[ Page 7491 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

L. Reid: I have three groups to introduce today. The first are individuals from my riding, from the Richmond Chamber of Commerce: Shelley Leonhardt, who is the executive director, and Mr. Ron Docherty, who is the brand-new president. I know that they're awaiting a visit from this government, and I trust that it will happen in the near future. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today are Mr. Allison and Mr. Sellitti, both teachers at Mitchell Elementary School. They have with them 50 grade 6 and 7 students. I would also ask the House to make those individuals welcome.

My final introduction is someone in the gallery whom we all know and love: "Red." I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, a very dedicated supporter and volunteer. He's the president of my riding association. Would the House please make welcome Mr. Fred Kaiser.

B. McKinnon: We have visiting the Legislature today a class of grade 5 students, along with their teachers and parents. These students attend Pacific Academy in the Fraser Heights area of my riding. I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery are three distinguished visitors from India. They're part of an exchange between Canada and India. We have team leader Mr. M.K. Murthy, Mr. Sanjay Lulla and Mrs. Sesha Padma. As well, accompanying them are Mr. Varma and John Banks; both are Rotarians. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are two very special members of my family. I'm sure all members recognize that without the support of our families we wouldn't be able to carry on and do the jobs that we do on behalf of our constituents. It's very important to have that support. Joining us in the gallery are my mother, Ruth Davis, and my very special dad, Fred Davis. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Nettleton: I'm especially privileged today, as I have here in the gallery not only friends all the way from Fort St. James but people who are neighbours of mine. It's certainly my privilege to have them here today. In fact, I think it was Gabby Grondin who alerted my wife to the fact that there was a moose crossing our driveway onto his, roughly two months ago. Please join me in welcoming Gabby and Gert Grondin and their daughter Jocelyn.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce to the House visitors from Surrey-Whalley: Tom Lalonde, Rosalyn Drescher and Agda Neuman, all from Métis Family Services. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

V. Anderson: In the House today we have 45 grade 11 and 12 students from Churchill Secondary School in the Vancouver-Langara riding, who are here to visit and to see how we conduct government. I'd ask the House to help me make them welcome, along with Mr. Picard, their teacher.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, visiting us in the precinct today -- and I think he may be in the galleries by now -- is my newly hired executive assistant, Mr. Keith Simmonds, who is a former steelworker and also pulp worker. He's here today as part of our staff meeting today. Would the House please make my executive assistant welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 15, the Legal Profession Act. This act will double the number of non-lawyers on the governing board of the Law Society from three to six. This will help to ensure that decisions of the Law Society better reflect public concerns.

The amendments contained in this act will reduce the need for frequent minor amendments to the Legal Profession Act, by giving the benchers of the Law Society more authority over some areas which pertain to the internal workings and administration of the Law Society, where legislative supervision is not required and where the public interest remains protected.

This act ensures that appropriate legislative authority is maintained with respect to all matters subject to legislative supervision, as the public interest requires, such as the right to make complaints against lawyers and the requirement to maintain professional liability insurance.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

My question is to the Minister for Children and Families: will the minister admit today that much more, in terms of resources, is required to protect children in need and children in care? Or does the minister believe that the resources she has available are adequate?

Hon. L. Boone: It's nice that the members opposite finally get a question with regard to children -- the first question with regard to children in this House. I recognize that the members opposite are talking about the report that was just tabled by the children's advocate today, where she is advocating that we have more money for the system. I also recognize that we could probably all use more money. There are many services out there that are required. There are many children out there. We could put a lot more money into the services that we need here.

[ Page 7492 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .and talk about the need to reduce.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you very much.

Hon. L. Boone: You can't have it both ways -- you can't do that.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his first supplementary.

G. Campbell: The child, youth and family advocate is an officer of the entire Legislature. We all share responsibilities to read that report and to pay attention to what she says, to heed the advice that we receive from the child, youth and family advocate. She says very explicitly. . . . I'll read this for the minister, in case she didn't read it: "Things did not get [any] better for. . .children, youth and families. . .in 1997."

Again I ask the Minister for Children and Families: do you think you have adequate resources to care for children in need and children in the government's care in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: The member opposite may have missed that we have actually had an increase in this budget. We have had an increase of $60 million in this budget this year. We have recently announced that we are hiring more staff to address the workload problem that we now recognize is out there. We are doing everything that we can with the dollars and the budget that we have.

If the member opposite thinks that we need more money in our budget, then I would suggest that he is probably not going to question me very much with regard to estimates and just pass my budget outright, so that we can get on with the job that we have to do. But you can't. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .have it both ways. You can't demand that we cut and then at the same time demand that we increase spending every time we stand in this House.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his second supplementary.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question.

G. Campbell: Is this minister willing to say that she has enough resources to care for the children in need and children that are her responsibility in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: I can promise the members opposite that we are doing the best that we can, that we will provide for the children within our mandate. I can tell the members opposite that we will not be putting the money that you want to put into the doctors' pockets in this province. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .and that is what we want to do. We want to make sure that the services go into children and that the services are there to provide. . . . And I want to tell you, hon. Speaker, that we will not be doing what the members opposite are doing, which is condemning our workers, in areas throughout this province, who are doing an excellent job. We will not be going in and one time demanding that we protect children and, on the other hand, demanding that we return children and saying that we're taking them without adequate cause.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. L. Boone: Our workers are doing a tremendous job out there, and the members ought to recognize that.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

IMPACT OF FORESTS POLICY ON TAHSIS

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, how can this member stand here when they, over and over and over, demand that we cut services, that we reduce the number of government employees? Every single member opposite has stood in this House during estimates debates demanding that we cut -- that we eliminate the deficit, that we cut civil servants -- and then this member has the audacity to stand there and demand that we provide more money for services here. This is a joke -- an absolute joke. You cannot have it on both sides.

We have provided $60 million more in this year's budget to provide services -- $60 million. That's not a drop in the bucket. Those things are going into providing new workers so

[ Page 7493 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: One year, hon. Speaker. We have made tremendous progress. . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .in implementing the Gove recommendations. Read some of the reports. . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .that have been out that have indicated that. . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .we have done so.

The Speaker: Thank you.

The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: On this side of the House we have never said that we should cut the budget for the Ministry for Children and Families. This minister knows that children are a priority for the members on this side of the House.

It has been three years since the Gove report came out, and my question to the minister is this. With this situation, which has gone on for so long, there is a fine line between negligence and neglect. At what point does this situation cross that line for the minister? At what point does this minister start taking responsibility for the children who are in her government's care?

Hon. L. Boone: We are taking responsibility for the children in our care, hon. Speaker, but you have to draw the line between neglect and irresponsibility, such as the member opposite. . . . When you go into communities and say, "You too could be next; your children can be apprehended," as they did in the community of Williams Lake after being in Quesnel, that's irresponsible action -- from the member opposite, inflicting fear upon people.

We are acting in this ministry. We have implemented tremendous recommendations in the past year. We are still moving to implement tremendous recommendations, and there's a lot of progress that's taking place.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: The children's advocate indicated to us that there are many programs that she knows we are working on, but she would sooner see us move slowly on them and implement them in a rational and planned way. . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .rather than implement them in a haphazard way.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to quote from the advocate. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the advocate works for all of us. We on this side of the House have a responsibility to respond to the advocate's report. In the report and in the press release that accompanies it, the advocate states: "At present there are not sufficient resources to provide proper training, supervision or staff time to implement changes such as the development and use of risk-assessment tools to make tough child-protection decisions."

That relates directly to what happened in Quesnel. The former minister stood up in this House time and again and talked about those risk-assessment tools and how they'd implemented them and how everything was going to be fine from now on with risk assessment. But now the child advocate tells us that there aren't even resources to train people to use those. So if we have one priority in this House, before the Skeena Celluloses and before the other things that this government spends money on -- before the advertising -- it's to put money into making sure that the children in this province are protected.

I ask the minister the question: will she work with members of the opposition, as the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly offered, to find the dollars within the government's budget and transfer them to make sure that that training takes place and that children are protected?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, if the members opposite want to put forth their wish list as to where they would like to see the cuts coming, I'd be happy to take them to the Minister of Finance. Do you want to see the cuts come out of the medicare system?

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: Do they want the cuts to come out of our road system? Do you want them to come out of. . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .any other areas that we have? Hon. Speaker, the members opposite have in fact demanded more and more money. I have not heard the members opposite say that they want less money for anything; it's more. "I want more money for everything around." Now they're telling me that they want more money "for us, and we're going to try and find the money. . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you very much.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .for us here." Hon. Speaker, thank you.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you.

The Opposition House Leader on his first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll ask the minister now: can we please have less money on Skeena Cellulose? Can we please have less money on government advertising? Can we please have less money on cost overruns at B.C. Ferries? Will the minister take those dollars and put them into training child protection workers and put that money into protecting children? I ask her now.

Hon. L. Boone: Can we please have back the $800 million that you spent on your mailers? Can we please have that money back?

[ Page 7494 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I'd very much like to have that money back here.

The Speaker: Minister, through the Chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. L. Boone: It's $800,000 -- excuse me.

We have put $60 million more into this ministry -- $60 million more. We are hiring 225 new social workers. We are currently implementing programs. We are currently training, and we have in place some training programs to do things, such as the training of the supervisors that you're talking about. These are things that cannot be done haphazardly; they are things that cannot be done quickly. The child advocate actually recognized with me yesterday that those are things that we have to do right. We have to do them slowly, but we have to do them right. And we are working on those things.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe the minister didn't get the comments from the advocate correctly. She doesn't say that they should be doing them more slowly. What she says is: ". . .there are not sufficient resources to provide proper training, supervision or staff time to implement changes such as the risk-assessment tools" that the previous minister talked about.

I've just given the minister three examples of where some money can be found. If she wants to talk about the mailers, there's the $4 million that her caucus spent. But that's aside from this. There is lots of money within the ministries if we make the right decisions and the right priorities.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Will the minister talk to the minister responsible for Skeena Cellulose, to the Premier about his advertising budget, to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries and the cost overruns? Please, hon. minister, will you spend that money on training the workers so they can do the job properly and effectively and protect the children? Will you do that?

Hon. L. Boone: In case the members don't recognize it, this is the 1997 annual report. She is reporting on last year's budget; she is reporting on actions that we took last year. I have told you that we have $60 million more in this ministry; that we are implementing programs, which we are currently putting in place; and that we are developing programs to address many of the concerns. The child advocate's office recognized that we have come a long way. But she also gave us a warning, and that warning was that the media may only pick up on the negative -- which is true -- and that we may lose some of the positive things. But she recognizes that we've come a long way in this past year and that we've done a lot of things. And yes, we have a lot of things that we have to work on. We all know that, and we are working on those things.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui was on his feet, and I recognize him. A brief question, then, and a brief answer, even though the time limit has passed.

M. de Jong: I was on the committee that selected the advocate. This House came together in a brief, shining moment of non-partisanship and selected an individual that we said we would entrust to go out and advocate on behalf of children.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: We've made the offer in the House. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member.

M. de Jong: . . .we've made the offer in the past, we've made the offer today. All we're asking, hon. Speaker, is for this minister to avail herself of the non-partisan offer that we have repeated over and over and over again: tell us what you need, and we'll give it to you. We'll help you. Will she accept that offer today, at last, in the face of what is written in this book?

The Speaker: Minister for Children and Families -- a brief response, please.

Hon. L. Boone: You've heard it all today. This member said to tell him what I want and he'd give it to me. I'd like you to lower your rhetoric a little bit, hon. member.

The Speaker: It is perhaps timely, then, given that we've just finished this question period, for the Chair to make several observations relating to oral question period.

In order to refresh my memory and be of assistance to hon. members, I have examined question period Blues from Thursday, April 2, 1998, to today. I have also examined several Speakers' statements dealing with the conduct of question period over the last six years, and it has become abundantly clear that today's problems are not new.

The rules applicable to oral question period are not complicated, and perhaps the best summary is outlined in our standing order 47A(b): "Questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." Any objective analysis of the current questions and answers leads to the conclusion that the quoted guidelines have been judiciously ignored by both sides of the House.

A slightly expanded guideline for questions and answers is as follows: "The question must be brief. A preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary question should need no preamble. An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to ministers of the Crown." The above quotes may be found in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, at pages 110 and 111.

[2:30]

[ Page 7495 ]

There is a further matter with which the Chair is concerned. During the course of question period, several members on both sides of the House are offering gratuitous advice from their seats related to the conduct of question period. Their interjections, varying between a call for order, a call for a question and a call for time, show a lack of respect for the Chair and add nothing to the conduct of question period.

If members have a legitimate point of order they wish to raise, they may be aware that, on the conclusion of question period, they are entitled to rise on a point of order and state the matter. But it is unacceptable for these interjections to continue in their present form. I would ask both sides of the House to assist the Chair in improving the quality of our 15-minute daily question period.

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I move that the report be adopted.

But first, if I may, I'd like to say a few words. The Public Accounts Committee in this past year has worked extremely hard and extremely well. We've looked in some depth into issues surrounding B.C. Transit, travel expenses and organization of travel within government. We had an extended period of time dealing with issues surrounding forestry revenues.

We have also concerned ourselves with the issues of the year 2000 bug and the consequences of that, and the committee intends to further pursue those issues in the coming year. We've spent a great deal of time dealing with the entity issue. I'm sorry that we didn't get it finished in time for the Minister of Finance at the time. I thought we would have it completed, but we will finish that shortly.

I would like to thank members of the committee for their commitment this past year. I would particularly like to make note of the contribution in both commitment and support to myself from the member for Surrey-Whalley, who was my Deputy Chair. I would like the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who will be my Deputy Chair in this coming year, to know that she has set a very high standard and that I expect it to be maintained.

With that, I would ask that my report be accepted.

Motion approved.

Ministerial Statement

CHILD CARE MONTH

Here in B.C., we have one of the most comprehensive child care strategies in the country. I firmly believe that we have that strategy not only because British Columbians recognize child care's basic importance to society but also because they recognize that good-quality child care is a long-term investment in our children, our families and our communities. Quality child care offers children a warm, nurturing environment and a safe place in which to play, to develop and practise new skills, to make friends, to learn and to grow. Good-quality child care creates lasting, lifetime friendships. It benefits children by encouraging their natural enthusiasm for discovery and learning, and it helps them build the solid foundations so necessary in today's diverse and complex world.

Quality child care supports the development of healthy families and offers parents the help and support they need to maintain the sometimes difficult balance of family and life. Every child -- whether special needs, wealthy or poor, urban or rural -- deserves the best possible start in life. It is up to each and every one of us to see that B.C.'s children get the healthy beginning they so deserve. We owe them that. Today I invite all British Columbians to join me in supporting and promoting good-quality child care this month and all year round.

C. Clark: From this side of the House I'd like to join the minister in celebrating Child Care Month this month. She's certainly correct in saying that every child in British Columbia deserves the best start they can get. Whether that's through quality child care or quality early intervention programs, every dollar that government devotes to a child is an investment in our future. Every child deserves the best start, because they deserve to grow up healthy and happy and to be able to fulfil their potential, which is the right of every citizen in British Columbia.

We must not forget the special needs children in British Columbia: the children with autism, the children whose services are frequently at risk because they are so vulnerable in our society. Those are the children to whom we need to pay special attention when we celebrate Child Care Month, because they need our help the most and deserve our attention the most. I'll join the minister in celebrating Child Care Month and offer from our side of the House the hope that thousands of British Columbians will join us in this celebration.

Orders of the Day

[ Page 7496 ]

WORKERS COMPENSATION
(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading continued)

But we believe that this bill in its present form would kill jobs in British Columbia and would eliminate places of employment. . . .

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for attempting to intervene over there. Shall I sit down for a moment?

The Speaker: Hon. members, I would like the House to come to a little more order. There are too many conversations going on, and that makes it difficult to hear.

K. Krueger: The minister said at the opening of his remarks introducing second reading of this bill that he intended to be completely open, and I accept him at his word. Even though he was relying on the authority of a horoscope when he said that, nevertheless I believe that he intends to be completely open. We're honestly asking that the minister be open to this request to allow the people of the province, the job-generating employers and the investors of this province to have some real input into the matters raised by this bill before the bill proceeds.

We don't want to keep the House here until Christmas working on this bill alone. There's so much in it that we probably could. Surely we can take a wiser tack and a more reasonable approach and genuinely consult, listen and accept the input we receive from the people who will have to deal with these measures on the ground. That's what we're asking him to do, because in its present form this bill, unfortunately, does continue that triple attack on our economy of overregulation, overtaxation and interference in labour-management relations, which has hurt our economy so badly.

The bill says some noble things. In section 107 it sets out a desire to promote a culture of commitment, and that's what we're proffering here: a commitment to work with the government to make sure that the stated goals of the legislation are met to ensure worker safety, while those other goals of getting the economy back on the rails, which we've all been talking about every day since this House convened, are also met. So let's practise that culture of commitment; let's demonstrate today in this House by adopting this amendment and hoisting the bill temporarily and being willing to amend it that we really mean what that part of the bill is saying.

One of the concerns we have -- and certainly that employers we're hearing from have -- is the concern I alluded to earlier that workers aren't obliged by this legislation to step up to the plate in the same way as employers are. Referring specifically to section 107(e), it says: ". . .to ensure that employers, workers and others who are in a position to affect the occupational health and safety of workers share that responsibility to the extent of each party's authority and ability to do so." That's well said, but the rest of the bill doesn't back it up in that there are extremely severe and substantial penalties to employers who fail to live up to that, and nothing but escape clauses for employees who deliberately flout the rules and put themselves and others at risk. That just isn't right, and it's not enforceable in its present form. It needs to be worked on.

Another aspect, of course, is the almost absolute power of. . . .

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Well, it is absolute power that this government proposes to hand over to the Workers Compensation Board, which has proven itself to be so inadequate in delivering its mandate to protect and care for injured workers. For the moment, I refer to section 113, which says: "The board has exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine. . . ." It goes on to use words like "final" and "conclusive" with regard to the board's powers, and that it "is not open to question or review in any court." That reminds me of the law of the Medes and the Persians in the Bible, where even the king couldn't alter his decisions once they were pronounced. That's how Daniel ended up in the lions' den. Of course, he ended up getting out of there because he responded to a higher authority. But the people who put him in there didn't fare as well.

Our economy has sort of been a victim of the lions' den for the last seven years, and we want to do something about turning that around. That's what we're proposing with this amendment. Let's get it right this time. Let's not have it hold-harmless for workers while putting such a tremendous onus and, worse than that, such unnecessary regulation and constraints upon employers. Let's not give the Workers Compensation Board such an incredibly sweeping mandate -- these powers to intrude and harass and interpret and judge and bewilder employers with their behaviour.

[2:45]

I tell you, Madam Speaker, that's very much the way employers feel in this province: that it's a hostile environment for them -- an environment that's full of pitfalls and traps and land mines -- and that it's literally impossible to negotiate it without getting in trouble. As we travel around the province talking to employers and employees, we hear more and more ludicrous examples of how provincial government regulation is destroying jobs in this province. For example, we had one logging contractor who said that he and his crew were working through the area they had been allowed to log, and they came upon a snag with an eagle's nest in it. They said to each

[ Page 7497 ]

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The minister is protesting that he's changed the code.

I'm giving this as an example of the absurdities that happen to people who are trying to create jobs and employ people in this province. The upshot was that they didn't cut the snag down, and they did get fined by Workers Compensation.

I'm saying let's not give that board any more authority than it already has to destroy employment in this province and to hassle employers. Let's be very, very sure of ourselves before we make any such moves as are contemplated by this legislation. That proviso that the Workers Compensation Board will be able to do other things -- essentially whatever is dreamt up from here on out -- is almost comical, except that it is so dangerous to employment in this province. I don't think that people who write things like this have the foggiest clue what the real world is like.

I'm running into that more and more as I work on constituents' files -- people like my constituents Al and June Bush in Barrière, who have essentially been bankrupted by this government. I hear from ministry employees that employers will have to get used to some of these regulations they have to work around, these shortages of fibre supply. I think that those government employees who speak that way would be absolutely enraged, furious, if their paycheque got skipped one time. If they ever went for a two-week pay period and there was no deposit to their bank, no cheque in the pay envelope, they'd be screaming blue murder; they'd want to know what went wrong. But they think it's perfectly all right for their boards and commissions and ministries to interrupt the flow of earnings to employers and employees.

Indeed, this regulation sets out all kinds of responsibilities for the employer to pay in the event of a work disruption that arises as a result of provisions of this act. Here, there and everywhere, employers are told that they're going to have to pay for training; they're going to have to allow people to book off work and investigate things. I accept that there's a good intent here. Absolutely, if a worker identifies a genuinely unsafe situation, he should never feel obliged to go in there and risk his life. Frankly, the worst examples I've seen of that in this province are the railways, which are curiously exempted by this act. We asked in our briefing meeting why they were exempted. The answer was that it's pretty complicated to try and include them, but that that is a long-term goal. Well, we ask: "What's the rush?" Why don't we just do it right? Why don't we take this six months that we're advocating and do that at the same time?

I've heard of the railways asking young people to crawl into culverts that have been plugged by beavers and to work at unplugging them. Of course, when they succeed, the result is going to be water flushing the worker and all through the culvert. Recently we had a disaster up near Terrace, where the railway company was dismantling part of a bridge. Eventually, sure enough, the crane that was doing it fell through into the river, and a worker was killed. And there were two workers in the Fraser Canyon who were killed when their train went out on a track that no longer had a roadbed under it, because the railway wasn't properly maintaining culverts. So we have these examples of genuinely unsafe workplaces, but those employers are for some reason exempted.

If it's a matter of needing the time to do it right, we're offering this government the opportunity to take that time -- while getting other things right, as well. I beseech the minister to allow the amendment and to do what we're asking here.

The type of paper-pushing that's imposed by this act is horrendous for small business people. It's pretty intimidating even for large business people and for government itself. I look at section 112 where the government imposes on itself and the Workers Compensation Board the responsibility to do an assessment of the occupational health and safety record of workplaces in British Columbia on an ongoing basis. Is that every workplace in British Columbia? Obviously, we'll be dealing with these things in committee, if we have to. But we're hoping that we won't go to committee on this, because we don't want to take up more of the House's time than we have to, to deal with this. We think that the proper way to deal with it is the way advocated by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena in this amendment.

Our thrust is a plea to this government to change its way of approaching issues like this one and to show that it can do so with this act. Let's not take one-size-fits-all approaches to perceived problems in British Columbia; let's focus our solutions on the problems that actually exist. Let's identify problem employers where there are unsafe workplaces and deal with those companies, individuals, managers and owners -- not with all businesses. Let's not do anything more to give the impression to business and to investment that they are unwelcome in British Columbia. Let's demonstrate that we are listening and that we're willing to humble ourselves. If we've tabled something that doesn't completely make sense to people, let's have a second look at it.

