In the legislature today I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Education what his government was thinking when they tabled their class size and composition proposals. I further asked what he thought this would do to the morale of B.C. teachers given that starting in 2002 and culminating in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on November 10, 2016, the BCTF fought hard to restore provisions regarding their ability to bargain class size and composition.

In addition, I  asked the minister how he reconciled his statement to the Globe and Mail on March 17th:

“The table is set different than [sic] any set of negotiations in the last 16 years. Our government is not seeking any concessions. We are seeking changes that will benefit teachers and students“,

with the comments from BCTF president Glen Hansman to the Vancouver Sun on May 17:

“[the new position of the government would] wipe out each and every word that teachers got back through the Supreme Court of Canada decision and replace it with watered-down language that’s worse than what exists in most school districts across the province.“

Below I reproduce the video and text of our Question Period exchange.

The BC Green Party made public education our top priority in the last provincial election campaign. Our fully costed platform found more than $4 billion in new funds over four years in support of this priority.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Last week we heard from the BCTF that this government is putting forth essentially the same proposals in contract negotiations that the former government did in 2014. In particular, government has tabled larger maximum class sizes and fewer specialty teachers.

In 2014, the now Minister of Education stated that class size and composition was a “central issue” in the ongoing teachers strike at the time and that it was “critical” and that “class size and composition do impact learning outcomes.”

My question is to the Minister of Education. Starting in 2002 and culminating in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on November 10, 2016, the BCTF fought hard to restore provisions regarding their ability to bargain class size and composition. What was government thinking when they tabled their class size and composition proposals, and what does he think this will do to the morale of B.C. teachers?

Answer

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question, because he did indeed go through a litany of damaging years in public education in British Columbia that stand in stark contrast to the record of our government over the last 21 months. Let’s remember that for 16 years, that government over there, the opposition now, fought with teachers, ripped up contracts….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Minister of Education has the floor.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think they’re a little sensitive, Mr. Speaker, about losing in court…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: …three times. Three times, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister of Education.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s really sensitive, because they lost three times in the Supreme Court.

The point is, they wasted 12 years, they ripped resources away from kids and families, they demonized teachers, and they lost. We’re taking a different approach.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think the member who asked the question would like an answer. I think he would appreciate it, and here’s what the answer is. In 21 months, our government has added $1 billion of annual resource….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: We’ve hired 4,000 new teachers and 1,000 education assistants. Funding for students with special needs is up 23 percent. Rural education funding is at a record high and up under our government.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would ask the members opposite to read some headlines they might not want to read. The Delta Optimist, the Kelowna Courier — each one of them is saying that for the first time in 15 years, they don’t have to cut budgets. They don’t have to fire teachers. They’ve got funding and a government that’s on their side.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I thank the minister for the answer to the question. I’m not sure it was the question that I asked, but at least there was a long answer there, so I do appreciate the words and the facts being brought forward.

In 2014, the current Minister of Education spoke passionately about how the B.C. budget of the day: “It robs from the pocketbooks of ordinary British Columbians and fails to invest in the future.” He was talking about the lack of education support, specifically the lack of school support workers at the time.

According to the BCTF president, Glen Hansman, this new position of the B.C. government would: “Wipe out each and every word that teachers got back through the Supreme Court of Canada decision and replace it with watered-down language that’s worse than what exists in most school districts across the province.”

On March 17, the Minister of Education told the Globe and Mail this: “The table is set different than any set of negotiations in the last 16 years. Our government is not seeking any concessions. We are seeking changes that will benefit teachers and students.”

My question is to the Minister of Education. How does he reconcile this quote with the claims of the BCTF president?

Answer

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question again. He’ll know this as somebody who was a former negotiator himself for labour: that bargaining is best done at the table. What I’m proud of is our government…. We have gone to the table in this round of negotiations earlier than ever before. We have set the table with record levels of funding. I can go through that list again for the members present, but they’ve all been at school announcements in their ridings, so they know about it firsthand.

We have also demonstrated respect to the teaching profession. We have now, I’m pleased to say, 197,000 public servants in British Columbia who have signed on with tentative agreements under the sustainable services mandating agreement. We have 25,000 CUPE K-to-12 education workers who are included in that group.

I would say to the member to also listen to Mr. Hansman. He said, going into the weekend, and I would echo this message with him: “We’re still optimistic that there will be a deal. We have five weeks until the end of the school year. The good news is that both sides have scheduled a lot of dates, so there’s a lot of room to talk. That’s positive. We didn’t have that in the last few rounds.” So I will respectfully allow elected trustees — who we restored, democratically, to the bargaining process — to do their work. They understand teachers. They work alongside teachers. The previous government fired them, and I think that was a huge mistake. That is the stark contrast that we have here.

