive at three items on the table — because the incentive for the employers to engage has simply been taken away. Continuously, members of the executive council have spoken out in public to say that they would bring in legislation to legislate the teachers back on a collective agreement. That is perhaps the reason why we've arrived at only three items.

Is there a level of complexity to any of those provisions such that the parties wouldn't understand what they have agreed to?

Hon. G. Bruce: This provision is what you might term a fail-safe provision. I would hope that the parties would be able to agree as to what they've actually agreed to already on those three items. But in the course of bringing through a legislated settlement such as we are here, we're just making sure there's a provision available so that if, of the three items, there is some difficulty in remembering what it was they both had agreed to, we have a provision that we can arbitrate that dispute. That's what this section does.

J. Kwan: The parties had agreed to the wording of several other proposals, subject only to the agreement of a larger package. Some of those items that were nearly agreed to include mileage, tax receipts for purchase of supplies, new teacher mentorship programs, president's leave, etc. Will the minister include those provisions as agreed to for the purposes of this section of the act?

Hon. G. Bruce: These were the only three items that were presented to me as formally signed off by both parties.

J. Kwan: Then that is to say that the items that were agreed to — and there were several items that were agreed to, subject to the larger package — would not be included for the purposes of this act?

J. Kwan: I'd like to move an amendment to section 3(1) at this time. Section 3(1) is amended by deleting the phrase "by the minister" and adding the phrase "under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement," to read:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and we would ask that a copy please be given to the minister.

The Chair: After looking at the amendment, it seems to be in order. We will carry on.

The purpose of the amendment, again, is not one about money but rather one around process, so that in the process, instead of simply having the minister appoint an arbitrator…. This is the section that deals with the resolution of disputes between the agreed provisions. In the name of fairness, I think, and in the interests of independence, to ensure there is a perception — an actual feel — of independence in the process, the arbitrator ought to be appointed not by the minister but rather under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement.

That is what this amendment is speaking to. I would ask the minister whether or not he agrees with the issue of independence in reality and in perception.

Hon. G. Bruce: We believe that section 3 as it's written is written in an adequate way that will protect both parties, so the government will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Kwan: Will the minister explain to the House what the difference is between the motion, as the act stands now, for the appointments to be made by the minister versus that under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: I have made clear the position of the government. The government will not be supporting this amendment. We believe the provisions that are in the act as presented are sufficient to look after any of the issues that may arise.

J. Kwan: I'm not asking the minister whether or not he agrees with the amendment. I'm asking the minister whether he knows the difference between what is in the act now versus the proposed amendment on the issue around process. Maybe the minister can explain to the House what the process is under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement in this instance.

Hon. G. Bruce: With the greatest of respect, this is your amendment. If you'd like to explain it, go right ahead. The position of the government is that we will not accept this amendment. The fact of the matter is that we believe we are properly covered by section 3, which applies to these same circumstances.

J. Kwan: I know very well that this is my amendment. The question is: did the minister understand, when he rose and said that he as a government is satisfied by the provision as it is laid out now in the act, that there is indeed a difference between what is being proposed — that is, for the appointment to be made under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement? If the member doesn't know there is a difference and what the difference is, then I would like to get a sense of how he arrives at the notion that his provision that he has put into the act is the right one. I'm trying to get an understanding from the minister on what elements he took into consideration to arrive at that decision.

Hon. G. Bruce: Unless I misunderstood the member opposite about five or six minutes ago, I thought I heard a tone that there was an inquiry as to why we even needed section 3. At any rate, I'll be clear again. This is your amendment. If you would like to wax eloquent on the differences between what your amendment is and what it is that we've put before you in section 3 of this bill, obviously it's your opportunity to do so. The government believes that the bill as written, section 3, is sufficient to look after the concerns that have been expressed. Therefore, I'll mention again that the government will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Kwan: I'll take from that answer that the minister actually doesn't know about the difference. He simply wants to adopt a biased approach — if not in reality, at least in perception — whereby the arbitrator would be appointed by the minister, rather than adopting an option whereby the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement allow for the parties to actually agree on an arbitrator so that there is agreement on both sides with respect to the appointment of an arbitrator.

If there were to be no agreement, if there were a dispute between the two sides in terms of who the arbitrator ought to be, then the matter would be referred to the head of the provincial arbitrator bureau. That process would make certain that there was a reality and a perception of independence and fairness to any dispute arising. In the interest of rebuilding….

I think of the atmosphere that has been created by this government, the poisonous atmosphere, as a result of this act. One would have thought the minister would agree to this minor change as a hand being offered to both sides — the employer and the teachers — in a conciliatory way, in a cooperative manner, to ensure that there is at minimum a perception of fairness and independence with respect to dispute resolution. That's why this process is absolutely critical to what's happened to date in terms of the poisonous environment this government has chosen to impose on our education system.

The Chair: Order, please. Members, would you mind having a little order, please.

	YEAS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan
	NAYS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Weisbeck	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

J. Kwan: My first question to the minister is: is the minister aware that neither party raised this matter during the negotiations for the new collective agreement or for the previous collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 4, in our view, is a commonsense approach. We have 60 districts; we should have 60 agreements.

J. Kwan: Let me try this question again: is the minister aware that neither party raised the matter during negotiations for this new collective agreement or, for that matter, for the previous collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: The Minister of Education, through her travels — and they have been extensive, going from district to district — found on a number of occasions, in dealing and talking with different boards, that in the amalgamated districts they had to manage several agreements. In fact, I believe one district has three agreements that they have to manage. As we said, this is a commonsense approach. There are 60 districts, and the view was that there should be 60 agreements. That's what this act provides for.

J. Kwan: I know what the act provides for. The question was that at the bargaining table, during the negotiations between the employer and the teachers, this issue was never brought up by either side, not only for this collective agreement but also for the one previous. It was not an issue. Why would the minister see a need to fix a problem that actually didn't exist? It didn't exist for the teachers or for the employer.

Hon. G. Bruce: We thought this was a commonsense way. There are 60 school districts in the province. There was an amalgamation process that the previous government put in place. They were unable at that point, for whatever reason I don't know, to amalgamate those agreements after they amalgamated the districts. We believe that in the commonsense application of this, if there are to be 60 districts, there should be 60 agreements. I believe it affects nine agreements here.

J. Kwan: The districts and the teachers unions chose to preserve the separate arrangements in spite of the amalgamation of school districts. Wouldn't the minister agree that this one-size-fits-all on all of these districts goes against the government's mantra on the issue around flexibility and choice?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd just like to be clear. The districts had indicated that this was difficult — a lot of administrative time spent dealing with two agreements. We're very clear what's here — nothing untoward in all of this. The fact of the matter is that rather than having that administrative time, the cost and expense of trying to administer two different agreements, we can best put those resources where they ought to be, and that's in putting students first. That's what this is all about, and that's what we're doing.

J. Kwan: Actually, the fact of the matter is: if it was an issue for the employer, it would have been raised at the bargaining table. It wasn't — not this round, not the last round. The government now has only just made it into a problem in their own heads. Otherwise, the employer would have raised this as an issue, and it wasn't in the last round of bargaining. The problems or concerns or whatever they are that exist in the minister's head exist only in the minister's head. Otherwise, they would appear on the bargaining table.

The employer didn't raise it as an issue. In fact, in the last round people wanted to keep the separate arrangements because they recognized that between the districts there were differences. That goes to the issue of flexibility and choice. Perhaps the minister only sees flexibility and choice in his limited vision of what that is, and those concerns only exist in his own head and actually not with the employers.

Can the minister assure this House that no teacher will lose money as a result of the imposition of this bill?

Hon. G. Bruce: Not to go back to that other discussion we had, every teacher will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½, which is 7½ percent over three years.

J. Kwan: Let me repeat the question slowly this time for the minister so that he can answer the question. The question is: can the minister assure this House that no teacher will lose money as a result of the imposition of this bill, as it relates to section 4, through amalgamation?

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear and respectful, as I understand it, all teachers in this situation will receive the same salary and the increases.

J. Kwan: I know the minister is having difficulties in understanding the question. The question is: will any teachers lose money, lose their income or have a reduction in their income as a result of this bill and section 4 under the amalgamation scheme?

Hon. G. Bruce: I tried "no" one other time on an issue, and we spent 15 minutes on it. I thought this time I would try a different thing, and maybe we could move along.

Hon. G. Bruce: The intent in this provision of section 4 is that teachers coming across on the grids will not receive less money and will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½.

J. Kwan: In fact, we know that seven teacher groups set out in the table in this section will face a reduction in salary, starting with the second year of the imposed agreement. The communities or districts where teachers will lose salary as a result of amalgamation are Kimberley, Golden, Princeton, Lake Cowichan, Kitimat, Armstrong and Burns Lake. Will the minister confirm that this is, in fact, not the case?

The information I've received indicates that the teachers at category 5, at maximum, will lose $1,800 in their salary. The teachers at category 6 in Kimberley will lose $2,505. The teachers in Golden at category 5, at maximum, will lose $300. The teachers in Princeton at category 6, at maximum, will lose $160. The teachers at Lake Cowichan at category 5, at maximum, will lose $640. The teachers in Kitimat at category 5, at maximum, will lose $370. In Kitimat, again, teachers at category 6, at maximum, will lose $670. Teachers in Armstrong at category 5, at maximum, will lose $100. The teachers at Burns Lake at category 5-plus, at maximum, will lose $5,000, and teachers at category 6, at maximum, will lose $1,300.

Hon. G. Bruce: Be very clear, as it's stated here, that for the districts that have more than one agreement, we are amalgamating the agreements. We are not amalgamating the grid. By not amalgamating the grid, we're ensuring that every teacher does not lose any money and will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the course of the three years.

J. Kwan: The issue in terms of the loss in salary for the teachers in the districts that are being amalgamated….

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Perhaps the minister is not interested, and perhaps the members of this House are not interested.

Earlier we discovered that some 6,000 teachers across British Columbia who are on call on the daily rate would not receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ in salary increase over the next three years. They will in fact receive zero, zero and zero for three years, in spite of the fact that the minister, outside of the House and in the House, has said that all teachers will receive 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years. That information was, in fact, incorrect, as we discovered in this House as we were debating section 2 of this act.

Now we have arrived at section 4 of this act on the issues around amalgamation as they impact teachers in terms of their salaries, particularly for the areas where they are amalgamated together — even though the employer did not raise this as an issue and the teachers didn't raise this as an issue. It was an issue that somehow existed in the minister's head.

We now find these concerns being imposed in this legislation. I want to be certain that there is no misunderstanding, no misinformation like that suggested by the Minister of Education that all teachers will receive the 7½ over three years when, in fact, 6,000 teachers across British Columbia would not. I want to make sure that facts are actually tabled here in this House, debated in this House and clarified in this House so that there is no misunderstanding or misinformation.

On the question around amalgamation as it relates to teachers. The information, as I mentioned, for the teachers under the different categories in seven areas, actually, as we understand the way in which the act is written, has an impact on their salary. It is actually a salary reduction — in some cases very, very significant. In the case of Burns Lake, we're looking at a $5,000 reduction. It's not a small amount of money. It's a large amount of money in Burns Lake, especially in these areas where it is difficult to attract and retain teachers.

I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. I want to make sure that the minister explains clearly in this House what the protections are for these teachers, what protections are not in place for them and what they stand to lose.

Hon. G. Bruce: Under section 4, the amalgamation of the district agreements, there are nine extra district agreements, and we are amalgamating them so that there will be just one. We are not amalgamating the grids, and by so doing, it ensures that every teacher on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ and will not lose any money.

J. Kwan: The minister says he's not amalgamating the grids, but the grids are part of the agreements that are now void. The collective agreements through this act, if it is passed in this House, when it is passed in this House, are no longer in place. They will now be void. Is the minister suggesting that there would be different grids that would apply in one district in one agreement?

J. Kwan: I wonder, then, if the minister can point out in the legislation where it spells that out clearly — that there would be two grids and one agreement, that the salaries of the teachers would exist under two different grids and that the salaries of the teachers would not be reduced when they go through the amalgamation through this agreement.

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 4, "Amalgamation," with respect to the grids and teachers. The grids will remain in regards to those districts. Teachers will not be reduced in any salaried categories. They will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase. That is what we are attempting to do here under section 4.

J. Kwan: If the minister suggests that through the amalgamation there would be two grids, as it applies in one agreement…. Quite honestly, I don't see that it actually says that under section 4. I don't see it at all. Maybe the minister can point me to the line and the words that actually say that so that I will know and so the teachers who are impacted will know that there is absolute protection. Although I suppose that, even if it was written in the act, it could be overwritten, because this government promises they will tear up agreements just because they feel like it.

Nonetheless, I want to go through the process to make sure that at least in this agreement that we're now talking about, in this legislation, it is actually written in here in black and white.

Hon. G. Bruce: The intent of this was to bring some common sense to the aspect of having two agreements in one district. That's what we're doing: bringing one agreement to the district. We want it to be very clear that no teachers would receive any less money because of the two agreements coming together. By policy, we've said that would be the case and that at the end of the three years, the parties, in dealing with the actual grids, can work out how those grids ought to happen. What we're trying to do here is to have 60 agreements, 60 districts and none of the teachers on the grids to lose any money and all to receive 2½, 2½ and 2½.

J. Kwan: Then I would ask that the minister stand down this section and write in the clarification to ensure that the teachers who are impacted by this amalgamation will in fact not lose salary and that there would be two grids in one agreement so that it is clear that there is no misunderstanding. The minister could easily do that: stand down this section — section 4, on amalgamation — to make sure it is clear and that there would be no dispute afterwards.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think we've been clear, and I've stated it. I'll state it again, if you need me to state it. We've made it through policy. The reason why we're doing this is to have the two agreements come together in regards to the district. What we're talking about is the fact that this will run for the three years. No teacher will receive any less money because of the amalgamation. Every teacher that's on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½. That's what we're attempting to achieve here, and I believe that's what we'll do.

J. MacPhail: I think, for the benefit of all government members, that they might listen to the counsel of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, because what the government is now doing is creating a brand-new type of agreement that's never existed before. They're doing it through silence in legislation. There will now apparently be — is it nine or ten? — agreements that will have, for the very first time in their history, two grids. That's never existed before, and all of a sudden, teachers — covered by districts of members who sit here in the Legislature — will have to take it on the word of the Minister of Labour that there will be an agreement, for the very first time, with two grids.

I expect that there would be thousands of teachers affected by this who would like assurances beyond just the word of the Minister of Labour that there is a new type of agreement being created. I fail to understand what the difficulty is. Of course, we could walk away from this chamber, and teachers would be left with the word of the minister with no substance behind it, assuming that they have one agreement, two grids. But they have no protection to turn toward, Mr. Chair. I assume that the Minister of Labour speaks from his heart and speaks factually and has the support of his cabinet that there will now be two grids. Therefore, I don't understand what the harm is in a technical amendment clarifying that.

The downside of not clarifying that is to leave teachers at risk that their agreement in columns B and

C is void, including the grid which is now part of that agreement. It's very, very risky business to leave this unspecified in legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: I've been very clear, and I'll state it again. The purpose of this act is to bring the two agreements together. We have districts that have combined multi-agreements. The purpose is so that we can deal with one agreement per district. Also, we wanted to make sure that all teachers that were on the grid system didn't lose any money by the amalgamation of the agreements and that they would receive 2½, 2½ and 2½. We've made that clear, and we're hopeful that with the negotiating process at the end of this contract the parties can find a way to bring the grids together as would best suit their districts.

J. Kwan: Let me help the minister out, then. I have an amendment to table. I'd like to move an amendment to section 4 by adding section 4.1 as follows:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I would ask that the Clerk give the minister a copy.

I would trust that the minister would not have a problem with this amendment, because that's what he said. He said that where there are two different rates in different districts now amalgamated into one and where there are two different grids as they apply in terms of the rates, the teachers' salaries would be protected. That's what this amendment speaks to, and that is the intent as I understand it from the minister, so he ought not to have a problem with this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, member. I've had a chance to look at the amendment, and I find it out of order. It's a direct negative to section 4.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I understand your capacity here to rule. Perhaps, then, the minister could say if this is out of order, even though it reflects exactly the comments made by the minister. Not to deal with your remarks, Mr. Chair….

I'm a bit taken aback, because this amendment reflects exactly what the minister himself has said. The government is trying to bring stability to the education system, and after today it is going to take all of our energies to bring stability to the education system.

In ten different, direct districts at least there will be teachers who will wake up tomorrow morning in a state of absolute confusion about what they're being paid. All this amendment was doing was reflecting the comments of the minister himself. Therefore, it comes as a surprise to us that this in any way would be contrary to the intent of the legislation, seeing as how it reflects merely his own words.

I do understand that many would like to believe that the word of this Minister of Labour is enough. But I also expect, given the passing of time and the changing of personalities and representatives, that teachers who are showing up each and every day to work in the Rocky Mountain area, in Kimberley, Golden, Princeton, Cowichan or the Coast Mountains just want to know what salary grid they're on. That's all this amendment does. I don't know. Maybe the minister could read into the record that he supports the content of the amendment so at least teachers have words of legal language upon which to rely.

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear, again, it's the position of this government that we are amalgamating the multiple agreements that are found in nine districts throughout the province. It is the government's intent that all parties…. No teachers will receive less money in regards to moving across in those agreements. They will also receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the course of the three years, in the agreement as it applies, and I will give this House an undertaking that I'll write to both parties to ensure that is the policy they understand to be the case.

J. Kwan: All we have right now is that the Chair has ruled this amendment, which simply clarifies the differential in pay grids through the amalgamation and that the superior pay grids would supersede and would still be retained in this legislation…. The intent of this amendment has been ruled by the Chair to be out of order, contrary to your own words, hon. minister, where you said that is exactly the intent of this amendment. Now the Chair has ruled that it's against your intent.

I'm getting the sense from you that it is, in fact, your intent that those amalgamated districts where they have salary grids superior to those they are amalgamated to would have a lower grid supersede. I want to make sure that that is in place, so that it's not your word, but rather that it is actually in place. I'm simply asking the minister; maybe he can just say yes. That's all I need in Hansard. My question is: will the minister accept the following?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll reiterate what I said before: I would give this House an undertaking that I will write both parties to ensure that they understand the policy of this government in regards to the amalgamation of the contracts — the agreements that were there through the nine districts that had multiple contracts — and that, with the amalgamation of those contracts, no teacher on the grid system would lose any money.

J. MacPhail: We have a ruling from the Chair saying that this amendment is against the intent of the legislation. Now, I accept the goodwill of the Minister of Labour that he will write a letter, but when one goes in to examine legislation, Hansard debate is what rules. We have legislation that is completely contrary to the words of the minister. In fact, the Chair has said that. The Chair has said that the legislation is contrary to this amendment, or this amendment is contrary…. Well, it works both ways, actually, but I agree. I'll clarify my words: the amendment is contrary to the intent of the minister's legislation.

My gosh, if you're a teacher in Creston, Kaslo or Princeton or North Okanagan–Shuswap, you'd want that confusion to be straightened out. I would expect that you, in good faith, would want to clarify a ruling of the Chair that says such an amendment is contrary to your legislation — not with a letter but with your own amendment. The government should bring in its own amendment, then, to clarify. You're talking about thousands of teachers who have no idea what they're going to be paid tomorrow.

