Editor: What BCTF president Jim Iker seems to have forgotten 鈥� and plays on people鈥檚 benign ignorance of the collective bargaining process between teachers (the BCTF) and the provincial government (BCPSEA) 鈥� is that the issue he raises in his letter (鈥�,鈥� The Times, Feb. 10) is still before the courts.
When it comes to Iker鈥檚 point about the B.C. government funding 鈥渢he basics like improving class size and composition鈥�, 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. It has resulted in a very long and highly expensive litigious process for the BCTF, which has nearly bankrupted the 40,000-plus member teachers鈥� union.
In the end, it may fail to produce the results that the teachers of B.C. and the BCTF have been hoping for, as the stakes are higher than the $2 billion impact that it may have on the provincial government鈥檚 budget. 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 鈥� an issue that has now been resolved in part in the BCTF鈥檚 favour with the provincial government being compelled to pay $2 million in costs 鈥� 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.
This case was initiated by former Surrey teacher and Surrey Teachers鈥� Association president David Chudnovsky (1986-88), a former BCTF president (1999-2002), who later was an NDP MLA representing Vancouver-Kingsway from 2005 to 2009.
He 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.
Five years ago, this case went before 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 鈥� 2004).
The alleged infringement was found by Justice Bauman not to be a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Not taking no for an answer, the BCTF challenged what they felt was 鈥榠mpugned鈥� legislation (Bills 27 and 28) before Madam Justice S. Griffin.
In her 78-page 鈥楻easons for Judgement 鈥� In Chambers鈥�, Madam Justice Griffin concluded that the B.C. Government infringed the teachers鈥� freedom of association guaranteed under the Charter and that the infringement 鈥� speaking to Sections 8 and 15 of the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act (Bill 28) 鈥� was not a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under Section 1 of the Charter.
Justice Griffin did not find that the provincial government had infringed the teachers鈥� freedom of association as it pertained to Section 4 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act (Bill 19 鈥� 2004).
She 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, she made an oral ruling which, in essence, dismissed the BCTF鈥檚 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, 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 enough, the BCTF challenged the issue once again on Jan. 13, 2014 and Madam Justice Griffin ruled in favour of the BCTF.
In concluding his letter, BCTF president Iker stated that 鈥渁 change in government attitude towards funding is the first adaptation (that) B.C. students need.鈥� I agree. But I don鈥檛 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 鈥� and she is now the Speaker of the House and only votes when there is a tie vote on a bill.
The B.C. 鈥楽ocred/Reform鈥� Liberal Party is ideologically committed to a balanced budget and reducing the provincial debt.
Yes, the province鈥檚 teachers 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.
It will cost billions if the teachers鈥� unions were to gain the power of deciding policy regarding education throughout the country.
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 to pressure the government in increase the provincial debt by another $2 billion to meet their aspirations.
I wish him the very best of British luck on that.
G.E. Macdonell,
Abbotsford
