What BCTF President Jim Iker seems to have forgotten – and plays on people’s benign ignorance of the collective bargaining process between teachers (the BCTF) and the provincial government (BCPSEA) – is that the issue he raises in his letter of teacher union self-praising, (“Teachers leading the way,” Feb. 6) is still before the courts.
When it comes to Iker’s point about the B.C. government funding “the basics like improving class size and composition,” the crux of the matter is that a BCTF-initiated court case that went before the Supreme Court of British Columbia nearly five years ago has resulted in a very long and highly expensive litigious process for the BCTF, that has nearly bankrupted the 40,000-plus member teachers’ union and, in the end, may fail to produce the results that they have been hoping for as the stakes are higher than the $2 billion-plus impact that it may have on the provincial government’s budget – and deficit and debt. It may have ramifications all the way across the country to the tune of a quarter of a trillion dollars.
As of October 2014, this protracted case was before the Appeals Court of B.C. regarding what the B.C. government cabinet purported to be confidential information that has not been put forward in this five-year-long process – an issue that has now been resolved in part in the BCTF’s favour with the provincial government being compelled to pay $2,000,000 in costs, but which has not been paid as the provincial government is considering appealing.
And undoubtedly the matter will be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where it could take years before attaining resolution, which will only acerbate the already soured relationship between the teachers and the BCTF and the B.C. government, the ministry of education, the BCPSEA and the province’s boards of education.
This case was initiated by former Surrey teacher and Surrey Teachers’ Association President David Chudnovsky (1986-88) / former BCTF President (1999-2002), and who was an NDP MLA representing Vancouver-Kingsway from 2005 to 2009, challenged what the BCTF feels is impugned legislation interfering with the rights to freedom of association contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (part of the Constitution Act, 1982).
Five years ago, this case went before the Honourable Chief Justice Bauman with the BCTF attempting to impugn the validity of three pieces of provincial legislation:
1. the Educational Services Collective Agreement Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 1 (also known as Bill 27,);
2. the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 3 (also known as Bill 28); and,
3. the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, S.B.C. 2004, c.1 (also known as Bill 19 – 2004).
The alleged infringement was found not to be a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter by Justice Bauman.
Not taking no for an answer, the BCTF challenged what they felt was ‘impugned’ legislation (Bills 27 and 28) before the Honourable Madam Justice S. Griffin.
In her 78-page reasons for judgement, Madam Justice Griffin concluded that the B.C. government infringed the teachers’ freedom of association guaranteed under the Charter and that the infringement – speaking to Sections 8 and 15 of the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act – was not a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Furthermore, Justice Griffin did not find that the provincial government had infringed the teachers’ freedom of association as it pertained to Section 4 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act.
The Justice gave the provincial government a year to address the repercussions of her decision, suspending the invalidity of the legislation for 12 months.
A year and a half later, on October 12, 2011, at the behest of the BCTF, which was seeking directions as to the meaning and implications of her previous decision, Madam Justice Griffin made an oral ruling which, in essence, dismissed the BCTF’s application and advised the teachers that her previous judgement was precise and unambiguous in its direction.
Pushing the envelope, the BCTF made further application to Madam Justice Griffin on Sept. 21, 2012, citing four instances where their rights had been violated; however, the Justice advised both parties, the BCTF and the provincial government, to communicate with each other more effectively, before any further judicial action was to be taken.
In this lengthy process-oriented series of court appearances, Justice Griffin made a further judgement regarding the BCTF’s application for production of confidential cabinet documents noting that the documents sought were not relevant and were not needed to be produced by the provincial government.