Hon. G. Bruce: I've been very clear on this. I've made the political commitment on behalf of government on what this explanation is in regards to section 4 — how it will affect teachers. I'll just reiterate that where the districts that have multiple agreements are amalgamating, by virtue of this piece of legislation, the grid, as it applies in respect to teachers that are on the grid system…. Nobody will lose any money, and all of those teachers that are on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½.

J. MacPhail: Well, with this state of absolute confusion around this issue, we'll just have to wait and see what teachers say tomorrow about the lack of legislative protection. This is an imposition of the government itself. This is being imposed by the government. The government's own imposition has created a state of confusion for teachers — I expect hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers — throughout this province.

I expect tomorrow teachers will say: "I have no idea. I can only assume I'm taking a pay cut." Regardless of the personal intent of the minister, some teachers may doubt the veracity of his word. That's all I'm saying. Tomorrow there will be hundreds of teachers who will wake up and say: "I'm not reassured by the individual commitment of one minister, when the legislation says exactly the opposite."

Let me see whether I can clarify another example about what teachers should think about what they're being paid tomorrow morning as a result of the government imposing an amalgamation of agreements. Let's talk about the daily rates of agreements under the amalgamation. Let's just talk about the daily rates.

Now, what we know about the daily rate for teachers, the 6,000 teachers who often are given assignments where they're paid only the daily rate…. The daily rate in the Princeton agreement is more than $190 per day. That Princeton agreement, to quote the legislation, is being made "void and cease to have any effect." We know the people on daily rate are getting zero, zero and zero over the course of the next three years. We know now, because of the government's refusal to amend the legislation, that the Princeton agreement is null, void and ceases to have any effect and will go under the Merritt agreement.

The daily rate in the Merritt agreement is $117 per day. What will be the daily rate for teachers who are now being paid $190 under the Princeton agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear on this, there are the nine districts we talked about that have multiple agreements. The way some of those agreements are being amalgamated, as I'm sure you're aware, depends on which agreement is the larger with respect to membership. Some agreements will go up, and some will go down.

With the daily call-out rates, those that are going to an amalgamated area where the daily rate is higher will go up, and those that are going to an amalgamated area where the daily rate is lower will go down, but they will go to the grid when they work their one day or their three days. They will go to the grid, and after they're there the three days, they will get whatever that grid actually reflects on it. That's the process of what section 4 is all about.

J. Kwan: This is very, very disappointing. Just to be clear, with this legislation that we're debating right now, teachers will, in fact, receive a reduction in salary — not just as when we discussed earlier the 6,000 teachers who would receive zero, zero and zero for three years. Now we discover that teachers will actually receive a reduction in their salary.

The teachers in Princeton, where their daily rate now is $190 or over, would actually receive a lower rate, because they're being amalgamated to a district with a lower salary, of $117. They're being amalgamated to the lowest rate in the province — Merritt — which is $117 on a daily rate. To be clear, teachers now under this legislation imposed by this government…. Not only will 6,000 teachers receive zero, zero and zero over three years, teachers will actually also receive a reduction in their salary.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear. We're talking about the teacher in this instance that doesn't go onto the grid system — that is, the daily call-out teacher. That's what we're talking about. In some instances, that daily call-out will go up. In some instances, that daily call-out will go down. Much of the time, the teacher goes onto the grid system beyond the three days or whatever the average is across the province relative to the agreements they have. Where that is, all those teachers will receive 2½, 2½ and 2½. That's 7½ over the three years of this collective agreement.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear. The salaries of the teachers in the Princeton agreement in the district here — those who teach in Princeton on an on-call basis, who receive a daily rate, which is $190 now — will be reduced to the lowest rate in the province — $117. Is that right?

Hon. G. Bruce: Only if that teacher is on an assignment that is less than three days.

J. Kwan: As was mentioned earlier, in fact, teachers are often called on for assignments that are fewer than three days. They often are. The daily rate right now for teachers in Princeton is $190. Through this legislation that has been tabled by this government — imposed by this government — their daily rate would actually be reduced to the lowest rate in the province, the same rate that the teachers in Merritt are getting — $117. They will actually receive a reduction in their salaries. Will the minister confirm the figures for the Princeton teachers who are on a daily rate on-call? Are they receiving $190 right now? Will their salaries be reduced to $117 for a daily rate after this legislation passes?

Hon. G. Bruce: This agreement was very much aimed at the aspect of full-time teachers, to make sure that full-time teachers receive 2½, 2½ and 2½ which is 7½ over three years under the collective agreement. We've been very clear on this aspect of these two multiple agreements that we have with regard to the nine districts of how we're merging them together at the end of the three years. The parties can work out the grid system so that they can amalgamate those grid systems in a way that would be best for them. That is a direction we're taking in section 4.

J. Kwan: Is the minister aware that the Merritt school district wrote to the B.C. Public School Employers Association and asked them to do something about the low rate for the daily rate of on-call teachers?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again I will reiterate the policy of what section 4 says. We're very focused on the aspect of our full-time teachers. We want to make sure that all of our full-time teachers receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ — the 7½ percent increase in total over three years. That's what we're attempting to do here. We have nine districts with multiple agreements. We're bringing those agreements together. At the end of the three years, with the process of negotiation, they can work out the differences on the grid.

J. Kwan: The Merritt school district actually wrote to the B.C. Public School Employers Association and asked them to do something about the low rate, because Merritt has the lowest daily rate for on-call teachers in the entire province. They could not get teachers to go there, because they have the lowest rate in the province. The Merritt school district wrote to the B.C. Public School Employers Association and asked them to do something about it. At the bargaining table the employer, the B.C. Public School Employers Association, tabled to increase the daily rate for on-call teachers to $190 for Merritt so that the school district could try and get some on-call teachers there.

This legislation, this government, this minister have chosen now to ignore the need of the students in Merritt, where on-call teachers are necessary to fill in for teachers who might be sick, to fill in for teachers because of the teacher shortage, because of the troubles and difficulties on the question around retention. Now Princeton is going to be faced with the same problems that the Merritt school district is faced with.

Is this the net result that this minister wants to bring to our education system in British Columbia? Does the minister think that this is in the best interest of the students and that it would enhance the students' learning environment?

Hon. G. Bruce: Where a new teacher comes on as a TOC in that area that they're at, they will go up or go down according to what that agreement is. In the accepted practice in the districts, most of those teachers that are TOCs would be red-circled. As I mentioned in respect to the grid system, if they go onto the grid system, they would receive their 2½, 2½ and 2½ as they apply to that grid system.

J. Kwan: Where does it say in the legislation that those teachers are red-circled? Can the minister please identify specifically where in the act it says that?

Hon. G. Bruce: In respect to section 4 here, we're very clear. What we were trying to do in respect to that was to take the areas, the districts, that had more than one certification, more than one agreement, and amalgamate them into one. We were very focused on the fact that we had full-time teachers there. We were looking to make sure that they would get a 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase — 7½ over the course of the three years. That's what our focus has been placed on here.

In respect to the call-out — the teachers on call that you're talking about here — as it goes across the province, there are differences. Some will go up; some will go down. That's the point; that's what will happen when agreements are amalgamated. The reason for us leaving it over that course of the three years was so that districts with the bargaining unit could work out a grid system they were in agreement with. That's what we're looking to achieve.

The point of this amalgamation of these agreements was to bring some common purpose in regard to their agreements relative to that district. That's what we're attempting to achieve.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister is: can he define "red-circled" and how it would apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, I'm going to come back to the point of what this section is about. We're talking about the fact that we have nine districts — okay? We have an amalgamation of agreements that are….

The Chair: Order, please. If you want to address, address through the Chair, please.

J. Kwan: Actually, my question was not to the answer the minister gave, but rather my question is around red-circling, which he brought up a little while ago. I'm asking the minister to define "red-circled" and how it would apply. He said that those teachers whose salaries are higher would be red-circled, so I'm asking the minister to define red-circling and how it applies in this act.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, I'm going to come back to the principle of this act, section 4, and the districts that have multiple agreements. The purpose of this was to bring them into one agreement. We wanted to make sure that our permanent, full-time teachers did not receive less. We've made sure of that. We're looking for them to achieve a 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase over the course of three years. Teachers who are on call in some districts will go up. The new teachers coming on will be at the rate that's there. In regards to the issue during the course of the three years, we're hopeful that the two parties can work out a grid system that works for them in that system.

J. Kwan: Is the minister now suggesting that his earlier statements, where he said those teachers' salaries would be red-circled, do not apply — that he was actually wrong, and it was just simply a slip of the tongue?

Hon. G. Bruce: Some districts, by policy, will red-circle, and that's what they're intending to do.

J. MacPhail: Well, here we are, in a section that affects hundreds of teachers and thousands of students, and we're doing legislation by slip of the tongue. That's what we're doing. Then, because the legislation is being drafted by slip of the tongue, the minister is promising that he'll write a letter to the various parties. In that letter, we now have that he will say to the districts: "Trust me; your salary's not going to go down." Then we heard that he'll say, "You'll be red-circled," but I think that's off the agenda now. Now we have the minister saying: "We hope the parties can get together and make up a new grid."

We started off getting the minister to confirm — but he wouldn't do it by legislation — that there would be one agreement, two grids. "Trust me," he said. "We don't need to actually put that in the legislation." Then we found out that, oh, sorry, that grid wasn't going to be the grid for some teachers. Those teachers would be red-circled. That was the slip of the tongue. There actually aren't going to be two grids. "We're hoping the parties," he says, "will get together and make up a new grid." I guess that'll be a third grid. And we have: "Trust me."

Mr. Chair, we in the opposition urge this minister to stand down this clause, rewrite it and get it right. If they are truly committed to making the world better for students, then that is exactly what he should do. He doesn't have a clue how this legislation, under section 4, will apply to hundreds of teachers and thousands of students in this province.

J. Kwan: When this legislation was written and when it was, I assume, brought to the caucus for discussion, did the minister consult with his colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet on what his thoughts were on salaries as they related to the teachers on call for the community and school district of Merritt? They now, as it stands, cannot get teachers on call to go up there on a daily rate basis.

Did the minister talk to the MLA who represents Princeton in the community with respect to this legislation? This now impacts, we find out, the teachers in Princeton, also, who could face, as a result of this legislation, a reduction in salary. Now the school district of Princeton is going to be having difficulty getting teachers on call on a daily rate in their district.

J. Kwan: The question is a simple one: did the minister consult with his colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet with respect to the reduction in salary for the area, the school district of Princeton, under this section 4 of the act and for the area of Merritt, where they are now already having difficulty attracting teachers on call as it stands right now in terms of the amalgamation scheme that's being proposed under this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think the purpose of this section of this act is clear: we're amalgamating the agreements that are found in nine districts. After the previous government amalgamated districts, we have nine different districts now that have multiple agreements. We're amalgamating them. We've canvassed this issue, I think, quite extensively. The fact and the focus of what we're attempting to do there is to make sure any teacher that was on the grid system would not lose any money and would enjoy the 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase — 7½ percent over three years. That, in fact, is what we're attempting to do here.

J. Kwan: To the contrary. In fact, this section of the act is especially unclear. Earlier we talked about the issue around the teachers who are being amalgamated where their existing agreements — provisions — are superior to the areas that would be inferior where that amalgamation takes place. It is not clear at all that the

superior provisions would actually be the provisions adopted under this act. It is not clear at all.

An amendment was tabled that the Chair had ruled out of order, even though the intent of the amendment is exactly, supposedly, as the minister says. But that's not clear at all; it doesn't say it clearly in this act.

Now we've arrived at another issue with teachers on call. The on-call, daily rate for teachers on call, where they are being amalgamated — particularly in the area of Princeton, where they would be amalgamated into the area of Merritt — would actually be reduced from $190 to $117. First, the minister was evading this question. Then he said: "Okay, that's right." Then he said: "No, they'll be red-circled."

It's actually not clear at all what the intent of this legislation is. It appears to me that the minister is making up this legislation as we speak. I wonder how, from the Minister of Education's perspective, this would apply to enhancing the learning environment for students in Merritt and Princeton when they couldn't get an on-call teacher to go into the classroom. The Merritt school district has already written to the employer, asking them to do something about it. The Merritt school district had said: "We need to increase the daily rate for on-call teachers in Merritt, because we can't get any teachers to come in right now." That was actually tabled at the bargaining table.

I wonder how the minister feels about that and whether or not that actually makes for a better learning environment in those classrooms for the students where there is no teacher there. They couldn't get one there, because the on-call rate is too low — the lowest in the province. Now Merritt and Princeton are going to be faced with the same problem, and I can't tell from the words of this minister — who switched over three or four times now in this short debate, in the last half an hour or so — which is actually the applicable one as it is defined in this act. It is not defined in this act, and it is unclear to me what the intention of this minister is in relation to these issues.

J. MacPhail: On the concept of red-circling that he raised and says will apply, will the red-circling apply to daily-rate teachers on call?

Hon. G. Bruce: The point of section 4 is to bring the amalgamation of different agreements that are found in nine different districts together under one. We wanted to make sure that none of the full-time teachers received any less money. We've made sure of that. What we've done is make sure that each of those teachers, as they go onto the grid, as we've talked about before, would receive 2½, 2½ and 2½. At the end of the three years of this agreement, the parties that are there and joined in this would work out a different grid system. It's up to them to try and do that which would be best for their district. That's what we're doing through section 4.

J. MacPhail: I take it the answer is no, that there will be salary cuts for daily-rate teachers and that now the students of Princeton may have empty classrooms, the same way it sometimes faces students in Merritt, because the board can't recruit daily-rate teachers. That's really good for students, really good. There's a step forward.

On the concept of red-circling that the minister brought up, does red-circling apply to the collective agreement grid or to employees?

Hon. G. Bruce: I understand that you don't want the amalgamation of districts. I fully understand that. It hasn't been a short debate on this particular issue; it's been quite extensive. The concept was such that we have nine districts out of 60 that have a multiple of agreements. We're putting those agreements into one. We're making sure that those teachers who are full-time teachers would not receive any less money for the work they do and that they would all receive that benefit of the increase of 2½, 2½ and 2½. That is what this section is dealing with, and that is our intent, which we are fulfilling through section 4.

J. MacPhail: I'll just ask it one more time: does the concept of red-circling that he raises, which isn't incorporated in the legislation and which teachers are supposed to rely on his word for, apply to the grid itself or to the employees?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm going to say it again. I fully understand that the opposition would like to frustrate this particular section of this act. I understand that. Obviously you didn't deal with it when you were in government. We are now dealing with it now that we are government.

Calmly and coolly, what we have here is a situation where there are 60 districts in the province through the amalgamation efforts of the previous government. You didn't finish the job. You didn't then find a way to bring those agreements together. We are bringing those agreements together, but we are also cognizant of the fact that we want to make sure that all permanent full-time teachers receive the 2½ percent increase and do not lose any money. That's, in fact, what's accomplished by section 4.

J. Kwan: Let us be very clear. In this act that is being debated in this House right now…. When it is passed in this House, it is clear that Princeton would actually have a reduced salary for teachers who are on call, because they're being amalgamated into the area of Merritt — the lowest pay rate for on-call teachers in the province right now.

The pay rate for Princeton teachers who are on call on a daily-rate basis is now at $190. Tomorrow, when this legislation is passed, if they're being called to do work to replace, to be a substitute teacher for a day or two in Princeton, they will find, per this legislation, that their rate on a daily-rate basis will have been reduced. Is that not correct, and is that not what this legislation says?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's been clear from the get-go that the previous government didn't have the jam to follow

through with what needed to be done. You went through a process of amalgamating districts, and then left everything in disarray, as you pretty much have left this province in disarray.

I'll repeat it one more time for everybody here. What we have is a situation in this province….

Hon. G. Bruce: If the member opposite would like to listen, it would be appreciated.

J. Kwan: There is no dispute on this legislation, because it is clear. I have asked the minister time and again to point out to me whether the teachers in Princeton, where the daily rate is now at $190 for being on call, would be protected in this legislation. Where does it say that in this legislation? He could not identify where it says that in this legislation.

The fact of the matter is that tomorrow the teachers who are on call in Princeton will find themselves faced with a reduction in salary. It's as simple as that. The minister is trying to mask it under all kinds of language. He's even trying to blame the previous government — that somehow we're responsible for reducing the salary of the Princeton teachers who are on call on a daily rate under this legislation. Boy, talk about a far stretch.

Tomorrow morning in Princeton, when the teachers who are on call on a daily rate wake up, they will find their salary has been reduced, contrary to what the Minister of Education, the Minister of Labour and the Premier have said — that all teachers would actually receive a 7½ percent increase in their salary over three years. What we've found through the discussion in this House right now is that teachers will find themselves faced with a reduction in their salary. That is the truth.

Then we also find that 6,000 teachers will find themselves not faced with an increase over three years of 7½ percent but rather zero, zero and zero over three years — 6,000 teachers across the province of British Columbia. That is the truth.

You know, the minister cannot come clean and just tell British Columbians what this act is and what it stands for. He would not. Why wouldn't he? He's suggesting that the opposition is trying to confuse, when we're trying to clarify to make sure that it's clearly understood.

I can understand why the minister would not want to make sure that this information is actually clear to British Columbians. He wants to mask it. He wants to make sure that people think that all teachers have received a 7½ percent increase over three years when, in fact, 6,000 teachers receive a zero percent increase over three years, and teachers in Princeton would actually have received a reduction in salary. That is the truth.

The students in Merritt and the students in Princeton will find tomorrow that if they need an on-call teacher on a daily rate basis, they will be faced with the difficulty of being unable to get teachers into the classrooms. That somehow is supposed to enhance the teaching environment and enhance the learning environment for students. I'm sorry, I fail to see that logic. I absolutely fail to see that logic.

This bill sets in stone now and ensures that the Princeton teachers will receive a reduction in salary. When they wake up tomorrow their salary will have been reduced from $190 a day to $117.

Hon. G. Bruce: I know the member opposite doesn't mean tomorrow, because I know the member opposite is clear on the bill, that that wouldn't be until July 1 of this year. I know it makes no difference in respect to her argument, but from the standpoint of the general public knowing what's going on, this, in fact, becomes effective on July 1, 2002.

Again, the point of this was that there was an amalgamation that took place with the previous government. I'm not going to blame the previous government for what we're doing here. The previous government has lots to stand for and will have lots to stand for over the course of the next few years. What we are doing here is regularizing something.

We're taking where there were nine districts that had multiple agreements, and we're putting those multiple agreements into one agreement per that district. We wanted to make sure that for all of the full-time permanent teachers, first of all, none received any less money in salary by these actions and that they would all enjoy the increase that is being effected by this legislation, which is 7½ percent over three years. That's what we're accomplishing. That's what section 4 is all about.