Let's set out the goals -- I think the minister was doing that when he spoke this morning in introducing second reading -- and let people work to deliver those results. Those who fail or, perhaps through random auditing and inspections by WCB, are demonstrated to not be showing the spirit that's sought by government, by workers, by all of us in protecting employers. . . . When those people are identified, let's deal with them as the exceptions they are rather than unnecessarily causing businesses all over British Columbia to be tied up even further in red tape, regulation and expense. And when we do that -- in six months when we debate the revised legislation -- let's make sure that we do it even-handedly, so that there is a penalty to those workers who deliberately put themselves and others at risk. Let's make sure that this isn't such a one-sided deal.

Madam Speaker, I see the minister frowning at me. I'm talking here about people who just don't obey the rules -- people who won't wear their seatbelts when they're driving industrial equipment, people who exhibit a bad attitude for whatever reason. I've been on both sides of the labour-management relations coin. I was a shop steward, an executive councillor, a member of the board of OTEU 378; I spent ten years in positions like that. I went to B.C. Federation of Labour and Canadian Labour Congress conventions, and I met a lot of great people who are very active in the union movement. Many of them are still friends of mine. But I also met some people who just had bad attitudes. I met employees in my own workplaces and from other workplaces who just really enjoy flouting the rules. They're an annoyance and a

[ Page 7498 ]

The royal commission recommended ways that they be dealt with, and somebody caused the government to delete those provisions. We believe it was Mr. Georgetti, but whoever it was, we would like to see balance in the legislation when it comes back. I'm operating on the presumption that the minister is actually considering the validity of what's suggested in this amendment. There have to be consequences for problem workers. I hope that the minister is listening to the input he's getting from business all over this province -- that this is unworkable. Does everyone on that side of the House realize what something like this will do to employers around the province -- how intimidating it is? A small business man looks at things like this, and he's looking at Mount Everest. He just doesn't have the resources to pay for what's required of him here and to deal with the hassles that will flow to him as a result.

So there again, people are saying to us: "Read our lips, government." They say that to us on the opposition side as well. They don't want us fooling around in here, exchanging barbs, wasting our time on nonsensical things. One businessman said to one of my colleagues that business throughout British Columbia would be a lot better off if government did absolutely nothing, if they at least were left to live within the rules that they presently have, rather than constantly bringing on more regulation, more change that they have to adapt to and spend money on. Of course, none of us go along with that or we wouldn't have stood for office. But we should listen to the warning in those words; it's very tough on the economy, very tough on business and employment when we impose things like this.

Overregulation kills the economy. We've seen that with the Forest Practices Code. The Minister of Forests stood up before the province recently and talked about taking a chainsaw to the Forest Practices Code because there was far too much regulation there, in his opinion -- and ours. But in our opinion, there's still far too much regulation in the Forest Practices Code. It needs to shift, as this legislation needs to shift, to being results-based rather than process-driven.

This legislation is a bureaucrat's dream and an investor's and job creator's nightmare. It must not be allowed to go forward in its present form. I sincerely hope, as I conclude my remarks, that the minister will listen, will accept this amendment in the spirit with which it's proffered and take the opportunity to allow the people -- the investors, the job creators of this province -- to have a say, incorporate what they say, show them we're listening, show them the oil tanker is changing direction. Perhaps we can begin to build the confidence that's necessary in our economy to bring British Columbia back from worst to first in terms of economic performance.

H. Giesbrecht: I rise to speak against the six-month hoist motion. I'd like to speak for a few minutes to just provide some of the reasons. This legislation is about saving lives and preventing workplace injuries. I think that point was made in the introductory comments. It does four things. It sends a clear message that occupational health and safety is important to all of us. It provides that focus that's necessary. It makes the government clearly responsible for the broad area of workplace safety. We recognize, of course, that there are union workplaces where much of this has been in effect for years. But we're also talking about the non-union workplace where those kinds of protections are not necessarily part of the collective agreement. It establishes an appropriate legal basis for the health and safety work of the WCB.

I might interject here, hon. Speaker, that many of us have dealt with the WCB in the past. It's one of those institutions that we love to hate. That's probably because we are always dealing with injuries after the fact. Here's an initiative which involves the WCB in prevention, in enforcing those kinds of initiatives that lead to preventive measures. That's a whole lot better than trying to deal with injury claims after that fact -- and that should be noted. It establishes a legal requirement that employers create and maintain workplace health and safety programs.

If it works -- and I'm convinced that it will -- then there will be fewer injuries to workers, fewer fatalities and lower costs to employers. That's certainly preferable to doing nothing for six months. It should be pointed out that the people that have the most to lose in terms of accidents in the workplace are workers -- not employers, but workers. They're the ones that have their lives and their bodies on the line, and I think that should never be forgotten in this debate.

The member refers to a six-month hoist as a way of getting some input. I want to point out exactly what a six-month hoist would do. We heard in the opening statements that each week three workers die from workplace injuries in B.C., that every day 16 workers are permanently disabled and that there are more than 700 injuries on the job. So if you wait and do nothing for six months, you are looking at 72 workers dying, about 384 workers being permanently disabled and thousands more being injured. That's during the six-month hoist period.

[3:00]

We are in a province with a large workforce in the resource extraction sector. Those are high-risk occupations, and some of them are in remote areas of the province. And yes, many of them have health and safety committees that deal with issues on the job; many have committees that actually keep their members or their colleagues in line. History should have taught us something: where profits and occupational health and safety are conflicting goals, the only protection the worker has is his or her union. If there's no union, then the only protection you've got is some kind of government legislation that protects workers' health and safety. Yes, it would be nice if all employers and workers could get together and deal with these issues -- and sometimes it works. But often it doesn't, and then we ask the WCB to pick up the slack, or we ask the government to step in after it's too late.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson is fond of using the phrase: "This legislation will kill jobs." Well, it might. We might have to employ fewer coroners; we might have to employ fewer undertakers. But in the end, if we can prevent injury and fatalities to workers, then that's a whole lot better than worrying about some of the jobs -- like funeral directors -- that we aren't going to have.

[ Page 7499 ]

I was touched by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson's pleading for a delay, and I was even touched by his call for humility. But I was certainly unimpressed with the amount of exaggeration in his comments. Aside from the periodic warm, fuzzy feeling that I got, I must focus on the issues. The reality is that this is legislation that saves lives and saves injury, and therefore it's good legislation.

There have been two previous speakers on this. One speaker, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, said that everything was so rosy in the workplace that we didn't need this legislation; that managers or employers always treat workers with respect and that everything is fine -- don't interfere. And then, of course, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson pleaded the case for the employer groups, and he read off a whole long list of employer groups that supposedly object to this piece of legislation. Heaven knows why, but there certainly weren't any worker groups represented in that list, so one can clearly see where his focus comes from or what his orientation is.

In the workplace, I guess one would start by saying that prevention always comes in the form of some education prior to getting on the job. Certainly training is a factor. There are places in the resource sector and in industry where not enough training takes place to prevent injuries, and that's being addressed by some of the employers. But they still happen in daily practice, and what happens at the workplace is important. Occasionally, direction is required; you sort of have to regulate that relationship. If the government has to say that there has to be a health and safety committee on the job, then yes, that requires some cooperation by the employer and the employees, and it requires some trust. In the end everybody benefits from fewer accidents in the workplace, and both sides benefit from fewer fatalities.

The employer may often wish to get a job done in a certain length of time, but the employer must have some faith that workers will exercise safe practices and, if necessary, stop work when the risks are too great. You would expect that to happen in a good management-worker relationship, but it doesn't always. I've met very good employers; I've also met some who were not that good. I've also met some for whom you need some regulation to keep in line, to prevent them from driving too hard and risking the lives of the workers.

There is a need for at least a structure in terms of how one deals with occupational safety on the job site. You can rant and rave about the image or the spectre of Big Brother, but clearly, if you set down the mechanism for health and safety committees, there is nothing to fear from that. I would suggest that far from this killing jobs, as the member for Kamloops-North Thompson tries to suggest, it is simply a matter of sparing workers a lot of injuries and fatalities that affect the lives of people right across this province. Just remember the numbers. In terms of the numbers, if we delay for six months, if we sit here and twiddle our thumbs as has been suggested, then I think the results are pretty clear.

An Hon. Member: Is that what consultation is -- twiddling thumbs?

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, the member keeps talking about consultation. There has been extensive consultation on this. We have in the past had many discussions about what can be done to encourage and enhance safety on the job site, and quite frankly, even if you had a small business, I fail to see why an employer wouldn't get together with his employees from time to time to talk about workplace safety issues. Frequently. . . .

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: The member says that that's what they do; that's their point. I used to be in a union, and every time somebody said to me, "Well, take our word for it; we'll do that," I'd say, "If you love us that much, put it in writing," because it doesn't always work that way. You don't leave health and safety in the workplace to the whim of the employer. There has to be some structure in place to deal with it.

All of the rhetoric over there -- and we've heard this quite frequently. . . . Every time an issue comes up that deals with workers in the province, we hear the same kind of anti-worker rhetoric coming from over there.

When I was listening to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, he was talking about measuring the success of this venture. He was suggesting that we were trying to measure success in terms of the volume of regulation. Well, hon. Speaker, I would really object to that. The success of any program is measured in terms of the number of people that are injured on the job site. If we look at this program six months from now, once it's in place, and there's a reduction in the number, that will be the measure of success, and that will make it all worthwhile.

If, in the course, we save. . . . As I said, in six months 72 workers lose their lives in this province. If we could save half that number, it would be more than worth it. If we could save a quarter of that number, it would be worth it. So when the members opposite decide to vote on this bill or on a six-month hoist motion, they might well remember that what we're talking about here is the lives of workers and their health. That should be more of a consideration than whether there's a slight inconvenience to a few employers that see it as their management right not to have workplace safety committees.

I might repeat that at the workplace, for example, if an employer decides, for whatever reason, that finishing the job or the profit margin is of more concern than workplace safety, it isn't the employer who currently pays the cost or pays the penalty; it's the worker. If the worker engages in unsafe work practices, then it's the worker who pays -- or his or her colleagues will pay.

Regardless of how you slice it, there is an interest here in providing safe working places, because it is the worker who eventually pays the price. If you look at the other side and some of their rhetoric, maybe they have just a little less concern for the workers and a little bit too much for employers.

In any working relationship, obviously it would be nice if the two sides could get together and deal with those kinds of issues in a harmonious fashion. The reality is that sometimes that doesn't take place, and the reality is that sometimes you need, in legislation, a structure for that to take place. In the end most employers will recognize that and go on and do the right thing.

So I can't get too concerned about the hon. member's complaints about this killing jobs. It isn't going to kill jobs --

[ Page 7500 ]

E. Gillespie: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 14 and against the motion to hoist this bill for six months. Employers, employees and particularly injured workers and those who advocate on their behalf have already waited too long. There has been a lot of concern and interest around making workplaces safer and ensuring that employees can go to and from their workplaces safely.

My constituency office is, I'm sure, not unique, in that far and away the greatest number of individuals I see come to me with individual concerns as a result of workplace injuries. Workers who have encountered injuries in the course of their work -- whether they be debilitating injuries, permanent injuries or short-term injuries -- can be very difficult to assist because of the regulations about workplace injuries and compensation. These workers are people whose lives are changed. They are changed because they have suffered either an injury which requires them to change the kind of work that they are currently doing or the kind of injury that puts them out of the workforce for good.

Every week in British Columbia, three British Columbians die because of workplace accidents. Every week 751 workers are injured, and every day 16 workers are permanently disabled. These injuries and accidents impose tragic costs on British Columbia families and communities.

We may believe that these injuries and deaths occur largely in resource industries, but this is not the case. Resource industries do have high risk levels, and a large percentage of the workplace fatalities occur in heavy industry. But the highest rates of injury are actually in health care and the retail and grocery sectors. These kinds of injuries are back injuries, repetitive stress injuries, chemical or pharmaceutical injuries, tendonitis, bursitis and carpal tunnel syndrome.

Employers have raised the issue of cost, with respect to workers compensation. Promoting safety is an investment. The reduction of injuries will result in the reduction of WCB premiums. Last year alone WCB premiums dropped by an average of 6 percent. Our annual accident rate in British Columbia is more than twice as high as that in Alberta or Ontario. If we could cut our accident rate to the level of Ontario or Alberta, employers could save $500 million in costs. This would result in improved productivity and competitiveness and lower compensation premiums for employers.

The legislation we're debating today reflects the key recommendations of the interim report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation. The legislation does four things. It sends a clear message that occupational health and safety is important to all of us. It makes the government clearly responsible for the broad area of workplace safety. It establishes an appropriate legal basis for the health and safety work of the WCB, and it establishes a legal requirement that employers create and maintain workplace-based health and safety programs.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson speaks of the need to address the issue of workers who disregard safety in the workplace. This law is already in place. There are laws allowing the employer to discipline such workers and the Workers Compensation Board to prosecute workers who cause accidents. There is no need for further penalties. Everyone is responsible for workplace safety. However, the employer has the responsibility for managing the workplace. This legislation recognizes the primary role employers play in workplace safety. Every employer, large or small, has a responsibility to promote safe working conditions, and every worker has a strong incentive to work safely. Their bodies and their lives are on the line.

[3:15]

G. Wilson: In speaking to Bill 14 and the motion that is now before us to essentially hoist this for six months, there are three things I'd like to comment on. I'm going to try to keep my remarks fairly concise and brief.

I don't think there is anybody in this chamber who is more committed to changing the WCB than I. I'm certainly as committed as most, and I think most of us here recognize that the way the Workers Compensation Act is currently constituted and the way the Workers Compensation Board currently operates is just outrageous. In all of the time I've spent as an MLA, the most heartwrenching, the most difficult and the most exasperating times, from the point of view of trying to get a practical solution, have come about as a result of trying to deal with injured workers.

I have to say that I was somewhat heartened when Judge Gill took on his task. I was a little bit suspicious that when Judge Gill did take on that task, he was going to find that it was a lot bigger than had originally been mandated and would take a lot more time. In fact, in my first conversation with Judge Gill, when he had indicated he'd taken it on, I said by way of friendly wager: "My guess is that you're not going to get it done in the time that's been set; it's going to take a lot more time to do this job properly." So I wasn't surprised at all when more time was needed. This is an enormously complicated, very difficult task ahead of us.

What we've done -- or what the government is attempting to do -- in this bill is really look at, to address, only one aspect of the whole gamut of issues surrounding the compensation of injured workers -- namely, to try and put in place some mechanisms that would help prevent workplace injury. Certainly I can support that, because much of what is included in this bill does seek to address some of the concerns that Judge Gill heard. I know, having read his interim report, they are outlined within that document. Certainly there are many aspects of worker safety that can be addressed through the establishment of some of these workplace-based committees that are being suggested in this bill. In principle, I don't think it's a bad idea. I think that it might be, in fact, somewhat of a good idea.

The question, however -- and this gets to my second point -- is that in establishing them and in looking at the wording of this bill, it tends to raise many more questions than it answers. For example, I am curious to know what the onus upon this committee is going to be in the event that this

[ Page 7501 ]

It seems to me that in almost all instances, the liability falls squarely on the employer. I'm not sure that it's a good way to go, to be honest. I think that what this does is tend to put the onus back on the employer. What we have to try to do. . . . I don't quite fully have the answer, I must say, as to how we're going to do it. But I think what we have to do is share that responsibility, because I think that employees must recognize that they must, first of all, come fit for work. There are a number of injuries that occur in the workplace as a result of employees showing up unfit for work, for a variety of different reasons. I think the employer has an obligation or responsibility to make sure that there is a safe workplace. It doesn't mean that accidents aren't going to happen; it doesn't mean that these committees aren't going to have to address some ways in which we can mitigate that. But there is a liability issue here, and a legal issue on liability, that I am not sure is clearly worded in there.

Maybe some time to consult a little more broadly on this is not a bad idea. After all, we have waited many years to try and get this right. I don't know that we should necessarily have to move on this particular aspect that swiftly, when in my judgment, it isn't this kind of proactive workplace safety issue that requires urgent attention. The urgent attention is required on the other end, the end where people have physicians who turn around and proclaim people unfit for work, with long-term disabilities, and give a medical reason for why they are unfit for work, only to have a board of WCB doctors completely overturn the recommendations of general practitioners and specialists and argue that they have a different set of opinions. That's where we run into difficulties.

Where we really need urgency is in the right of an injured worker to sue. We just went through a long, protracted debate yesterday about people who become infected with hepatitis C, and their right to compensation. You know, there are many more people who go through injuries and have to deal with WCB who will never, ever have the opportunity to get justice for their claim, because the law is written in such a way that it makes it almost impossible for them to have that.

The law also is written in a way that tends to put the onus -- the cost -- on the employer. All through this bill, when you read this Bill 14, wherever there is a cost implication to whatever it is that we're asking be put in, the employer picks it up. Almost exclusively, the employer picks it up. I don't necessarily think that's the way to go, although I have to be quite honest: I'm not sure how we redistribute that cost. But I don't think it's fair, necessarily, in this instance that all of those costs should be assigned.

What it does, when you make those assignments of cost, is put the employer in an adversarial position against the claim of somebody who was injured at their workplace, at their worksite, because the employer recognizes that when that person goes to the WCB, there is a cost implication. It strikes me that we want to try to get away from that, because we don't want the WCB and the employer in an advocacy position against people who require legitimate compensation.

So it seems to me that there are a number of issues. The whole division 5 in this bill really needs some careful thinking, because when you read it carefully, I think, there are a lot more problems in here than this bill would lead us to believe: the right to refuse unsafe work, and how unsafe work is defined, and who gets to put the definitions before us, and the obligation that falls upon the employer to reassign and, in reassigning, how the employer is forced to pay comparable wage rates for the position in which they are working and the position that they are reassigned to. That begs the question: if they are reassigned to do work for which a lower wage is generally paid, one would argue that the employer would have to pay a higher wage. My guess is that if you're reassigned to do work for which a higher wage is paid, there is no way the employee is going to take the lower wage. Either way, you're in a tough spot here. These are the kinds of technical questions that need to be addressed.

The minister may argue that we can thoroughly vet this at committee stage and that committee stage is the appropriate place to do it. I'm not so sure, because I think there needs to be some time. I suppose that if we were to say, "Look, we have broadly consulted with employers, we generally understand where their concerns and their issues are, and we are therefore able to incorporate all these issues into a thorough, good, committee-stage debate, where clarifications and amendments will be entertained," then perhaps, okay, we should move ahead -- and let's do that. But I don't know that that happens in this House. It certainly hasn't been my experience on many occasions, so I am quite reluctant to buy into this 100 percent until we get some of those questions answered.

It 's not that the principle isn't a good idea; I don't have a problem with it. You know, little things like the assignment of these training dollars within the committee -- should you really be able to give them to any other employee? I mean, do we really want to be able to say: "Well, we can collect the payments of all the people on these committees and off they can go"? I'm not sure that's a good idea.

Let me conclude my brief remarks on this bill with respect to the hoist motion by saying that if we were to truly reconsider this in six months -- and I don't know how we would do that, because this House sits so infrequently -- then I think that wouldn't be a bad idea. Certainly, broad consultation and a broad buy-in by all parties who are affected by this is essential if we are to try and make these amendments mean anything at all.

We know that ergonomics was a big thing a few years back. There were bills brought into this House to make workplaces ergonomically safe. I would say that the difficulty with all these rules and regulations is that somebody has to go and inspect to see that they're being done, and somebody has to enforce them if they are not. There are costs associated with all those things, and I'm not sure that the cost benefit has really been measured too carefully.

Those are my concerns. I would say that tinkering with the Workers Compensation Act generally isn't going to do the job in the final analysis. What we need to do is repeal the Workers Compensation Act and redraft it. In the redrafting of the Workers Compensation Act, we need to build in some safeguards to protect people who are on claim, to allow the right of litigation and to bring some accountability to this Workers Compensation Board, which is accountable to no one but itself.

I'm not sure that this kind of tinkering does the trick. This bill, in principle, does address some issues around workplace safety, which I think is a good idea. If a broader set of consultations would facilitate everybody buying into this bill, then perhaps that would be a good idea.

J. Dalton: I rise to speak in favour of the hoist motion. The last speaker, the MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast,

[ Page 7502 ]

No one in this House will quarrel with one stated purpose -- I assume it's in here; it's in the title: that is, the promotion of health and safety. I don't think any government member -- hopefully not -- would seriously think that the opposition rises in opposition to safety factors, because, of course, that is not true. As a starting point, I think we can all agree that safety is paramount in the workplace, and that includes the work that we do in this Legislature. We could have accidents here of a work-related nature -- not of a political nature, of course. Safety is obviously a stated concept in the bill. But, quite frankly, I think there's another aspect of this bill that has to be seriously addressed. My colleagues have done so already, and I'm sure some of them will do so after I'm finished. So we do agree on safety.

[3:30]

What do we see in the meantime? Well, of course, we see Bill 14. In a moment, we'll have to get to some of the content of Bill 14, as to whether it's reached the objective that the Finance minister told us about in her budget presentation: that she will be cutting red tape. But at least the government is at the starting point; they acknowledge they must do so. It's also been admitted in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks memo to the Treasury Board. I see the Minister of Environment is also in the House, so she can share in these words and observations. We all remember that memo that was submitted last November to Treasury Board which acknowledged that because of government overregulation and the inability to process Crown land applications, we were losing 20,000 jobs and $1.3 billion out of our economy. So the government obviously recognizes, from that acknowledgement, that red tape and regulation must be reduced.

Further -- and I already made reference to it; it comes out of the Minister of Finance's budget speech -- on April 27 the business task force to cut red tape was formulated. The Minister of Finance, in her news release, stated: ". . .this task force, announced in my budget, will make recommendations on how to streamline and eliminate unnecessary regulations and procedures." That sounds good. The announcement was also a co-announcement with the Minister of Small Business, who is also, by good fortune, in the House to hear these remarks. The Minister of Small Business stated: "We consulted with the business community and found they want government to develop a more efficient regulatory framework to cut costs and improve B.C.'s competitive position."

Interjection.

J. Dalton: The minister is acknowledging that indeed those are his words, and he endorses them today as he stated on April 27. So more agreement from the government side to cut red tape. So far, we've acknowledged. . . . On both sides we agree on health and safety; on both sides we agree on cutting red tape. But the day after the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Small Business put the business red tape committee together, April 28 -- somebody at a meeting earlier today commented that a committee of 16 may not actually accomplish that purpose, but we'll have to see -- Bill 14 hit the floor of this House for first reading, one day later.