If members want to think back exactly five years ago, they locked out teachers. They cut their pay. They provoked British Columbia’s education system, and it was a disaster. It led to the longest shutdown of schools in British Columbia history. We’re in a vastly different place, where we want to work with teachers and school districts and get a good deal that’s good for everyone.

Media Statement – September 5th, 2014

Andrew Weaver Welcomes BCTF call for Binding Arbitration

For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the BC Green Party welcomes the call today from the BC Teachers Federation for binding arbitration in the ongoing education dispute.

“It’s time to resolve this dispute and get our children back into the classroom,” says Andrew Weaver. “The signs are clear that mediation isn’t working; we need another way to bring the two sides together. Binding arbitration is a perfectly reasonable request. The government will look entirely unreasonable if they do not agree”.

Andrew Weaver called for binding arbitration on Sunday after talks with Vince Ready broke down, leading to another week of strikes in a dispute that has already stretched on for months.

The announcement today from the BCTF offers a realistic, fair and practical means of ending the ongoing labour dispute.

Together, both the BCTF and the government could apply to the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court to appoint an arbitrator. Schools could be reopened as the arbitration process progresses.

“I have been inundated with emails from parents and teachers from all over British Columbia” notes Andrew Weaver, “it is clear to me that most British Columbians from all corners of this province would support the call for binding arbitration”

Media contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Media Statement – August 31st 2014

Andrew Weaver Calls on BCTF and Government to Agree to Binding Arbitration

For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, the MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head is calling on the British Columbia Teachers Federation, the British Columbia Public School Employer’s Association and the Provincial Government to immediately agree to binding arbitration to resolve the ongoing contract dispute, and to suspend the strike and lockout.

The departure of mediator Vince Ready from the talks this weekend portends to more than the first few weeks of September without classes for the over 550 000 students enrolled in public schools, their 41 000 teachers, and the thousands of support staff who were due to begin the school year this week.

The government has stated it will not recall the legislature early or introduce back to work legislation when MLAs return for the fall session in October. A framework to continue bargaining has not been established and no talks are scheduled leaving teachers, students and parents with little hope for an early resolution.

“The signs are clear that this dispute could stretch for months which will severely disrupt the lives of students, their parents and teachers, as well as their school support staff. I have been inundated with calls and emails from educators and parents desperate for a solution as the realization is hitting home a good part of the school year could be lost.” said Andrew Weaver. “There is a path forward, there is way to get classes started, and that is with the BCTF and government agreeing on binding arbitration and an immediate suspension of the strike. It takes leadership and resolve to do what is in everyone’s best interest.”

Media contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Children are starting the school year under a shadow of labour uncertainty. With the first day of the 2019-2020 academic year now behind us, teachers, children and their parents are wondering if and when contract negotiations will conclude or whether they will once more break down and lead to another strike.

Let’s be very clear, governments have choices to make. In the lead up to the 2017 election campaign, the BC Greens made public education our top priority. Our fully costed platform offered more than $4 billion in new funds over four years in support of this priority.

The BC NDP’s priorities are different. They have so far committed billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas sector in an attempt to deliver what Christy Clark couldn’t — a single LNG facility. They have committed  billions to build the Site C dam whose electricity will be sold at a massive loss to this single LNG provider. And they decided to forego billions of dollars of future revenue by removing the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges.

The BC Green 2017 platform promised to:

“Increase funding for schools, beginning in 2017/18 at $220 million and rising to $1.46 billion in 2020/21, to allow schools and school districts to invest in every child and prepare students for the 21st century economy, and to invest in innovation and technology. This is in addition to the $330 million committed by the BC Liberals to address the recent court ruling on class size.”

Public education is the foundation of any modern society. The BC Green party believes fundamentally in the importance of intergenerational equity and a preventative rather than reactive approaches to problem solving. For example, you will hear a lot about the struggles with the fentanyl crisis and young adults. Governments are good at funding “harm reduction projects” (reactive) but often don’t realize that prevention is just as critical. How many of our social problems today have arisen as a direct consequence of children growing up over the last dozen or so years without access to the services they needed to succeed (as these services were often the first casualties of the cuts to public education)?

The data from Statistics Canada are also very clear. BC Teachers are some of the lowest paid in the country. BC’s starting teacher wage is the second lowest in Canada (behind Quebec) and even after 10-15 years of experience, our BC teachers remain well behind most of the rest of Canada in terms of compensation. This wage gap is even more significant when one considers the cost of living in British Columbia, and in particular its urban areas, relative to the rest of the country. How can we expect to attract and retain the best and brightest to the profession if we are not willing to compensate them accordingly?