	YEAS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. Kwan: Section 5 allows for government to appoint a commission of inquiry to examine the facets of the collective bargaining in this sector. Under this process, it appears to me that it continues to allow the government to interfere in the collective agreement between the two parties. Why did the minister not provide for a commission composed of persons acceptable to the parties to the agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: There's been nobody appointed. When the time comes — and you'll see that the operative word is "may" — we'll look to both parties to give names and help in how we can do this. The idea with this is to find a way so that we can get past the impasses that we've had in the negotiations that have been there for many years relative to the BCTF and the employers group in this particular sector. The point in regards to this particular section is to find a way to bring about a new process so that we can achieve negotiated settlements.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's at the discretion of the Minister of Labour to make that appointment. They may make that appointment, may invoke this particular part of the section. Really, I think, prior to 1994 we haven't had a negotiated settlement. There needs to be a new way to discuss these types of situations and to find ways that we can get negotiated settlements. That's what this section is dealing with.

J. Kwan: What hope does the minister hold for the commission to be successful, given that it will be operating in a climate of confrontation — upheaval, even, if you will — created by the bills that are being tabled in this House? Salary reductions, some 6,000 teachers who would receive zero percent increase in their salary over the next three years…. What hope does the minister think that the commission would have for success in this environment?

Hon. G. Bruce: There has been difficulty in reaching a negotiated settlement this time, last time, the time before that — numerous times. What we're trying to do here is to provide a forum, a body, a process so that we can have a way of achieving a negotiated settlement. No, it won't be easy. I'm not standing here saying this will be easy. I'm standing here saying: "Listen, we need to deal with it, and this is how we're intending to deal with it."

J. Kwan: Wouldn't it be more advantageous to create more of a cooperative environment — instead of having the minister come forward with a commission, at his discretion, instead of just doing that unilaterally — to ensure in the provisions of this act that the opportunity is afforded and enshrined in legislation to allow for both parties to come to agreement on the commission so that it is agreed to by both parties, to enhance the opportunity for success?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think we're all aware in this province of the situation taking place. We're just getting through here. This has been ten months in respect to this issue of negotiation. There have been subsequent problems in the past in the negotiation process. We need to try and find another way to negotiate these settlements. What we're trying to do here by this legislation is provide for that opportunity to exist. I think it's very straightforward. There's nothing untoward in this. Section 5 addresses that issue.

Hon. G. Bruce: Not immediately. I think your point about the feelings that are out there right now…. It's important that we're going to have to go through a period of time here. Obviously I would like to move along in this respect so that we can get to the point, as negotiations unfold for the next set, that we're into a new manner of how we go about doing it.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is dealing specifically with this bill and the dispute that we're settling here today. That's why.

J. Kwan: There seems to be a double standard. The issue around bringing forward a commission appointed by the minister applies to teachers, but in other circumstances, like doctors, for example, that is not necessarily the case. Does the minister agree that at a minimum, the existing terms and conditions for teachers and students should be allowed to continue while the commission conducts its work?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's clear that we have a situation where a negotiated process does not work in reaching settlements. There have been too many examples over time of government having to come through with legislated settlements. What this section of the act does is provide a way for us to review how the negotiation process takes place and try to invoke a new way of doing it so that we can reach negotiated settlements. That's what section 5 is about.

J. MacPhail: The imposed collective agreement expires on June 30, 2004. Does the minister expect to have a new bargaining structure in place by June 30, 2004?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. We've watched seven, eight, ten years of difficulties now, I guess, in this sector being able to reach negotiated settlements. I don't like bringing in legislated settlements, and I would rather find a way to develop a new process so that we don't have to do this. This agreement is for three years. I would hope that in the course of this three-year period, in the time that's available to us and with the parties together, we can find another way of trying to get that negotiated settlement so that we have our students first and our students in the classroom, and we don't have the angst and the anxiety placed upon everybody that happens when negotiations fall apart.

J. MacPhail: My question was very specific. Does the minister expect to have a new bargaining structure in place by June 30, 2004?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll try again. My intent here is to try to find a new process with the parties so that we can reach negotiated settlements in this sector. I don't need to go back over the history of how many haven't been negotiated. The members opposite know it just as well as I do. I can cite them all here, as you can. That's not going to get us anywhere.

We've got a situation where we've got 45,000 to 50,00 teachers in the province of British Columbia. As time went by, through each of these agreements, we found that we couldn't get a negotiated settlement. I would like us to try to find a way of getting a negotiated settlement. This agreement is for three years. I would hope that we can try to find that process and put it in place prior to that next negotiation so they can work through that new system.

J. MacPhail: The collective agreement imposed by the government expires on June 30, 2004, so it's just a little over two years before this imposed agreement expires. There will be other changes happening in the education system.

The Minister of Education announced in the fall that she was going to bring in a new funding formula for education. There will be a change in the roles of school boards as per the community charter that the government is introducing and, I expect, passing. There are two years left in this collective agreement. The minister himself has put a commission on the table to examine not the entire education system but one portion of the bargaining sector of the education system. All we're trying to do is find out the time line.

Can the minister assure us that even though it is at his discretion, he is committed to a commission and that the time lines of the commission and the reporting out will be completed by the beginning of the next round of bargaining?

Hon. G. Bruce: For the best efforts of this minister, that would be my intent. I would like to get this underway. There is due time.

You both have mentioned the issue of emotions that run high in a situation like this. Obviously sitting down tomorrow probably wouldn't be the most appropriate thing to do. It's a difficult thing to do. I certainly am committed to getting on with this but in a way that the parties can mutually arrange to come to an agreement on how we want to make those changes so that we do get negotiated settlements. That's what section 5 of this bill speaks to.

J. Kwan: Will the recommendations from the commission be binding, or will they be legislated?

Hon. G. Bruce: That would be up to the Minister of Labour as to what proceeds from there. The point here is that we're trying to involve the parties so that we can get negotiated settlements. No, it may very well not be. Life changes; I don't have a problem with that, but the fact of the matter here is that we're….

Hon. G. Bruce: That's not what I said. What I said was that the fact here is that we have this section here — section 5. It's not something to be incredulous about; you can read the number of times here that you haven't reached negotiated settlements over the course of the last ten years. It's obvious to all that the processes in place need to have review, and that's what we're intending to do. We need to do it with the parties so that we can get negotiated settlements. That's what section 5 speaks to.

J. Kwan: What we're looking for here is very simple: certainty and stability in the system. The minister is introducing a commission that will look at the new structure. We're asking a very simple question: will the commission's findings and recommendations be binding or not? Right now I'm asking you, as Minister of Labour, about your perspective. Is it your intention that the recommendations from the commission be binding, or will they be legislated? What is your intention?

Hon. G. Bruce: My intention is very simple: I would really like to find a way that the parties could negotiate a settlement. After ten years, we have not been able to do that. Section 5 speaks to that, and it speaks to there being a report to the minister after the parties have gone through this process, however we develop it.

There is latitude. Absolutely, there is latitude in this, because we're trying to find a way to bring people together. Section 5 speaks to the need for a new process in how we can try and find negotiated settlements in this sector.

J. MacPhail: The minister can rest assured that we're also trying to bring some certainty to the education system. I don't think today will go down as a day in history where certainty and stability in our education system were enhanced.

One of the reasons why we're trying to find out how this commission is working is because of the fairly

interesting subsection 5(3), where it says: "The commission may not recommend the expiry or extinguishment of the collective agreement constituted under this Act before the expiry date set out in that collective agreement."

That means that on June 30, 2004, all bets are off. The commission can do whatever it wants after that period of time.

The minister was unclear about whether June 30, 2004, was his goal. He's unclear whether the recommendations are binding, whether the agreements will be brought to this chamber to be legislated. The commission only applies to half the education system.

Our goal is certainty, and we think the answer to those questions will enhance certainty.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, I think it's important that we understand what section 5(3) says. What we're inferring by this is that the commissioner cannot look at the existing agreement. The existing agreement is the agreement that we are putting in place here today. That can't be looked at.

What we're talking about is the negotiating process and that the commissioner can report back with the parties working out an agreement on how best to go about trying to achieve a new process of being able to reach negotiated settlements in this sector.

J. Kwan: I don't think that in the teaching environment and in the learning environment after today, when this legislation is passed, there's going to be stability and certainty assured by the acts of this government. I don't think that's going to result. After today, I worry very much what the impact of the actions of this government is going to be.

I think the work of the commission is going to actually increase. In the last section, we dealt with the amalgamation question on the issue around Merritt and Princeton, etc. The commission will now likely have to look at this issue as well.

Merritt's daily rate in 1992 was set at $110. It is now at $117 — an increase of $7 or 6 percent in ten years. Now, with the amalgamation scheme, we have increased the numbers of teachers on call that would be paid at the lowest rate in the province, with no hope of an increase for the next three years. That's what this legislation has just done — no real increase for Merritt in 13 years. It will send Princeton back to almost the point Merritt was at 12 years ago. That's the effect.

The commission is going to have its workload increased by having to look into this issue and by having to look at the effects of this act outlined in section 4. The minister could have actually addressed that, but he refused to. The commission now will have its workload increased by having to look at the effect and the impacts of that on the students in Merritt and the students in Princeton when they can't get an on-call teacher into their area because their rates are the lowest.

Not "if," because the school district for Merritt had already spoken with the employers and said that they couldn't get on-call teachers in, because they have the lowest rate in the province. They asked them to increase the rate to $190. This government refused to listen — not only for Merritt but for Princeton as well, now creating two districts with a problem, two communities with a problem.

I suppose the minister had already discussed the matter with the member from Yale-Lillooet, and he's agreed. He's not advocating for his constituents, making sure that his students' learning environment is protected and making sure that there would be teachers on an on-call basis. That's really unfortunate. Now the commission is faced with additional work, and that is a shame.

A copy of the amendment has been tabled with the Clerk, and I would ask the Clerk to pass on a copy to the minister.

J. Kwan: The importance of this amendment is really quite simple. If the government were truly intending to ensure that there would be a set of meaningful bargaining procedures and structures, it would then appoint an independent commission with equal representation from the parties involved and with the agreement of the parties. It would allow for the terms and conditions of the employment, which this very bill is shredding and destroying today with the companion bill, Bill 28, to continue through the term of the next agreement. It would allow for various parties to examine the issues in a period of relative calm instead of an environment of confusion and confrontation that these two bills — misguided bills — promise for the education system of British Columbia.

Therefore, I think it is a reasonable amendment to ensure that we begin to foster cooperation in the bargaining structure and in bargaining procedures with a simple step: that the commission being brought in be one that is completely independent, one that all of the parties agree to and that all of the parties would not have disputes about. It is a simple task for this government to achieve — to begin the steps of fostering and rebuilding an environment that is positive and cooperative and to send a strong signal to all of the parties that that is the intent of this government.

Hon. G. Bruce: My goal has been very clear here on what section 5 is all about. As I have mentioned in regards to the whole issue of the negotiating structure in this sector, there has not been success. I've put in a section here under section 5 — a process of how we think we can go about achieving it. This government will not be supporting the amendment that the member has

proposed. I believe that what we have before us in section 5 will do the job that we're attempting to do.

J. Kwan: I'd like to now move another amendment by adding a section to the bill, to section 5(2). I would like to move an amendment to section 5(2) to add the following subsection:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I ask the Clerk to please give a copy to the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: With respect, I don't believe this amendment is required. As I've mentioned, we've been very clear in what we're attempting to do under section 5. The government will be voting against this amendment.

J. Kwan: Actually, the amendment has been tabled simply to ensure that the practice and procedure of the collective bargaining process between the employer and the BCTF would be one that this government would encourage as a free bargaining process, one that the chosen representatives of the teachers and associated professionals would freely engage in. As the minister identified, it's not contrary to his bill, and this simply makes it clear with respect to this issue. I think it goes to add the assurance, again, that many of the sections in this legislation that we have already identified are lacking clarity. It simply puts the assurance in place for the comfort of all the parties.

J. Kwan: Section 6 is the application of the Labour Relations Code. The intent of this section is that if the Labour Relations Code conflicts or is inconsistent with this act, this act shall prevail. Is that correct?

J. Kwan: What aspects of the Labour Relations Code does the minister anticipate would conflict with this act?

Hon. G. Bruce: This section is a common clause found in situations like this. It's for purposes of clarity; that's why it's there.

J. Kwan: Can I take it that from the minister's point of view, in cases where the Labour Relations Code conflicts in a free collective bargaining process, where this shall prevail, that this act will override the free collective bargaining process?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, to be clear, what we're doing here is that section 6 just makes provision…. As in other situations like this, which I know the members opposite have also found themselves in, this type of section is found so that there's clarity as to which act prevails.

J. Kwan: This section here — section 1 of the schedule — article A.1, "Term, Continuation and Renegotiation…." I actually have an amendment for paragraph 1. I would like to move an amendment to schedule paragraph 1, that schedule paragraph 1 is amended by deleting "2004" and replacing it with "2003," to read:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I would ask the Clerk to please give a copy to the Minister of Labour.

Hon. G. Bruce: Point of order. Under section 2(1)(i), would we not have already dealt with this schedule?

Hon. G. Bruce: Could the Chair just check, for my guidance, please? Under section 2(1)(i), which we've already passed, would we not have already dealt with the schedule? For clarity, please, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Our understanding is that section 2(1)(i) deletes one schedule, and now you're adding a new schedule.

Hon. G. Bruce: I certainly take your guidance. I just thought that by the provision of section 2(1)(i) and having passed that, this in effect would already happen. I take your direction.

J. Kwan: It is a simple amendment. It simply changes the date to advance it one year, from 2004 to 2003, to allow for a shorter term in the period that it applies to now. It is a simple amendment.

We have to keep in mind that the legislation we're faced with today is being imposed on the teachers and on the employers. My suggestion is that we shorten that period by one year by changing the date, therefore allowing for the free collective bargaining process to resume at an earlier stage.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, thank you very much. As I understand it, the suggestion of this would be to reduce the collective agreement by one year. That is not the purpose of what this act is all about, so we will not accept the amendment.

J. Kwan: I'd like to move an amendment for paragraph 2 of the schedule, that the schedule, paragraph 2, is amended by deleting "2004" and replacing it with "2003," to read:

A copy of this amendment is tabled to the Clerk, and I ask the Clerk to please give a copy to the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: Further to the previous amendment, this amendment will not be supported by the government. We would be opposed to this.

J. Kwan: On paragraph 5, I'd like to table an amendment. The amendment is by adding the following subsections:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I ask that a copy please be given to the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: In respect to the members opposite for their amendment under consideration, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

This amendment, I think, speaks to certainty and stability once again. If the parties do not come to an agreement on a matter that is important on the question of timing for implementation, then simply refer the dispute to an independent arbitrator that both sides agree to. The matter then could be resolved in an amicable way, in a cooperative kind of way, with an independent arbitrator looking at the issue, so as not to further poison the environment that has already been poisoned by this government with the imposition of Bill 27; so that you can start to foster an environment that speaks to cooperation as opposed to confrontation; so that you can foster the approach where both the teachers and the employers will feel there is a level of independence to the disputes for resolution; and so that they do not always think the intent of the government is simply to bring down the gauntlet, the big hammer, and to just hammer the employers or the teachers — especially the teachers.

It's not an unreasonable request — and not an unreasonable amendment — that if the parties don't come to an agreement, it go to another source of independence, the director of the collective agreement arbitration bureau, for them to appoint an arbitrator so that there is no tainting of the process by bias by government or anybody else. That is the intent of this amendment. The intent is, hopefully, to begin to foster a process and an environment that would be positive for the learners and the educators in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 27, Education Services Collective Agreement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

	YEAS — 73
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Weisbeck	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: I move the House stand recessed until 4:20 p.m. When we come back we will begin committee stage on Bill 28.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I heard the House Leader say we had to proceed. It seems incredible, given the enormity of this action and the fact that we're under unusual circumstances, that the House Leader is ramming this legislation through, but nevertheless he is.

J. MacPhail: Of course, he continues to bully as he does it. My gosh, the arrogance of the House Leader, threatening to take away our mealtime. Well, you know what? Education and teachers' rights are far more important than this House Leader will….

Hon. G. Collins: We're trying to move the legislation through the House, trying to accommodate the members of the opposition — something they never did when they were in government. Hopefully, we can proceed with the sections of the bill and have a debate on the legislation and not on how the member opposite is feeling today.

J. MacPhail: In the entire ten years that we were in government, we never had as many emergency sessions as this government has had in eight months, so don't in any way try to compare the draconian emergency autocracy of this government with any previous government.

The Chair: Please be seated, member. The fact of the matter is that we had a break until 4:20 p.m., and the bells went. You have ample warning. Now, please proceed.

Could the Minister of Labour please tell why the inclusion of "institution" as defined is here and what consultation went into the inclusion of such a definition?

Hon. G. Bruce: "Institution" is defined as meaning the public colleges, university colleges and provincial institutes as they are established under the College and Institute Act, the Open Learning Agency and the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand; I can read as well. I'm asking what consultation went on in order to arrive at the inclusion of that list under the definition of institution. The application of the bill flows from that definition. I'm just curious to know, in an open and accountable government, what consultation went on to include those institutions in the definition of institution.

Hon. G. Bruce: The thrust of this government — let's be clear from the start — has, of course, been to put students first. Through the course of the seven and

a half months, we've been working away at an attempt to do just that: put students first. In this particular instance here, as it applies to this act, the changes we are looking at are trying to find a way that there can be greater flexibility and choice for the students so that those institutions can be run in a manner that can facilitate that type of choice and flexibility for students. That's what this does.

J. MacPhail: You know, it may have been that, more than I needed a break, because these are legitimate questions. We don't need to just have the rhetoric repeated. There are thousands of people out there shocked that their institutions and the place at which they work are covered in this legislation — shocked. All they're asking for are answers. That's why I've started here.

This debate, contrary to what the Government House Leader wishes to do to ram through, may add peace out there, may actually bring some stability. Please try to give some answers that will bring stability out there.

What led to the conclusion, what consultation occurred, to include people covered by the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act and the Open Learning Agency in this legislation? Where did those discussions occur? When did those discussions occur? Among whom did those discussions occur?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think that if we truly want calm and we truly are trying to make things better, we should try and keep the tone to that effect. I'll do my best. I know that both of you in opposition will do as well.

Our view is that we need to make some changes. We are working and have worked for quite some time through a core review process. We've been working at how government will be delivered differently in this province now. Part of all of that has revolved around this.

Most importantly, as we were dealing with education — in this instance, post-secondary education — we were looking at ways to be able to offer greater flexibility and choice for the students. That, in fact, is what this does. The institutions we're talking about in this instance are found and covered by different agreements that preclude that from occurring. What we're doing here is making the changes so that flexibility can occur and, by doing so, allowing greater choice and flexibility for the students. That's what we're talking about here.

J. MacPhail: It helps when answers are given to bring about calm and stability. The minister has not answered my question. If the minister can't answer the question, that's legitimate too. That might be a better face-saver for the government, and I mean that seriously.

Who knew that you were going to include their institutions in this wide-ranging legislation that changes the terms and conditions of people who educate students? Who knew? Who did you talk to, when did you talk to them, and about what did you talk to them?