Now, does Bill 14 fit the picture of reducing government red tape? Well, let's see. There are 57 pages in Bill 14. Part 3, which is the essence of the bill, contains 124 sections. I'm getting a little nervous about whether this is going to accomplish the government's objectives, but that is the reality of this bill. More importantly, I think we have to ask ourselves -- putting aside the content of the bill and the numerous sections and the amendments it introduces to the Workers Compensation Act -- the very serious question: has it replaced regulations? Has it met the government's own stated objective of reducing regulation and red tape?

I submit, and I think the evidence is quite clear, that it has not. The evidence is quite to the contrary. This bill will only further add to the woes of small and medium-sized business in particular, the very business that we hear the government is wooing and hoping to keep and to attract to this province. I believe the Premier is off somewhere else today trying to attract even more business.

The message is coming out of Bill 14 that we are not cutting red tape; we are going in the opposite direction. In fact, even before I get into the content of the bill itself, on April 15, just two weeks prior to the tabling of this bill we're debating, there were occupational health and safety regulations submitted that. . . . When somebody ran them off on the Internet, they came out two inches thick, page by page. That's not a reduction of red tape by any stretch; that seems to be adding a great deal of red tape when you just picture the actual volume of those occupational health and safety regulations.

Has this bill done anything to perhaps replace or supplant those regulations of two weeks ago? Well, no, it has not. When we look at section 25 of Bill 14, we see that the current regulations are continued. It says that all regulations of the board made under part 1 of the Workers Compensation Act are still in force. Of course, it's also possible for the board to amend and replace over time, but that's another story. So section 25 of government Bill 14 certainly reinforces the fact that the myriad of regulations, such as the ones just introduced on April 15, will continue.

The next section in the bill, section 26, allows for the amendment of continued regulations. So they're not only saying that regulations will continue, but there's even the prospect that they could carry on and amend those same regulations. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that if the small and medium-sized business person is not confused at this point. . . . Then, of course, there are more pitfalls and dangers that lie ahead in the same bill.

The message is very clear from small and medium-sized business that they are buried in regulations and paperwork

[ Page 7503 ]

What else do we see in this bill? There are numerous references to the board's authority to make regulations -- division 8 of the bill, for example. So we haven't reduced the capability of the Workers Compensation Board to actually add another layer to the already too many other layers. Many of these things, of course -- I believe the previous speaker also alluded to this -- would be appropriate to bring up specifically at committee stage. I think we certainly have to alert the government and the sponsoring minister to some of the major concerns we see in this bill.

Division 8 allows for miscellaneous authority, and that part of the bill -- in particular, section 158(2) of division 8 -- lists in items (a) through (p) all the various miscellaneous regulatory authority that's granted by Bill 14. That list in itself has to be very imposing to a business person. If somebody who hasn't had any direct workings with the Workers Compensation Act looked at those various amendments contained in section 158, I think they would be ready to take the bus to Alberta that the opposition leader talked about the other day and join the many other people who are hopping on that bus.

What we have to do, hon. Speaker, is to stop that bus and tell them that British Columbia is a friendly place to do business and to raise our families. Unfortunately, right now the evidence is to the contrary. Bill 14 is another indictment -- a damning indictment, if I may say -- of this government. The contradiction that it presents when it tells us that we're going to reduce red tape and then brings in Bill 14. . . . We have a very imposing list in division 8 of other regulatory authority. We were told in a briefing that one of the intentions of the bill was to reduce red tape. The contrary seems to be the evidence.

In division 17. . . . Hon. Speaker, the more you go through this bill, the more horror stories you come across. It's not an easy bill to read because of its length and, of course, because of some of the complexity that is introduced in it. But in division 17, we see that under section 224 there can be cabinet regulations: items (a) through (l) -- that would be 12, I believe, in my recollection of numbering. The following section allows for board regulations. That lists (a) through (i), which would be something less than the 12 that I just referred to. Also noteworthy is the catchphrase at the end of each of these sections: "respecting any other matter for which regulations. . .are contemplated by this act." So if they happen to miss something in the previous 12, then, of course, they'll catch it in that general phrase.

Anything that's contemplated by the act could also be the subject matter of a regulation. Not only would a person have to try to understand the interpretation and the application of these various listed items, but you also have that ghost-like creature out there -- you don't even know what the target is. You know that there's something looming out there that could be dangerous to people who are struggling on a day-to-day basis to keep their businesses open, let alone to comply with the bureaucracy.

In that same division, division 17, section 229 allows the minister to direct the Workers Compensation Board to consider amendments to regulations. Here we could have the minister sitting in his office in Victoria, thinking: "Well, I wonder what I could do today to further mess up the lives of small and medium-sized business." He could direct the board to further add another layer upon the many other layers that business people are facing.

What do we have in division 17? We have cabinet regulations, we have Workers Compensation Board regulations, and we have the spectre of the minister saying: "If that isn't enough, I think I'll throw in a few myself and order the board to consider those." Of course, I referred previously to division 8, which gave miscellaneous authority to the board to regulate. When we start combining all of these various divisions and sections within Bill 14, I think we get a clearer and clearer picture that what the government promised us in the budget speech and in some of the remarks made in this House since then does not in fact seem to be coming true -- in fact, quite the opposite.

[3:45]

Layer after layer after layer -- it's like peeling an onion; all you can do is cry. I'm afraid there might not be anyone left in this province to cry. The business people will not be here to cry; they're on their way to Alberta or Washington State. They're going back to Hong Kong or wherever it may be. It's so ironic to think that the Premier is off on another junket down south this week, trying to attract business to this province. Yet we're in this House debating Bill 14, which I think, quite frankly, is going to detract from any opportunity the Premier may have to try and convince business to come to this province. I don't need to comment on the overtaxed burden of this province and the other factors: the environmental standards that many, many people are confused by. We've seen that through questions put to the Minister of Environment over the last few weeks. Those are very mixed messages that are not helpful to the economic climate in this province.

I submit that health and safety objectives are certainly not met by this bill. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. When you throw in such a mishmash of regulatory authority, I think people -- both workers and employers -- would be totally confused as to what the health and safety standards in this province are. When you have regulations introduced on April 15 that are two inches thick, I defy anyone, including the Minister of Labour, to tell us what is contained in those. As well, we have to mention the joint committees and the safety representatives that this bill contains, which is another layer of bureaucracy and authority.

The Minister of Finance asks: "What would we do?" Well, we would do what the minister herself told us in her budget speech should be happening: cut red tape. That's what we would do. I know I'm not allowed to use props, hon. Speaker, but there it is -- highlighted for the minister's own reference.

[ Page 7504 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: So far you haven't spoken to the hoist motion.

J. Dalton: Bill 14 also does not serve the health and safety of the business community. The government brings it in, telling us this will promote health and safety for workers. We certainly have to question that.

When the Minister of Labour comments that we're not speaking to the hoist motion. . . . The very comments we are making and the many pitfalls in this bill strongly demonstrate the need to put this to a committee, hoist it for six months and then bring it back.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: It's like that California wine ad, with that echo that goes on and on and on and on. I'm hearing an echo from across the floor.

Another aspect of this bill -- and some of my colleagues have already commented on it -- is that there's a punitive nature to this bill that also sends the wrong message to business. By that, I mean in particular the administrative penalty of up to half a million dollars that can be imposed on an employer -- on an employer only -- even though the interim royal commission recommendation was that if they're going to bring in an administrative penalty, it should be imposed on both employer and worker if needed. But this pro-labour government, of course, predictably dumped the worker aspect and only kept the administrative penalty on employers. I do admit there's still the possibility of prosecuting workers under a separate provision of the act. However, that is only a half measure. If you're going to do one aspect -- potentially whack an employer for up to a half a million dollars in penalty -- why should you not make that same statement to workers such as the one my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson referred to. The worker deliberately and repeatedly refused to wear a seatbelt. If that isn't a bad message to send out to supposedly enhance safety, I don't know what is. There is a punitive nature to the bill.

I would also submit that there's far too much power placed with the Workers Compensation Board itself, which, as we on both sides all know, is a monolithic nightmare, anyway. Now we're granting it far more regulatory power than it already has, far more red tape that all business people will have to struggle with, far more paperwork and far more bureaucracy. I can tell you, when the cabinet minister's office are asking what we would do, the one thing we certainly would not do is create more bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a needed aspect of government if government does what it's elected to do. If government would attend to a good public education system and a good health system, make our streets safer and allow for the Workers Compensation Board to get on with what it should be doing, which is to protect workers when injured and provide realistic health and safety standards, we would all be the better.

The problem is that this government knows nothing other than the approach of: "If it's bigger, it has to be better. If there's more of a union aspect, it has to be better." They don't understand the concept of why business is so worked up, why business people collectively and individually stated to the government that bills such as Bill 14 -- no doubt there'll be other creatures coming down the pipeline before we finish this session -- are harmful to the business community and to the business climate of British Columbia.

The evidence is there. I invite the members opposite, when they go home for the weekend, to walk through their local shopping malls and come back and report to us how many closed businesses they see. I can tell you that I see them at Park Royal, at Capilano Mall, at the Lonsdale Quay and at all sorts of other places on the North Shore. That's not unique. And the North Shore has a reputation for being a reasonably economically viable community. But boy, I'll tell you, the people of North and West Vancouver are getting hit just as hard as anyone else in this province -- no question. If I took Bill 14 to the merchants of Park Royal, Capilano Mall or Lonsdale Quay, I think they'd say: "What? They're doing what to us? Not more! Where's that bus to Alberta? I want a ticket." And they'd be on it. We have to turn that bus.

The Premier claims to be business-friendly, and we see his photo ops and his front-page opportunities from time to time. This week he's off somewhere south of the border. We've been promised red tape by the Finance minister, who asks what we would do. I would just ask her to live up to what she promised. That's simple enough. Bill 14 doesn't measure up. There are far too many things in this bill that not only subject are to criticism but also must be subjected to further scrutiny.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

When you factor in all of the other negatives, such as high taxation, difficult regulations and other areas such as the environment protection field, and then you factor in a workers' compensation act of this nature, with the many layers of further bureaucracy that it invites -- and that I predict, without question, will be added -- I think there is no question whatsoever: this bill must be hoisted. It must go back for further review and effective consultation. Allow the royal commission's final report of September 30 -- when it's due -- to be filed, and we can take all of those factors into place and do the right thing with occupational health and safety and not have this typical big government, big regulation, big union approach that the government of the day takes.

With those words, I conclude. I invite the Minister of Labour to seriously contemplate what's been stated and will continue to be stated on this side, and allow this bill to go to that standing committee.

G. Robertson: It's with great pleasure that I stand in this House this afternoon and speak to Bill 14. This legislation is

[ Page 7505 ]

Here's a little bit about British Columbia's safety record. B.C. has the second-worst workplace health and safety record in this nation. I think that's a sad day for workers in this province. As I said, I fully support this legislation.

Getting back to workplace safety in British Columbia, the accident rate is five accidents for every 100 employees, which is twice as high as Alberta. When the opposition talks about possibly going to Alberta, they say they want to go to Alberta because they have a safer workplace -- twice as safe as British Columbia's. We're making steps to rectify this problem for our workers in British Columbia.

One hundred and fifty British Columbians die every year. It's a tragedy -- for the fellow workers who witness these tragedies, for their families, for their loved ones, for their communities and indeed for the province of British Columbia. There's nothing more important than our workers in this province and their families and their kids.

[4:00]

We heard this morning that the forest industry is being killed by legislation, and that it's onerous. Bill 14, which will eventually bring workers together in a cooperative effort with employers to look at some of the issues surrounding the workplace, is onerous, and safety committees are destructive.

T. Nebbeling: What has that got to do with the forest industry?

G. Robertson: Well, I'll tell you a little bit. I've heard that this is big-labour legislation. I worked in that industry for 23 years, and I know a lot of the vice-presidents and CEOs of these major corporations as well. They'll tell you that they're committed to safety. And you know what? They are. They are committed to safety. You talk to people such as Peter Bentley. . . .

Interjections.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, you notice the opposition over there jimmering and jabbering. They're not interested in listening to what's going on. They're interested in listening to themselves -- the same thing that goes on day after day. Listen, you might as well get up on a perch!

T. Nebbeling: The forest industry. . . .

G. Robertson: Yeah, we'll talk about the forest industry. I know Peter Bentley; I've known Peter for 25 years, and his most important thing is to have a safe environment for his workers. He knows that when his workers go out in the woods and work every day, if they've got a safe, productive work environment, if they know their job inside and out and if they've received proper training, they're going to be productive and they're going to come home at night and go back to their families.

Interjection.

G. Robertson: We see the former opposition Forests critic still jibbering and jammering about safety. Possibly he'd like to listen instead of talk. When Tom Stephens came to British Columbia, the first thing he did was take a look at his company. He looked at efficiencies that, in his words, should have been realized years ago within his company. At the same time, he took a look at the safety issues surrounding MacMillan Bloedel. He has dedicated personnel to bring down the accident rate and up the safety rate within his organization. It's a priority for him. He recognizes that it's a major, major problem in his company, and he's doing something about it. I'm really pleased about that.

Canadian Forest Products is another company. I chaired Canfor's safety committee for a number of years, and we had an excellent working relationship with management there. Everyone really enjoyed it when we got together and talked cooperatively about some of the problems that we were having in the workplace, about ways to rectify these situations and ways to make more productive and safer -- because the two really go hand in hand. If you don't know your job and you don't know the hazards associated with your job, then how can you be productive? You can't do it. Safety committees give management and employees an opportunity to come together in a cooperative way to discuss issues on how to make the job place safer. It's a great working relationship and a great opportunity. I know I've enjoyed it for a number of years.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson. . . . Earlier I was in my office making a call, and I heard him talking about a gyppo contractor -- they were known as gyppos on the coast. He talked about an eagle's nest and the fact that they cut it down. Well, we've been working on multiple use in forestry on the coast for 15 or 20 years. I mean, eagles come back year after year and land in the trees and nest -- year after year. It surprises me. I mean, our contractors and major corporations in the north Island had been managing for values such as eagles' nests, goshawks and all sorts of things for a long time before the Forest Practices Code. Apparently, the same person that was talking about workplace safety is the person that would inadvertently go out and foul an eagle's nest. I know loggers who would cry. When they go out into the bush, they look around at the values they have in the bush and look for eagles' nests and hawks' nests and owls' nests and habitat -- and protect them and save them. You know what? They're real proud of doing that too. They'd been doing it a long time before the Forest Practices Code.

I guess my point is that this contractor that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson was talking about felled a

[ Page 7506 ]

An Hon. Member: He actually said that. Amazing!

G. Robertson: He said that. Generally, when you talk about the Employment Standards Act, you talk about a safe work environment. You talk about a person walking into an environment in the morning; he's familiar with the machinery and the environment around him -- or she is. He knows how to do his job, or she knows how to do her job, and they're productive. That's what happens. Too many times, employers will put employees into a situation where they know absolutely nothing about what they're doing: "Oh, gee, I'm looking over the yard this morning and we're short two guys. Oh, by the way, I need a truck driver. I need this or I need that. Oh yeah, you just go over here and go over there." Pretty soon an employee is in a situation that he knows nothing about. And guess what. He gets whacked. That's really, really concerning. Safety committees on the coast and the work of unions such as the IWA have done a lot to address issues like that. Actually, I'm going to talk a little bit about what they've done. They've done some outstanding things.

I look at Bill 14 and I see some pretty good things. Under "General Duties of Employers, Workers and Others," the general duties of employers are:

"(1) Every employer must

(a) ensure the health and safety of

(i) all workers working for that employer, and

(ii) any other workers present at a workplace at which that employer's work is being carried out, and

(b) comply with this Part, the regulations and any applicable orders.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), an employer must

(a) remedy any workplace conditions that are hazardous to the health or safety of the employer's workers, and

(b) ensure that the employer's workers are made aware of all known or reasonably foreseeable health or safety hazards to which they are likely to be exposed by their work. . . ."

(iii) ". . .are made aware of their rights and duties under this Part and the regulations,

(c) establish occupational health and safety policies and programs in accordance with the regulations,

(d) provide and maintain in good condition protective equipment. . . ."

An Hon. Member: So is being there.

G. Robertson: I know. I agree -- and I think the opposition's agreeing too that these are good things.

It also says: ". . .(f) make a copy of this Act and the regulations readily available" -- so that workers can actually know what's going on. And maybe they take a look around and say: "Hey, maybe we should find out a little more about this." I think that's all good.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson also said that Bill 14 will kill jobs. Well, I've got some interesting statistics here, and I'd like to read them for the House. These statistics have been compiled by the IWA. Between 1920 and '29 there were 1,629 fatalities in the forest industry; from 1930 to '39 there were 385; from 1940 to '49, 515 fatalities; and from 1950 to 1959 there were 1,157 fatalities in the forest industry. From 1960 to '69 there were 447 fatalities, from 1970 to '79 there were 414, and from 1980 to '89 there were 338. Between 1962 and 1989 there were 1,167 logging fatalities, including 370 fallers, 120 truck drivers, 170 skidder operators and 101 chokermen. I knew people and worked with people that were part of these statistics.

In 1995 the forest sector made up about 7.5 percent of all of the employees in British Columbia. During the same year WCB recorded a provincewide total of 134 fatal work injuries. Twenty-nine -- 22.5 percent, or over three times the average -- were in the forest industry. Obviously workplace safety, working together cooperatively with management and providing a venue to get together and deal with some of these problems, has had a significant positive impact not only on the forest industry but on lots of other industries throughout this province and throughout this nation. In the same year just under 30 percent of all forest sector workers worked in logging, but fully 19 of those 29 forest sector fatalities were in logging. From 1984 to 1993, 290 fatal claims happened in the forest industry.

In a WCB survey of 70 fatal logging accidents between 1993 and '95, six of those workers were on the job less than one week -- six of them. They were probably young kids that went out to work for a logging contractor somewhere, weren't fully educated in the problems associated with their jobs and did not have a good understanding of the hazards in the workplace. Probably they weren't very well supervised. These regulations for small companies that work in the industry will provide a venue for them to sit down and train the workers and make sure that they have some sort of an idea of the hazards -- and also of their job. Hopefully, it will work well. Out of 70 fatal logging accidents between '93 and '95, six of those workers were on the job less than a week, 16 less than one month and 30 less than a year. That's 52 of those 70 who were on the job less than a year. I think that says a lot about training and about working cooperatively with your fellow workers and management to make sure that you're well trained, know what the issues are in the job and are well supervised.

By contrast, the results of a major study done by Dr. R. Brubaker and others at the UBC department of health care and epidemiology indicates that union loggers are about ten times less likely to be killed at work than non-union loggers. That has nothing to do with work production; it has to do with the fact that unionized logging operations have good occupational health and safety committees. They have programs where workers are oriented, they have programs where workers are trained, and they work cooperatively and have meetings at least once a month to discuss safety issues on the job. This legislation will provide that, and I'm very, very pleased about it.

[4:15]

[ Page 7507 ]

But clearly, the figures speak for themselves. We have work to do in British Columbia. We need a safer work environment for our workers. That means making sure that they are aware of the issues surrounding their work and their environment, working cooperatively together -- the employer and the employees -- and finding solutions to sometimes very difficult problems. I believe that Bill 14 is a good start.

In summation, I'm very supportive of Bill 14. I believe that one of the things that workers deserve in this province is a safe work environment. Safety is more than a word. Safety is something that. . . . If you go out into the industrialized workplace in British Columbia -- whether it's mining, logging, gas, oil, farming or whatever -- you have to wake up in the morning and make sure that your safety is your primary consideration.

I can well remember a sign we used to have at Canfor. We used to drive around Atluck Lake, where a number of people drowned one night in an accident, actually. There was a sign up there that said: "Remember, somebody's waiting for you at home at night." I can well remember that when I drove around Atluck Lake every morning, I'd look at that sign and think of my little boy Nolan and my daughter Kimberley and my wife. When I got out of the crummy in the morning and started work, I'd remember to talk to my crew about safety on the job and say: "Hey, always make sure it's the number one thought in your mind, because if you're not safe, you're not going to be around in this industry." We worked on that for many, many years.

I fully support Bill 14. I think it's a good bill. I think it's going to provide a lot of opportunities for a better workplace. I think it's going to provide a lot of opportunities for a very cooperative venture between both employees and employers. Hopefully, a year or two down the road, we can look at our safety statistics in this province and see that this bill has made a difference and provided better employment safety for our workers in British Columbia.

B. Penner: It's a privilege for me to take part in this debate. To dispel any sense of suspense, I'll say at the outset that I am also speaking in favour of the hoist motion put forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the opposition Labour critic. There are a number of very good reasons why I think more time is needed to examine this bill. I'll say again, though, at the outset that I'm sure all of us in this House are committed to making workplaces safer.

I listened carefully to the previous speaker's comments regarding worker safety and the things that he encountered in the forest industry. However, I think perhaps his comments highlight some of the problems inherent in this legislation that has been drafted for us. The reason I say that is that I think the people who were drafting this legislation had in mind some of the most hazardous and dangerous worksites in the province and tried to apply remedies to all workplaces based on the worst case and most dangerous workplaces.

Prior to becoming elected, I worked in a small law firm in Chilliwack. They are now going to be bound by the same rules that are going to apply to a logging camp or the mining industry and other industries that are obviously much more inherently dangerous due to the work. . . .

An Hon. Member: How many people in the office?

B. Penner: About ten people work in the law office I'm referring to. So they're now required, according to this legislation, to set up a workplace safety committee and have a designated representative. That's according to section 139 of the act.

This morning a member opposite indicated complete ignorance of this legislation when he said that it would only apply to firms with 20 employees or more. That was the member for Skeena. Again, that supports the opposition's view that more time is needed to study this legislation. Even the government members, obviously, are unaware of the impact of this legislation. Section 139 of Bill 14 very clearly states that nine employees or more will require a designated safety representative who is entitled to eight hours of pay per year to attend safety meetings, and furthermore, that that eight hours may be increased by regulation. The government is not content with the number of new rules and regulations that they provided in this 57-page statute. They've left it open to continually increase the obligations of employers in terms of paying for safety courses and meetings, and for workers to attend those meetings.

Some of that, no doubt, is required and salutary in dangerous industries such as forestry, mining and various other forms of industrial activity in manufacturing and other sectors. But in the service sector, and things like dentists' offices, accountants' offices, law offices, architects' offices or engineers' offices. . . . I'm not sure why those kinds of industries should be treated exactly the same in terms of the way it's thought that they're going to be dangerous to workers. The same type of physical harm is simply not present when you're pushing paper as opposed to pushing dirt with a bulldozer or pushing logs in a loading zone in the forest industry. That's the situation, Mr. Speaker.