The BC Green public education platform extended beyond substantively increasing compensation for teachers and improving the support services for teachers and students. We further promised to:

1. Provide $10 million per year to restore funding for adult secondary education upgrading and language training
2. Direct $35 million into nutrition and physical activity programs to promote learning readiness, and improve student health.
3. Invest $140 million over three years to train teachers to deliver the new curriculum.
4. Work with Indigenous leaders, teachers, universities and colleges to develop policies and strategies to attract the brightest and best to the profession, and support recruitment. Special attention will be paid to increasing the number of Indigenous teachers and to incorporating more content on Indigenous culture into the curriculum.
5. Review the funding model for the K-12 education system with a view to ensuring equitable access for students. This will address targeting funding to schools with the greatest need and increasing local autonomy regarding funding priorities and distribution.

Imagine my surprise when I found out last spring that government was putting forth some of essentially the same proposals in contract negotiations that the former government did in 2014. In particular, the BC government tabled language regarding larger maximum class sizes and fewer specialty teachers. On May 27, 2019 I rose in the legislature during Question Period to ask the Minister of Education what he was thinking in doing this. I further asked what the Minister thought this would do to the morale of B.C. teachers given that starting in 2002 and culminating in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on November 10, 2016, the BCTF fought hard to restore provisions regarding their ability to bargain class size and composition. In fact, the teacher’s had historically given up wage increases in order to ensure class size and compensation language was included in collective agreements.

Unfortunately, while government has changed, labour uncertainty and unrest in the public education sector continues.

Back in 2014, I wrote extensively about the then labour dispute between the BCTF and the BC Liberal government. It began with a detailed piece offering a path forward for BC public education. A quick keyword search of this site with “BCTF” reveals numerous additional posts discussing mediation, arbitration, the government’s negotiating tactics and myriad other issues.

In my April 2015 second reading speech to Bill 11 – The Education Statutes Amendment Act, seven months after the end of the last teachers’ strike, I provided a more extensive analysis of my views on the importance of public education. Bill 11 aimed at unilaterally allowing government control over the professional development of teachers, and empowering government to issue directives to school boards that they would be bound to follow. In that speech I stated:

At the end of the strike last fall the government spoke about “an historic six-year agreement…which means five years of labour peace ahead of us.” Rather than viewing this as five years of simmering anger waiting to boil over when the negotiations next begin, we should be capitalizing on this time to envision bold new ways of ensuring our educational system is sustainable.

This includes teachers being fairly compensated and adequately supported with properly funded curriculum and learning resources. Such support must include sincere and meaningful class size and composition discussions and support that recognizes that teacher burnout affects us all. It must include reinvigorating our educational infrastructure and ensuring that children have textbooks and access to learning materials.

On Thursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its decision concerning the rights of teachers to negotiate conditions around class size and composition. Rather than allowing this to serve as a catalyst to incite increased tension between the BCTF and the government, perhaps both parties will recognize the opportunities that will arise from mutual collaboration, no matter what the Court of Appeals decision is.

For example, perhaps there is a compromise on class size and composition negotiations. Why don’t the BCTF and the B.C. government both agree, for example, that the best place to negotiate class size and composition is at the local school district level?

Rereading my “path forward” and “Bill 11” posts reminds me of how little has changed since the BC NDP have taken over from the BC Liberals. When it comes to public education, the BC Liberals and the BC NDP appear to be two sides of the same coin albeit with different colours.

To conclude, governments make choices all the time as to where to invest public resources. The BC Greens made public education ($4.022 billion over 4 years) our top priority and we remain committed in this regard.

As I mentioned at the start, the BC NDP’s priorities are different. They have so far committed billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas sector in an attempt to deliver what Christy Clark couldn’t — a single LNG facility. They have committed  billions to build the Site C dam whose electricity will be sold at a massive loss to this single LNG provider. And they decided to forego billions of dollars of future revenue by removing the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges.

Government’s make choices. And now you see what those choices are.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 41: Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill repeals the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, brought in by the BC Liberals in 2002. The original version of the bill included language stripping class size and composition rights from teachers’ collective bargaining.

That version led to the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation going on strike, and created a decade-and-a-half long dispute ending with the legislative change being deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Once the original version of the bill received royal assent the School Act amendments came into force. This is why they are no longer seen in the present version.

The powers granted to postsecondary institutions that remain in the original version have never been used. Nevertheless, in light of the recent Supreme Court of Canada BCTF decision, if a postsecondary institution were to invoke the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, it is likely it would be deemed unconstitutional, as it is very similar language to what has already been deemed unconstitutional.

Below are the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act.

As the minister mentioned, this act repeals the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that was brought in under the previous government in 2002.

Within the language of that bill brought in in 2002, restrictions were removed, in particular the clause:

Despite any other Act or a collective agreement, an institution has the right to

(a) establish the size of its classes, the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, a term or an academic year,

(b) assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,

(c) determine its hours of operation and the number and duration of terms or semesters during which instruction is offered to students,

(d) allocate professional development time and vacation time to facilitate its organization of instruction, and

(e) provide support for faculty members, including, but not limited to, teaching assistants, senior students, contractors and support staff members.