Hon. G. Bruce: This has been done to facilitate the changes necessary to allow for the flexibility within the institutions, so they can provide greater choice, greater operational opportunity for students to be able to take advantage of different times during the course of the year to be able to gain the college courses they need. As we've worked through government, part of our core review process is that we are making and coming through with those recommendations that are necessary.

This is a government initiative. We're undertaking this. We believe this needs to be done so that we can make our institutions more flexible for student choice, more accessible for students. There's nothing untoward in it. That's what we're doing. It's a government initiative.

J. Kwan: These questions are general questions, which is why I'm asking them under the definition part, particularly as they relate to "institution." Can the minister explain, in general, what problems the college and institute labour adjustment section is addressing?

Hon. G. Bruce: Specifically, what are you referring to there? I missed that first part. I apologize.

J. Kwan: I am asking these questions, which are just general questions that I'll be asking, on the definition part of it. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had led off with these questions. They centre around the notion of why "institution," which is defined to mean college, university college, provincial institute or other institute established under the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act or the Open Learning Agency Act…. Under the institution's definition it includes the many, many agencies in the post-secondary education sector. I would like the minister to explain to this House, in general, what problems the college and institute labour adjustment section is addressing.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's almost a discussion of second reading, but I'll be clear on this. What we're attempting to do is allow greater flexibility and choice for students throughout the province at those institutes and colleges that are run very well. We're trying to allow them the opportunity to run their institutions in such a manner that can allow for the greatest accessibility by the students here in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The questions I'm asking are not second reading questions. The question I'm asking the minister goes to explain why institutions are being defined in this legislation. Why are the institutions of college, university college, provincial institute and other institutes established under the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act and the Open Learning

Hon. G. Bruce: As was mentioned, these institutions and colleges, as they're listed here, are where we are trying to provide greater flexibility and more choice for our students in British Columbia. That's what this portion of the act deals with. That's what this definition is about, and that's why it's included.

J. Kwan: What organizations has the minister consulted with in identifying problems? It appears to me that no problems have been identified to the minister, but in his own head it seems he's identified problems. What organizations did the minister consult with in coming up with this legislation, in identifying that there is a need to address changes for the college, university college, provincial institute or other institute?

Hon. G. Bruce: We said that we would make education a number one priority of this government and that we would do the very best we could to make sure that there was accessibility and choice for as many students in as many different areas of the province as we possibly could. What we're doing here, as part of that promise that we put through during the election, is fulfilling that by providing that flexibility and choice. It's nothing untoward; it's very clear. We have good institutions around the province, and we want to make them as accessible as we can so that we can put the students in this province first and give them the opportunity to get through a post-secondary educational institution.

J. Kwan: The question to the minister is: what organizations did the minister consult with? Did he consult with any organizations with respect to the problems that exist, that the minister has identified in his own head, that have not been identified by any of the institutions and only exist in the minister's head? What organizations did the minister consult with, if any?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a government initiative. I've said that. This is clearly a government initiative. We believe, contrary to what others may — and that's fine; that's how the whole process works — that there should be as much choice and flexibility for the students in this province to be able to receive a post-secondary education. We have a number of institutions — good institutions — from one end of this province to another, and we have students looking to get into those institutions. Common sense would dictate that you want to have as much flexibility and choice as you can so that those students can get into those institutions.

This is that initiative. We're bringing this through. We talked about it; we've been talking about it for a great length of time. We've had this before, through the core review process, as part of the ministry — the changes we're making to government. There's nothing hidden here; this is straightforward. We said there would be changes; we're bringing forward these changes. They're necessary for the flexibility and for the choice of students in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The minister clearly misses the point of the question. Maybe he doesn't understand the notion of consultation, what consultation means. Maybe he doesn't understand — in his New Era document that talks about an open and accountable government — that they would actually consult.

My question to the minister is actually quite simple. Did he consult with any organizations? Yes? No? If so, which ones?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll try it again. This is a government initiative that we're bringing forward. You have institutions in this province. We as a government said very clearly that we were going to put the students of this province first. We're going to give them as much opportunity and flexibility to get an education as we can. Everybody in this province speaks about the need for more class accessibility, for greater flexibility, and that's in fact what we're doing here, from one end of the province to the other, as it applies to the institutions and the colleges that we've mentioned here by definition. This will allow students much greater choice.

What, I wonder, could be so confusing, and what could be so alarming to the member of the opposition about simply finding ways to be able to take the institutions that we have — good institutions — and make them more available to the students that we have, knowing that we have students that want to get into those institutions?

J. Kwan: It is clear that the minister did not actually consult anybody, did not consult any organization with respect to these problems that exist in his head in relation to this legislation.

It is clear that this government, in their New Era document where they talk about openness, accountability and consultation, doesn't even know the meaning of consultation, because they did none of it — none of it. They went to include institutions in this act, in this legislation, in a very expansive way. The legislation will make major structural changes to the various colleges, university colleges, provincial institutes or other institutes that are established under the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act or the Open Learning Agency Act. That is the new-era definition with respect to consultation: zero consultation. That is how this Liberal government defines accountability and openness.

It's clear from this minister's answer to a simple question on what organizations the minister has consulted with in identifying these problems, which exist in his head only, that the answer is none — no consultation whatsoever.

Did the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Advanced Education contact any of the unions covered by the proposed legislation regarding the issues and prob-

lems that exist in the minister's head and that the minister is trying to address through this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think therein lies the problem. I appreciate that your question is: "Did we consult the unions?" We are talking about putting education as a high priority. We are talking about putting students first. We are talking about giving them the greatest opportunity and flexibility that they may have to get a college degree or to have access to educational facilities from one end of the province to the other. You know, you don't go and consult the unions about that.

The fact of the matter is that it's very clear we have good institutions from one end of this province to the other, and we want to allow for the flexibility that we can have for our students to be able to go to school, to be able to get a degree. This isn't anything that's confusing or untoward. Facilities — good facilities…. I'm sure the members opposite would agree that we have good institutions. What we want in this respect, in our colleges and the like, is to be able to grant the greatest opportunity for our students to be able to get into those colleges and those institutions. That's what this government initiative is all about.

It's not a question that, when you're developing this, you would go to the unions to ask — whether or not they agree with this. Heavens to goodness, that's not what this is all about. This isn't running the colleges and the institutions on the basis of the unions. I mean, I don't know whether that's how things were run in the past; perhaps it was. I don't know. It would seem that it may have been, but quite frankly, this government's not going down that road. We believe it's important that we represent all of the people all of the time, to the best of our ability — not one sector.

We said as a party becoming government that we would put students first, that we would make sure our educational facilities were there and open as best they could be to create the greatest amount of flexibility and choice for our students. Now, the member mentions did we stand up and go. Did we consult with the unions first about this? Heavens to goodness, as we said, this is an initiative to put students first and to give them the opportunity to go to college and university and the institutions here throughout the province where they can, with the greatest of ease and quickness, be able to get that degree, to keep the cost down for them as well.

There's nothing untoward here. It's very clear what we're talking about, where we wish to go, what we want to do. We've pointed that out. We've had that policy discussion. We had the second reading debate, and now we are here at third reading. That's where we're going in this respect.

J. Kwan: The minister exercises selective listening — and selective memory, too, I may add. My question earlier to the minister was: who did he consult? Any organizations? Any of the institutes? Any of the colleges or university colleges that are impacted by this legislation? Then I asked the question: if he didn't consult with any of those organizations, did he consult with any of the unions?

The fact of the matter is that in this government, neither the Minister of Advanced Education nor the Minister of Labour did any consultation whatsoever — zero consultation with the people who would be affected by this legislation. For a government that campaigned on openness, on accountability, on consultation, they bring in major changes impacting our post-secondary education system, and they don't bother to go and talk to anybody. They don't. They don't bother going out to talk to the organizations, the unions, the students or anybody — nobody. This is how they define openness. That's how they define accountability.

I ask this question because I'm trying to identify how the minister had arrived at these problems. Was it pointed out to him by a college, by a university college, by a student? Of course, he didn't consult with anybody. He didn't ask anybody, so I can only assume that these problems exist only in the minister's imagination, because he didn't bother to go and talk to anybody.

Why wouldn't he? Certainly, if you really wanted to address our institutions in the post-secondary education sector to try and find out what problems exist there, you would actually take the effort and the time to go and consult with organizations, with the students, with the unions. But no, not this minister, not this government. They don't need to consult, because that's how they define consultation and openness in the new government: don't talk to anybody except themselves. That's how they define it.

Does the minister know what workload variations employers proposed in the spring of 2001 for that round of bargaining for Capilano College, Malaspina University College, Selkirk College, University College of the Cariboo, College of New Caledonia, College of the Rockies, Douglas College, Kwantlen University College, Camosun College, Langara College, North Island College and Vancouver Community College?

Hon. G. Bruce: Surely the members opposite would think it would be good that we would try and get our facilities open and allow for as much choice and flexibility for the students in this province to be able to go to post-secondary education. Surely, as a point of principle, you would stand and say: "Well, that's good." It would seem to me that you would think that's a good idea.

That's in fact what we're doing here. I hope I'm not taking from your questions — although it sounds that way — that you don't think it's a good idea. I mean, that's what we're doing: we're allowing for our institutions, our colleges, our post-secondary institutions, as we've mentioned here, to be able to offer courses during the course of the year — greater flexibility, choice for the students, opportunity for more students to get through those systems, to get degrees, to go to college. Surely you don't think that's a bad idea.

J. Kwan: I asked the question around workload variations for the employers proposed in the spring

2001 round of bargaining, because I want to know if the minister actually knows whether or not there are variations and, if so, what variations. If he's asserting that there's a question around access and flexibility and choice and all of those things, what kinds of problems were identified? Is workload variation part of the problem? That's why I asked the question.

Can he just simply get up and answer the question? Let's just begin with one college — the workload variations employers proposed in the spring 2001 round of bargaining for Capilano.

The Chair: We are still on section 1, and I just remind the member to stay relative to the section.

J. Kwan: It is relevant to section 1, under the definition of institution. Under the definition of institution, it includes: college, university college, a provincial institute or other institute established under the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act and the Open Learning Agency Act. It includes all of these agencies.

I am asking the question: in this definition, how come all of these agencies are involved and included? What process did the minister go through in including them in this legislation — not only just around the process on consultation but information, knowledge, that he might have received somewhere, I hope, that indicated to him that there were potentially some issues, some problems? I'm asking the question around workload variations on the employers' side, if there were any discussions around that — any of the issues.

It's a simple question, and it goes to the minister's notion of choice and accessibility. It goes right to that. In fact, one of the best ways to improve student access is to make sure that there are enough facilities to provide programs and services for the students. I'm wondering if the minister can explain why his government has chosen to force students into distance education and larger classes or to be taught by a less qualified support person instead of building the new facilities that are now just frozen. In fact, in Prince Rupert, the hole in the ground that's supposed to be a post-secondary education institution is now just a hole in the ground.

Hon. G. Bruce: The situation is that we wish to provide greater flexibility and more choice for students to be able to go to college, to go to the public institutions throughout the province. We want to be able to provide that in a year-round way. We'd like to be able to provide that so if the institution or the college needs to run from a Monday to a Saturday, it can. If it wishes to run a 12-month, full semester-type program and it's useful for the students, it can. That is, in fact, what this whole bill is about. That's what we're talking about.

If we want to move pass past section 1 and get to other points, that's fine. What we're looking for is more choice for the students and more opportunity for those students to be able to get a degree, to get an education in post-secondary in and around the communities where they live, perhaps — to make it a little easier for them. We want to make sure those institutions and facilities are running in the fullest way possible and that we're not denying accessibility to students.

The changes we are making in this particular bill will do that. It will allow those institutions to run that way so that we can put students first and allow the greatest amount of choice and flexibility.

J. MacPhail: The minister is constantly, I think, seeking information from us about why these questions are being raised, particularly now.

Just to back up a moment. We asked what consultation had been done. We asked why the definition included institutions on such a broad basis. The minister has replied: "It's about choice and flexibility."

The line of questioning now, just so the minister is clear, is to try to pursue the logic within government. Consultation hasn't occurred outside government, so we're trying to pursue the logic within government that reached the conclusion that institutions such as are defined here needed to have flexibility imposed on them by breaking contracts. The line of questioning is appropriate, because it goes to the heart of the bill. The surprise that these institutions were included…. The line of questioning is merely to find out the logic within government. We now have it clear that you didn't do any consultation outside of government.

Did you have this information available to you when you made the decision to impose this legislation on institutions? Just to clarify for the minister, that's why the detailed information is being sought from the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: I didn't quite hear you, and I think the member was meaning a different agency.

J. Kwan: I think I said CSSEA earlier. My apologies. I mean CIEA. It is my understanding that CIEA has done a survey of the bargainers and found that none of the colleges, in terms of Capilano College, Malaspina University College, Selkirk College, University College of the Cariboo, College of New Caledonia, College of the Rockies, Douglas College, Kwantlen University College, Camosun College, Langara College, North Island College, Vancouver Community College — which, of course, is not an exhaustive list…. In none of the colleges and university colleges that I've listed did the employers table language to change class size or student numbers at all — ever. I wonder why, in this definition of institution later on in section 2, around the

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a public policy initiative by the government. We are doing this because we said we would put students first. That's what we are doing. We are putting students first. These institutions have been listed because we believe that through these changes we're bringing in…. The changes this act brings forward will allow greater flexibility and greater choice for our students throughout the province of British Columbia.

We said as a government that we would put the students of British Columbia first, and we are following through with that commitment with some of the changes we're making here today.

J. Kwan: In this new era under the Liberal government, the government actually knows better than the employers in terms of what their needs are. They know better than the employers who are actually out in the field doing their work. They know better than what the employers know. They can decide they don't need to talk to the employers about what problems, if any, exist, how to overcome these problems, and what solutions should be in place. The Liberal government knows in the new era — without consultation, without openness, without accountability — that they can just go out and determine with their own arrogance that they know what is best. Is that the approach this government adopts?

Hon. G. Bruce: This isn't arrogant. This isn't about the employers. This isn't about the unions. This is about students.

Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's about students. It's a situation where we have some very fine institutions throughout this province that have been built over the course of years. We have students who would like to go to these institutions. What we said right through the election campaign, which was met with lots of interest and support, was that we would put students first, and they want students first. The students want to be able to have as much flexibility as possible. This is a public policy initiative by government.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm saying that. It's a public policy initiative by government that we want to make our institutions available with the greatest flexibility we can, to allow as much choice and as much accessibility to the students of this province. There are students in our province who would like to get degrees, who would like to go through to the post-secondary school system, and we want to open it up so they can do that. We want to make sure they have that opportunity.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that this government did not bother to go out and consult with the employers who were out in the field. They did not bother talking to the educators who were out in the field. This government did not bother to go and talk to the students out in the field. They determined in their own minds, with zero consultation, that they have identified problems they wish to address through this legislation. There was no information, it appears, that the minister had received to indicate that there were issues around class size or student numbers, but this minister knows best.

I fail to understand how the issue of workload can be so pressing that the government has to break contracts to fix it, then expedite that process through extensive debate in one weekend, without inviting the public to look at the legislation that's being tabled and invite their feedback. It doesn't make any sense.

The definition is so expansive and includes so many institutions, colleges, university colleges, etc., that it forces one to wonder why the government did this, when the employer didn't say there was a problem. Nobody said there was a problem. It's just simply been created in the minister's own head that there are problems somehow.

Perhaps the problem that has been created in the minister's own head is not one to do with education and is actually one to do with the education budget freeze that has been imposed by the Liberal government. I fail to see how the education budget freeze would actually help students get access to post-secondary education, not just on the operating side but also on the capital side — the freeze on the capital side, where at a number of colleges, university colleges and institutions, planned capital work has been cancelled. I'll go through some of those when we get to section 2, when we talk about class size issues.

On the question around definitions, I just want to make sure, in the definition of "class," which this act states means a set of students to whom a faculty member delivers a course or unit of curriculum or instruction, that when we move to the K-to-12 area around special needs and class size and so on as it relates to the K-to-12 system, I would have an opportunity to canvass freely the issues that come up under class size — or else I can do it now, under the definition. I can wait until we go to section 2, when we talk about class size and do it then.

The Chair: Member, I believe we're dealing with colleges and institutes, so if you could keep your comments to that, the colleges and institutes, rather than K-to-12….

J. Kwan: I just want to make sure — in section 2 it talks about class size, as well, and the definition of class — that I could actually wait until we deal with section 2 to talk about issues related to class. Some of it may tie into the definition of class, and I want to make sure I don't miss that opportunity.

J. Kwan: Section 2 touches on a number of things: class size, the number of students who may be enrolled or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, term or academic year. Then there are different sections that talk about the assigned faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning, the hours of operation, the number and duration of terms or semesters, etc. I have a number of questions in this area, and then I also have some amendments.

First, the question around class size, which I think goes to the quality of education for the student and to the question of access as well. As I mentioned earlier, one of the best ways to improve student access is to make sure there are enough facilities to provide for the programs, spaces for the students and services for the students. Why has the minister chosen to increase class size as opposed to building more facilities to provide for access for the students, especially when you factor in the notion of quality, the quality of education for the students?

Hon. G. Bruce: We have a number of very good facilities through the province of British Columbia. Those facilities have cost taxpayers a substantial amount of money, and I thinks it's incumbent upon us to make sure we're getting the best use of those facilities. By also allowing for that best use of those facilities, where we've said we want to put students first, we create more flexibility and more choice. We allow for a longer year and more flexibility for the students to be able to achieve their degree or the class they were looking to get through the course of the year. That is, in fact, what we're doing here.

J. Kwan: By the minister's own admission, the issue around quality education and access to education for students is not determined by this government on the premise of what is best for the students but rather by the bottom line. Education in British Columbia under the new-era government is now going to be determined by the bottom line.

It doesn't matter whether or not Kwantlen University College, a technical campus for Cloverdale, was iced. That campus was to house 4,500 students in the very types of programs, trades and technical, that already faced skills shortages. Can the minister tell me what cost-benefit analysis has been done to demonstrate that Bill 28 is a better approach than building the new Cloverdale campus?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm going to try this again. We have good institutions around the province, and the member opposite has named them. We have a number of students that would like to get into those institutions. By a matter of public policy, government has said we're going to look at those institutions and see how it is that we can improve the situation for greater flexibility and more choice for students.

That's what this government is about. That's what this section talks about. It's to allow for greater choice, more flexibility and more accessibility for the students of British Columbia to receive an education.

J. Kwan: Under the previous administration, I think there were 5,200 new spaces added to the colleges, university colleges and institutions in British Columbia to enhance class size, because it was a priority. It was a priority for government to make sure that students would actually get the facilities in their own communities across British Columbia so that more students could get access to post-secondary education.

It was a priority that the previous government had established, actually, for catching up for the number of years of the administration before, which had lapsed in making sure that students in British Columbia would have the advantage of access to post-secondary education.

At Douglas College, a planned expansion to accommodate 330 more student spaces was cancelled. The college is currently at full capacity, with waiting lists for many university transfer courses. Bigger class sizes are not the option. University College of the Cariboo had planned a Williams Lake campus replacement. That, too, was cancelled.