There's a person that works in the press gallery here in Victoria who is pretty well respected, I think, by all members of the House. His name is Vaughn Palmer, and he's a columnist with the Vancouver Sun. Sometime last year he wrote a column entitled "A Fixed Calendar Could Fix Some of the Legislature's Faults," and in that column, he advocates a fall sitting of the Legislature for a number of reasons. I think that our motion to hoist this bill and suspend its passage for six months to allow for more discussion dovetails nicely with Mr. Palmer's proposal for a fall sitting. I think this is the classic type of bill that would be very well suited to a fall sitting, so that we could have committee meetings over the summer and solicit information, comments and feedback from those people that are going to be affected and that are going to be expected to implement this legislation.

We need to hear from the people who have to make this legislation work. Clearly the members opposite aren't familiar with all of the provisions in the act, and I dare say that the people in British Columbia who will have to put this legislation into practice aren't very familiar with it either. It was only week ago today that this bill was tabled in this House. It's a comprehensive bill; it's very detailed and 50-some pages long. There have only been about five working days -- not counting the weekend -- for British Columbians to have a chance to look at this bill.

An Hon. Member: You work nine to five, do you?

[ Page 7508 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: In session, most of us work 60 to 70 hours.

B. Penner: I'm talking about the business people in British Columbia who are busy with other things. They have not had a chance to adequately address this. Clearly the Minister of Labour should take up this issue with members of his back bench, because they've indicated today an ignorance of the provisions of this bill. They clearly haven't seen the impact of section 139, and the minister can read it if he likes. Perhaps he hasn't had a chance to look at it, either.

Moving along, I'm going to quote what Mr. Palmer had to say in recommending a fall sitting, and I'll begin partway through his column:

"So B.C. would begin following the practice of other major Canadian jurisdictions, inaugurating a fall sitting as well, running from mid-September to mid-November, again with some leeway for emergencies. With the spring being taken up mainly by spending debates, the fall would be given over to legislation, though bills tied directly to the budget would still need to be put through before the House adjourned at the end of June."

"Any proposed law that is introduced later than April 15 would be automatically deferred to the fall session."

"To encourage consultation, major bills would be subject to hearings before a legislative committee, which would have the power to call witnesses and conduct hearings, again subject to time restrictions."

"For government, these changes would mean giving up some -- but not all -- of its ability to ramrod the House into submission. For opposition, they would involve surrendering some -- but not all -- of its opportunities to obstruct government business. In return, both would gain a measure of predictability and stability, plus that most elusive of qualities in B.C.'s legislative zoo: dignity."

We haven't had a whole lot of time to examine this bill. I'm sure that as time goes on we will be made aware of an increasing number of defects in the legislation. Think back to last year, when there was a bill tabled in this House by the member for North Coast, I think it was. It proposed significant amendments to the way that builders' liens were enforced in British Columbia. That bill went through this House, and it wasn't until the fall that serious difficulties came to light. Throughout British Columbia there was concern expressed by the housing sector, which creates a lot of jobs for British Columbians, that this new legislation was simply untenable and unworkable and was going to prevent the creation of jobs in the construction and housing industry. That's an example of hurrying too quickly with complicated and detailed legislation.

I submit that Bill 14 is very much in the same light as that legislation we saw last year, which was probably passed too speedily and resulted in some difficulties last fall. We all have a concern about worker safety, but we also have to be concerned that workers actually have some work. It bears repeating that we have to be careful about the message we send to those people that would create jobs in British Columbia.

For example, the Minister of Finance -- I think it has already been mentioned, but I'll mention it again -- in her speech called "Budget '98" said as follows: "Hon. Speaker, in all our consultations we heard the business community's desire to develop a more efficient regulatory framework as a major way of cutting costs and remaining competitive. Hon. Speaker, we recognize the need to cut red tape in British Columbia." That's what the Minister of Finance said. She went on: "We want to make it easier to do business so that business can create jobs." This legislation sends the opposite message. The Minister of Finance went on even further: "We know that the number of regulations and how they are administered adds to costs and delays. We recognize that the relationship between individual businesses and government agencies has become complex and often inefficient. We are determined to work with business to fix it."

Yet despite that promise -- and it's not very old; it's about a month old -- we now see Bill 14, on the face of it, doing the opposite. It imposes a whole bunch more regulations and requirements for small businesses -- even very small businesses -- to live with. It has also been noted earlier today that the WCB on April 14 of this year issued 600 pages of additional regulations. On top of that, we get Bill 14 and more red tape, another layer, another load of paper that may smother the entrepreneurial spirit in British Columbia and hurt workers by taking away jobs. That is our concern.

We want to protect workers. Let's do it in a reasonable fashion, and let's have an appropriate amount of time to scrutinize this legislation in detail. For that, I think a six-month hoist motion is in order so that a committee could be empowered over the summer to consult with the businesses and the workers affected and to hear from the various sectors about what they think about this.

Proceeding with this bill now, it has been said, is putting the cart before the horse. I couldn't agree more, and there are a number of reasons for that. The Workers Compensation Board royal commission is due to report back in September with its final recommendations. I have little doubt that they will make some recommendations about workplace safety. It seems to me that it would make sense to wait until that report is complete before bringing in detailed and comprehensive legislation to deal with something that the WCB royal commission is looking at. Otherwise, what is the point of having this royal commission travel the province, spend lots of taxpayers' dollars and, more importantly, spend the time of many volunteers and people that have taken the time to make presentations to the commission, if we're not going to implement or consider the recommendations?

[4:30]

[ Page 7509 ]

Secondly, the Minister of Finance, on page 9 of her budget speech -- which I've already referred to -- says that she is appointing a task force made up of business and government representatives who will be asked to report to her by June 30 on how to cut red tape, improve competitiveness and create jobs for British Columbians. Well, I wonder whether this task force has in fact been consulted about Bill 14 and its ramifications. I suspect the answer to that question is no. I think this is the perfect kind of issue to put in front of that task force to give it some real work to do. Otherwise, are we again simply insulting the efforts and the talents of the people who have been asked to serve on that task force if we don't give them this very meaningful and important work to do? That's another reason I think we are putting the cart before the horse by proceeding with this legislation at this time.

In addition, there's a third reason as to why I think we're putting the cart before the horse. Again, the Minister of Finance rose in this House on budget day, and on page 9 of her speech said: "To help business work with government, a business advocate will be given the mandate to help streamline administrative and regulatory process." Again, I have to pose the question: has the business advocate been consulted about Bill 14? Has the business advocate been asked for his or her opinion on the impact of Bill 14 and whether or not it will actually improve the business climate in British Columbia and help create the jobs that we all need?

Clearly there are things that the Legislature needs to deal with, and we are proceeding with them. But we have a number of mechanisms that have been created by this government, spending tax dollars, which are being ignored by this process. Let's utilize the tools that are out there. The WCB royal commission report will be available in September. Let's use it. Let's utilize that information; it's valuable. Let's take a look at what the small business task force appointed by the Minister of Finance will have to say on June 30, and let's make sure they have a chance to look at Bill 14. Let's make sure that the business advocate that the Minister of Finance was talking about when she introduced the budget will have a chance to offer his or her opinion on Bill 14 and the potential impact it will have on investment and jobs in British Columbia.

It was mentioned earlier that in Alberta the WCB has 25 inspectors that perform 1,200 inspections, whereas in British Columbia we have 190 inspectors performing 46,000 inspections. One would think that the overall accident-on-the-job rate in B.C. would be lower, given the larger number of inspections; but in fact that's not true. Alberta has an on-the-job injury rate approximately 40 percent lower than here in British Columbia. What does that tell you? That tells you that that process, in and of itself, does not necessarily guarantee results.

We have seen it here with the Forest Practices Code. The government now admits that it made a mistake by bringing in the Forest Practices Code, which focused on a mountain of paper rather than on working to improve the mountains and ecology in British Columbia. They are now trying to undo some of the damage that was done as a result of the Forest Practices Code and literally mountains of volumes of regulations, rules and forms that forest companies had to fill out. This government has said that it realizes that it's a mistake to focus on process when it comes to the Forest Practices Code. Well, why can't it recognize that the same principle applies in relation to workplace safety? Certain processes are required, but they keep adding layer after layer, and there's no assurance, no certainty, as to when that's going to end.

I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that section 139 talks about workplaces of nine or more employees being affected and having to designate a workplace safety representative. Let me just refer to the section here. In section 127, for example, it says: "A joint committee for a workplace must be established in accordance with the following: (a) it must have at least 4 members or, if a greater number of members is required by regulation, that greater number." Again, there's no certainty. It's left open for some future date, for the government to just unilaterally jack up the requirement in terms of the number of members on that workplace safety committee. Throughout the act there are provisions such as that, where one number is given, and then it says "or a greater number, as established by regulation."

Looking at this today, we can't be sure what the ultimate requirement is going to be. It's left for some future day, some future consideration. We don't know what principles will be applied when it comes time to make that decision. That's why I say that this legislation will be harmful to workers, because it will decrease their employment opportunities in the province of British Columbia.

The government doesn't need to hear it again from me, but I'm willing to offer it to them: in British Columbia our unemployment rate is now almost 10 percent. I believe 9.9 percent, was the latest figure from Statistics Canada in March of 1998. Our youth unemployment rate is even worse. It's now almost 18.6 percent -- up almost 5 full points since this government was elected in 1996. In Alberta the youth unemployment rate is around 10 percent, and the overall unemployment rate is around 5 percent. Is it helping workers in British Columbia to throw them out of work? I don't think so. Let's find a way that we can protect workers better in the workplace while still creating jobs and employment opportunities for the people that live here. We're counting on them to find jobs so that we can collect taxes from them to pay for important services like health care and education and for infrastructure projects that we know we need to have in order to face the twenty-first century.

That's the goal of the opposition: to find better ways to improve our economy, improve the number of opportunities for British Columbians and still accomplish the objective of workplace safety. I think that can be done, but we're going to need a bit more time to deal with this issue and to deal with Bill 14 and to maybe find some ways of reducing the onerous nature of this bill. That's going to require time. That's why we've suggested a six-month hoist motion. That's why I suggest that a legislative committee be asked to take a look at Bill 14. Invite submissions from the business community and workers around the province of British Columbia. Then report back to the members of the Legislature here in Victoria for a fall sitting, when we can bring in a bill that will be workable and that won't have a negative impact on workers or their employers. All of us will benefit in the long run. That's the goal of the opposition, and I'm hopeful that that will be the goal of all members in this House.

I'll just end with a couple of final comments before letting somebody else take the floor. We've heard it said many times that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work, yet that's what we see here in this bill. We see members on the government

[ Page 7510 ]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 14, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, and in particular to the motion which was made by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena that this bill be hoisted for six months. I really can't believe that we are here debating this bill of 57 pages -- a whole lot more regulation as a result of the royal commission. I just find it unbelievable. If you go back and look at the history, the whole purpose and the whole reason that we had the royal commission was a direct response to injured workers' groups and their complaints about how the Workers Compensation Board was treating them as workers. That's the history of the royal commission; that's the reason that the royal commission exists. That's the reason that the political decision was made to hold the royal commission. I know that there are other things in the terms of reference for the commission, but my point is that the reason there was a royal commission was because of the very, very serious and difficult problems that injured workers faced.

I go back to a letter which I wrote to Birgit Lund on May 27, 1996. At that point in time, these injured workers had been pushing for a long time for a royal commission and for a review. Our caucus had a task force that had done a review of the problems of WCB, and we had identified serious governance and management problems with WCB. That report documented the fact that WCB had a dysfunctional board of directors, and there were serious management problems within that organization. There had been major increases in staffing levels within WCB, and the service levels got worse and worse. It was only in June of 1995, when the then CEO Mr. Dale Parker resigned, that the minister responsible for WCB was forced to deal with the problem. He did, rightfully, fire the board at that time and replaced it with a panel of administrators. Mr. Parker stayed on to manage that organization for a period of time.

It was only on the eve of the election that the New Democratic Party government decided to announce a royal commission. We at that time felt that a royal commission was unnecessary. I say that in my letter to Birgit Lund: "We consider the royal commission a waste of taxpayers' money and another copout by a government that is incapable of any proper direction of the WCB." Really, the problems were obvious to anyone. I certainly indicated to Birgit Lund that. . . . She had an interest in having the royal commission. She saw it as a vehicle to document the atrocities that had been committed over the years by the WCB against injured workers. I indicated to her that we were not prepared to commit to a royal commission -- in the middle of the election -- because we were not convinced that it was a good use of taxpayers' money. We felt that we had a sufficient understanding of the problems of the WCB and that we would act immediately to implement corrective action.

[4:45]

The other major problem with WCB was the proliferation of appeal mechanisms and extremely long lag times that were not serving anyone. We suggested that streamlining this process was a matter of great urgency. We also suggested that having an appeal process was no substitute for doing a quality job the first time on a worker's application.

Appropriate sensitivity, service and competence. We felt there was a need to emphasize quality through the whole process, and we talked in some detail about that. That was my letter to Birgit Lund on May 27, 1996. After the election, the government announced a royal commission, and on March 1, 1997. . . . I have a document that sets out the terms of reference.

The terms of reference and the priorities set out for the commission did not reflect the concerns that caused it to be announced in the first place. It sets out a number of items, and in terms of the priorities, section 2 and section 3(a) were given priority, and all of the other issues were scheduled to come later. And, of course, we have not seen all of the concerns that gave rise to the royal commission. We'll be seeing those in September 1998. That will be more than two years after the election and many years after the concerns were first raised.

Meanwhile, at the same time as this commission was being developed and established and was doing its work, the Workers Compensation Board was engaged in a major review of its occupational health and safety regulations -- a six-year review. There were many public meetings, a lot of discussion, some on-and-off discussion on ergonomics and all of the regulations proposed for that, and then on March 9, 1998 -- at almost the same time -- an we had announcement of a whole new set of regulations by the WCB. This is after six years of consultation. They're not all new regulations. One-third were existing regulations, one-third were modifications, and another one-third was an increase in existing regulations. I really just absolutely fail to understand these two tracks of major activity, where you've got a royal commission working on a whole new set of regulations at the same time as the Workers Compensation Board appears to be doing exactly the same thing. It boggles my mind how that is supposed to make sense.

On April 15, the new regulations that WCB had developed through Ralph McGinn and his group went into effect, and employers were advised that they had to be studying these regulations and getting familiar with them. I can assure you that no employer can pack around that amount of detail in their head, and it's just unproductive to have that much paper and that many regulations. It's simply not productive.

I find it unbelievable that this is all happening at the same time as the government announced, on April 27, an initiative to cut red tape. They named a 16-person task force to cut red tape and reduce the cost of doing business. I quote from the Minister of Finance: "We are improving the way we work

[ Page 7511 ]

It's really unbelievable. Because there's a review going on within the WCB, this bill and all of these regulations are not part of the mandate of the task force. I cannot fathom the inconsistency -- that this is all happening at exactly the same time. It's simply not credible; it's not imaginable. I don't understand it.

Then on April 28, the following day -- the day after the press release announced a task force to reduce regulations -- we had the tabling of Bill 14. It simply doesn't add up. Of course, this press release talks about Bill 14 being based on the royal commission's recommendations. I reiterate: this is not what workers were looking for. This is not what any workers that have come into my constituency office have expressed concern about -- not a single one of them. I have certainly had some expression of concern about certain employers; I have not had an expression of concern that we needed more rules and regulations. I have had an incredible amount of concern about the Workers Compensation Board and how it treats its applicants. Bill 14 does not address any of the concerns of workers that have talked to me about.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time addressing parts of Bill 14; I just find it unbelievable. I think it's non-productive. As a former employer, I find it mind-boggling that the government in its current mode of being more business-friendly would introduce something like this. I just can't bring myself to even look at the details -- 57 pages of more rules and regulations, 57 pages of rules that will require inspectors and auditors that no one can afford. The government can't afford them; workers can't afford them; business can't afford them -- 57 pages of regulations that no worker or employee could possibly comprehend.

The reaction of the business community was obviously predictable. They expressed great concern that it will add more paperwork and more regulations to an already overburdened system. They talked about no research to back up the expansion of safety committees. They talked about the duplication of effort, while government talks about streamlining.

Dave Robertson, the chair of the Employers Forum, talked about the mixed messages: "On the one hand, we were being told that government wants to reduce regulation and create a more business-friendly climate. But this bill contains over 50 pages of material and sets up a framework for still more regulation. This legislation is taking us in the wrong direction." I could quote more, but I won't.

I did sit in on one of the public hearings chaired by Ralph McGinn in the process that WCB ran to review their regulations. I listened to Dave Robertson, and I listened to some other submissions. I found Dave Robertson, as an employer representative, to be a credible individual; I regard his opinion on this matter as credible. But I also took the opportunity to talk to Birgit Lund. After having an extremely difficult and bad experience of her own with the WCB with respect to her husband and his serious injuries, she is to be commended for her persistent efforts on behalf of workers. I think she has single-handedly created more change at WCB in the last five years than any other single person. She really deserves credit for pushing the government as hard as she and other injured workers have, to have the royal commission and to pay attention.

I talked to her about this bill the night before last, and she is not impressed. This a person who has worked night and day for change, but she confirmed that she didn't have much involvement in this bill. She feels that the government is going in circles. She spoke highly of the members of the commission and welcomed the opportunity to talk to them. She was impressed with their level of interest and their concerns. But she said that her hope to deal with all of the existing old cases and all of the systemic problems, to deal with all of the management problems within the WCB, to deal with those cases and other cases that are currently coming forward and cases that will come forward in the future. . . . None of her concerns are addressed by this bill.

Nothing has changed, in her view. She even went so far as to say: "We have to get business to realize how they are being screwed around by WCB" -- an incredible statement for a workers advocate. In her closing comments to me she said: "I'll make it very short: b.s." That was her comment about Bill 14. She is not satisfied that this is going to do anything for the issues that she raised.

I'm going to mention some of the issues that I submitted to the royal commission. The need for better service quality out of the WCB -- some of the simplest service issues -- has not been addressed by the WCB. Things like returning phone calls promptly, explaining policies, appropriate sensitivity and empathy with workers, transparent decisions and timely appeals, single-window service -- those are the issues that gave rise to the royal commission, not a call for more regulations by workers or anyone else. They didn't want to go through cases where they had ten different people from the WCB on their case. Every time they phoned, they would have somebody different.

One of the submissions that I made to the royal commission is that there is a need to deal with the intermediate and long-term cases in a much more proactive and effective manner. WCB should be putting some of their best staff on some of these outstanding cases, rather than having them drag out for months and months and months and years, through a proliferation of appeal processes. It's not working. It's not working today, it wasn't working two years ago, and if something different isn't done, it won't work tomorrow either.

There's a serious need for closure in how these cases are dealt with. We don't have that in the system today. There are critical questions to be asked about the role of medical advisers. I think that was referred to earlier by one of the members -- the role of medical advisers working for the WCB versus an applicant's own doctors.

The right to sue. The right to sue provides a form of accountability for WCB that is not available. Workers should have the right to sue the Workers Compensation Board for the way they have been treated. I submit to this House that if that was the case, we wouldn't have the problems that we have today at the WCB.

The appeal processes. I've mentioned the appeal processes -- probably the single biggest problem with the handling of cases through the Workers Compensation Board. Those were the issues that gave rise to the royal commission -- not a call for more regulations.

[ Page 7512 ]

[5:00]

Right now I'm working actively on three or four individual workers' cases through my constituency office. I simply cannot believe the crap that they have to go through from the Workers Compensation Board. I have one case that I've worked on for over two years. This individual was in a head-on collision -- two trucks. He was driving a dry-powder cement truck. The truck was a wreck, but the driver of the other truck was killed. This guy ended up with a back injury, and today I was told that the WCB is cutting him off. He has been on and off work and in some minor treatment programs, but they're cutting him off. It is absolutely unbelievable.

These are the problems at the WCB that should be addressed. They are not addressed in Bill 14. I support the motion to hoist this bill. Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, it shouldn't be hoisted for six months; it should be hoisted forever. It does not address the issues.

M. Sihota: Well, finally we see the opposition for who they really are. Finally in this session we get into a debate where the opposition chooses to define who their friends are. The opposition finally comes forward and lifts all of its camouflage and shows very clearly who it is that they stand for in this province. Here they are in this Legislature snivelling away to the narrowest of business interests in the course of this debate, trying to lift legislation away from this chamber for the next six months -- legislation which is designed to assist and benefit injured workers in British Columbia. Here they are standing up for their friends who helped them out during the course of the last election campaign -- each and every one of them paid to do this work for their friends.

What are we doing in this chamber today? I'll tell you what we're doing, hon. Speaker. We're introducing long-overdue occupational health and safety legislation in this province. And these people opposite have the audacity to stand up in this chamber and suggest that somehow this amounts to red tape. It's red tape that we have occupational health and safety regulations in British Columbia. "Oh, 57 pages." They just can't bring themselves to read those details, because it makes them sick. Give me a break!

I guess there was at one time some twit in society who said that it was red tape to bring in regulations to protect farmworkers. I guess that there was some neanderthal thinking going on in society when people thought that it was red tape to have health and safety regulations to protect forest workers or to have health and safety regulations to deal with asbestos -- how we treat asbestos or how we provide health and safety regulations to deal with people who get injured in fish canneries in British Columbia. Red tape? Gimme a break! That is backward, 1900-type thinking, and that's what we're seeing from the opposition.

Here they are. . . . Don't they get it? Do they not get that when you bring in health and safety regulations, you create an environment where workers work in safe conditions? You know what? When workers are working in safe conditions, they're productive, and when they're productive, that helps a business's bottom line. They don't get even that basic fundamental economic issue. Shame on the opposition for having the audacity to roll back the clock in British Columbia and oppose health and safety regulations.

They have the audacity, the utter gall, to stand up in this House and make the argument: "Oh, we need more time for consultation; there hasn't been enough consultation." Well, let me remind the members opposite that 1978 was the last time we had legislation dealing with this issue. Hasn't there been, over the last 20 years, enough time for consultation? I know that going back to 1991, our administration initiated a whole series of consultations -- six or seven years of consultations -- which have resulted in this legislation being tabled before this House right now.

We had a system that the hon. members opposite are obviously not informed of. The old Social Credit administration set up a board with equal representation from business and labour, with one independent chair selected by the two of them. For three years that committee couldn't come to a decision with regard to these types of regulations. So what did they do? They went out and consulted with businesses, big and small and workers in small and large settings. They took the benefit of that input. Then they passed the baton, in terms of their knowledge, to the new board, which was mandated around 1995. You know what that board did? It consulted some more in 1995 and 1996. But, you know, like those opposite, their friends opposite, who wanted to roll back the clock, they said: "Well, we need time for more consultation." So again, ever attentive to these types of concerns, what did this government do? We appointed a royal commission.

Again, for the benefit of the member for Abbotsford, who has now left and hasn't informed himself, that royal commission, under its terms of reference, was given two mandates: (1) to come in with occupational health and safety regulations; and (2) to deal with all of the other issues that he outlined. That report will be forthcoming from the royal commission. In the meantime, we made a political commitment, an appropriate commitment to society and to those injured workers, that we would begin to take action on the preventive side, and we would bring forward in this legislative session appropriate occupational health and safety legislation.