If that wasn’t enough, the BCTF challenged the issue once again on Jan. 13, 2014 and a reason for judgement, by Justice Griffin on Jan. 27, ruled in favour of the BCTF but as the Abbotsford District Teachers’ Association (ADTA) pointed out in its February 2014 edition of “The Advocate” newsletter, that “Given the ramifications of their (the provincial government’s) illegal action (Author note: the action should be viewed as unconstitutional and not illegal as the Charter of Rights and Freedom is not a law but a series of rights under the Constitution Act of 1982.) being overturned, perhaps it shouldn’t be any surprise to teachers that the provincial government would file an appeal of Justice Griffin’s second determination of the unconstitutionality of the (B.C.) Liberal’s legislation.”
The ramifications for Abbotsford School District alone would be the addition of 92.31 FTE (Full-Time Equivalents, which would include teachers and other special support roles), according to the ADTA’s newsletter.
According to an affidavit submitted to the Court of Appeal Registry on Feb. 13, 2014 by the Abbotsford Board of Education’s superintendent of schools, Kevin Godden, with the support of Assistant Superintendents Mary-Ann Smirle (Elementary), Dr. Angus MacKay (Middle School, ASIA and Sumas Mountain Campus) and Steve Carlton (Secondary), the ramifications for Abbotsford School District would total hiring approximately 63 classroom teachers FTE and 29.21 non-enrolling teacher FTEs at an ongoing cost of $8,550,000, and would impact on space utilization in many schools and would include the district to purchase 21 portable classrooms at a cost of approximately $125,000 each for a total of $2,625,000.
The board of education’s surplus for June 30, 2014 cited an internal restriction of $14,090,672 with an unrestricted operating surplus of $515,754. If the school district had to return to the clauses in the 2001 contract with its teachers, the impact would force the board to eliminate funding for 60.67 per cent of its internally restricted budget (not including its unrestricted operating surplus).
That impact would be severe on the board’s plans for the district’s budget that is currently being developed, as it was fortunate to have a surplus for the year ending June 30, 2014, but many school districts would be facing a deficit budget for 2014-15 and that would result in applying to the ministry of education for financial assistance as boards are not allowed by law to run a deficit budget, unlike the provincial or federal governments. And, in B.C.’s case, the minister of finance, who happens to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly representing one of the three provincial ridings in the City of Abbotsford, has indicated that the provincial government will balance its books for the current fiscal year.
In concluding his letter, BCTF President Jim Iker stated that “a change in government attitude towards funding is the first adaptation (that) B.C. students need.” I agree. But I don’t think he should hold his breath. The current B.C. government is primarily former Social Credit and Reform Party of B.C. members with only one true Liberal, and she is now the Speaker of the House and only votes when there is a tie vote on a bill.
The B.C. ‘Socred/Reform’ Liberal Party is ideologically committed to a balanced budget and reducing the provincial debt as it seems, no matter what the cost.
And with the current make-up of the Legislative Assembly in Victoria, that is highly improbable if not totally impossible with the amount of control over individual members of the governing party as we have seen on numerous occasions since they came to power in 2001.
Yes, the province’s teacher are leading the way, but the significance of their demands made before the Supreme Court of B.C. and the B.C. Court of Appeals since 2010, has massive implications for the control of educational policy throughout the country that would cost two billion plus dollars here in B.C. and tens of billions of dollars across the country if the teachers unions were to gain the power of deciding policy regarding education throughout the country – undoubtedly the result of a chain-reaction by other provinces teachers’ associations following suit if the BCTF were to win and taking their provincial governments to court all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Perhaps the BCTF and its member associations and the 40,000 plus teachers need to start a door-to-door campaign soliciting support from industrial, commercial and residential taxpayers in Abbotsford to pressure the government in increase the provincial debt by another $2-billion-plus to meet their aspirations.
If Mr. Iker wants a change in government attitude, teachers need to change the Abbotsford taxpayers’ attitude towards carrying a heavier provincial debt than the current $62 billion or $8,735 debt per capita (according to the Royal Bank of Canada’s calculations) for every man, woman and child, whether they are a retired senior, working adult, school student or baby in arms.
I wish him the very best of British luck on that.
G.E. MacDonell
Abbotsford