University College of the Fraser Valley had a planned Chilliwack classroom replacement cancelled. Northern Lights College in Dawson Creek had a planned classroom building. That, too, was cancelled. Prince Rupert, where we have the famous hole in the ground, as I mentioned earlier, saw the cancellation of construction on a new campus of Northwest Community College — cancelled.

I fail to see how, in the name of facilitating access and choice and keeping in mind the notion of quality education for students, the cancellation of these capital projects advances the learning outcomes for students. In the meantime, class sizes for students are increased, so the quality of education for students is just being compromised.

All of that is driven, I would argue, not by the intent of making sure that it is in the best interests of the students but rather that it is in the best interests of the big corporations, the wealthiest British Columbians. They got the biggest tax breaks. Their big tax breaks are being paid for by the students through increased class sizes, instead of making sure that new facilities and services are brought to the table and built in their own communities so that students can access these services. Class size, the number of students, is critical to the quality of education for students. The minister seems to have lost sight of that in this new era under the Liberals.

Can the minister explain how part 1, section (2)(b), which allows institutions to "assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning," fits with

the research and recommendations of the joint employer-union committee known as the joint education technology committee that was established under the 1998 common agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just a small comment here. I listen to the member opposite talk about a number of these different projects that have been deferred. They have been deferred; it's a matter of public record. Of course, I know you hate to hear this: they've been deferred by the mess you left this province in — $500 million.

J. MacPhail: No one out there believes you on that one. Did you call Prince Rupert to see whether they believe you on that one? Did you talk to the people in Prince Rupert yesterday who were rallying against you?

Hon. G. Bruce: Five hundred million dollars was blown on fast ferries, and $70 million was blown on a convention centre that you had no business plan for and no idea how to get here. You put this province into wrack and ruin, and you have — with respect — the audacity to stand here and question why some of these things have been deferred. You can list them all you like. Carry on listing them, if you will, because they've been deferred because of the financial mess, the recklessness of you as a government in how you left this province. That's why.

We've been faced with some difficult, difficult decisions to make in how we move ahead. We made a commitment that we would put the students of the province first, and that's what we're doing. We're taking the institutions that are there, that are run well — all of them. You ask about the width and the breadth and how come there are so many listed here. The reason they're all listed here is because they're good educational facilities, and we want them to be open and accessible to the students of British Columbia.

There's nothing untoward. No, we didn't go out there and say: "Is this okay with you, employer? Is this okay with you, union?" This simply is a question of a government initiative. It's public policy. It's what we're about in putting students first: to be able to give them the flexibility and choice so that they can get an education.

The audacity, for you to raise and talk about these other issues, when you took this province single-handedly and blew it right out of the docks(. We're going to turn it around, piece by piece, and this is one piece. We're going to make sure that our students get a first-class education in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Making sure there is access is to make sure that facilities are built in those communities and the services needed by those students are provided, with the additional spaces — not with a hole in the ground where construction had already started and then was cancelled so that students wouldn't be able to go to the new college. If they went to it, they would just see one big puddle. I guess it would be a frozen puddle now, because it's pretty cold over there.

That would be the approach to increasing access — not freezing the capital projects, but actually going ahead with them and then keeping your promise, by the way, that you were going to keep education as your number one priority. You were going to protect it.

How does this protect education, when class sizes are being increased, the number of students enrolled in the class is going to increase, and the planned facilities that had been budgeted for — even a facility that's under construction — are not going to proceed? It's just going to be one big hole in Prince Rupert so that the students who need the services and the programs won't actually have a classroom to go to but will just look into the puddle in the ground and feel somehow that this new-era government is providing access and choice. I guess that choice and access, in the new government's definition, does not include the quality of education for students in relation to class size.

I asked the minister the question to explain how part 1(2)(b), which allows institutions to assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning, fits with the research and recommendations of the joint employer-union committee known as the joint education technology committee that was established under the 1998 common agreement.

Hon. G. Bruce: We're allowing the decision in respect to distance learning with the institution. Again, it's a situation there where we're trying to allow for the greatest flexibility and the best choice for the students in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know what the recommendations of the joint employer-union committee are?

J. Kwan: I didn't get an answer from the minister. I asked a simple question about the recommendations that were tabled by the joint education technology committee that was established under the 1998 common agreement. Does the minister know what those recommendations are?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just to be clear: we're allowing for greater flexibility and more choice for the students. It's a hard thing to grasp. We didn't go ask the unions whether they thought it was a good idea or whether it was okay with them. We didn't run off to every single employer group and ask them whether they thought it was a good idea. It's a matter of public policy.

Hon. G. Bruce: You betcha. They said they wanted to have a good public education system in British Columbia. You know, it would be strange in the extreme if people in this province didn't want us to use our facilities in the most efficient possible way so that we could give the most choice and the greatest flexibility to the students in this province. It is amazing that you wouldn't be able to comprehend that idea. Let us have the greatest flexibility and choice for our students so they can receive a good education in British Columbia. That's what this does; that's what we're doing.

J. Kwan: Boy, I hope, in many ways, that people are actually not watching this debate. Of course, unfortunately, they are.

How this new government, the Liberal government, is defining access is by stuffing more students into a classroom, cancelling capital developments that would build more classes and institutions in the respective communities so that the access would actually be enabling the students to get into a classroom that is not crowded — by not jamming more students into it. That's how the new-era government, the Liberal government, describes access — not by way of new facilities, more facilities and more spaces but by way of crowdedness and less instructional time per student. That's how the minister defines access in the new era for education. How sad.

The minister also feels that he doesn't need to consult with anybody. He doesn't. This is the level of arrogance they display. They don't need to talk to anyone. They don't need to consult with anyone, because they have all the answers already — not the employers, the people who are out in the field, not the unions. I know already that this government has a disdain for unions, but one would have thought that for recommendations that had been jointly put together by the different parties, the minister would actually even take the time to look at them. Just consider them; that's all. I'm not necessarily saying that those are the recommendations you want to adopt. Consider them. But even then the minister couldn't be bothered to look at what those recommendations are.

Can the minister identify the most common reasons for faculty members not wanting to be assigned to distributed learning courses?

Hon. G. Bruce: Coming back to the fact of the projects that were deferred and that the member, of course, brought up again, they were deferred because we're getting our fiscal house in order because of the mess you left it in. We've got to be clear on that. You can't spend $500 million on three ferries, find that they don't work, find that you have to tie them up — you can't use them — find that you can't sell them, still faced with a transportation problem yet to be resolved, an absolute boondoggle…. What that $500 million would have done for this province…. You were told as a government not to do it. You had advisers that told you not to do it. As a government you continued to do that. You continued to take the public's money and just blow it away.

Hon. G. Bruce: You just squandered the money. That in itself is bad enough. What's worse about it is what that $500 million could have gone for. That $500 million could have built a whole host of colleges and institutes throughout the province of British Columbia. That $500 million could have built roads, hospitals and other types of facilities throughout British Columbia. It could have employed more people in different facilities in British Columbia. That $500 million that your government, you as a member of that government, squandered has overreaching, long-lasting, negative impacts on the province. We have to work our way out of that $500 million.

Now, if it were only $500 million, then the people of this province might sort of figure, "Okay, let's live our way through," but we know it's not just $500 million.

So we come back to a situation that you created by squandering the public purse. We're left with making some difficult choices. We said we were going to put education first, and we are. We said we were going to give choice and flexibility to our students so that they could get a good university or college degree or good education here in British Columbia. That's what we're doing through this. What we're doing is making sure there aren't restrictions in the way of institutions or colleges being able to deliver that education to the students of the province of British Columbia.

If you think you have to go out and wander around the province and ask people in this province whether, in this situation that we find ourselves in, that would be a good idea, then away you go. Get on your horse, and go ask everybody in the province of British Columbia. We are saying to you — and we have said through our process here, through the campaign, through the process of what we've been working on for the last seven and a half months — that as a public policy initiative, we're going to put those students first, and we're going to give them the opportunity within the institutions that we already have, while we continue to rebuild this province after you virtually destroyed it in the last ten years.

J. Kwan: That is absolute nonsense, and the minister knows it. Didn't he actually notice that today…? It was just today that it was reported that B.C.'s economy, when the last government left, in terms of the rate of

growth was actually at 3.9 percent. Didn't the minister know and talk to the auditor general during the break to get the books to make sure he's clear on what was left in the books? It was actually a surplus, not a deficit.

Perhaps where the money went, as it relates to the class size issue in terms of enhancing choice and access to education…. Wouldn't the raise that cabinet members gave themselves, not in an open cabinet meeting but quietly, through the OIC — of changing the workplace of government, for executive members from Victoria, to their own ridings so that they could actually collect $150 more tax-free money when they do business here in Victoria, when they overnight, and $50 when they don't overnight(? How about putting that money into class size, access and education for British Columbia? Why don't the ministers do that?

The question to the minister was a simple one, and he's unable to answer the question. I simply ask if the minister can identify some of the most common reasons for faculty members not wanting to be assigned to distributed learning courses. Does he know what they are?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to set the record straight in regards to one issue that comes up, which also affects the member opposite: MLAs and cabinet ministers in this Legislature did not receive an increase. Okay, I'll just say that again: MLAs and cabinet ministers in this B.C. Legislature did not receive an increase. There is some confusion in the minds of people, because it was actually in the federal government that there was an increase. This House did not receive an increase.

Secondly, I'm sure the member opposite is interested to know that cabinet ministers are in a situation where they're on virtual performance clauses. Cabinet ministers' paycheques are held back by 20 percent. They have two service plan levels that they have to achieve. If they achieve their targets in their own ministries, then they will receive 10 percent back. And if as a group they are able to achieve what the government is trying to set out….

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm just going to come back to this, because I think it's very important. A cabinet minister's pay is reduced by 20 percent. Ten percent of that pay will be returned, given that the cabinet minister is able to achieve the targets of their ministry, and the other 10 percent comes back if as a government they are able to achieve, as a whole, the targets that were set.

First of all, no MLAs in the province of British Columbia received an increase. No cabinet ministers received an increase. And, in fact, cabinet ministers, if they do not perform individually and then collectively as a cabinet, will also see a reduction.

Now, I know in all of that, somewhere along the line on all of this, there was a question about public policy relative to education and relative to whether students, through what we're doing here, will get a good education. What we're trying to do is to allow for the greatest flexibility possible for students to be able to receive that education, be it through distance learning or in the classroom.

J. Kwan: Actually, you know, the minister wants to deny that, but it's there for all to see in the OIC that came around in, I think, September.

The Chair: Member, please remain relevant to the section. What you're speaking of now has nothing to do with the section. Would you please stay relevant.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I take your guidance. But the minister actually raised the issue.

The Chair: No, member, you did. Now will you proceed, please, with section 2.

J. Kwan: Boy, we're anxious to get through. We have lots of questions — lots of questions — because the act that is before us has huge ramifications for students across British Columbia in a very, very significant way. I'm going to ask these questions one by one — one by one.

I'm going to ask the minister again, then, because he failed to answer the question. Maybe the Chair would direct the minister to answer these questions.

The Chair: Member, I remind you that it is not the direction of the Chair to tell the minister what to answer. It's your responsibility to ask the question. It's not the Chair's responsibility to demand that the minister answer it. So if you'll proceed with your questioning…. Carry on.

J. Kwan: I am just simply making sure, through you, that the minister will answer these questions. I've asked this question two times now. The minister has failed to answer the question, so I'm going to ask it again. Can the minister identify the most common reasons for faculty members not wanting to be assigned to distributed learning courses?

Hon. G. Bruce: I did answer the question, but I'll answer it again. It's a question of public policy. This isn't a question of whether they want to be assigned to distance learning or not. This is a public policy initiative where we said that we're going to create as much flexibility and accessibility for the students of this province to be able to get a degree, to go to university, to go to college, to go to our college institutions. That's

what we're doing here. You've asked the question, and I've given you the answer.

J. Kwan: I didn't ask the question of the minister on whether they want to or they don't want to. I just asked him whether or not he knows what the reasons are. That's the question. Does he? Obviously not. He doesn't know what the reasons are, because he didn't bother talking to anybody. He didn't even bother to ask his staff for the information so that he's informed when he's making these decisions.

That's the point: the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Advanced Education have not bothered to talk to their stakeholders just to get the information — not necessarily to even adopt the information, but just to be informed. The ministers had not bothered to do that, because they don't feel it's important. They don't think it's necessary to get the information.

Maybe the minister can answer this question. Can the minister describe the processes that employers and the unions have agreed to around the use of on-line education?

Hon. G. Bruce: To read this correctly, what we're doing is giving the institutions the ability to manage in what's best for the students. They don't have to go this way, and they don't have to go that way. What we're trying to do is give them as much flexibility as they possibly can have so we can create as much accessibility and choice for the students in this province. What we've done here is allow that to occur. That's what's happening, so they can go back to that institution, they can work these things out, and if there's one way that's better for one institution that's different from another, they've got the opportunity and the flexibility to do that if it best serves the needs of the students.

J. Kwan: It's clear that the minister has not, once again, talked to anybody, looked for the information, asked his staff for the information with respect to the processes the employers and the unions have agreed to around the use of on-line education, because he can't be bothered, in this new, open, accountable government. He can't be bothered to get the information, to review it — if nothing else, just for a backgrounder. The Minister of Labour couldn't be bothered. The Minister of Advanced Education couldn't be bothered.

It's absolutely shocking. I find it very shocking that the minister just thinks he doesn't need to talk to anybody, that he doesn't need to review the work that's been done — the information that already is on file. He couldn't be bothered, because there is no accountability.

Can the minister identify specifically where there have been problems in the duration of terms or semesters and the precise nature of the problems?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, I'm going to try and get this across to the member opposite. This is a situation where we want, as a government initiative, to provide the greatest flexibility and choice. I am repeating myself, but I'm having a hard time getting this understanding through. We want to give that flexibility and choice for our students, and we want to give that flexibility to our institutions and our colleges so they can provide that choice. Some may have some problems; some may not have some problems. Some may have restrictions in their collective agreements that stop them from doing different things like that; others may not.

What we're attempting to do is that where there are things that could have the potential of inhibiting the opportunity for choice and flexibility within our post-secondary educational system, we're taking that away. We're providing — so that our institutions can work to provide — the greatest accessibility and flexibility for the students in British Columbia. It's as simple as that.

J. Kwan: The minister says some may have problems. Well, specifically: who has problems? Where?

Hon. G. Bruce: We've really canvassed this, and I'm happy to go around and around if the member obviously wants to.

Again, I'll just be really clear on this thing. This is a situation where we have institutions, and we are allowing them the flexibility to be able to deliver greater accessibility and more choice to the students of British Columbia. If you'd like to move on to the things that are within this bill(. Mr. Chairman, we're on section 2, and if we'd like to move on through, perhaps there are other questions the member may have.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question. I asked for a sample or a specific problem and where. The minister didn't answer the question; he waxed eloquent about his own ideologies, but he didn't talk about what identified problems there are, specifically, and where they are — not at all.

I suspect that I know why he didn't talk about that: he doesn't have that information. He didn't bother talking to anybody to get that information. Neither did the Minister of Advanced Education. They didn't bother to try and seek those answers. One would have thought that when they're changing the act and they're important pieces in terms of changes, they would have actually taken the time to do that — to identify specifically, just even give one example where those problems may exist and what those problems are.

The minister is unable to do that, because he hasn't done his homework. That's why. This whole exercise is not driven by what's best for students but driven by the bottom line. Never mind the quality of education, how it impacts the students, because that's not the priority of this government.

Can the minister identify specifically where and how allocation of professional development and vacation time has hindered the organization of instruction?

Hon. G. Bruce: I would say that the member there is asking in respect to 2(d). The philosophy behind this — the initiative that we're trying to provide for — is for greater operational time of our facilities. What this particular section, 2(d), does is allow for that.

The member has asked, and I understand, I believe — now that you're on this section here, section 2, and starting to come through it — that there are restrictive class sizes. Sixteen of 22 of our colleges have class size and students-per-instructor restrictions. We are removing that and allowing greater flexibility in that respect, too. That's where we're at in respect to section 2 and section 2(d), as the question was asked.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell us when exactly the provisions restricting student numbers were bargained at, I guess, any number of the colleges or university colleges? Let's just use Douglas College for this question.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is not about bargaining. I appreciate where the member is coming from. We are removing those restrictions where they inhibit the institutions from being able to provide the greatest flexibility and choice for students in British Columbia. That's what we're doing.

J. Kwan: Of course, it's not about bargaining. The legislation is not about bargaining, because these issues weren't identified at the bargaining table. They weren't identified by the employer or the employees.

Of course it's not a bargaining issue, but the minister has chosen that they would break contracts by imposing this legislation, by breaking the contracts even when the issues didn't exist in the bargaining process for either the employee or the employer. Of course it's not a bargaining issue.

Can the minister tell us how many semesters there are now at Douglas College and what steps the employer has taken to change this — in particular, steps that have been blocked by the union contract?

Hon. G. Bruce: What we're doing by this act is saying that collective agreements will not restrict the operation of our schools, of our colleges, of our college universities in a semester process, a 12-month period or in the accessibility of how the days or hours of the week go. We're not hiding that. It's right up front. We said that.

J. Kwan: I didn't hear the minister say how many semesters there are now at Douglas College.

Hon. G. Bruce: You didn't hear the minister say that, because it isn't relevant to this section. What I'm trying to say to you is that that is not on the table anymore in respect of the aspects of a collective agreement. We are putting students first. That will be the first premise of everything we do here. We are putting students first. We want them to have the greatest accessibility to our institutions. There will not be restrictions in the way to hold them from getting a college or institutional degree here in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Actually, it is relevant to this section, because section 2(c) talks about the determination in the hours of operation and the number and duration of the terms or semesters in which instruction is offered to students. How many semesters are now in place for Douglas College, Capilano College, Kwantlen College, Langara College, Vancouver Community College, etc.? It is relevant. Does the minister even know what impact they would have on what is the existing system now?

J. Kwan: So the minister doesn't know right now, in the current system, what the impacts would be. He doesn't know what the current system is.

J. Kwan: It is speaking to the bill, because section 2(c) actually talks about the semesters during which the instruction is offered. It does. For the members who don't understand the relevance, I'll make it clear for them. The minister doesn't know, because the minister hasn't bothered to look at the current system and how it works and then look, perhaps, at where there are problems or talk with people who could identify where those problems may exist and what the solutions might be. Under the new era with this government, they already know the answers. They don't need to talk to anyone. That's the level of arrogance displayed by this government.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to section 2, so that section 2 is amended to read as follows:

A copy of the amendment is here, Mr. Chair. I will table that with you, and I would ask that a copy be given to the minister.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I was under the impression that the Clerk's office actually had duplicate copies, but clearly he doesn't.

J. Kwan: He's gone down to our office to get the extra copies for the minister. The copy that's been given to the minister does not have the piece that has been struck out. The original wording from the legislation itself is the new wording. That is being amended. I'll let the House Leader take a moment to read that as well.

Hon. G. Collins: The amendment that's proposed by the member opposite actually deletes the entire section 2 as it is and puts in another section 2. The way to delete a section under the standing orders is to vote against that section. If the member wants to add another section to the bill, then she can do that at the appropriate time, but this amendment is out of order.