In any event, because I don't want to digress too much, the royal commission went through a period of consultation. It asked for more time; we gave them more time for more consultation. The bill that is now before this House is a product of six years of consultation. The time for talk is over.

The problem is that friends of the other side think that this is going to cost them money. That's what this is all about. They believe that this legislation is all about increasing the cost of doing business. I mean, why don't they just stand up and say it? It's written between every line that they've uttered in this House. They're worried that this means that the cost of business is going to go up. Even on that point, they are not only off the wall -- as they often are -- but they don't understand the basic economics that drive this legislation. It's very simple. Now hear this, hon. members opposite: if we reduce by 1 percent the rate of accidents and injuries in British Columbia, that saves employers $10 million. Let me say it slowly so it sinks in the mind. It saves $10 million for employers. Don't you get it? It is in the interests of your narrow friends to have this legislation introduced, to have safer working conditions in British Columbia, because it saves business money -- $10 million a year.

As the hon. Minister of Labour has so astutely and correctly pointed out, if we can cut the rate to the level of Ontario

[ Page 7513 ]

"Oh, we need more time to study." That's the next argument -- more time to study. You know, the taxpayer funds the opposition to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand dollars per member. Don't you have enough research staff already to come to understand legislation? Do you need five days to read 57 pages of legislation? Don't you have the resources to come to understand what this legislation is all about?

No, it's just like the member for Abbotsford indicated. He didn't want to get into the details. He didn't want to read the legislation. He couldn't care less about what's contained in the bill. All he wants to is to pander to those narrow interests that oppose this type of progressive, long overdue legislation. Shame on the members opposite for daring to pander to those interests.

Now they're silent opposite, hon. Speaker. Why is that? Maybe, just maybe, for once it's dawning on them that they have made a terrible political error in moving this hoist motion. Maybe it's dawned on them that they've been exposed for who they are: friends of narrow business interests in British Columbia. Shame on them! Shame on them in terms of the attitudes that they exhibit!

An Hon. Member: That's 72 lives.

M. Sihota: That's right; the hon. member is right -- 72 lives.

To her credit, the member for Richmond East started to do some fairly good work in terms of changes that were required in workers compensation. More than others, she should be standing up in her caucus and pointing out to them the value of bringing forward this kind of preventative legislation now to deal with real issues faced by workers in British Columbia, rather than these snivelling arguments: "Oh, do we really need this in engineering offices? Do we need these in lawyers' offices?" Stop shilling for those kinds of narrow interests, my friends. No matter where they work, people sustain injuries. One of the greatest growth areas in terms of injuries in British Columbia is repetitive strain injuries, and they happen to occur in those kinds of settings.

It's Tuesday. We have a break tomorrow morning, in the sense that the Legislature doesn't sit until Wednesday. I would urge all of those members opposite to reflect on their duties to injured workers in British Columbia, reflect on their obligation to bring forward legislation that solves many of the wrongs that have occurred in society, reflect on the fact that their delay will mean that 72 people in addition to those that have died could also pass away. Reflect. Take the time to read the legislation and ask yourself what you're here for. Are you here to govern and make decisions that are moderate and reasonable, defensible and thoughtful? Or are you here to represent bigoted, backward, backdated views? What we're seeing from those people opposite is just that.

If they had a conscience, they would pull this hoist motion and acknowledge that it was a mistake for them to do it.

L. Reid: I would like to begin by thanking the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for acknowledging the fine work that has been initiated by myself and members of this caucus, in terms of a response to the dysfunction currently in place at the Workers Compensation Board. It is an enormous issue that the rhetoric of the hon. member certainly did nothing to alleviate -- absolutely nothing.

[5:15]

It's contrary. The contradictions in the material that this government continues to put out are profound. I too reference the budget document, where there were going to be some issues around regulation. A business task force to cut red tape was announced on April 27 of this year -- a 16-person business task force. That in itself is an oxymoron when it comes to a government that is truly committed to reducing red tape and to delivering on the promises the Minister of Finance made in this House not two months ago. Either there is consistency or there is not. What we have today is a dramatic departure. This minister, if he thinks logically about these issues, will know that this discussion today from the members opposite is riddled with profound contradictions. The minister is aware of that; the member from Esquimalt is aware of that. There's no doubt in my mind.

I reference again the budget document, prepared by a member who I understand they hold in high regard. So again, for them to somehow suggest that what she stood and delivered in this chamber is not the direction this government wishes to go in. . . . "The advice we received. . ."

Interjection.

L. Reid: I would invite the minister to listen.

". . .ranged from making deep cuts in taxation and letting the deficit grow to $500 million, to balancing the budget now and deferring any tax cuts until later. We also heard about the

[ Page 7514 ]

Interjection.

L. Reid: Yes, I will, hon. minister, have a discussion with you about logic, because there's absolutely no way that I find that you have tremendous. . .

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.

L. Reid: . . .credibility on this question. There's absolutely no way -- through you, hon. Chair, to the minister -- that you can come into this discussion. You have not been there for constituents in your riding. And I will tell you. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

L. Reid: They have been in my office when there have been injured workers in this province who need assistance with the Workers Compensation Board. So think. . . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: Address your remarks through the Chair, hon. minister.

When the minister got to his feet this morning, he suggested that B.C. somehow lacks health and safety regulations. I intend to put on the record today the legislation that is currently in place that all of us respond to when it comes to ensuring that workers on the job site have access to safe and secure work environments. There are 40 statutes and 84 regulations enacted by the federal and provincial governments that impact occupational health and safety at B.C. worksites. That's a fact. It's contained in the first interim report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia -- October 31, 1997.

Again, this minister would tell us that we don't have access to adequate legislation and regulation. There are 17 federal statutes and 32 regulations that apply to federal works and undertakings in the province. Human Resources Development Canada has the primary responsibility, but seven other federal agencies also administer occupational health-and-safety-related legislation that applies to British Columbia. Twenty-one provincial statutes and 32 regulations deal with public as well as workplace health and safety issues. We refer to these as being dual-purpose legislation. The Ministries of Employment and Investment, Municipal Affairs, Housing, Health and three other ministries administer this dual-purpose legislation. Two other B.C. statutes and 20 other provincial regulations focus primarily, if not exclusively, on occupational health and safety. Yet this minister this morning talked about a lack of regulation in British Columbia.

In B.C. the Workers Compensation Board administers the Workers Compensation Act and the Workplace Act and their regulations. These comprise the province's primary occupational health and safety legislation. The Ministries of Employment and Investment, Municipal Affairs, Housing and Health also administer occupational health and safety legislation covering industries that fall outside the scope of the board's mandate. And there are many, many lists. The Workers Compensation Act is the major source of B.C.'s occupational health and safety legislation. The board, under the authority of this act, has promulgated the following regulations: agricultural operations regulations, fishing operations regulations, industrial health and safety regulations, occupational first-aid regulations, the occupational first-aid applicability regulation and the report-of-injuries regulation. Yet this minister would get to his feet and tell us that somehow British Columbia has not significant legislation on the books today.

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

L. Reid: Check the Blues. You did, this morning.

There's WHMIS, the workplace hazardous materials information system regulations. It's enormous, Mr. Speaker. The application of regulation on workers and workplace sites within the province of British Columbia is a concern to me. Again, I will reference the document for the members' information. The "Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia: Accountability Reporting Review" of January 19, 1998, a very recent document, talks about issues that are currently in place today at the workers compensation system. Let's talk about performance. Let's talk about measurement. Let's talk about accountability when it comes to the workers compensation system. I can tell this House today that if this legislation would deliver improved worker safety, you would see members of this House in support. What we have today is additional overlay, additional bureaucracy, and we're not convinced that this is going to indeed render a different outcome than what is currently in place today. Again, the document of January 1998 says: ". . .The WCB does not have any standards of conduct relating to client services." That's a fact. That information is four months' old.

Those kinds of issues you somehow think, hon. minister, might be rectified by the overlay of more regulation. They can't do the job today. Those are significant issues that need to be addressed if we are indeed concerned with the better functioning of the workers compensation system within the province of British Columbia. And I'm not convinced that the members opposite have one scrap of concern for the better functioning of the workers compensation system in British Columbia.

Interjections.

L. Reid: Again the members would cite the royal commission, as would I. I indicated that it would be the preference of the majority of individuals who have come before the official opposition that any new legislation would await the outcome, the final report, of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia. This isn't a piecemeal exercise; this is about recrafting an organization that is profoundly important to many, many British Columbians -- profoundly important.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I will cite some recommendations from this report on accountability: "We recommend that WCB management report on its code of conduct in the annual report and confirm that the code has been adhered to in all material respects. The possibility of conducting an independent 'ethics audit' should also be considered." That says to me that there is a difficulty in decision-making at the board today. The overlay in terms of

[ Page 7515 ]

Bill 14 is approximately 56 pages long. The point I just made, which the hon. minister simply is agitated about, is the fact that there is nothing in this legislation today whereby this minister can get to his feet and guarantee an improved worker safety situation in this province. It doesn't even come close.

It's 56 pages long and, in some areas, duplicates the existing occupational health and safety regulations already in place. This is somewhat ironic, given that the introduction of Bill 14 follows closely on the heels of a recently appointed provincial task force mandated to make recommendations on how to streamline and eliminate unnecessary provincial government legislation, regulations, processes and procedures. Before this government gets the report back from the royal commission, they've launched into the fray hundreds of new regulations, pages and pages of new regulations, that are not necessarily helpful to the exercise.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I frankly commit to the record that the minister will in no way be helpful to the exercise if he cannot come to order.

Let's talk about the relevance of Workers Compensation Board regulations. Again I will cite the "Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia: Accountability Reporting Review" of January 1998:

"The continued relevance of WCB regulations should also be of key importance to both the panel and the external stakeholders. The WCB has recently conducted a large-scale review of the regulations and, as a result, has made several changes. . . . Management is currently developing a process for an ongoing review of the regulations."

Again, this "Accountability Reporting Review" by the office of the auditor general of British Columbia" states: "We think that two indicators in particular should alert the WCB to the need to review the relevance of the regulations: the root causes of the injuries reported and the level of stakeholder satisfaction with the WCB and its regulations." This is information that's dated January 1998. That is a point worthy of repetition in this Legislature this afternoon, because this is about adding to the existing base of regulation currently before the workers compensation system -- currently before individuals in the field who must apply that.

Without understanding whether or not the existing regulation is relevant, this government is going to choose to add 57 more pages. To whose benefit, hon. Speaker? Is this indeed a useful exercise at this time? I would commit to the record that it is not.

My original commentary suggested that the wish of the opposition would be to see this considered after the final report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia. That is not a complex request. They continually indicate that they don't understand that request. But it's not complex. Obviously, it is not something that can be debated with people who have no sense of logic.

These are the individuals who appointed the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia. They said that the mandate was important and that they would allow the royal commission to continue its work unfettered. That's what they said. What they're doing is profoundly contrary to that original assertion and makes no sense to me.

[5:30]

All of us who meet regularly with injured workers, with WCB claimants, know full well that where cases go wrong in this province is typically around definition. They're confounded by the paperwork that comes to them through injured workers, which they attempt to share with members of this Legislature. I can tell you that there are days when members of this Legislature have difficulty with the level of paperwork -- the inaccuracy and inconsistency around definition that indeed troubles individuals in terms of reaching a reasonable decision.

There is nothing in Bill 14 today that's going to improve that current scenario, and that's a significant issue. This should be about bettering the situation for injured workers, for workers in the system -- not about making their lives more complex and, frankly, more difficult. That's a significant issue, because people want timely, accessible care. They want some understanding of what their issues are, and they want to be able to understand WCB regulations. They don't want to be confounded by another 50 pages, when they haven't understood the six volumes that came before. This will not be a favour to workers in the province. It is certainly not a favour to injured workers in the province today. This government would have us believe that they are somehow presenting a gift to the gods, that this is such well-done legislation. I don't agree. I don't agree in any way, shape or form.

One of the issues that I continue to raise in this Legislature -- and have continued to raise in the official opposition task force and in the submission I made to the royal commission on behalf of the official opposition -- is the skill base of adjudicators -- a significant issue. When the minister talks about an enabling framework to allow people to go forward and enforce more regulation, I come back to the question of the skill set of adjudicators. It's time to talk about the training of the people who make the decisions which impact dramatically and profoundly on people's lives in British Columbia.

[ Page 7516 ]

"The skill base of the adjudicators was also an issue about which some stakeholders wanted assurance. They wanted the assurance that the workers had the necessary skills to make sensitive judgments. Again, this will be a sensitive and difficult issue that will have to be handled sensibly, but it a key issue for the WCB to address in its accountability report to its stakeholders."

I would hope that the minister will get to his feet and suggest that somehow Bill 14 is going to improve how individuals are treated by the workers compensation system, how they are handled on the worksites of this province. But I don't see it in the legislation. I don't see that it is going to generate improved worker safety in British Columbia. The minister has provided no documentation, no statistics, no research. I go back over the years I have debated a number of ministers on the WCB question, and accountability, benchmarking and measurement are always a difficulty for members opposite -- always. They don't seem to appreciate that this is how you craft better practice, that you start from a baseline and you improve practice from there.

The accountability framework says that they're not measuring most of the things they need to measure today. So how can they alter practice so that it is better for injured workers in the province? That's the debate today: workers compensation, health and safety. That's the topic; that's what people who read these debates will be reading. It's about application. I'm not convinced that this government understands application or that some of the current adjudicators at the board understand the enormity of the responsibility they have when it comes to determining someone's life and livelihood. I mean, these are serious, serious injuries. These are amputees and individuals who are paralyzed, who are treated just atrociously by this board.

This minister opposite would tell us that by bringing down Bill 14, somehow those lives will be improved and somehow people will be treated better on the worksites of this province. I don't comprehend that from reading Bill 14. I don't think it does any of those things. That's a huge concern. Misrepresentation is always a huge concern to me, and I have serious concerns, because upon reading this, people will believe that somehow their lives will be better as a result of this government looking out for them.

The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin will tell you that it's only about improved worker safety. Where? Which section? It's not in this bill.

There are some significant issues that this government has chosen not to put on the table, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

L. Reid: I'll wait while the Speaker brings the House to order.

The Speaker: Proceed, hon. member. They seem to be in order.

L. Reid: Certainly one of the issues I am asking for some response to when the minister provides his concluding remarks is whether or not he believes that any of this increased bureaucracy will result in increased worker safety. Frankly, I don't believe it's there. I've not found it, and that's a significant issue for where we go next. I mean, there are many, many issues that are addressed in the interim report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia.

I want to just raise one example, and I would ask the minister again to perhaps address it in his concluding remarks. It talks about individuals that have been suitably trained and are otherwise knowledgeable having some responsibility for their actions and activity on the worksite. I support that. One of the examples given to me recently was whether or not you could hold a worker responsible in this province for wearing a seatbelt. The answer from the WCB was no. Yet on their way to work, he or she knows what the law is; on their way home from work, he or she knows what the law is -- that they have that responsibility to obey the laws of this province. They know that when they're in a vehicle, they should be wearing their seatbelt. Why is that different on the worksite? Why does that become someone else's responsibility? All of those questions need to be answered.

There are opportunities for this minister to talk about responsibilities of all people on worksites, and he has chosen not to do that. That's a concern that has not been responded to or rectified by anything this minister has said. I'm not clear why this is an opportunity for this government to pit one group against the other. This should be about problem-solving. It should be about driving to a solution.

One of the comments I wanted to make earlier talks about. . . . Again, the report came out on October 31. This is the November 6, 1997, document from the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation:

"The Royal Commission on Workers Compensation has presented its first report and recommendations to cabinet. Among the more than 60 recommendations in the 180-page report dealing with occupational health and safety issues is a call for a separate occupational health and safety statute that would see the promulgation of regulations shift from the Workers Compensation Board to the provincial government."

Their correspondence continues, hon. Speaker: "The new act should identify the fundamental rights and responsibilities of all parties as they relate to workplace health and safety" -- to all parties in workplace health and safety. These are discussions that have been set out by the royal commission, and frankly, we haven't reached fruition on these discussions. This is the first time this has come before this Legislature.

One of their final comments: "If workers are going to be properly protected on the job, then we need to put some teeth into the new legislation that makes health, safety and prevention of injuries and illness around the workplace everyone's responsibility." I put special emphasis on the words "every-

[ Page 7517 ]

I don't know an employer in this province who is not concerned about the health and safety of his or her employee. The future of their business depends on it. For the member and the minister to suggest otherwise lacks logic and, frankly, is irresponsible in the extreme. It suggests that they're not interested in a solution; they're only interested in continuing the polarization. That's not helpful at all. There are ways in which all parties on the worksite. . . . Again, the reference is very clear: "The new act should identify the fundamental rights and responsibilities of all parties as they relate to workplace health and safety." I don't see this minister doing that. I didn't see the previous speaker doing that, hon. Speaker.

Those are enormous concerns about the future of this province, which I believe should have a superb workers compensation system. They should understand clearly that they asked the royal commission to move forward on a significant mandate: to provide reasonable, logical, clear decisions to legislators in the province. They don't serve the process well by jumping the gun. They don't serve the process well by leaping ahead to the exclusion of the report on the workers compensation system. They appointed the judge; they appointed the panellists, if you will. They said those individuals had the competence and the skill set to deliver a product to this Legislature.

So by all means, listen to the final report. Don't put the cart before the horse. Don't suggest that there is research to support the contentions made by this minister unless this minister is prepared to put them on the record. He was asked earlier today to table the research that supports this direction. The taxpayers of the province of British Columbia are paying an enormous amount for the work of the royal commission. At the very least, it should be listened to. I have no assurances today that this minister has heard the message or has understood the message.

Interjection.

L. Reid: You've spoken repeatedly, hon. minister. The illogic emanating from the minister opposite frankly appalls me, hon. Speaker. There are issues that this minister is ill-qualified to address, and he sees no rationale for addressing them. They are issues today of injured workers in the province, of workers in the province, of people who create employment in the province. It's a package; you don't get to separate out one from the other. So I would ask this minister and this government to respond on September 30, 1998, to the recommendations of the royal commission.

[5:45]

The difficulty with introducing legislation such as Bill 14 is that it is so important, and it oftentimes does demand more involvement than what we originally thought. I do want to make it very clear that members on this side of the House are in favour of workplace safety. If that has not been made clear, I want that to be very clear. Who on earth would not be in favour of workplace safety? Members of my family, members of my community, my neighbours, my sisters, my brothers, my nieces, my nephews -- who are all going to be workers -- are going to have to have workplace safety. So why would anyone not be in favour of workplace safety?

I do believe that all members of the Legislature are concerned about workers and workplace safety. Injuries that occur in the workplace -- whether minor, major or tragic -- do affect people and their families. In some cases, an injury in the workplace has an even greater impact when it affects an entire community. Sadly, that is the case in some small rural towns and some small rural cities.

I have additional comments that I would like to make on this, hon. Speaker, but noting the time, I move that we adjourn debate at this time. I reserve the right to continue at the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would advise the House again that we do sit tomorrow afternoon. With that, I would move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

A. Sanders: When we broke this morning, we were talking about the $105 million lift that was announced by the ministry last month. During the discussion that we had, there were a number of points that became clear from the minister. The first one is that we have 8,000 new children, that half of the allotment was for enrolment, that the 400 teachers and 300

[ Page 7518 ]

The second half of the $105 million -- $93 per student, according to the minister -- breaks down into funding the ongoing expenses: CPI, inflation, PLNet, teachers' salary increases, etc., that have accrued in this year, many of them being owed from the previous transitional collective agreement and just from the cost of living, etc.

We then looked at the issue of the number of children in B.C. and some discrepancies between school boards and what the ministry reports. This is very significant, because the difference is $25 million. I asked the minister whether that money would be clawed back to Treasury Board, and I believe the answer was: "Yes, if that enrolment did not come in."

We got to the point where I asked the minister. . . . After he had explained to me that the teachers and learning assistants were in fact additional. . . . We were talking about monthly reports and estimations of population numbers of school-age kids. My question to the minister from that point is: do we still collect monthly reports, and do those give us an indication on a running basis of the numbers between September '97, September '98 and September '99?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll deal first with the question at the end of the preamble, which was whether the ministry collects monthly reports on enrolment. The answer is no. We get reports on enrolment as of September 30 and then the projections of budgets this year in May 1998.

I need to correct, for the record, a couple of things that the member said in her preamble. I did not say that any moneys in this budget allocated for increased enrolment would be clawed back into general revenue if that enrolment did not materialize. That is not the case. That would be a decision for Treasury Board and cabinet to make. Obviously no such decision could be made until we actually see what enrolment projections are like come the fall of 1998.

[2:45]

A. Sanders: I'd like to expand on those two questions and get a bit more information from the minister. I think I'll choose the teaching staff and learning assistants first. Based on last year, just for comparison's sake, we had 12,000 new children. I believe that's approximately the correct number. That means that we would have hired somewhere around at least 1,000 new teachers last year and perhaps 400 teaching assistants, and that is diluting the numbers quite considerably. But based on enrolment, those are the numbers of teachers and teaching assistants that we would have hired last year to look after 12,000 new children. Last year there was no announcement that we were hiring 400 additional teachers and 300 additional learning assistants. One can surmise -- by the lack of an announcement last year, when we were funding an enrolment increase of 12,000, and one this year, with less enrolment at a projected 8,000 -- that that was to have the public believe that, in fact, they were getting additional staff above and beyond the enrolment increases. I think that that is misleading, and I think that there are many who will be very surprised to find out that the number of teachers and teaching assistants were, in fact, the number that we were hiring based on population alone. That's my first point in response.

The second is the concern about clawback. We're talking about a very significant amount of money -- $25 million. I guess I will put it to the minister again, because he tells me I misinterpreted his answer this morning, and I apologize for that. Will he make every effort to keep that money in the Ministry of Education if the enrolment does not materialize, or does he anticipate, from past years and from past experience as Minister of Education, that that money will be returned to the Treasury Board and not be there to fund education should the enrolment not materialize as the ministry has projected?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I understand it, the member has asked for a comparison of staffing in '96-97 versus '97-98. Staff do not have that information in the chamber. They'll seek to have it for us by tomorrow.

On the second question, government, Treasury Board and cabinet decide at the appropriate time what is to be done with unused revenues in a particular budget. In the past a variety of things have been done. Frankly, in the past the Ministry of Education has actually needed more from some areas because enrolment has been underestimated, as I've explained to this chamber before.

A. Sanders: I would urge the minister to recognize that there is an obvious difference in the enrolment figures and that he should earmark and try to hold on to that $25 million for use within the education system to maybe actually improve the circumstances.