This legislation, brought to 2002, was fortunately never actually challenged and never actually used, because universities and colleges recognize that the governance style within these academic post-secondary institutions is more of a collegial form of governance, one in which an academic environment is governed by the senate, where there is input from faculty and staff and students in terms of the academic direction of an institution.

What was very troubling, of course, is that when this act was introduced, it also amended sections of the School Act, which stripped teachers’ bargaining rights — or when the prior act was a similar thing — related to class size and composition.

Remember the infamous Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, which started major labour disputes in our province with health care workers. Again, that was also implemented at the same time. It was rather a classic example of a pendulum that swings, when we have governments shift from one to the other side of the political spectrum.

If ever there was a compelling testimony as to why proportional representation is important, it’s that it limits these kinds of pendulum swings because of the fact that we typically don’t go from one extreme to the other. In this example, we’re going back to legislation coming in, being repealed. Of course, this should never have been brought in, in the first place.

With the B.C. Teachers Federation, of the examples I just raised, that dispute lasted for a decade and a half. How much money, how many hours lost, how much stress put on teachers, how much education was not delivered because of time being put to this because of, frankly, punitive measures that were brought forward by the previous government to the employees within the education sector, whether it be K-to-12 or post-second institutions?

The amendments to the School Act that were brought in with the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act were poorly thought out. It was legislation that caused, as I mentioned, a decade of turmoil, including the longest strike in BCTF’s history, in 2014, when I was on the other side there. It was based, frankly, on ideology that the government of the day doubled down on as it lost decision after decision, until it went to the Supreme Court, which, only for a few minutes, deliberated before they ruled unanimously on the direction that this should take.

I remember, frankly, three years ago standing in this House and speaking about the approach of the previous government toward education. At that time, I said that moving the relationship forward between the BCTF and the government would require trust — mutual trust. It was easy, of course, for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education were leery to trust the direction of the previous government.

At the time, I was arguing that the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government was providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Needless to say, that was not building trust. It was a classic example of the previous government’s approach.

Instead of working to build trust, the previous administration spent years fighting the BCTF — and countless dollars in doing so — creating labour disputes, court battles and strikes until finally the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the BCTF.

They won their challenge because the legislative changes infringed on B.C. teachers’ freedom of association, guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I use this example because the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that this bill is repealing here today — that is, Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act — has very similar language, which I read out earlier, very similar language in it, which, in theory, could render key sections in collective agreements with post-secondary educators void.

Coming to a specific example in the previous bill, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which is being repealed, it states here, as well: “Despite any other Act or collective agreement, an institution has the right to…assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,” and to establish class sizes and “the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member….”

The total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member — this shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how universities operate.

I taught at a university for 25 years before coming here. I had PhD students and master’s students. To think, here, that somehow government was enabling that my institution could tell me how many PhD students I could supervise…. Who’s going to pay them? We have departmental policy that requires us to find money to pay our students. What about if I was no longer active in research, and on and on. It just showed such a fundamental misunderstanding.

But in fact, in 2007, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators noted this, and they stated that this act overruled provisions of their collective agreements that dealt with class size. At the same time, their statement read as follows. This is the statement that they read: “Although we have succeeded in preventing post-secondary employers from using the legislation, today’s decision adds to our case that the legislation should be scrapped all together.” That was with respect to a ruling, one of the many rulings that came in the BCTF’s favour.

The Public Flexibility and Choice Act has still not been used to this day, thank goodness. But if it were to be used, I cringe to think of the disputes it would cause, and the subsequent legal challenges that could arise.

Now, I recognize that this legislation, which is still on the books, is a blight on the previous government, is a blight on the official opposition, which is why it seems that there are no speakers to this at second reading, and that they’ll accept it, and quickly, apart from one just saying, in a matter of moments, that they’ll accept it.

We’re not getting a detailed discussion and rationale on why this was brought in, in the first place. Why was this brought in, in the first place? We have members sitting opposite who’ve been in the B.C. Legislature since 2002, when, in fact, this legislation was brought. Rather than simply giving us a history, rather than telling us why it was brought in and why they’re now supporting it, all they say is we support repealing it, in essence.

I recognize this is a blight. It’s a shameful blight on 16 years of actually not putting education as a priority in this province. This bill before us today is seeking to remove the controversial piece of legislation, which, fortunately, has never been used before, and, frankly, if it were, would almost certainly have triggered legal challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, once again, it would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the legacy that the new government has to deal with. It is repealing legislation that, yet again, would almost certainly have been unconstitutional. My caucus and I are 100 percent behind this bill, and with that, I thank you for your attention.

Video of Speech