The Chair: Member, do you wish to make any further submissions to this amendment?

The Chair: We haven't decided that, member, but debate can proceed. You can proceed, member.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are going to decide whether or not the amendment is out of order, so we'll continue on with debate while you decide that.

The amendment speaks to making changes, and the key component of the change is to ensure that it allows for renegotiation of the areas around class size, around the assignment of faculty members to distributed learning and the number and duration of semesters issue, etc. It simply ensures that there is the opportunity for renegotiation. I think that is the appropriate approach to take on these matters, especially in light of the fact that no consultation had taken place with the organizations, the unions or anybody, for that matter, that no problems were identified by the organizations or the employer in these areas and that the minister hadn't bothered to look for information from his staff — both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Advanced Education — so that they were informed on the background information and the different opinions and recommendations that people have worked on that exist right now.

That's the purpose of the amendment: to ensure that there's the opportunity for renegotiation.

We've looked at this, and we feel that the amendment is out of order. It actually changes the intent of the bill, so the amendment is not in order.

J. Kwan: I'd just like to ask this question. I'm seeking advice from you, Mr. Chair, because when the amendment was drafted, we sought the advice of the Clerk's office, and we weren't advised that this was out of order. Is it the case, then, that if this section of the bill, section 2, is defeated, I could then table the amendment as a new section?

The Chair: Member, I've said that the amendment you have supplied is not in order. It changes the intent of the bill. The amendment is out of order.

J. Kwan: I'm not going to support this section of the bill. I think it fundamentally violates the principle of access to quality education for students in British Columbia. I don't think the approach to access to education is by increasing class size — by jamming in more students, sort of like sardines into a can, so that they could supposedly get the education — and that this is supposedly the way to facilitate access and flexibility. I don't think that's the right approach.

I think the right approach is to make sure there is a variety of facilities throughout British Columbia, additional spaces throughout British Columbia, so that students could indeed access education not as though they were sardines in a can but as though they were human beings in a classroom.

I'm not going to support this section of the bill, and I'm going to vote against it.

	YEAS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Bray

The Chair: Before we move on to section 3, we'll just give some time for the members to go about their business. A few moments, please.

J. Kwan: Section 3 talks about the dispute resolution piece. I notice that under section 3(1) and 3(2) the dispute resolution procedures that are being adopted here would go through the grievance and arbitration procedure under the collective agreement, whereby the parties would actually be involved and whereby the parties would have an opportunity to jointly agree to the arbitrator to come in for a dispute.

I know this is different from the previous bill that we dealt with, Bill 27. In my own view, this is the right approach. I wonder if the minister can explain why he chose to utilize this approach in this dispute resolution for Bill 28, as opposed to the other approach, which was, in my view, the wrong approach — that is, just for the minister to adopt an arbitrator without going through the grievance and arbitration procedure under the collective agreement for Bill 27.

Hon. G. Bruce: In one instance, you are implementing a settlement, which is that you're imposing a settlement, as was the case in the other bill. In this one, there's a collective agreement process there, and the grievance process works in that flow.

J. Kwan: The process here is such that the government is introducing legislation to break contracts — breaking contracts for the college, university college, institute sector. In any event, I'm pleased that the government has adopted the right approach, and that is using the grievance and arbitration procedures under the collective agreement. I will support section 3.

J. Kwan: Section 4 in this legislation talks about the application. Particularly, I have an amendment to make for section 4(2), which I'm tabling. I think the Clerk's office has a copy already.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I have asked that the Clerk please give a copy of the amendment to the minister. He's got it — great. Thank you.

The amendment is a simple one that makes a slight change by adding the words "previously negotiated" so that a provision in a collective agreement that has been entered into, previously negotiated, before the coming into force of this section of this new act "…that is inconsistent with or that limits, restricts or interferes with an institution's exercise of its rights established in this Part is void."

I hope the minister will accept this amendment. As I say, it's not a big amendment, but it's an important one.

Hon. G. Bruce: With respect, the government will not be supporting this amendment. The amendment would allow for these very items that we're talking about taking off the collective bargaining process. This amendment that's being proposed would allow for them to be renegotiated at a later date. That is not the purpose or intent of what we're trying to go through here.

	YEAS — 69
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Bray

J. Kwan: I have lots of questions on section 6, Mr. Chair. Maybe you want to give a moment for the members to leave the chamber.

J. Kwan: Section 6 of the act adds a new section of the School Act. The new section is 18.1(1) and 18.1(2), which refers to providing a prescribed class of students with special needs. This is a definition of class, in part 1 of Bill 28, a definition that is said to pertain only to that section relating to college and institute labour adjustment. There is no definition of class in the School Act. What is the definition of class that pertains to section 18.1(1)? The definition of part 1 of this bill seems to allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to set up a class of students with special needs. This definition would give government, I worry, the power to segregate special needs students. I'd like to ask the minister to clarify the definition of class that pertains to this section.

I see that new staff have entered the chamber, and perhaps the minister would take a moment to introduce them.

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, I'd be happy to do that. We have two officials joining us today in the chamber. This is their first time being a part of this process in our legislative chamber. They're Dr. Emery Dosdall, who is the Deputy Minister of Education, and Stewart Ladyman, who's the superintendent, field services, for the department.

Hon. G. Bruce: The definition here of class applies to an autistic child or a hearing impaired child. It's not a class in size.

J. Kwan: Then the minister is meaning for the word "class" to mean categories. Am I right?

Hon. G. Bruce: I thought I defined it. It means a student that is autistic or one with hearing impairments. That's the definition of class meant with respect to this section.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. The minister used an example of autistic children. That's one category of special needs children. There are other children with different special needs. It could be children with dyslexia perhaps. I just want to be sure. The application of the word class could have different meanings, and with those different meanings, it changes entirely the entire section here. It is important for that to be clear.

Once again I ask the minister: in using the word class, he really means categories of special needs. Am I right?

Hon. G. Bruce: You can use "category"; you can use "class." The word that's here is class. I think you mentioned dyslexic. You mentioned autistic; you mentioned hearing impaired. That's what we're talking about.

J. Kwan: It is important to make this clear, because in the School Act the word class is not defined. I have a copy of the School Act here for the minister's information. There's a distinctive difference between the words "class" or "category." In the School Act, class is not defined, and I think it is important to make sure we define our words and choose our words carefully so that it's clear in this new bill in terms of what the changes are and what the meanings of the changes would be.

I gather from the minister that class is actually not the word the minister wants to use, but rather it's the word category for the School Act. This, then, would be a case, quite frankly, of poor draftsmanship, really, that has arisen from an irresponsible government making wholesale changes on the turn of a dime without any thought or analysis. I would suggest that we need to make sure this word is actually changed from "class" to "category" so that under the School Act, where the word "class" is not defined, we don't confuse matters by introducing a new word into it.

Hon. G. Bruce: I've been clear in the definition, and you now understand the definition. We canvassed this a couple of times. We've been very clear on it.

J. Kwan: Well, once again we're into a situation where it is the word of the minister as to what it says, as opposed to what it says in black and white in the legislation. I've just pointed out to the minister the oversight on the issue around class and category. In the School Act there is no definition of class. It doesn't exist. This section of the act introduces a new section into the School Act, section 18.1. The word the minister uses, "class," can have differential meanings. The real word the minister wants to use is actually "category."

A copy of the amendment has been tabled to the Clerk. I ask that a copy be given to the minister. I trust that the minister would not have a problem with this amendment. It is an amendment for clarification so that there is no confusion with respect to the application of this act. It is introducing a new section into the School Act which has no definition for class. I want to make sure that it is clear by the amendment.

Hon. G. Bruce: I appreciate the member's amendment, but really, you're just changing one word for another. The government doesn't see that the distinction is any different. We've been clear in our definition. Respectfully, the government will not be supporting your amendment.

J. MacPhail: Despite rushing this piece of legislation through and despite being here for the last almost 72 hours, we have had a chance to discuss this matter with people outside of this chamber, so this advice and amendment are being offered in a friendly way that perhaps will not throw us back into the 1950s in terms of how we talk about our children. That came from parents.

Secondly, the word "class" is mentioned elsewhere here in the legislation and has a completely different meaning. Therefore, it isn't just substituting one word for another.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I am informed that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct and asks everyone to please remain in their seats.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; H. Long in the chair.

J. Kwan: We were on the question around the definition of class and the amendment that was tabled around replacing the word "class" with the word "category." This is a significant piece, because even as we speak — now and just prior to the break — parents were phoning into our office wanting to make sure that this definition is clear and that it's clear in this legislation what the intent of the government is.

The word class could be used to define a class of students with special needs, and that could lead to segregation of students into a classroom of special needs. They're terrified that we would revert back in time to the old days, where children with special needs were segregated into a class on their own. They're terrified of that. As I said, even in the minutes when we were downstairs, parents were phoning on this question, wanting it to be clear with the government so that there is no confusion.

The word "category," on the other hand, describes the categories of disabilities amongst the children. It could be children with dyslexia. It could be children with pathology challenges. It could be children with behavioral challenges — a variety of different challenges. Those categories of students and children with special needs would not be put into a class on their own in segregation.

The word "class" is not defined in the School Act, so it is a very important term. It's not just a technicality around what word is used. It has significant meaning in the real lives of the students and the children and for the parents in the classroom. That's why the amendment was made, and I want to reiterate the importance of that.

Maybe the minister can clarify for me what his intention is on the word "class." Why wouldn't he accept the amendment to replace it with the word "category" so that it is completely clear for the parents who are watching at home right now?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a common drafting word — nothing untoward in this instance. We feel comfortable with it here in this bill. I understand you've moved an amendment, and I've made it clear that the government will not be supporting the amendment. Sorry.

J. MacPhail: Well, we have to have a little bit more discussion about this, because it's not beyond the realm for parents of students with special needs to pursue legal recourse in defence of their children — and rightfully so. We've made great headway over the course of the last two decades, in integrating children, starting under the Social Credit government of then Premier Bennett. That has continued throughout the eighties and nineties, and we hope into the years 2000-2001.

That was to undo the educational policy of previous days when there were classes of special needs students. I was telling my junior baby colleague here that that was the case when I was in school. There were literally physical classes of everybody who wasn't considered "normal." If a parent or a group of parents were to go to court for a definition of "class," they couldn't go to the School Act to figure out what that means, but they could go to the front of this legislation, where class actually is defined. It's to have restricted application, but it is the only definition of class, and that definition is the physical classroom.

That's what it is, so a judge — and this is not out of the realm of possibility, believe you me — would look to some guidance not in the School Act but in this legislation. Even though the definition is theoretically to apply only to part 1, a judge, in the absence of any other definition, would go to "class." It means "a set of students to which a faculty member delivers a course or unit of curriculum or instruction." It sounds to me like one could interpret putting all of special needs in that school in one classroom.

That's all we're trying to do: we're trying not to go back to the fifties, sixties and seventies but to continue on in supporting the progress of students with special needs with full integration. That's all.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, this has got nothing to do with segregating students. It's not going in that direction. This is about the assignment of this section of the special ed aides. Legislative counsel recommends this word.

Hon. G. Bruce: Perhaps they're calling because you're raising the alarm bells of something that's not there. I appreciate that you want to ask a question. We've answered the question. You've proposed an amendment. We've said that we do not believe the amendment is necessary. We're not going to put children at risk by this. This is not what we're talking about here in regard to this particular act.

Mr. Chairman, the government's position is that we will not be voting with this amendment.

J. Kwan: In the amendments I have to make for this section, there's a second amendment I'd like to make. It actually refers to the same issue we were dealing with, because subsection (3) of section 6 refers once again to different classes of students as opposed to categories of students with special needs. I'm going to table an amendment, which I think you already have a copy of, Mr. Clerk, and if you would pass a copy to the minister.

The amendment to section 6 is as follows: by deleting the word classes and replacing it with "categories," so that section 6(3) would read:

J. Kwan: Once again, I'm going to give the minister a second opportunity to address this issue. I want to emphasize to the minister that by no means is this amendment — or the last one, for that matter — one to be trivialized. It has great meaning in the real-life situation for children and their parents, and they're very concerned about it.

They're very, very concerned about it because the word "class" has several different meanings. You could say that, on the one hand, it is a classroom space, as one class. On the other hand, it could mean a class of students.

Because the School Act does not define the word class, it is vital that in this legislation the intent of the government is clear so that there is no fear generated in the hearts of the parents who are out there, so they don't have to worry that their children may face a situation where they are being segregated into a class of students of special needs in one class by themselves

and so that there is no opportunity for that to happen. By a simple change…. It really is a very simple but important change to simply say that the different categories of special needs children will be addressed in the appropriate way here and to ensure that special needs children are not going to be segregated and that Bill 28 would not create segregation for the special needs children.

I'm going to have one more attempt at this. I hope the minister will set aside his arrogance for just one moment…

J. Kwan: …in the name of the students, Mr. Chair, and contemplate the fear that is felt by the parents around this issue. They have phoned us around this issue, and they're very concerned about it. I am tabling this recommendation with sincerity, in the hope that the minister would actually adopt this amendment so that there is clarity for the parents who are in fear for their children.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is right. This is an issue that doesn't deserve to be trivialized, and it certainly isn't an issue that deserves to be used as a political football in partisan bickering in the House.

The issues of special needs children, the issues they face every day, are incredibly important, and the fights that parents of special needs children have had on their behalf have been hard-won battles. To use legal drafting language, which is appropriate legal drafting language, to call into question somehow this government's commitment to the integration of children who have special needs in our schools is really beyond the pale.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to offer this comment for the House and this clarification.

This government remains firmly committed to the integration of children with special needs. We remain committed to that principle, because children who have special needs benefit from being integrated, and typical children in school benefit from integration as well. It's a principle that this government remains committed to, and I hope anyone watching, anyone who reads Hansard and anyone who refers to these debates won't for one second believe the fearmongering on the other side of the House. This issue is much, much too important for that.

J. MacPhail: The gall that that government has, to stand up and somehow say that we're fearmongering, when all we're trying to do about a poorly drafted bill that changes the way children are taught — upside down, inside out — is somehow fearmongering….

The people who are calling us are parents of autistic children who don't trust the Liberal government on their commitment to anything.

J. Kwan: I wonder if either minister — the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Education — has seen the School Act and the Special Needs Services: A Manual of Policies, Procedures and Guidelines, "Special Considerations for Individual Planning." I wonder if they've seen that, because it doesn't define the word class in the School Act. And here, by adding a new section — section 18.1 — to the School Act through this legislation, it introduces a new word that is not defined and has vital, vital significance for children with special needs.

If the intent of government is to maintain integration in the classroom for children with special needs, and if the intent is not to segregate, then there ought not to be any difficulties in making sure that this piece of legislation, Bill 28, clearly outlines that. It's simple to do that. All you have to do is accept the amendment by inserting the word category — or "categories" as the case may be, where it applies — to replace "class" and "classes" respectively.

The only thing, it appears to me, that is stopping this government from doing that, quite frankly, is their own arrogance.

J. Kwan: Or a hidden agenda. The government has a choice to either decide that they will make their intention clear, in black and white, in this legislation…. They could easily do that by simply adopting the amendment that has been tabled.

Hon. G. Bruce: Further to the words of the Minister of Education and the concern that we know is there with people, we just wanted to make sure, and we've done a double-check so the members can be assured of this. We've checked with legislative counsel, who happen to be a very professional group of people who've drafted this legislation. They've rechecked in regards to the phraseology and the correct words. This is the correct word.

In respect to law, "category" would have a different meaning and would not be applicable in this situation. This, they believe, although sounding awkward, in a sense, to how the lay ears of all of us may hear it…. Their advice is that this is the correct word and that we should not raise the fears of people, albeit there are questions being raised. This word that is here is the correct word.

J. Kwan: On section 6, the issue that I'd like to talk about now is school year continuity and the assignment of special needs assistants.

Section 18.1(2), (a) to (e), discusses what the government is doing here. That is, the government's trying to decide what special needs children in the system

must require the same special education assistant on a regular basis for the entire school year. They're going to create two categories — class or classes — of students that special education assistants will work under.

They're generally called low- or high-incidence students. The high-incidence student generally requires one-on-one care because of a number of severe disabilities or medical needs. They're going to assess the students annually to make sure that they require one-on-one care and if the special education assistant has to continue to give continuity of care.

There are reasons for some of this, but in some or perhaps in most districts this issue has been worked out on the ground, and this is where it needs to be dealt with. There are some children, such as children with autism, for whom, because of the nature of the disability, having the same person working with them helps them behave and learn better.

Many districts have reorganized this. In 1999 the union and the employer in Surrey negotiated a provision that allows for full one-year assignments of special education assistants for a variety of categories of children. There was a provision negotiated in the K-to-12 accords in 2000 with CUPE and funding flows. The government and the employers agreed that workers in the sector would not be laid off between September 30 — when the final class sizes are reported to government — and the end of the school year. The reason for this is that the school district continues to receive the funding based on these figures. The union agreed, too, to forgo bumping rights during the school year when a layoff occurred. All bumping occurs during the summer so that there are no disruptions on the issue around continuity impacting special needs children.

The government has been heavy-handed in the writing of this legislation. It has been promoted by the president of the BCCPAC, who is now being called a member of the Liberal caucus, I suspect, because she's continually meeting with the government on the legislation.

The union has not held a gun to the heads of the employers in districts across the province. Employers have freely negotiated these provisions — some of them in the last few years. Those were negotiated by the districts.

Special education assistants know and care for the students they work for and work with. They understand the need for good quality care. They do. There's no question about that. I've met many of them. I've spoken with many of them. But the system is structured in a way where certified special education assistants do not get full-time hours.

In Surrey, for instance, out of the 600 special education assistants, only 12 have full-time hours. Many work 20 hours a week. These are special education assistants who go through a two-year college program to be certified. Workers would not stay in the field if they could not gain enough hours to make it worthwhile. Many could make better money working at minimum wage. The union has been trying to gain more hours for special education assistants, because workers cannot live on the low wages and because children do not benefit by the lack of support.

Bumping occurs because workers are trying to preserve as many hours as they can according to their seniority. If they are laid off and cannot retain as many hours as they can, they'll leave the system. Highly skilled, certified special education assistants will leave the system. There goes the quality of the education system.

School boards understand this, but neither the government nor the BCCPAC nor even principals do. They're only concerned about the complaints received from parents when a special education assistant leaves or goes to another school or to another assignment. You have to go beneath that to find out why it is that they leave.

The solution to these problems needs to be worked out at the local level and not by regulation by the provincial government. School districts across the province have different service delivery models. Some are now team-based, even with the children that require continuity of care. The partner groups that work in the system need to sit down at the local level and work them out.

The result of this legislation could be that there are a larger number of grievances arbitrated to clarify the legislation. It would be prudent if the legislation clarified the roles of the union, the partner groups and the school districts. The unions should be able to meet with the employer on a regular basis to fix problems with the implementation of the legislation and the regulations. A district-based committee is the best way to make this happen.