There was a comment on a television show that I would like the minister to respond to. It was from the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation. The president of the BCTF suggested that this government has been strangling the public education system over the last seven years. I just want the minister's response to that news media comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Before I address the member's question, I want to introduce to the chamber another member of staff that has joined me, Mr. Derek Sturko, director of the policy, evaluation and analysis branch in the Ministry of Education -- just so everybody knows who is here with us.

I am unaware of the statement that the member alludes to. I can only assume it was made prior to the announcement of the $105 million lift to education funding, because if memory serves me, the president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation was in attendance when that announcement was made and said it was a good day for education in British Columbia.

A. Sanders: Of the $105 million, how much will be allocated in September 1998?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't wish this to sound cheeky: all that's needed. I guess what I need to explain is that the amount allocated to school districts is dependent on enrolment at the end of September. We've done a preliminary allocation based on school districts, a preliminary estimation of their enrolment. So those are the budgets that they are working with. The final allocation of moneys takes place after reports of enrolment in September. School districts know how much additional money they'll be getting for each additional

[ Page 7519 ]

Again, not to be cheeky about it, but the answer is: all that's required by the enrolment in September of 1998.

A. Sanders: Based on those preliminary projections of $105 million from school boards, what is the dollar figure that the government is working with to allocate in September when school starts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure what the question is getting at. Let me try again. We know, I think, because we're increasing the dollars per student by $93 on average, that approximately $56 million will be allocated to the school districts in the coming year to take account of current enrolment. Okay?

We also have in this $105 million, based on a projection of 8,200 students, an additional amount of $48.5 million set aside. All or a portion of that will be allocated depending on what the enrolment in the fall looks like. Our estimate is that the great majority of it will be allocated. The school districts, as we've discussed earlier, have come in with a very conservative estimate, as has been their want. For example, in 1996-97 the school districts underestimated the enrolment by 5,600 students. Well, there's no fault attached to that; they were just being very, very conservative in how they estimated enrolment growth. We funded the total number of students who showed up.

A. Sanders: I'd like to switch gears and go to something else to give some other people an opportunity to ask a few questions. I'd like to not do the announcements sequentially. The next one that the Premier made was the portable one, and we'll go back to that. At this time I'd like to look at the teachers' agreement-in-committee.

We spent a long time last summer in the Education estimates talking about the impending teachers' agreement, class size issues, meta-analysis by BCPSEA authorized by government on class-size issues -- a number of the things that the minister could do to ameliorate settlement of the bargaining and the teachers' transitional agreement and get a contract hammered out with the teachers of British Columbia so that parents did not have to worry about an impending strike. In fact, at the last B.C. Teachers Federation meeting a strike vote was taken. After that, a number of announcements were made in Education, which we've discussed this morning in our opening statements. I'd like to focus on the third announcement that was made: the teachers' agreement-in-committee.

My first question on this topic to the minister is: if we are talking about 1998, specifically January to March, how many times did BCPSEA meet with the BCTF to do bargaining?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A couple of my staff were involved in bargaining. We don't have the exact figure in front of us. I understand they did publish, at one point, a schedule of meetings. They did meet, if recollection serves, in January and the first half of February. After that, BCPSEA asked for some government intervention, and the shape of the negotiations changed.

A. Sanders: I'm kind of looking for a ballpark figure. Was it more than ten? Less than five? Twenty-five? We're talking about January, February, March and quite a significant. . .April as well. I'm talking about face-to-face negotiations between the two bargaining units.

[3:00]

A. Sanders: Let's go back to January and February. How many face-to-face meetings -- a ballpark figure -- occurred between the two bargaining groups in January-February?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff would have to check; staff were not involved.

A. Sanders: Would the minister be able to get that information for me?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

A. Sanders: I'm concerned. I think that the answer is probably very, very few -- maybe one or two times. The reality is that here we have two groups bargaining. . . . It's a very important circumstance: the schooling of our 600,000 kids and the jobs of a very large number of teachers -- I believe it is 33,000 now. I think they met once or twice. I would be very pleased to be brought up to date on that by the minister. He has told me he will get the figures. It's a fairly lethargic effort to settle a budget that the minister now tells me is $3.58 billion this year.

When BCPSEA and the BCTF were not meeting. . . . The minister said it was somewhere around February 15, if in fact they did meet face-to-face at all in January-February. I wonder about September, October, November and December and how much effort and will was actually put into this bargaining process -- whether there was a grinding in of the heels in the first place. I think those are important questions for the public to be aware of. When there was a so-called stalemate on February 15, who authorized the government to bypass BCPSEA and bargain directly with the teachers?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, a correction of fact: the $3.58 billion that's allocated for school districts in the province surely goes in part to teachers' wages and benefits, but not entirely. This contract with the teachers covers a significant portion of that, but not all of it.

The negotiations between BCPSEA and the BCTF, which the member and I discussed at some length during this last set of estimates, did not appear to be bearing a great deal of fruit after they resumed some work on bargaining in the fall of 1997 -- regrettably, to my mind. I think the member is also aware that direct responsibility for public sector bargaining runs to the Minister of Finance through the Public Sector Employers Council, of which BCPSEA is a member. I received briefings in the fall on the state of negotiations, as did other ministers and cabinet committees. To say that negotiations were slow would be a gentle way of reporting on the fact that they seemed to me to be quite stuck. Some of the concerns really started to arise when the parties started to table formal positions, which I think occurred in November. One of the things that was a flag to me that things were in serious shape

[ Page 7520 ]

Later on in November -- I don't remember the exact date -- I asked the people from the Public Sector Employers Council to pull the two parties together so I could talk to them face-to-face in the same room and urge them both on to more intense and speedier work towards reaching a resolution. I offered assistance or facilitation or anything else that would help in reaching that sort of a conclusion. I think some efforts were made by the parties to do so, but to my mind, clearly not enough. There were some facilitation efforts made in the January-February period, but the conclusion that had to be reached by early 1998 was that these negotiations were seriously stuck. At that point the BCPSEA actually asked for further involvement from government. My deputy and Mr. Pratt from the Public Sector Employers Council began direct negotiations or discussions with the British Columbia Teachers Federation in efforts to reach an agreement in committee that could be presented to both sides. That work went on, at times with a great deal of intensity and at times less so, for nearly ten weeks before the agreement in committee was announced.

A. Sanders: It's a shame, if we look at the stuck negotiations. . . . What might have happened if this government had offered BCPSEA and the BCTF $150 million with which to negotiate between themselves and come up with an agreement? The reason they were stuck is because they were trying to negotiate a revenue-neutral contract where neither side would budge. The result has been something that is questionable.

The minister has said that his deputy and Mr. Pratt from PSEC were doing the direct negotiations with the teachers. Was that everybody, or were there other people involved? For example, was the Premier involved?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, the Premier was not involved.

A. Sanders: So it was just Mr. Avison and Mr. Pratt doing the bargaining.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There were other staff involved at times, but nobody from the political arm of government, no -- no cabinet ministers.

A. Sanders: When the government met with the BCTF, who authorized the bypassing of BCPSEA?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me restate what I thought I'd said for the record earlier. BCPSEA recognized in late January or early February that these negotiations were not progressing in a fruitful way and sought greater government involvement. Discussions then began between the people I've mentioned and the BCTF to come up with some conclusions that could be presented to BCPSEA and the BCTF. That's where we have gotten to.

Actually, the member was asking about the number of meetings -- just sort of face-to-facers, if I understood her question -- between BCPSEA and the BCTF. As best my deputy can remember, the number is probably in excess of 100 between the last time we discussed this and now, so I think the parties had opportunities to thoroughly explain and react to positions. I wish I could say that the negotiations toward conclusions had been more fruitful.

A. Sanders: Will the minister provide this member with a list of those meetings or the actual. . . ? I don't want the minutes, but just the number of meetings that occurred and the dates.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry doesn't have that; BCPSEA does. We'll attempt to obtain it from them.

A. Sanders: When BCPSEA, as the employer dealing with their employee, asked the government to go and talk to the BCTF about the fact that there was an impasse, having spent almost the last two years dealing with this transitional collective agreement, surely they must have thought what was going to happen was that you would talk to the BCTF, maybe make some movement, then bring that back to BCPSEA, and they would then have some comment as the employer group.

Then the two of them would sit back down, after government had acted in its intervener status, and maybe come up with something in the normal kind of way that bargains are done. My understanding is that this is not in fact what occurred. Could the minister enlighten me on how he reviews what happens there and whether that process resembles, in any way, shape or form, the usual way that we come to agreements?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The people involved from my government were briefing me occasionally during this period. I had not much contact with BCPSEA at the time, though I've surely had considerable since. I frankly am loathe to engage in this sort of discussion in this chamber based on the facts that I have before me right now.

I would say that I find it passing strange. I thought this was a Liberal opposition that indeed wanted to have education declared an essential service and that didn't place a very high value on collective bargaining. It's very interesting to hear this line of questioning. We've reached an agreement-in-committee with the BCTF, which represents an outstanding advance of opportunities for children in our schools, and that is what we are intent on doing. The members opposite may have all sorts of questions about the process. I ask them whether they support the results.

A. Sanders: Really, the minister's comments are completely unfounded. Nevertheless, I'm trying to ascertain whether the process of collective negotiations between the BCTF and BCPSEA was wittingly violated in terms of representative democracy. I think that's very much the job that I have in this House. I feel it's very important to make sure that local autonomy and the spirit of free collective bargaining are in fact maintained. If the minister finds this line of questioning uncomfortable, I guess I have to say tough luck.

What I'm interested in is: when the government bypassed BCPSEA and made an agreement directly with the BCTF, who gave them the authorization to not bring it directly back to BCPSEA but to in fact release an agreement-in-committee directly to the media?

[3:15]

I must say, though, that we can engage in this discussion -- great. I hope the members opposite will welcome my

[ Page 7521 ]

Yes, the negotiations between BCPSEA and the BCTF were, regrettably, not fruitful.

S. Hawkins: You didn't give them the resources to bargain with.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hear the member opposite. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .questioning the process here yet again. Because we were able to move into this, we were able to put some resources on the table and advance the opportunities for children in a way that simply was not going to happen at that table. The members opposite may wish to revisit history and wish that it had been done in another way. Frankly, I wish that the parties had been able to reach an agreement six or eight months ago. That clearly was not going to be possible.

We have reached a collective agreement which is good for kids in this province, which enables us to reduce class sizes in kindergarten-to-grade-3 and which enables us to guarantee support services for all children in all schools in our province. Those are very positive outcomes. Frankly, I do not believe that they would have been achieved had government not decided to get involved in these negotiations.

A. Sanders: How much money did the minister have on the table six months ago to facilitate this bargaining process between the two bargaining units, as he describes?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was the decision of government that a way of unsticking these negotiations was to assist in providing some additional resources which could go into enhancing education.

Hon. Chair, I find this incredible. We had an opportunity to advance the improvement of education in this province. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Cabinet and this ministry and school boards have told us repeatedly. . . .

The Chair: I'd just like to interject. If the member for Okanagan West would like to ask questions, I would ask that she do so at the appropriate time.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Cabinet, school districts, caucus and others have repeatedly said that the best place for investment of additional dollars is in the early years of education. Through this round of bargaining, we have been able to get a deal that actually puts those resources into the first years of schooling. It makes a significant difference in class size and enables us to say that we'll have equitable class sizes and ratios around the province, and equitable access for kids to get a good beginning in school. That's what this agreement is about.

We were able to use the vehicle of this collective agreement to make that happen. The teachers of the province have done their part by saying in this agreement that they're going to forgo a wage increase for two years.

A. Sanders: The wage increases actually come in the eighth month of the second year, just for clarification for the minister. However, the important thing here is that if the two groups who are meeting with each other in good faith had $150 million of increased funding to bargain with, I think they would have come up with a far, far better agreement between them through negotiations that met some of the demands of the employers and some of the demands of the teachers as employees, and probably with a whole lot of things that would have been very good for kids.

The resultant agreement-in-committee does not come anywhere near what those individuals, with the knowledge that they have collectively of the education system and what's good for kids at the local level, could have ever dreamed of doing. Unfortunately, that is a very large concern for all of us who have children in the public education system.

We'll go back to February 14, February 15 or whenever it was that the ministry came in and started meeting with the BCTF directly -- on the advice of BCPSEA, as the minister pointed out. I have no reason to doubt that that's the case. When they first met, were they successful right away in developing a mediation, or did they fail the first time around?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The negotiations took some time. They did not proceed that smoothly. It took a considerable amount of effort by negotiators from both parties to reach the proposal for an agreement, which is now being considered by the province's teachers and by its trustees. I must say that I think I'm finally beginning to hear from the Liberal opposition their actual position on it. I think I hear them almost ready to come out and say that they are going to urge rejection of this agreement. I hope they will stand up and be clear on it, because I think it is important that in this chamber and for the general public, people understand that we want to put an additional $25 million per year into hiring teachers in our public schools, add 1,200 teachers above those who have been hired by the $105 million increase that we talked about this morning and make a real difference in children's lives. So far, frankly, I think I heard them moving in that direction. I'd be fascinated to hear where they finally do end up.

A. Sanders: I'll be fascinated to hear if the minister ever answers my question. I asked: when the ministry group met with the BCTF, did they fail at mediation before the actual agreement-in-committee was composed? Was there a failure and a discontinuation for a day or an hour, or whatever, with reporting back to BCPSEA, saying: "No, we have failed to reach anywhere with the teachers. We cannot get them to budge"? Did an event like that actually occur, where the negotiators went back home and said: "We have been unable to meet and successfully agree with the BCTF on anything"?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've already said -- and I didn't mean to in any way not answer the member's question -- that negotiations were by no means smooth and that all parties at the table, all negotiators, had to do a lot of work to get to this recommendation for a proposed agreement. I believe that at one time there was a sense from government people at the table that no deal was possible -- and reporting back to BCPSEA on that. Then negotiations resumed. So it was not a

[ Page 7522 ]

A. Sanders: I hear very clearly from the minister that the ministry group reported an unsuccessful mediation, that they were completely at a loss as to what to do next. The BCTF would not budge on the issue, and that was reported back to BCPSEA. I appreciate that direct information.

My question to the minister, following that, is: who furthered the ministry's mandate to meet anew with the BCTF once the job that they had been asked to do had been done?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is characterizing these negotiations in a way which I don't share. Yes, there were difficulties in these negotiations. At times it was not clear whether they were going to be successfully concluded all the way through. Yes, at one point it didn't look like any agreement was going to be possible. The negotiators were asked to get an agreement. Fortunately, after a fair bit of work, they have succeeded in reaching an agreement, or proposed agreement, for recommendation to teachers and to trustees.

A. Sanders: So here we've got a situation where BCPSEA asked the government to go and talk with the BCTF because nothing was working. The government did that in good faith and said: "We cannot get anywhere; the employees will not budge." They then went home. Then negotiations started up again. Who gave this deputy minister the mandate. . . . Who expanded the mandate of Mr. Pratt and Mr. Avison to go back and talk to the BCTF after their mandate had already been finished? They had done the talks, nothing had happened, and they reported. Who gave them the mandate to then go back again a second time and start over?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Once again the characterization is the member's, not mine. Yes, there was at least one reporting out to BCPSEA that things seemed to be stuck. I believe, after that particular occurrence, that it was the BCTF that contacted one of the government's negotiators and said that further discussions might be possible.

Look, I don't know if the member opposite has ever been involved in negotiations around a labour contract. There are negotiations at the table; very often there are lots of informal contacts among negotiators from various sides. That happens in virtually every set of negotiations that I have ever been aware of. These were not easy negotiations. They took a long period of time. Government, for its part, remained absolutely committed to providing the resources to make the results of this agreement possible and to put into our K-to-12 system $150 million of new money, above and beyond the $105 million increase that we talked about this morning. Government made the commitment to put in the additional capital money required to build a thousand new classrooms to accommodate the teachers that are going to be hired to teach kindergarten-to-grade-3. So we are committed to making this happen. The collective agreement is a way of making sure that this happens equitably in school districts across the province.

A. Sanders: Once again to the minister, who was it that expanded the mandate of the government to go back and meet with the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There was no expansion of mandate.

A. Sanders: Is there a single memo to BCPSEA to inform them that the government was renegotiating with the BCTF during that period of time, after they had reported that there was no possible negotiation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There were direct discussions with BCPSEA.

A. Sanders: With whom on BCPSEA were there direct discussions -- between government and BCPSEA?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have no direct knowledge personally about who talked to whom. I would expect it would have involved people from the government team, Mr. Pratt and people that are working for BCPSEA -- Mr. Werker or others.

A. Sanders: Would the minister provide me with one single memo or date or time of a conversation between someone directly from BCPSEA and the deputy or Mr. Pratt?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I just answered that my understanding is that this was done face to face.

[3:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have the date for you, hon. member.

A. Sanders: I'd appreciate it if the minister would commit today to giving me, with some consultation, even one date and one name of anyone working with BCPSEA who was contacted about the negotiations with government and the BCTF after the failed mandate.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll find you the date.

A. Sanders: And the name.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Sure.

A. Sanders: Thank you to the minister.

The agreement-in-committee was struck with the ministry and the BCTF. How were the BCPSEA negotiators informed of that agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: BCPSEA staff were briefed on the agreement-in-committee -- if memory serves me -- on the day that the executive committee of the BCTF was also seized of the issue, and on the day that the Premier and I announced it.

A. Sanders: What was the time difference between the press release and the people who had sat at the table for those many months. . . .? What was the time difference between them understanding and getting that information?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff advise me that the briefing probably began in mid-afternoon. I think the news conference, if memory serves, was held at 4:30 p.m. or 5 p.m.

A. Sanders: It's concerning to me that these individuals would have spent that much of their lives thinking and working and worrying about the bargaining process and the agree-

[ Page 7523 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We were very pleased that we were able to reach this agreement, and we were quite sure that it would become public knowledge in the near future. Therefore we decided to announce it publicly ourselves.

A. Sanders: That has a coercive side to it. Is there no standard of conduct that would allow that half of the marriage to at least see the agreement prior to hearing about it in the press -- to have an opportunity to talk to the minister and ministry staff, so that if there were glaring errors or omissions, those could perhaps be dealt with prior to having the media knocking on their doors?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I've explained why the news conference was held.

A. Sanders: It's very unfortunate that this is the way things have to come to people who work so hard.

Did the BCTF executive give the information on the agreement-in-committee to their members at the same time as the trustees received their information? Was there any time differential?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is going far afield. This is really secondhand and thirdhand right now. I've heard from staff that they have heard from staff at the BCTF that information was distributed to their member locals after the executive had dealt with it on Friday.

A. Sanders: I took the opportunity to phone some trustees, and they actually hadn't received it even after I had -- which was very, very unfortunate.

What does the minister think the legality is of the government supplanting a bargaining agent in this particular agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll give you some more information, which I must tell you is, again, secondhand and thirdhand. Staff inform me the that staff at BCPSEA have informed them that they were faxing copies of this agreement out to trustees on the same Friday afternoon as the BCTF was. So as far as who knew what and when, that seems to be what was going on. I would emphasize for the members that this is a recommendation for a collective agreement, not a collective agreement. Both sides are now looking at it and deciding if they wish to ratify it.

A. Sanders: Is it possible that arbitration will result in this agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd ask the member to elaborate. I'm not quite sure what she means. There are provisions in collective agreements that require that some matters within them go to arbitration, but I think she means something more than that.

A. Sanders: I'll try it a different way. What will happen if one side -- the employers or the employees -- does not ratify the agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We will deal with that eventuality if it transpires.

A. Sanders: Has the minister recognized that. . . . I think the way it works. . . . If the BCPSEA had known at the time that the teachers had refused to meet with them that the government was bargaining directly with the BCTF, would this in fact have been grounds for an LRB on unfair labour practices?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not going to pre-empt the LRB in any way.

A. Sanders: When I looked at the agreement-in-committee, there was no discernible set of principles embedded in the agreement to protect the integrity of the agreement-in-committee. Would the minister please comment on what values and principles were used to develop this agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The principles, I think, are quite clear and are embedded in the agreement. I am, frankly, puzzled. First of all, there's a clear commitment in this agreement to do more to make sure that every child from kindergarten to grade 3 gets the attention that he or she needs to succeed in school, and there is a clear commitment to reducing class size to enable that to occur. There's a clear commitment to the financial resources to make that happen, and that is in this recommendation for an agreement. That's a pretty clear principle.

There's a clear principle in this agreement that says: whether your child is enrolled in a school in Burnaby or Burns Lake, he or she should have the same access to professional resources outside the classroom -- librarians, counsellors, special education teachers. And those principles are part of this recommendation for an agreement.

Finally, there's a clear principle that says: if we're going to have some additional funds -- $25 million this year, $50 million next year and $75 million the year after -- to enhance education services, it should go, as much as possible, into enhancing education services, not into large increases in wages and benefits. And that principle is embedded in this agreement.

The principles are quite overt in this agreement. They are quite clear about what the intent of the parties to this agreement is. I believe that they are goals shared by trustees and parents and others that I've talked to around the province.

A. Sanders: I think the minister should talk to a few more people and get a few more opinions. When you look at the agreement-in-committee, there's some deliberate muting of professional and community voices in fundamental decisions about how instructional services will be delivered and supported. There are some flawed assumptions that all school districts are the same, that all school districts have access to the same fiscal resources and that all school districts have hitherto deployed resources in exactly the same manner. The agreement-in-committee is built on the following flawed processes: the assumption that there is no direct consultation between employer and employee; no reliance on wisdom, research and experience; no pilots to attempt to redefine acceptable practices; and no attempt to model best practices.

There are a lot of things that are very concerning in this agreement -- reduced flexibility at all levels in the school district organization, increased expectation for continued levels of support and increased capital requirements. We talked about the increased capital requirements this morning. My question to the minister is: is he guaranteeing that the financial resources are over and above the per-pupil commitment in respect to the AIC?

[ Page 7524 ]

The specific question asked was: is the $25 million in this agreement above and beyond the per-student funding announced in the $105 million lift? The answer is yes, these are additional resources that will go into classrooms in the '98-99 school year.

A. Sanders: Again, the question remains and is, I think, central and integral to the entire discussion. If the money was there, why didn't the minister offer it to the groups to make their own decisions and come up with a contract that they were both happy with -- a contract that would work, address all the needs within the education system and utilize the incredible amount of experience and resources that these individuals have, not just as individuals doing bargaining but as people who are working and administrating in schools, teaching in the classroom, and who are trustees? Why was all that bypassed in order to get to something quick, fast, right now? What is the reason behind doing that rather than saying last November: "Here's $150 million" -- or an additional $25 million, or anything?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is remarkable, hon. Chair. I think that last year around this time the member opposite and I agreed that it was a difficult process between BCPSEA and the BCTF. At the time, I think I was more optimistic than the members opposite that somehow bargaining could get unstuck and somehow productive bargaining could occur. At that time I remember this critic telling me just how flawed and problematic these negotiations were, and now we have the member standing up and saying that apparently this was the best bargaining relationship this province has ever seen and that they just needed a little more time or a few more resources -- a little more this, or a little more that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That is not my analysis of where the situation was. This was a set of negotiations which was regrettably not proving to be fruitful. We had a clear interest in getting a settlement for some long-term stability in the system. We had a clear desire to see enhanced services in our public school system and found that the opportunity, through these negotiations, was there to make this happen. The member says that more resources would have made these talks more fruitful; frankly, I'm not quite sure that that is true.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hear the hon. member talking about a rush. Man, if this was a rushed set of negotiations, I'd hate to see an unrushed one.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to get into this debate. I first met this minister at a labour school when we were both sitting on a union executive from the colleges, so this minister knows what labour negotiation and bargaining is all about. It seems to me that there is an issue here around free collective bargaining. Had this been done by a previous government at a time when we were negotiating and bargaining, we would probably have been out on a wildcat -- we would have been so angry at the intervention in free collective bargaining, because there was no bargaining.

[3:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is from a committee of government negotiators and the BCTF, and it has been recommended for ratification as a collective agreement by the trustees and teachers of the province.

G. Wilson: Can the minister please tell us, then, when he fired BCPSEA as the duly negotiating collective bargaining agent for the B.C. school trustees?

Hon. P. Ramsey: They have not been fired. BCPSEA actually had their annual general meeting on Sunday, as I think the member is aware, and at that time they discussed the agreement-in-committee and all of its potential ramifications in great detail, both among themselves and with ministry staff.

A. Sanders: I'm not quite finished with this line of questioning. The minister made some fairly inflammatory statements about the speed of the negotiating process and whether or not things were done appropriately. I'm talking about the period after February 15, the period after they had been refused, then went back and started renegotiating with the BCTF again. I think that's a very contracted time during the entire two-year bargaining process, in which all of a sudden there was $150 million. So yes, it is a very fast time. For the majority and bulk of that time there was absolutely no money, and then there was $150 million on the table. Yes, it was a very quick turnaround for that kind of money.

You know, if the boards had been given $150 million that they were to bargain with on behalf of the employers and with the employees. . . . They have their mission statement about fair treatment of employees. They would have had to make a whole lot of different considerations than come into this bargain -- for example, pay raises for teachers, and those pay raises going to all teachers. They would have had to look at level playing fields for all class sizes, not just for K-to-3. Is there any such mission statement of fair treatment that government has, when it is now acting as a bargaining agent?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure what that question entails. I may ask the member for some clarification.

Of course we seek to treat the school districts equitably. We have a very complex funding formula to distribute to districts the operating funds that we have. The terms of this agreement-in-committee seek to focus on students and ensure that students in K-to-3 have access to the same class size across the province. The agreement-in-committee focuses on ratios between students and out-of-class resources -- teacher-librarians, counsellors, ESL specialists and the like -- to make sure there's some equity there.

Of course, there is a variety of factors that affect school district operations across the province. This agreement deals with some of them; other mechanisms deal with others. I'll leave it at that for now.

[ Page 7525 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: That question is based on an interesting premise. BCPSEA is, as we speak, the bargaining agent for trustees. It considered this agreement-in-committee at its annual general meeting. It is considering what it wishes to do, as far as recommending or not recommending it to its members.

A. Sanders: I would take that as a no, that there is no mission statement about fair treatment for employees and no mandated list of rules that government would follow in order to look at the needs of the employees and employers in this circumstance.

The BCPSEA was mandated to negotiate a settlement at a much lower cost before government stepped in. Rather than buy a deal, why did the government not impose mandatory-interest arbitration, so that school districts could have promoted their self-interest to the arbitrator as well as the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm so glad that now we have some indication of what the Liberal approach would be: mandatory and binding arbitration; essential services. I guess it's beginning to become a little clearer.

We wanted an agreement. We had a clear desire to reduce class size and get some equity into what was going on around the province. We were able to achieve that in this agreement-in-committee, which I hope both parties to the negotiations will recommend to their members.

A. Sanders: This is a very concerning circumstance. I think it's up to the minister to really convince the public and the people in this House that the government has not bought a deal here and that there has been fair and equitable treatment of both employee and employer.

My question to the minister: if BCPSEA had come to the government alone and asked them to negotiate without the BCTF -- just talking to the employer -- what would government have done in that case?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite makes some interesting allegations about this agreement. We have bought a deal, apparently. I guess one reading of this agreement-in-committee might be that the BCTF is considering an agreement in which their members are asked to give up any sort of increased remuneration for 21 months, on top of three at the end of the current contract -- two years in total -- because they and the other signatory to this agreement, the government, think that the resources that we do have, the additional resources above and beyond the $105 million to purchase additional services, should go straight into the classroom.

If that's buying a deal, it's a good deal for children in our schools. Frankly, this is fascinating dissertation on what-ifs and might-have-beens around a very tricky and complex set of negotiations in which government did intervene because it had an interest. That interest was very clear; that interest was, firstly, in getting some stability into our system, getting an agreement. Secondly, it was in putting some resources into places where they could make a difference: into reduced class sizes in kindergarten-to-grade-3; into areas where I, and other members of this committee, I'm sure, have heard there are needs in our schools -- librarians, counsellors and resources teachers; and into making sure we have equitable access to those professionals across this province. Those are real priorities for this government, and they are reflected in our signature to this agreement-in-committee.

Bought a deal? Well, it's a heck of a deal for kids.

A. Sanders: Just so the minister is aware, the other signatory to the deal is the school district -- not the government, and certainly not the minister.

When we look at this agreement. . . . Just so we have it on the record before I go back to the line of questioning I had, what is the guarantee from this minister for funding in the second year of the agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The funding will be provided for this agreement to hire the 1,200 additional teachers that it contemplates. It's $25 million this year, $50 million next year and $75 million the year after.

A. Sanders: Will the minister guarantee today that the second-year funding will be in place so that plans can be made based on the first year and then the second year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

A. Sanders: Well, we'll all be here next year to see what comes next. Stay tuned for episode No. 2.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: We'll just be on the other side of the House.

Who from the Premier's Office was monitoring this deal after the $150 million was put on the table -- between the time that it was first put on and after? How was communication done between the deputy, Mr. Pratt and the minister, communicating that very significant increase in the ante? How was that done to the Premier's Office. . . ?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There were three people around the cabinet table who were quite concerned about this set of negotiations: myself, of course; the Minister of Finance, who has broad government responsibility for public sector bargaining and, of course, the budget; and the Premier's Office. He has made no secret of his interest in enhancing education for children in British Columbia. Look, we've already mentioned the three people involved in negotiations -- my deputy, Mr. Russ Pratt and Mr. Tony Penikett. At times they reported directly to me and to the other ministers. At times they reported to my office through officials.

A. Sanders: Who was the liaison from the Premier's Office to those individuals?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have direct knowledge of that. You might wish to ask the Premier that during his estimates.

A. Sanders: Will the minister commit to finding that information out for this member, for tomorrow's sitting?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member has every opportunity to ask the Premier that.

S. Hawkins: The minister just said that there were three people involved and that the Premier's Office was also

[ Page 7526 ]

[4:00]

What the member opposite seems to be asking is: in between those meetings of people at the table and the ministers responsible, who else was involved in the lines of communication? I am saying very clearly that I know how it worked in my office. If you want to know who else -- on staff, in the Premier's Office -- ask the Premier. The lines of communication were opened with the negotiators at the table. I talked to them regularly; others talked to them regularly.

S. Hawkins: Somebody from the Education ministry or somebody on that committee obviously was liaising with the Premier's Office. It must have been somebody. There must have been somebody in that office who knew what was going on. Somebody had to authorize the release of $150 million. It didn't just come from anywhere; it came from somewhere. We understand that it came right from the top, because it happened to be the most exciting day of the Premier's life -- that $150 million went into this education deal. What we're asking is: who was that person? Somebody -- a great Premier we know -- keeps very close hands and very close tabs on everything that goes on in government. We know that, because we've had the experience here of hearing it over and over again. We know that the process was usurped. We're asking again: will this minister find out who that person was and communicate it to us?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try again. There are three chief negotiators: my deputy; Mr. Pratt, who reports to the Minister of Finance on negotiations; and Mr. Tony Penikett, who, the last time I checked, reported directly to the Premier. I'm sure there were other communications. At times I briefed the Premier on what was happening at the table. I'm sure at times there were discussions between the Premier and the Minister of Finance as well.

Having said all that, I find it incredibly fascinating to hear the tone of derision in this member's voice when she talks about the actual results of this agreement -- absolute derision.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, hon. Chair, I'm not sure we have seen many agreements like this in the province, where we have a major body of public employees, the British Columbia Teachers Federation, who have said: "Look, enhanced services are more important than large pay packets. Work with us, government, on that deal." That is a huge advance for the children of this province and for what we can do in our classrooms around British Columbia. I'm amazed to hear this derision at reaching that deal.

We had nearly two years of negotiations between bargaining agents for the teachers and BCPSEA. Did they get anywhere? Well, I don't want to point fingers or place blame, but my analysis of it, as of late in the fall, in the November period, was that it was not going a great deal further. There were further attempts to try to facilitate it, and that didn't work either. So yes, government intervened, because we had a goal as well. I've explained to you what that goal was, and the agreement-in-committee reflects it.

Now, we can have the ongoing debate about labour relations, but I'm still waiting for somebody on that side to have the courage to stand up and say they think this is a bad deal for kids in our classrooms.

S. Hawkins: We'll see if it's a good deal for children, because everything that this government has promised has not come to fruition. In fact, what we've seen in the last seven years is education for our kids taking a big dive.

You know what? When we get to what this contract actually means in my school district, the minister and I will have that discussion, because we know that the commitments that they made in this deal are not. . . . Unless they're going to guarantee funding to bring those commitments up to par in my school district, other services are going to have to be cut in order to make those commitments work. And we'll get into that.

We'll get into that in big detail. I promise the minister that, because if he can make all the guarantees that my school district needs, as far as getting that money to uphold his commitment, then I'll say it's a good deal for our children. You know, I would like to see a good deal for all our children -- not risking education for part of our kids for a good deal for this government.

We are very, very concerned with the process. I want to ask the minister one more time, because I didn't hear an answer, and I've asked three times: was this committee liaising with any person in the Premier's Office -- any person? I mean, you know, it was only six weeks or two months ago that they came up with the deal, for goodness' sake. Won't the minister tell us who was in charge in the Premier's Office that. . . ?

An Hon. Member: Why won't he tell us?

S. Hawkins: Or why won't he tell us that? You know, there must have been somebody that they were talking to, because $150 million was not given to BCPSEA. That wasn't on the table for them to bargain with. There were no resources for them to bargain with. In fact, they were told that they had to come up with the best deal they could with very few resources. Until this minister and this government stepped in, we saw all the goodies on the table. There were no goodies for BCPSEA to deal with. There weren't any. We want to know, during this agreement that was made in committee, how it

[ Page 7527 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say it again. At times, I briefed the Premier on what was going on at the table. At times, the negotiators briefed the Premier on what was going on the table. The Premier was briefed on what was going on at the table by myself and by the people who were there. Were there others that the negotiators talked to in the Premier's Office? Ask the Premier.

B. Barisoff: Just following up a little bit on that, I guess we could assume, then, that it was the Premier who ultimately made those decisions.

My question goes back to the fact that BCPSEA has negotiated for the last couple of years for contracts with the different school boards throughout the province. They were negotiating these agreements because, with the present-day funding, with the funding that was there, they couldn't live up to those commitments that were in some of those contracts. I'm asking the minister today, seeing as he has imposed the contracts on the school districts; he made the contracts that are presently there and imposed them on the school districts -- if he will make the commitment that he will fund those contracts as they are now.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What we are debating is an agreement-in-committee between government and the BCTF. The BCPSEA is examining this agreement and deciding whether to recommend its ratification to its members. The BCTF is in the process of recommending its ratification to its members. Imposed? Well, both parties are looking at this very hard right now. Frankly, I think it's a good deal, and I hope that both sides will recommend it and that both sides will ratify it. I've said it publicly, and I say it in this chamber: the enhancements to education contained in this contract reduce class size for kindergarten-to-grade-3. The opportunities to have clear ratios for non-enrolling professionals -- counsellors, teacher-librarians, ESL specialists and others -- are being funded by this government. I've made that commitment in this chamber, and I made it in front of the BCSTA convention last weekend.

We've also made very clear that we are committed to doing the capital investments that are required to provide the additional classroom space that will be needed to get this class-size reduction into place in school districts around this province. We've made those commitments very publicly. The budget will be there to make this agreement work.

B. Barisoff: I guess I have to take this a bit further. What I asked you was: if there are school boards in the province that know full well that based on the funding they presently have, they can't make that commitment, are the government and you as the Minister of Education going to make the funding commitment to the school districts in this province that, based on the fact that the contracts are being rolled over -- the contracts in all the districts. . . ? We have no new master agreement. All the contracts throughout the province are being rolled over. Are you making a commitment to the individual school districts, which know they can't make that based on the funding that they have, that you'll make sure they have enough funding to adhere to the level that you've set?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The reduced class size, the non-enrolling teacher, the 1,200 additional teachers that are going to be hired -- that funding will be distributed to the districts. It amounts to $25 million in this coming school year. Obviously it can't be distributed to the districts until ratification of the contract is complete.

B. Barisoff: The minister isn't answering my question. What I've asked you. . . . You have put a level of education in this province. Based on the fact that you've rolled over the contracts with all the school districts in this province, I'm asking you whether you're making the funding commitment to all the school districts in this province -- even the ones that can't meet that level of commitment -- that we have equal education in this province, whether it happens to be in Okanagan West, Peace River, Okanagan-Boundary or the Kootenays. Is the minister making the commitment that that funding will be there, based on the fact that he is forcing the school districts to adhere to the contracts that they're presently in?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me see if I can approach this a little differently and get at what I think the member is trying to address. Look, we've put our signature on the line here and said that we want to do a couple of things through this agreement: major improvements to education in the province; a huge investment -- $150 million worth. We have said that we want to reduce class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3; we'd like to reduce it by four students per class over the next five years. Currently it is an average of 22; we'd like to get it down to 18. It's a huge investment. This agreement takes us part of the way toward that and gets us down to about 20.

We've also said that we very much want to have equitable access for out-of-class resources. And you're right: those are variable around the province; there are not equitable ratios for counsellors, librarians and others. We want to get that equitable, and that will involve the hiring of some 500 staff around the province. Those are the elements of this agreement that we have said to the school districts that we will fund. In addition, we've said that we're providing operating lifts to do all that we can to cover the costs of the collective agreements, wages and inflation -- to help them out on that side as well. That's what we've been offering to the school districts this year. That's the package.

There are huge differences -- as you're aware, sir -- between contracts across the province, and there are huge differences in funding. The funding that the ministry provides to school districts varies by several thousand dollars per kid, depending on whether it's a rural, remote district that has huge transportation and class size difficulties or whether it's an urban district that has some real economies and efficiencies of scale. You don't fund all the same. There are some differences in the funding formula. I hope that that captures what the member is asking. If not, I guess I'll try again.

B. Barisoff: I guess you're going to have to try again, because what I'm saying is that you're funding the initiative of what's to take place but you're not funding the contracts that are in place. I'm asking the minister today for a commitment to fund the contracts that are in place today. By interfering in the collective agreement process, you have forced the school districts of this province to adhere to a certain set of guidelines. You're forcing them into that box -- as you might want to call it. If you're going to force them into that box, are you going to fund them because they're in there?

[4:15]

[ Page 7528 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's simply not going to happen. We are funding the enhancements to the collective agreement that this deal incorporates. We are making sure, through discussions with school districts, that we are identifying any other impacts of this agreement-in-committee.

I must say: here we go again. We just had this in the big chamber, I thought, during question period. Didn't we just have this debate in the big chamber again? For the last two months I've been listening to budget and throne speeches by these members and others urging government to spend less, urging us to rein in, urging us not to incur debt, urging us to somehow get lean and mean, urging us to adopt Alberta as our model for how we do education, and urging the Ralph Klein approach to dealing with school districts -- again and again and again. And now, so far. . . . In the first four hours of estimates debate, we've had a $105 million increase to operating funding for school districts criticized as not enough. Now we have a $150 million government commitment -- and a collective agreement, when it's ratified -- to making it work ridiculed as not enough.

Hon. Chair, I don't mind differences, but man, this is getting a little ridiculous. I'm glad you guys have two sides of your mouth so you can talk out of both of them.

B. Barisoff: Nobody said that it wasn't enough. I think what the minister is missing here is the fact that they stepped into this negotiation process. They stepped into putting money in. They were the ones that superseded BCPSEA. They were the ones that lacked the consultation with these people to. . . . It's unbelievable to me to think that these people have negotiated for two years, and the government would step in and within an hour. . .

S. Hawkins: Two minutes.

B. Barisoff: . . .or two minutes, they would give them the deal and say: "Here's what you're going to live with." I've asked the minister here, I don't know how many times, but I'm asking the same question over again: because of the fact that you got involved, are you going to fund the contracts that you've imposed on the school districts of this province? And if any of the school districts -- any of them; it doesn't have to be all of them -- say, "No, we can't live up to this agreement," are you going to fund them on the basis of the fact that you've rolled over their contracts? I've asked you that about four times. I just need a simple answer: yes or no. Are you or aren't you?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have explained very clearly to the school districts of the province what we are prepared to fund this year: $105 million in operating funding increases; and $25 million this year, $50 million in the next and $75 million the year after to take account of the enhancements that this agreement-in-committee provides to children in British Columbia. If you want to go on and on. . . . I suppose if you go on about this thing or that thing that various districts have in their contracts or things that they would like to see funded. . . . I've said very clearly to this committee what we are funding this year.

B. Barisoff: I'm not asking you what the districts can do or what they can't do. What I'm asking you is to make sure that you live up to some kind of commitment, and today you're not living up to a commitment to the children of British Columbia, the school boards of British Columbia or the teachers of British Columbia. You're not living up to any one of those commitments.

Those contracts are in place, so it's one or the other. Either you live up to them, or you say: "They're wiped off the map, and we're going to go down the path that we see. . . . If some school districts get totally affected and if it affects the kids in particular districts, too bad." That's the comment that was made by governments in the past -- and you happened to be part of it: "You signed the agreement, you live with it." But today the government is the one. . . .

In fact, you mentioned to the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon that it was the government that was the signatory of the contract. Well, I beg to differ. It happens to be the school district. But the fact that you said that and the fact that you've imposed this. . . . I'm going to ask the question again: are you going to live up to the commitment to fund the contracts that you are imposing upon all the school districts of this province? One word.

Hon. P. Ramsey: For the record, this is not a collective agreement. This is an agreement-in-committee. It has been taken by the BCTF to its members for ratification. BCPSEA will be taking it out to its members. Then, at the end of it, we will have a collective agreement -- okay? The end position here, frankly, is that we have both parties looking at this agreement reached between government and the BCTF and advising their members on what they wish to do.

We have funded school districts through operating funds. Yes, there is diversity of circumstances around the province. We funded them fully, as far as we could, for inflation and other pressures this year and for enrolment growth. That's what we've done. We've also said that this agreement includes some enhancements to what happens to kids in our classrooms, and we're funding that, hon. member.

G. Wilson: I'd like to come back to a couple of questions I was asking a few minutes ago, and they really dovetail very much into the questions that were being asked by the official opposition critic. It has to with BCPSEA.

BCPSEA, as the minister will know, is a legally constituted bargaining agent for the school trustees. What we've heard today from the minister is that there were three people who were -- and I think I use his words correctly -- chief negotiators. There were three individuals: one from the Ministry of Education, one who represented the employers council, I understand -- and perhaps the minister can clarify that, but that's what I believe he said -- and one representing the Premier's Office.

So if in fact the public sector employers' rep is supposed to be somehow taking over for BCPSEA, which is legally constituted to bargain, then could the minister tell me under what section of the act those people were appointed and who appointed them?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The negotiating people from government got involved -- I've said this before to the committee,

[ Page 7529 ]

I've said at times that I greatly feared the breakdown of these negotiations, with the resulting disruptions to school service. We were able to get an agreement-in-committee. Now the employers' association that the member references and the teachers' bargaining agent, the BCTF, are taking this proposal to their members for consideration.

G. Wilson: But the minister didn't tell me under what section of the act these people were appointed. Was the Minister of Labour asked at any time for mediation services? Has the Minister of Labour been involved in any way, or has the government just decided that it doesn't matter what the act says? If the Office of the Premier decides they're going to cut a private deal, that's okay; that's new collective bargaining in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've fully told this committee who was involved in the negotiations.

G. Wilson: I'd like the minister to reference the section of the act that empowers BCPSEA as the legal bargaining agent. Because clearly, what I have in my hand, while it's called an agreement-in-committee -- and we have yet to establish a committee of what, because all of these have to have some basis in law. . . . We don't have government ad hockery, I hope -- not yet. I'm curious to know under what section of the act an application was made for the three. . . . Under what section of the act that gives legal authority to BCPSEA were these three people appointed? And which individual selected those three people to be those who would negotiate? Which individual actually chose those three people?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say it again: BCPSEA invited government to hold discussions with teachers to see if we could conclude some sort of arrangement around bargaining. We have done so; BCPSEA and the teachers are considering it. I know that there's a desire to infinitely dissect what happened at which tables. We've now spent pretty much two hours discussing essentially labour relations. Now, those are important, but I haven't heard a lot of questions from the members opposite about kids, and that's what this agreement is about. It's about putting some resources back into classrooms. Members opposite have criticized government for, as they feel, taking resources out.

We've said that we've got a huge issue here. We have a very diverse population coming into our schools, with very diverse abilities and backgrounds, particularly in kindergarten to grade 3. If we want to make a real difference in their success, we should put additional resources there. Through discussions with the BCTF, we now have an agreement-in-committee that they are taking to their members. BCPSEA is considering what it does and what it recommends to its members. I hope that both sides will take a hard look at what this does for kids. Because that is, I think, what both teachers and trustees -- and surely this minister and this ministry -- are concerned about.

G. Wilson: I have a few more questions, but not that many. I appreciate the official opposition giving me this opportunity to ask these questions.

The minister makes it sound as though this is a trivial line of inquiry around collective bargaining. This is, without a question, the worst example of direct government intervention into free collective bargaining in the public sector that I've ever witnessed in the 20 years I've been involved. The minister may look shocked. This makes 1981-82 pale in comparison. When that minister and I sat as public bargaining agents for our colleges, if the government had cut a side deal and come down and said, "We're now going to tie capital funding to that deal, and if you don't take the deal, you don't get the capital funding," we would have marched in the streets. Because it was such a clear, gross violation of free collective bargaining. And if you don't think that BCGEU, HEU, CUPE and everybody else is watching this process. . . . Clearly they are. So this is a very important line of questioning.