On section 6, in relation to section 18(2), (a) to (e), I have a series of amendments — six in total in this area. It speaks to all of the things I have just mentioned. I'm going to begin by tabling the first amendment, which I understand the Clerk has a copy of, if the Clerk will give a copy to the minister. The amendment is as follows:

I'll just take a moment to let the Clerk find that amendment and give that to the minister.

J. Kwan: As I said earlier, the amendment allows the school districts to meet with the partner groups in

the education system to develop a category of students with special needs to ensure that the continuity of care they require is in place, based on the current system of evaluating special needs students in the ministry special education manual, section E, "Special Considerations for Individual Planning."

The whole notion is to foster cooperation, to recognize that in the system there are a number of people who have valuable contributions to make in terms of that determination and to ensure that the partnership takes place. I trust that this is an amendment that the minister will accept.

Hon. C. Clark: The member raised a number of points, and I want to try to do a few of them, if I can.

First, the intent of this section is to protect special needs children. It's to protect special needs children in cases where their learning assistants are bumped in the middle of the year because of seniority provisions in a union contract. It's the government's view, very much, that that is not good for these children.

Many children who have special needs require continuity in their relationships in order to learn well. That's key to their school success. We're putting students first, but we are particularly concerned about making sure that students with special needs have a fair shake as well. We want to make sure that in districts where seniority or union contracts allow that continuity of a relationship to be broken, we can do something to fix it. That's the intent of this piece of legislation.

The member has pointed out that there are a number of districts, quite a few districts out there, where they have language that allows this kind of bumping, allows that continuity in a school year to be broken — which is certainly no good for those children — where the union and the employer have found a way around the problem. What we're attempting to do with this section is to ensure that all districts find a way around that problem, because we know it isn't good for kids. We know it's not good for kids, because parents of special needs children tell us that. Parents of typical kids tell us that.

You know, I'm not going to apologize for one second for meeting with the parents association of British Columbia. Heck, they're a key partner. They are one of the most important ingredients. They are the single most important ingredient in a child's learning success. Every single piece of evidence demonstrates that the more a parent is involved in his or her child's education, the better that child will do.

We want to encourage parents to be involved in our education system — absolutely we do. As minister, I've made a point of meeting with parents as much as I can and talking to them about the issues that are important to them.

The other thing that I would add is that this section speaks to one of the concerns that was raised in the special ed review that the member's previous government — that she was a part of — commissioned. The special ed review of course reported to her government as well. That special ed review they commissioned said that the government should look at doing something about this.

Yes, we want to protect the interests of special needs children. Yes, we recognize that there are unions and employers out there who found a way around the problem. Yes, we want to ensure that all of them try and find a way around that problem. Yes, we want to make sure that parents and students are put first on the agenda, and yes, we want to respond to the concerns that were identified by the special ed review that was commissioned by the previous government.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that through this legislation that's being tabled, when it passes, all of those agreements that have been worked out between the districts and the unions in resolving the issue around continuity are void. They no longer exist.

To suggest that bringing forward this legislation would actually assist special needs children in the different districts throughout British Columbia is wrong. The Kimberley collective agreement contains the clause that reads as follows: "Trained assistants shall be provided for assisting special needs students who require help with toileting, changing of clothing, eating, mobility, administering medication or providing other medical procedures. Teachers shall not be required to carry out the aforementioned procedures on a regular or predictable basis."

That clause is in the Kimberley collective agreement, but as a result of the amalgamation through the act under Bill 27 that was passed earlier on this evening, that clause is now gone. That agreement is gone, because it has been subsumed by another agreement. It has been lost.

How does that provide for and ensure that special needs children in Kimberley will get the assistance they need through amalgamation? This clause in the Kimberley collective agreement is now gone. It doesn't exist anymore, and that does not help the children with special needs in Kimberley.

Hon. C. Clark: I think it's important to point out for the member that the bill actually provides the minister with reg-making power, so the intent of this is to go out and speak to the parties and see how it's worked in districts where it has worked. We know that there are districts, as I've said, where the union and the employer have found ways to ensure that that continuity of a relationship is maintained. We want to go out and talk and consult and find a way to make it work.

J. MacPhail: Well, good. Another "trust us" clause, but the minister is not addressing the issue that we're addressing here. The Kimberley agreement, 45 minutes ago, was blown up by the government by amalgamation. It's gone — blown up, gone. Another agreement has taken over that doesn't have this provision in it for training for special needs students.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm going to be much relieved, then. The Kimberley agreement still exists. How long will it still exist, with this protection?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is referring to the previous act, and the previous act didn't amalgamate the CUPE agreements.

J. Kwan: The fact is that with Bill 27, through the amalgamation process of Bill 27, the Kimberley collective agreement has been subsumed through the amalgamation into another district, and they have lost the provision to ensure that there would be trained assistants for children with special needs in the classroom. Now, with the amalgamation process, that protection for the children in Kimberley is gone.

The minister asserts that this bill is to provide continuity, to provide flexibility. I want to make sure that in those words, especially the word flexibility, which the minister is so fond of, it doesn't mean that it's so flexible that the special needs assistance that the children get is flexed out of the window so that they don't even get any of it. That's what the minister has done under Bill 27, and in this section of the act, it goes right to the core of making sure continuity and protection of special needs children's services are in place.

Hon. C. Clark: I do want to clarify for the member. I don't think she's reading the legislation quite clearly, so I will clarify for her. The intent of this section is not to refer to the teachers collective agreement. It refers to support staff collective agreements. In the example of Kimberley, where the agreements have been amalgamated, those were teachers agreements that were amalgamated, and we're not talking about teachers agreements here.

J. MacPhail: I just want, for the record, for those members who somehow think that this debate is silly…. Our office is being flooded with calls from parents of special needs, who are extremely concerned about this debate — flooded with calls. Somehow, the members here say that we're fearmongering.

This particular collective agreement goes to the point where you are suggesting that these provisions for special needs students and continuity are somehow what this whole bill is all about. Yet what you purport to give with one hand you are taking away with another — the government is. What this government is taking away, on another hand, is the provision under a teachers collective agreement that is now blown up, gone, as of 45 minutes ago, that provides assistance for special needs students in the educators, the teachers, collective agreement.

All we are pointing out to all of the parents who have special needs students is: don't be fooled by this clause that we're discussing right now as if it's a protection for special needs. Elsewhere, the government has blown up, voided and buried whole collective agreements that have protection for assistance for special needs students and replaced those collective agreements with others that don't have protection.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think anyone in British Columbia, particularly parents of special needs children and especially not special needs children themselves, are well served by the tone of this debate. Clearly, the member opposite misunderstands this legislation. It does not apply to the teachers agreement. It does not wipe out protections that are there. This section is there to enhance protections for special needs children, because this government believes that special needs children and their learning needs should come before the requirements of collective agreements.

We believe that special needs children should be treated as unique individuals. We believe that special needs children have a right to have continuity in their relationships in their schools. We believe that those things should take precedence over mathematical formulas in collective agreements. We do not believe that the right of someone in a union to have seniority should take precedence over the rights of children with special needs to have continuity in their relationships, which is so essential to their learning success. That is what this section is about, and the members opposite fundamentally misunderstand the intent of the bill, and they are misrepresenting — unintentionally, I'm sure — what's happening here.

This bill will not address the teachers agreements that have been amalgamated. This bill refers to special needs teaching assistants who are members of support staff unions. In most cases, not in every case, those will be CUPE agreements and Teamsters agreements. Again, and I want to stress this, this is a regulation-making power. It gives the minister the opportunity to go out and consult with the parties and try to find a solution. There are many examples in British Columbia of unions and employers that have found solutions because they know that the needs of special needs children should come first. We want to go out and talk to the parties. We want to find out how they made it work, and we want to make those changes work for every special needs child who has a teaching assistant. That is the right thing to do.

Again, I don't think special needs children and the parents of special needs children are being well served by a debate where some members in this House would imply that this will put special needs children at risk. It will not. It will not. This section of the legislation has been created in order to protect those special needs children, to protect them for the first time in a way that no government has ever moved to do before.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the Kimberley collective agreement that contains the clause that protects special needs children has been amalgamated through Bill 27, and that clause is now lost. The clause

that guarantees special needs children's support is there in the classroom has been eliminated by this imposed contract and the guarantee is lost.

It worries me. It worries me greatly. It causes me great concern, because I have many special needs children in my community. I know how important the special needs assistant's support is for each of the children, for the parents and for the other children, as well, because it puts the other children at risk.

By the stroke of a pen, through imposed legislation, the minister is putting these special needs children at risk. If the minister doesn't actually know that, she ought to go and get the collective agreements so that she can go through them and make sure that she goes through that information and make sure that the children's interests are addressed first and foremost.

	YEAS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan
	NAYS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

The Chair: We will return to section 6. We'll give it a few moments, just to clear the House. Thank you.

J. Kwan: I have another amendment to make. This one is to deal with section 6 again. The amendment is that section 6 be amended by adding the following subsection 18.1(2)(b.2):

A copy of the amendment has been tabled with the Clerk. I would ask that the Clerk please give the minister a copy of the amendment.

J. Kwan: The amendment is a simple one but an important one. I know that in talking with parents, particularly when they have a special needs child in the school system, they inform me how important it is that they get a group of people who could advise them on how best to improve the education or the opportunities of learning for their children. This amendment speaks to ensuring that there will be a committee of the employer and the union.

When I say "the union," they're essentially people who provide for the services in the school system to the children. Especially in light of the notion that continuity is important and knowing the child's interests is important, it follows that the people who provide for those services, the service providers — in this instance, the teachers, the special needs assistants, the people who are part of the union — be involved in this process when they implement section 18.1(2)(b), which prescribes one or more classes of students with special needs, in trying to determine the issues arising for the classes of students with special needs.

Hon. G. Bruce: The issue here before us is a public policy issue that we have. This amendment doesn't follow to where we as government wish to go. The government will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Kwan: I was hoping the minister would actually stop for a moment, steer away from their public policy mantra and perhaps just think for a moment of the students in this instance, particularly the special needs students in the classroom. In my area, I tell you, Mr. Chair, I have a lot of special needs kids, and I've met with a lot of the PACs and the parents. They are very concerned about their children and their learning opportunities, the learning environment of their children.

All this asks is for a committee to be set up that includes everybody who has an interest in the special needs children's learning outcomes. That's all. There's no hidden agenda about it. It's just to involve the people who are the care providers in the system to make sure they're at the table with the interests of the special needs children at heart. I hope the minister will reconsider in support of this amendment.

J. Kwan: On section 6, I have another amendment to table. This one is to amend section 6 by adding the following subsection, section 18.1(2)(f):

A copy of the amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I ask that the Clerk please give a copy to the minister.

J. Kwan: Speaking to the amendment. Again, this is not an earth-shattering change by way of an amendment. It simply spells out that for the special education assistants that are not captured by the categories determined under section 18.1(2)(b), their rights under the collective agreement would not be affected by this legislation.

If it is the intent of government not to impact or change those rights in any event, it simply spells it out clearly. There are no issues around that. It's a simple amendment, I think. Again, it goes to creating a level of comfort, a level of clarity in this legislation, particularly in this instance for the people who are not affected, so that they know they're not affected and that their rights are indeed protected under the existing collective agreement.

Hon. G. Bruce: With the greatest of respect, we believe that the issue is already canvassed and covered by subsection (4), and the government will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Kwan: On section 6, I have another amendment. This amendment is to amend section 6 by adding the following section, 18.1(2)(c.1):

A copy of the amendment has been given to the Clerk, and I ask that a copy be given to the minister.

J. Kwan: The amendment, again, just makes it clear that there is a requirement for the boards to assess a child, a student, who's been referred to the board by a teacher in the classroom who might suspect that the child may have a particular special need and to ensure that that assessment takes place to determine whether or not that child falls under the prescribed category of students with special needs in this act.

This is particularly important for the assurances of the children — once again, with the children's interests at heart. I worried, you see, that sometimes the assessment process may not take place for a student, especially when the teacher might have identified that. If it doesn't take place, it could be because of pressures like funding pressures, that could exist in a district. If those funding pressures, exist and no assessment is done, then the child misses the opportunity for the evaluation and the determination whether or not special assistance needs to be provided to further the learning opportunities for that child.

This amendment is made with the children's interests at heart. I hope the minister will consider the needs of the children — the potential special needs children — that have been identified by the teacher in the classroom and referred to the board so that, at least at minimum, an assessment takes place.

Hon. C. Clark: The government won't be supporting the amendment. As I said, this section is a regulation-making section. It will give the minister the ability to go out and consult with the parties about the best way to find solutions for those special needs children that have been left unaddressed for a long time — at least a decade.

I do want to make just two points for the record. The first one is with respect to the member's comments earlier that this would mean that for districts which had amalgamated their teachers' contracts, suddenly the protections for special needs children, where they had been able to work them out in the bumping procedures, would somehow cease to exist.

Just for the member's clarity here — because I think she sat down still not believing me — this amends section 18 of the School Act. Section 18 of the School Act says: "A board may employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in carrying out their responsibilities and duties under this Act and the regulations. Persons employed under subsection (1) must work under the general supervision of a teacher or administrative officer." It is very clear that we are not referring to the BCTF contracts in this piece of legislation, so I want to make that clear for her, and I hope that helps.

The second thing I want to add is this: both members have raised some concerns about the use of the word class as a drafting word. I really don't want to leave the suggestion on the floor of this House that somehow this government is not committed to special needs children and their particular learning needs by the language that we've used.

I would point the member to other acts that have governed this province for years that also use the word class as drafting language. I would point her to the Civil Rights Protection Act, which also uses that word. One would think that if that was a word intended to be anything other than one used for clarity in drafting and one that's used to talk about people in a non-pejorative sense, it would certainly be in the Civil Rights Protection Act. I hope that can put the member's mind at rest about both questions she's raised.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's redo the entire piece of legislation. We've got all evening.

The minister still doesn't get it. Civil rights protection dealing with classes doesn't also describe, in other sections, a physical classroom. That's the issue that parents are calling us on as we speak.

It is unbelievable that the minister, in her clarification, exhibits her lack of understanding of what parents are concerned about. Does the Civil Rights Protection Act talk about a class as a physical structure as well? No, but this legislation does.

Oh, I feel so badly for these parents, who cannot get this government to understand what their concern and fear is about. A class in this legislation refers to a physical entity as well as a category of students. What the parents who are calling over and over again are afraid of is that this government, in its cost-cutting ravaging of the education system, is going to put students with special needs in a class — a physical class.

Hon. C. Clark: At this stage in the debate and at this late hour, it would be very, very easy for those of us on the government side of the House to begin to engage in the partisan bickering that we've seen from the opposition benches tonight. I am not going to engage in that level of partisan bickering this evening. The reason I am not going to do that is because this issue is far, far too important to be reduced to a political football, to be used for political ends by people in this Legislature.

This is drafting language that is common in the province of British Columbia. The fears that the member opposite is trying to create — trying deliberately to create — are completely unfounded. It is totally, totally irresponsible for members of this House to engage in these kinds of issues and treat them as though they were political footballs, merely there for us to make political points.

This section of this act is being created to protect special needs children — to protect them and ensure that the continuity in their education is protected from the consequences of collective agreements when seniority provisions kick in. That's what we're attempting to do here today.

I know the members opposite have some difficulty in putting aside their partisan differences on some things. I recognize that is certainly their right, but I would ask that we lower the temperature in the House tonight and recognize how important this issue is, that we elevate the level of discussion a little bit, talk factually about the issues before us and start treating this issue with the importance that special needs children deserve and that parents of children with special needs also deserve.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the minister has just demonstrated her clear lack of understanding on the issue relating to the word class as it is applied in the context of the School Act. In civil action elsewhere, they actually don't talk about the context of a classroom as a structure. If the minister's claims that she's talked to many parents are indeed true, then she would have talked to parents — at least some of them, I would have assumed — who had concerns around this definition and how it could be applied and how it could impact on their children. This issue was brought to our attention by parents who phoned our office…

J. Kwan:…and continue to, because they're very concerned about the impact of it.

The minister surely must acknowledge how the word class could be defined differently, but she refuses to see that. Then she goes about bringing examples that are completely irrelevant to the classroom and somehow acts as though she knows the definition of class and knows that for the protection of the children, the different terminology of "class" and "category" — and those two words in their distinction — could have a tremendous impact on children. But she couldn't care less about that. She couldn't care less. It's absolutely a shame, minister. It's a shame.

It's the parents who are concerned, who are worried and expressing their concerns through this chamber to ensure that their concerns are heard. You know what? Clearly the minister is going to do this: see no evil, hear no evil. Those concerns don't exist for her. She fails to acknowledge that these two words are significant and that they are distinct in the context of the School Act.

Segregation versus integration. Class by way of categories of special needs. I asked the minister the question, with respect to the amendment 18.1(2)(c.1), which requires the boards to assess a student referred to a board by a teacher to determine whether or not a student falls into a prescribed category of students with special needs. I asked the minister that question, and she failed to address this question. She somehow reverted back to the issue of class and demonstrated once again that she didn't understand the real issues that concern parents.

I'll ask the minister this once again, on the establishment of the board required to assess a child, or student, if you will, who falls into the category of students with special needs, to make sure that that requirement is in place.

J. Kwan: "Don't worry" — from the Minister of Human Resources, who's just cut seniors' bus passes.

J. Kwan: Indeed, the level of maturity that's displayed in this House, my goodness.

On section 6, the series of amendments that I've made relating to 18.1(2), (a) to (e), address a variety of things. All of them put together simply ensure that when children need an assessment by the school district, by the boards, to determine whether or not they have a special need and, if so, what category, and that's been identified by the teacher in the classroom, we require that to happen to make sure that those children don't slip through the cracks.

The amendment ensures that the students, the educators and the employers all come together to form a special education committee to address these issues together, collectively, to advance the learning environment for students. The amendment ensures that partner groups are involved in the process.

All of this speaks to process, one could argue. But the process of inclusion would be important in a broader sense — inclusion involving teachers, parents, special needs educators, employers, everybody — so that all of the best thoughts and considerations are taken together to formulate an approach to deal with children with special needs.

That's what the amendments put together address — all of them. All of them have been rejected by this government. They refuse to acknowledge that teachers in the classroom dealing with special needs would actually have something to contribute. Even when a teacher points out that he or she may believe that a particular student needs to be assessed, even then that advice is going to be cast aside. That doesn't help the children. It doesn't give comfort to the parents who have the special needs children in the classroom — not at all.

It is really a shame that the minister and the government refuse to step out of their prescribed box and open it up to allow and invite these valued individuals, professionals, caring people into the picture. Not only would they, I think, provide valuable information, but they would also allow for the beginning of fostering a cooperative environment by showing people that they respect each other and each other's contribution, and then they would put their heads together for solutions.

With respect to section 18.1 that's been tabled, which is section 6 of this act, I'm going to be voting against this act.

	YEAS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee stand recessed until 8:30 p.m.

J. Kwan: Section 7 speaks to the school meals program. I'd like to ask the minister a question. In terms of the school meals program, are there any districts in British Columbia where there's a problem with the school meals program, and where does the application of this section of the act apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: What this section deals with, of course, is the school meals program that we have in a number of schools throughout British Columbia. What we want is to be able to provide it so that where there is an ability to put in place a school meals program, as many children as possible are able to be served.

J. Kwan: The question is: to what school district does this section of the legislation apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is enabling legislation. It applies to all of the 60 school districts in our area. Some may take advantage of it, and some may not take advantage of it.

J. Kwan: Which school districts will have their terms changed as a result of this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: This would apply only to those school districts — or a school district — that have a school meals program right now. If you're talking about the change, it would only affect those school districts that currently have a school meals program. If the school district wished to contract it out, then that would be the change. Any school district that currently doesn't have a meals program or a contract is not affected by this. They can contract it out or do it in any other way they want. Only those that currently have a school meals program, that decided that they wished to effect a different process through the contracting out of it…. That would be the effect that I believe you're asking.

J. Kwan: Is the minister aware of any one particular school district that wishes to contract out their school meals program?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is enabling legislation. It's a flexibility issue we're driving at. We want to make sure that if there's a way to deliver school meals to as many different students throughout British Columbia as possible, the tools are there for them to do that.

J. Kwan: In all of the school districts in British Columbia that provide for a school meals program, have there been any school districts that has brought the matter to the minister's attention as an issue, whereby they want to contract out their meals program?

Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that I have my glasses, I'll be able to hear better. Sorry, just a little levity here at 25 to nine, but that's fine.

There are 350 schools that operate a school meals program. We're hopeful that by this enabling legislation, there will be other districts, as well, that might want to take advantage of it. Of those 350 school districts, there are some that have a situation where they may wish to contract out, or they may not wish to contract out. This enabling legislation allows for the greatest flexibility so that we can serve the interests of the students.

J. Kwan: Isn't it the case that there's only one school district that wants to contract out the school meals program?

Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you for the question. That may very well be the case. There may be more than one. I don't think you want to focus simply on one. There are 350 schools that currently have a school meals program. There may be others. There may be a number of those that wish to take advantage of it. This is enabling legislation. The principle behind this is that we want to make sure that, where children need a school meal, there is a system in place that can allow for that.

J. MacPhail: There is only one school district that's affected by this, the Surrey school district. We are just curious as to why a provincial government has to legislate against a situation that exists in only one school district. Was there some request, and by whom was it, that you impose this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: All of this legislation that we brought forward has been on two principles: putting patients first and putting students first. In this instance here, what we're talking about is making sure that students that need meals can get meals by giving the school districts the greatest flexibility necessary to be able to deliver those meals. This isn't based on one particular school district. This is based on the guiding principle of putting students first.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry to disagree. Yes, it is based on only one school district, because the situation this collective agreement addresses exists in only one school district. It was the parent advisory council of that one school district. The representative of that is now the provincial representative, the president of the provincial parent advisory council.

There's only one school district that is impacted at all, and there is no issue in any other school district that is either requested or affected by this legislation. With whom did the minister consult in Surrey to introduce this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear, we said we were going to put students first. This is a part of the program. The whole emphasis on what we're doing here is putting students first. In this instance, it has to do with the school meals program. There are 350 schools that have school meals programs. There may be more that wish to be part of that. This is enabling legislation that allows those that find themselves in a collective agreement situation to find a more flexible way of delivering that meals program to the children beneficial and provide for a greater variety of flexibility in being able to do that.

J. MacPhail: I asked the minister whether there was someone — other than in the Surrey district with the then parent advisory council, now the person who is the president of the provincial organization, other than that person — that asked for this change.

Hon. G. Bruce: This government has made it clear that we're going to put students first. We are putting students first. We're giving the school districts the tools they need to be able to follow through in putting students first.

In this particular instance, relative to school meals, consistent with the direction that we're taking in this sector, we didn't want anything inhibiting the school district from being able to deliver a school meals program. That's what this is. It's enabling legislation that allows that flexibility.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that there is only one school district that had a conflict with respect to the delivery of the school meals program. That is the school district of Surrey. That is a fact. In all of the other school districts that deliver the school meals program, the issues with CUPE and the school district of delivering the program have been resolved. There are no issues that exist elsewhere in the province, with the exception of Surrey. The union and the employer actually sat down and came to signed agreements that would address the school meals program. It's not an issue anywhere in the province, with the exception of Surrey. In all of the other school districts, the issues surrounding the delivery of the school meals program have been resolved at the local level.

The previous legislation has had no impact on the education system across the province, because CUPE and the other unions have had good relations at the district level and have always, always been able to work it out. This piece of legislation, this section of the legislation, really applies to only one school district, and that is the school district of Surrey. That's it. If the minister does not know this information, then he ought to consult his staff to get the information and ask his staff to confirm the facts that I have just laid out in this House.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, to come back to what we're doing here, this is enabling legislation. We're allowing the flexibility. If a district chooses to take advantage of it, they can do so, so that they can put the school meals program in such a way that enables them to serve more students. If they're able to work things out as they are, as you're mentioning, then obviously that school district won't take advantage of this particular piece of legislation. It's enabling legislation.

J. Kwan: In the only instance where this would apply, in the school district of Surrey, where contracting out takes place, will there be a requirement for criminal-record checks for volunteers or for the workers from the private company that's delivering the meal program?

Hon. G. Bruce: The school meals program, as it's laid out here…. As I've mentioned, this is the enabling legislation. The people that work in our schools and administer our school programs, whether as trustees or as principals and vice-principals, are all very qualified people. They're concerned and aware of anybody that is working within our schools, be it as volunteers, as coaching teams or with delivering the meals program. Let's not raise the spectre of a bogeyman and all of that sort of thing that you're going to try and raise again. This is quite simple — quite simple. This is enabling legislation.

We have said, as a government, that we're going to put students first. We think it's also important that where schools wish to have the opportunity to put in a school meals program, they have that opportunity to do so. We think it's also appropriate that if they need some flexibility in dealing with issues to make sure they can provide the most to their students in the best way possible, the most cost-effective way possible, then they should be given those tools to do so, because what we're actually talking about here is feeding students.

J. Kwan: I take it from the answer from the minister that there won't be criminal-record checks when the school meals program is contracted out by the school district to a private company. The government is actually putting children at risk by putting this legislation in place.

A copy of the amendment has been tabled with the Clerk's office. I ask the Clerk to please give a copy to the minister.

The Chair: I've had an opportunity to look at the amendment. It would appear that it is a direct negative. The amendment is out of order.

	YEAS — 71
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. Kwan: I have a lot of questions on section 8. This section speaks to the issue of class size, and it allows school boards the right to establish class size maximums and class composition. It removes from the agreement any reference to class size maximums or class composition. It gives all authority to the district to determine the assignment of students to classes, to determine the ratios of non-enrolling district staff and school-based staffing, to determine the caseload for specialist teachers or regular teachers. I have grave concerns around the changes that are being proposed in this legislation.

First, a question to the minister: why does this government feel it is necessary to tear up provisions that were freely negotiated at both the local and the provincial levels, provisions that go to the heart of the learning conditions for students and the working conditions for teachers and that have existed for 12 years or longer?

Hon. C. Clark: The government knows that the place to protect class size for children is in legislation, not in collective agreements. The reason the government knows that is because we know that if class size protections are just a chip at the bargaining table, they can be traded away. We also know that if class size protections are only something that can be discussed at the bargaining table, there are whole partners of our education community who do not have a say in those issues. It locks out parents. It locks outs principals and vice-principals. And for the most part, because of the way we negotiate collective agreements in British Columbia, it locks out school trustees — locally elected school trustees.

This government knows that the way to protect children is not necessarily to lock everything up in a collective agreement that's bargained at a bargaining table by two parties in a back room. The way to protect class size is to put it in legislation, which this government is doing for the first time in British Columbia's history.

We are saying that class size protections are so important that they should be a matter of public policy. They should not be left to be a bargaining chip at the bargaining table, where so few parties have a say in how class protections will look. They should be a matter of public policy. We should allow the voices of parents, school trustees, administrators and, of course, teachers into determining what is best for the children in our classes and in our schools. They need to make those decisions not based on formulas that are contained in collective agreements. They need to make those decisions based on the students themselves. They need to look at each individual student and say, "What does this child need?" because that's what providing a good education is all about. It's about taking each child — each child, one by one, in his or her uniqueness — and saying: "How do we create an environment for this child to learn?"

The only way we can do that is if we take things like class size protection, put them in legislation, allow a whole school community to have a voice in how we manage our schools, how they're composed and how they're organized. This is about putting students first. It's about saying that a school should be a learning place first and a workplace second. It's about making sure that students — every unique, individual student — is at the centre of every decision that we make in education.

J. Kwan: The minister speaks to the issue of flexibility in terms of determining class size. The fact of the matter is that flexibility already exists in the collective agreement right now. It already exists, to ensure that there is that flexibility.

The minister pretends that somehow lifting the class size will actually enhance the learning environment for students and the teaching environment for teachers, when, in fact, she's jeopardizing the minimum guarantees of maximum class size that impact the learning outcomes for students. We know that smaller class size is advantageous to children's learning. We know that; that's been established. Research upon research has already established that.

Will the minister guarantee that school districts will have sufficient resources provided by the ministry to meet the needs of all the students with special needs?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member would have the House believe that somehow this government doesn't recognize that class size limits are important in kindergarten to grade 3. That's something her government recognized, and it's something this government continues to recognize. This legislation entrenches that in statute for the very first time.

Previous governments, who also recognized that limits for kindergarten to grade 3 were important, decided that the place to put those was in collective agreements where they could be traded away like bargaining chips on a bargaining table. I differ with that view. I think that strict class size limits from kindergarten to grade 3 are important. In fact, I think they are so important that the place for them is not in collective agreements; it's in legislation.

J. Kwan: The question to the minister is: will the minister guarantee that the school districts will have sufficient resources provided by the ministry to meet the needs of all the students with special needs?

I have already said earlier that class size and the flexibility that the minister speaks of is already in place. In fact, to the contrary, what this legislation does is actually create less flexibility in the classroom in terms of the class size issue.

You know, I want an assurance from the minister that there would be sufficient resources provided to

classrooms for special needs children in British Columbia. Will she rise up today and give that assurance, give that guarantee that there would be sufficient resources in place for the children of British Columbia in the area of special needs in their classrooms?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said, this government is making a big change in the way we run our education system. We are saying that for the first time in quite a while, students are going to be at the centre of our decision-making. Part of that is giving school districts the ability to be able to take each child in his or her own uniqueness and say: "What does this child require?"

I would submit that the previous government's approach of locking the treatment of children into collective agreement language did exactly the opposite: it treated every single child like he or she was the same. It was a cookie-cutter approach that ignored the fact that every child is different and unique. It ignored the fact that special needs children in particular require a careful look and a careful decision about how we will provide supports for them. Those children deserve better than to have these kinds of things locked up in collective agreements. They deserve better than a one-size-fits-all approach. They deserve better than a cookie-cutter approach.

What we are offering in this legislation is an approach that says: "We recognize that every child is unique. We recognize that special needs children deserve to be treated as unique." That is exactly what this legislation allows.

J. Kwan: The question on the issue of resource is paramount. By taking away the basic guarantee that there would be limits on class size, that there would be special needs assistants in the classroom and that those resources would be there, the minister ignores the importance of those issues as they relate to the issue of resources.

A district could actually not have sufficient resources to provide for those services. They could have that situation, no matter what flexibility you give them. The fact of the matter is that they would have insufficient resources to do their job, to make sure that every single child has that protection.

The minister is unable, unwilling, to provide that guarantee to all the children in British Columbia who need special needs — that they would be able to get access to special needs in the classroom. How can larger class sizes and fewer numbers of specialists and support teachers improve the learning environment?

Hon. C. Clark: The purpose of this bill is to allow school districts and school communities to focus on children and their uniqueness. It's to say: "We think that children's unique needs are what we should be focusing on, not just adult working conditions." That's the reason the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils supports this change. That's the reason the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association supports this change. That's the reason the B.C. school trustees, locally elected people, support this change. That's the reason that people like Cathy Abraham, who is the co-chair of the North Vancouver parent advisory council, who is indeed a mother of a special needs child herself, support this legislation. They know that special needs children particularly need to be treated as unique. We need to recognize that they may need a whole wide, different number of solutions to the challenges they face in school. That is what this legislation is intending to do.

J. Kwan: The legislation lifts the ratio of non-enrolling district staff and school-based staffing. It lifts the ratio for specialist teachers or regular teachers in the classroom, in the district. Taking away that basic guarantee, the minimum of specialists that need to be in the classroom, does not help or give comfort to parents who have children who need that special assistant or the specialist's support.

How will the minister guarantee that the level of services of the non-enrolling and specialist teachers will not be reduced or eliminated now that they are not protected by the collective agreement?

Hon. C. Clark: The issue with the non-classroom teachers is this: in 1998 the previous government set down some ratios in collective agreements for the mix of non-classroom teachers that a district absolutely had to have in order to meet their collective agreement obligations. That mix that they required school districts to have didn't necessarily reflect the needs of the school districts at the time it was brought in, much less now. I would argue — and I think the member would probably agree — that population shifts and the needs of school districts certainly change.

If it didn't meet the needs then, I think it's probably pretty fair to argue that it doesn't meet the needs now. School districts, by being forced into strict ratios about the numbers of non-classroom teachers and the kinds of non-classroom teachers that they have, really have their ability to be able to meet students needs put at a huge disadvantage.

I want to give the member just a very quick example. The previous government decided that the Vernon school district needed to have an ESL ratio — that's English as a second language — of 13½ teachers for every single student. Vernon has a small number of ESL students. They live in a highly integrated community, and most of them use English in settings other than school. They may use it home, and they certainly use it out in the community.

Vancouver, on the other hand, in the previous government's deal, had a ratio of 57½ to 1. The member opposite has spoken repeatedly about her experience as an English-as-a-second-language student and how she's benefited from it — I think, growing up in Vancouver. She will know that Vancouver is a community where often some of those children are less integrated into the larger community. They may spend more time in their linguistic community. For many of them, their

Of course, it's a much, much larger population, so in a case like that, where Vernon has a ratio of 13½ to 1 and Vancouver has a ratio of 57½ to 1, I think it's pretty easy to make the case that those ratios were not set in place in a way that would allow school districts to meet the needs of the children in their schools. What we are saying in this legislation today is that we want to give school districts back the ability to decide the mix and the number of non-classroom teachers they have in their schools because they are the people who know best the needs of the children in their schools.

Locking it up in a collective agreement just means that we have mathematical formulas driving our decisions about children as opposed to the needs of those children. Not only that, locking up ratios in a collective agreement makes it impossible to adjust those mixes as our population shifts. I think that is a pretty reasonable, commonsense approach to this problem.

J. Kwan: The minister's wrong to say that the trustees know best in terms of what the needs are in the classroom. The trustees don't spend the time in the classroom. They don't deal with the children in the classroom and know what the needs are in the classroom and the classroom mix. You would've thought that one would argue that the people who know best about what's going on in an environment are the people who spend their time day in and day out — not just staff time but also their volunteer time — in the classroom and outside of the classroom. They are the people who actually know best.

You know, in the minister's approach, in the minister's ideology, in the minister's biased opinion, she's willing to cast out the people who spend their time in the classrooms day in and day out and who can actually make an assessment of what goes on in the classroom. They want to eliminate that expertise, devalue that expertise and not acknowledge that there's any level of expertise at all.

I have met with many teachers and many parents and children with special needs, and they all say to me that when they're talking about their child's issues, they go to the teacher to learn about what's going on with their child. The parents can go to the teachers, go to the special needs assistants. They talk to them. They don't go running to the school trustee and say: "Hey, how's my daughter doing in that special needs class?" Chances are, that trustee doesn't even know who that child may be. That is the real reality in the real world out there in the classrooms.

I have many, many children in my community who have special needs. I have many, many children in my community who are ESL. I have many, many children in my community who are faced with extraordinary challenges. I have to say that I sometimes wonder how these little young people manage to shoulder so many problems and the challenges they face. They manage it somehow. You know, they do. They show up at school, and the teachers are eager to be there to assist them. The assistants and all of them are eager to be there to help them.

I want to know from the minister: by lifting the ratio — especially for the areas where that ratio would be maxed out in terms of demands in all of the categories, whether they be ESL, special needs or any other special category — all of it would be maxed out. How will the minister guarantee that the level of services of the non-enrolling and specialist teachers would not be reduced in those districts?

Hon. C. Clark: I do want to clarify something the member implied. Perhaps she misunderstood my comments.

When I suggest that school districts are better able to make decisions about how to assign resources in classrooms, the people I mean…. They're better at doing it than are politicians in Victoria. That's how non-enrolling ratios got set into collective agreements. Politicians in Victoria decided what the ratios would be for the various districts across the province. I think it would be difficult to argue that politicians in Victoria would be in a good position to judge the needs of every individual school district, to be able to judge based on the mix of the students in that school district, better than school trustees.

Of course teachers should have a say in how non-enrolling teachers are deployed. So should vice-principals and principals. So should parents. But let's remember that the way the current deal is structured, it locks out all of those groups, including individual teachers. Those ratios are set in stone in a collective agreement years before an agreement finally gets renegotiated, and those teachers who work in those schools aren't able to change those mixes, even if they know that the mix that was set in a deal with politicians in Victoria no longer meets the needs of the students in their classroom. They're locked out of decisions just as much as parents, school trustees and administrators are locked out.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the negotiations that took place, which established the ratio both at the local level and at the provincial level, were freely negotiated. In fact, those working conditions for the teachers and the students have existed for 12 years or longer. They weren't imposed by anybody. They were freely negotiated at the local level. That is the truth. Those are the facts. To suggest that somehow there were some sweet side deals in all of that that created these ratios that are irrelevant in the classroom is complete nonsense.

If you actually look at the history of that, you'll know very clearly that the negotiations took place at the local level and that it was agreed to some 12 years ago. The ratios are important, particularly in the areas where there's so much demand in every single category for the specialist teachers in the community, for the non-enrolling teachers and the special needs assistants for the classrooms. Do you know why? It's because it guarantees a basic minimum.

I worry very much. I do. I worry very much, because before the holidays and during the holidays I met with many parents around the special needs issue. They've written to this minister, who didn't even bother to respond and just referred the letter to her staff for response and said: "Hey, this is not my problem. Go and talk to your school district."

Do you know what? Students found themselves having lost their special needs assistant in the new year when they moved from grade 2 to grade 3. Half of it is just gone — boom, gone. No discussion with the parents. This is coming from a minister who says she wants to ensure that parents are talked to. The school district made this decision with no discussion with the parents involved, no discussion with the teachers involved, no discussion with the special needs assistants involved. They just took away that resource.

I want the minister to guarantee that there are protections in place for resources for these children so that they, too, have an opportunity for learning, an opportunity to maximize their potential and an opportunity to realize their dreams.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member is misinformed if she believes that the 1998 collective agreement was freely negotiated with school districts. It was not.

The agreement was made, we know, pretty much out of the Premier's Office. The non-enrolling ratios that were forced into that agreement were not the subject of any kind of free negotiation in that discussion. The proof of that is the fact that when the deal went for a vote by school districts — who are the employer, who would be the people who would be freely negotiating these things — 86 percent of them voted against the deal. Now, that doesn't sound like