The minister said a few minutes ago that he's waiting for somebody to stand up and say that this is not a good deal for kids. Let me say it: this is not a good deal for kids. I have no hesitation in saying that this is not a good deal for kids. Why? Because within this collective agreement there is a series of grids. Those grids were used to establish funding. I wonder if the minister can tell me. . . Let's just choose ESL teacher staffing ratios, school district 36, Surrey. It shows 344.5; that's what they're suggesting for ESL teachers. Is the minister aware that the Surrey school board confirms 144, that they are 200 teachers out and that they're not even accurate? Maybe he can answer that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's deal with that last point first. We're clarifying with all districts whether. . . . These are the figures that they have reported to us. We assume that when districts tell us about their staffing, they are reporting the facts. If there are some discrepancies, we're investigating and checking around the province to make sure that we have accurate figures for every district.

But I want to go back. . . . Hon. Chair, this member continually -- both in this building and in other venues, in front of the press -- characterizes this government's commitment to building the classrooms that are needed for reduced class size as some sort of "bribe."

[4:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon Chair, let me ask very clearly: what would have happened to negotiations around this agreement had government not made that commitment?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What would have happened if I had stood up in this chamber, debating these estimates, discussing this agreement-in-committee, and said: "We think we want to lower the class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3, but we're not giving the school districts one dime more of operational money"? Well, we didn't do that. We said: "We think we want to get the class sizes down in kindergarten-to-grade-3, and we're willing to commit $150 million of public money to make that happen because it's good for children."

The second question, of course, would have been: "Well, that's nice. You've done the operational funding. Where are you going to house all those kids? Where are you going to have the classrooms?" I can hear the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast saying exactly that, and I bet he'd be saying it at top volume, just as he says at top volume that we shouldn't have announced it.

[ Page 7530 ]

G. Wilson: This would be quite amusing if it wasn't so serious, because the minister. . . . I'm happy to talk about Powell River, because Powell River is an area where there is declining enrolment and a very disparate population. There are kids in a school that is some 25 kilometres away, who are now going to be told that they're going to have a class size in kindergarten that essentially will require them to split the class. You know what, hon. Chair? Under this agreement, they'll have two children more than the maximum allowed. So what are they going to do? They're going to split that class, and they'll either pay -- in a district with declining enrolment -- to build a class for this elementary school's kids, because they can't allow them to have it over the limit. . . . You know what they're going to do, hon. Chair? Here's my bet: they're going to bus them to another school 40 minutes away -- 30 minutes away in bus time. And do you want to know why the parents are going to get upset at that point? That's what's going to happen, because this is a foolish proposition.

Let me come back to these numbers. Can the minister tell me. . . ? Let's take Surrey, under ESL. Many schools have reported a portion of ESL commitment as an ESL teacher -- somebody who's teaching one-third ESL or 0.4 or 0.6, or whatever. The 200 teachers that this grid is out throws out the numbers in this entire grid by hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've pointed out only one. I could point out at least nine that are wrong. Can the minister tell me: when the schools reported these figures, did any district anywhere in British Columbia think that these numbers were going to be used as a basis for an agreement that would be appended to a collective agreement? Did anyone think this was going to go to the bargaining table and be used as numbers to justify this new scheme of government? Is that the reason they put these figures together? Can the minister tell me if there's one district that thought these numbers would be used for this purpose? Is there even one?

Hon. P. Ramsey: School districts report numbers for these various categories of teachers every year. We expect them to do so accurately. We expect to be able to use this data for whatever purpose.

G. Wilson: Now that we've found that these numbers for ESL are incorrect. . . . Special ed resource teacher staffing ratios -- incorrect. Let's take a look at the learning assistant staffing. Gosh, they're incorrect. Let's take a look at the next one here; it's the counselling staff ratios. Geez, even in my own riding -- incorrect. We take a look at the teacher-librarian staff, and guess what: there's a bunch of districts for which the numbers are incorrect.

This entire. . . . What do you call it? You don't call it a collective agreement; you call it an agreement-in-committee. A committee of what, exactly? This entire thing has been based upon these grids, and the grids are wrong. You're asking teachers, you're asking professionals, and you're asking school districts to ratify an agreement based upon numbers that are wrong. Why would you do that? Is it not grossly irresponsible to expect that teachers and school districts would buy into this deal when the numbers that you're using here are wrong?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The grids are based on the information provided by school districts. We will continue to work with them to clarify any discrepancies. Frankly, I find the member's. . . . I don't know. We'll see at the end of the day. I believe that they are, by and large, appropriate numbers on which to base the deal that we've got. Will trustees and teachers ratify this agreement? I believe they will, because there is a commitment here to put resources into classrooms and into these sorts of teachers. There is $25 million more in resources that is going to flow into classrooms next year, $50 million the year after that and $75 million the year after that. There is a clear commitment to hire $150 million worth of additional resources to help our kids in our schools. Frankly, after all the forms are dissected, I suspect the trustees and teachers will say: "This makes sense for kids. We're going to ratify it."

G. Wilson: I have to tell you that I spent a considerable amount of time at their convention this last weekend, and I talked to many, many school trustees from many parts of British Columbia. I gave a speech in which I indicated to them that from my point of view -- and I've said the same to the BCTF -- this should not be ratified, that we should not ratify this agreement for all of the reasons that I've suggested today and for other reasons which I won't get into today, because I'm conscious of time and other members who want to ask questions.

Let me just ask a couple more questions of the minister. If this agreement is not ratified -- and it requires both the teachers and the school trustees to ratify it; both are going to have to say yes -- is the money that the minister has just announced, this new commitment in funding, still on the table, still in the budget and still committed to?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I hope we don't face that eventuality. As I said earlier, we'll face that eventuality if it transpires. I don't think it will. I've made no secret of it. If we don't have this agreement, we're surely not going to need 1,000 more classrooms. If we don't have this agreement, I don't know why we'd need 700 more elementary school teachers. That's what this agreement is about; that's what these resources are about. These resources are there to make this agreement work, to get these resources into classrooms, to help our children. That's what this agreement is about.

G. Wilson: A couple more questions, with your indulgence.

Let me give the minister a suggestion as to how that might work. You say that now that we have those resources on the table, we are going to return to collective bargaining. We are going to bring the two sides together with mediated services as provided for in the act -- not by some hand-picked group that is going to negotiate directly with the executive of the BCTF, who couldn't even get the agreement of their own negotiating team to accept this deal. You say, "Okay, we've now facilitated," which is what the BCPSEA asked for. They did not ask for somebody to come in and negotiate a deal. They asked for facilitation. And you say: "Now that we've given you the parameters of these resources, go back to the table, sit down and negotiate an agreement that is going to work to the advantage of all students in British Columbia --

[ Page 7531 ]

Why will the minister not commit to doing that? Why does it have to be "my way or the highway"? By not acknowledging that that money's still on the table, that is a threat. That's a direct threat. Maybe he could answer that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his suggestions on how he'd like to see labour relations in the province unfold. But we have in front of us -- both trustees and teachers -- an agreement-in-committee which I think both sides will recommend to their members. We have an agreement that, yes, did require the government to get involved at the table. The member is quite right that my background, like his, has involved some work in negotiating collective agreements -- actually, from both sides of the table. I would have vastly preferred, as I said to this committee, that they had been able to have reached some sort of agreement between BCPSEA and the BCTF. Frankly, it was my view that that was not on. It was the view of government that that was not on.

The members say: "Oh, you should have done this and that and the other. . . ." For two years here we've watched this. Last year in this chamber, we debated the negotiations between BCPSEA and the BCTF. If anything, I was more optimistic and hopeful than the members opposite about some chances for success. They were totally pessimistic about any sort of deal. Regrettably, I've got to say, you're probably nearer the mark than I was in terms of those two parties being able to reach an agreement. It did require government intervention. We have got a deal. It's a deal that is good for our kids; it's a deal that teachers and trustees are looking at. It's a deal that I think both sides are going to ratify.

G. Wilson: These are my last two questions. I appreciate the committee. . . .

You know, I can't help but digress back to the comments from the official opposition critic who talked about the downstream benefits deal. It never was a deal, and when it evaporated, then -- obvious to all of us -- it wasn't a deal. This is not a deal; you do not have ratification, hon. minister. You don't have ratification from either side. Some of us are less optimistic, much in the same way as I -- and I don't know how many others here opposed provincewide bargaining in the first place -- believe that the creation of BCPSEA in the first place was the wrong thing to do.

Last two questions. Number one: how much money did this government spend on BCPSEA's efforts to negotiate? Number two: can the minister tell us, in all of the consultation that was going on -- this minister to the Premier and the Premier to the committee -- who was talking at that time to BCPSEA members? Why was BCPSEA not involved in any way in the discussion? And they were not, because I have talked to all of the members who sit on that committee. So maybe you could tell us why, somehow, you just forgot to talk to the people who are actually legally negotiating on behalf of school trustees who are elected to represent the people of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: When we had an agreement-in-committee to a report to BCPSEA, we did so. They are considering it and deciding whether they wish to recommend ratification to their members. The cost of negotiations was $1.9 million through the BCPSEA process -- $1.9 million.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Over the last round of bargaining, the last 18 months. I must say, though, that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast did let the cat out of the bag there a little bit. He has been consistent in opposing provincial bargaining -- absolutely consistent. If I understand it, it's his the party's position that should some unlikely eventuality happen and he form government in this province, provincial bargaining would be abolished and local bargaining would return. It is very interesting to now have this member stand up and say all the things that should be done to make some sort of provincial bargaining work, when his real position is that he doesn't want it to work.

Now, we have had some government intervention to get a deal.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is an agreement between government and the BCTF. It is not -- and I'll make this clear -- a ratified agreement. We agree on that point, hon. members. The teachers in this province are considering it. I believe they will ratify it. The trustees of the province considered it at their AGM, as did the BCPSEA at their AGM last weekend. The members are quite right that there is a degree of discomfort among trustees about both process and content. At the end of the day, I believe that the trustees, like teachers and like this government, are going to focus on what it does for kids and will say yes.

[4:45]

I am just absolutely amazed -- and I'm sure that all of the people in the Vancouver secondary system are amazed -- at the track that this process has taken. From what the minister said, he told us that BCPSEA asked for an industrial inquiry commission. From everything he said, I did not get the impression that they asked to be totally left out of the picture, which is pretty well exactly what the minister has told us is the situation that occurred. He admitted just a moment ago that they condescended, in a nice sort of way, to let BCPSEA know what they arranged with the BCTF just minutes prior to the announcement being put out as to what was being said.

In any negotiations that I've been aware of in a labour situation where they get a mediator, often they have two parties that haven't been able to agree in two separate rooms in the same building, and the mediator goes back and forth telling them how things are going each step of the way. Each side is fully cognizant of what's taking place during these negotiations. This did not happen, from the minister's characterizations of how things were going here. It was strictly the government-appointed committee negotiating with the teachers -- and not the teachers themselves, but the BCTF, which I guess represents the teachers there. It was not, in any true sense of the word, a negotiation between the BCTF and

[ Page 7532 ]

Just from the minister's own understanding of the situation -- because you were there during Bills 19 and 20 -- and of labour negotiations in the province, would he say that the track which the government has used in this is characteristic of how we deal with relations between employers and employees? Even if you do it on a provincewide basis, is it still characteristic of how you deal with labour negotiations?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I don't think it's characteristic.

With that, I would ask the committee's indulgence to take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:48 p.m. to 4:58 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

D. Symons: Just continuing, my understanding with this proposed agreement. . . . I'll call it that because the minister uses the word "agreement." Indeed, it is an agreement-in-committee, but it certainly has yet to be ratified by both sides. I understand that there were a lot more things besides just the monetary side of this when the two sides were not reaching agreement and the government felt it had to step in. There were probably in excess of 100 items that they were negotiating with and having difficulty in dealing with. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to just home in on a few of the more contentious items they were dealing with that are still basically rolling over, as the member for Okanagan-Boundary was saying earlier. I gather that all those other issues that were on the table before are just being left alone, and they'll have to come up in some other venue at a later time. Could you just tell me what the main points of contention were?

[5:00]

D. Symons: The main point -- and I think the minister has made this point two or three times -- is the financial implications, the new teachers and so forth that will be funded in the agreement.

I must say, just before I go on and ask the question, that I have some real concerns with how the minister has characterized statements we have made during estimates and the budget debate. I think you will find nowhere. . . . I would really ask him to find places where we have said that we want to import the Alberta model into British Columbia. He made a statement earlier that we said something to that effect. He's made a lot of statements on where the Liberals stand on something, statements that bear no basis in fact. It's a rather distorted interpretation of things that we have said. I simply want to correct the record on that -- that his interpretation of what we have said and the actual intent and things that we have said vary quite a bit. It's his purpose, I suppose, to make it sound as if we're against education, that we're not going to fund education and all of this. It's a pile of nonsense.

You'll see the reason why I prefaced my statement with that. When I was working with negotiating in the Vancouver school system, one of the tenets we had -- because it came up three or four times during my 30 years as a teacher -- is that there were restraint programs. The one in 1981 wasn't the first restraint program in British Columbia. There were some in the seventies and so forth; it seemed to be cyclical. When these programs came on, there were certainly reductions made. Quite often the board would come along and say: "If you will accept not so much of a raise on the salary grid, or if you will have one more student in our class, we can give you two class aides in your school." There was to be a bargaining process: if you'll give up this, then we can add this little thing.

The BCTF policy at that time was basically that you should not be asking the teachers to fund in education what the Ministry of Education should be funding. Teachers shouldn't have to pay for education; they should be there to teach and not have to bargain away something of theirs.

This process now seems to be completely the reverse of that. Indeed, if the teachers -- and there are some in the profession that are still there now, who were there when I was there -- still have that opinion, you are going to have one heck of a time selling the proposition that you're basically putting here, which is that they have to fund all of these things that you've been telling us are great about this particular policy. In this agreement, you're asking the teachers to fund it. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No. Government is funding it, $200 million: $150 million into the additional resources that I've discussed and a 2 percent pay increase for teachers on April 1, 2000, which is about a $50 million cost over the term of the agreement.

D. Symons: Well, I would suggest to the minister that zero percent, zero percent and 2 percent -- those zero numbers -- is basically asking the teachers to fund it. I'm sure that they weren't asking for a zero percent increase in the first two years of this proposed agreement. In that sense, that's why I'm saying that you seem to be asking the teachers to fund for this particular project.

The other thing that has become abundantly clear in the conversation that's gone on up to this time is that certainly BCPSEA did not at all have the same mandate to deal with the BCTF as did your negotiators who took over negotiation from them, because suddenly there was $150 million on the table. I can only characterize this as the government intending that this whole thing was a put-up deal: the government intended to come in and put more money on the table, and they're the government.

Indeed, it's probably one of the greatest days in this Premier's life, because he could end up coming before us saying: "Look, I have brought this deal to fruition." I remember -- he wasn't Premier at the time -- a Finance minister doing that with something called the health accord in this province: running in on his charger at the last moment; suddenly he's got an agreement where there was no agreement before.

This seems to be more of a political opportunity on the part of the government. If they were sincere in saying, "Well, look, we can put another $150 million in with this," they could have given the money to the BCPSEA people and said: "Now you can deal with that. We'll give you this extra money. See what you can reach with them on that basis." You didn't do it that way. You did it strictly so that this government could get

[ Page 7533 ]

Now you're saying: "BCPSEA, you better sign on in this, because if you don't, that $150 million's going to disappear." You're basically telling the teachers that this $150 million will disappear. So the $150 million and the wonderful things that you're claiming you're going to do for education are not sincere, in the sense that you're saying: "You take this deal, or the money disappears." You aren't offering $150 million; you're offering it with strings attached, your hand held firmly on it.

If you want to do these things you're saying, and if you sincerely feel that these things are needed -- and the minister has been saying for most of this afternoon that these are wonderful things that should be done -- then you should be funding them without saying: "We're going to take it back if you don't do it the way we want."

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, a variety of issues are tied up in that presentation. Let's try to disentangle a few of them. The member is, of course, accurate; we don't need to build 1,000 more classrooms in the province if we're not going to have the reduced K-to-3 class sizes that this agreement provides for. It's pretty clear. If this agreement isn't ratified, we won't need 700 more teachers to reduce the size of kindergarten to grade 3 for students around the province. It's quite clear.

But having said that, I must say that we are quite committed to making a difference here. Through these negotiations, we have both reached an agreement-in-committee with the teachers and asked teachers and trustees to look at this, to look at the benefit for their students and to decide on ratification.

Now, it's for those parties to decide the good and the bad. Not every teacher will be delighted with the prospect of no salary increase for two years. I'm sure that's true. Some trustees would have preferred to spend money in other areas. I'm sure that's true. But this is the agreement we have before us. This is an agreement that has been reached, which is now out there for those parties to consider. Government is committed to making this work for teachers, for trustees and for kids in our classrooms around the province. That's what this is about; that's what we want to see happen here. I'm not quite sure what else I can say.

Of course, various people will have difficulties with the agreement, because it is not the ideal agreement that somebody might wish -- a teacher or a trustee here or there. It's simply not that. I've never yet seen any sort of proposal for a collective agreement that did meet all the desires of a negotiator -- management or union. Yes, there'll be lots of teachers around the province who'll say that this doesn't go far enough, and yes, there'll be lots of trustees who'll feel that it doesn't go far enough either. But I think that at the end of the day, the majority will say that this is a good deal for kids in our classrooms and that we ought to get on with it, implement it and get the benefits for education in classrooms around British Columbia.

D. Symons: Just one more comment. The minister was asked earlier -- and I was glad to hear the answer -- whether these were solid commitments for the 25-50-75, and he said yes.

I'm reading from May 23, 1995: "A new $100 million, five-year school technology plan aims to increase B.C. students' access to technology. . . . The plan calls for all B.C. school districts to develop three-year technology plans and sets goals for having one computer for every three secondary students and one. . .for every six elementary students within the next five years." I checked today and found out that the provincial average is 7.1-to-1 for the province and, in my particular district, Richmond, it's 6.1-to-1 in the secondary system and 9.8-to-1 in the elementary system. Basically the money has had to go for things that didn't put computers in the classroom. I think we may find, if teachers buy this. . . . You have confirmed what I said: since the funding for this is dependent on the zero-zero-2, you have said, in effect, that the teachers are paying for it.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, member.

D. Symons: Through the Chair -- I'm sorry. Therefore I will say that really the words of this announcement in 1995 have not been fulfilled; it's not even 50 percent of it. Basically in most districts the ratio of computers to students has barely changed in the three years since that particular agreement came out. I'm wondering how we can be sure, even given your assurances -- your guarantee, I think, was the word that was used for the 25-50-75 -- that that will indeed take place over the next few years. How will anybody buying into this be sure that one year or two years. . . ? It seems to be a one-year agreement. After that, it seems to be an election campaign, and we can't be sure what will happen then.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's deal with the technology issue first. The current school year is year three of the five-year proposal that the member talks about. So we're about 60 percent of the way through, around 40 percent to go. Contrary to what the member says, I see those ratios gradually coming down across the province in every district -- not as fast as some of us would like, obviously. The budget that's been distributed to school districts includes another $10.7 million in the technology fund this year. Districts have their technology acquisition plans in place. The fall of 1997, according to the provincial figures that we have. . . . I'm not quite sure where the member got his. This is fall '97, so this is before the current year's expenditures. Provincially, the elementary ratio was 7.9-to-1; secondary was 6.3-to-1. We've got a ways to go; we're moving in the right direction on these.

The other things that I would point out is. . . . One of the announcements that didn't receive quite the discussion earlier that the agreement-in-committee with the BCTF did was the announcement of the provincial learning network. Again, it's an ambitious plan -- it is a six-year commitment this time -- to say that we want to fund this Internet access on equitable terms across the province. The goal in the first two years of that -- so we can measure it pretty clearly in the next 24 months -- is to get all 1,700 public schools hooked up to it and then pay for the ongoing costs of those connections over those and the next four years, for a total of about $123 million. I think it's a significant enhancement to access to technology in our public schools. To the member: stay tuned; there's more to come.

Some of you have heard me talk before on where I think the priorities are in education. I've consistently identified three good beginnings, and that agreement with the BCTF is part of that. Technology is absolutely crucial to what we're going to be doing, and the transitions between our K-to-12 system and the post-secondary one are areas that, as a minister, I'd like to see more emphasis put.

I must say in closing -- on this issue at any rate. . . . Back to the agreement, it is a luxury of opposition to oppose, but at

[ Page 7534 ]

[5:15]

The minister asked why we are taking so long looking at and nitpicking the process of how this agreement was arrived at. Well, we're doing this for the benefit of that family -- let's say a single working mother with three kids: one of them going into kindergarten, one in grade 2 and one in grade 3. She's going to arrive in some growing district in B.C. in October, after the class language is in and rigid and there's no flex factor. She's going to go to those classes in school next year or the year after and find that those three kids can't go to that school. Let's give the school the benefit; let's say that one of them can go to the school. They're in a portable in the kindergarten section, because that's what's necessary for the rigid class language.

It used to be that the principal could say, "Well, Mrs. So-and-So, the teacher, Mrs. Brown, couldn't. . . . Why don't we bring in a teaching assistant, and then we'll keep this kid in the classroom," instead of: "You're one over and. . . ." The teacher and the administration could do that, but not anymore -- not with this agreement. So we're going to have that kid in a portable in kindergarten, but her sister and brother in grades 2 and 3, those classes are over the class-size language, have to go to other schools. The class language is rigid; there's no flex factor. And when they find out, those two kids don't get to go to the nearest school. One gets to go to the nearest school, but the kid in the next grade up, the grade 3 kid, doesn't have a classroom to go to at that second school. So they go to the next school, and the next school takes them because the area has an enrolment that can use one more child in October.

So now you've got a single parent with three children all going to different schools. She bought a house right next to the school so her kids could be safe and she could walk them to school, instead of them getting on a bus or doing whatever it was. Now they're going to three different schools, and she's trying to be a working parent. That's a real-life scenario that can happen in this agreement-in-committee. That's a real-life scenario when you take away flex factors for school boards which are trying to staff classrooms and the classrooms have rigid class language.

We're not even talking about whether or not those kids are going to school in a portable. We're not even talking about whether the district has declining enrolment, and one more kid in kindergarten means that you now have to have two classes or that you're going to build another classroom and split the class in two. In a declining enrolment, those are not going to happen. These are absolutely crucial questions for parents.

I don't think there's a parent in British Columbia who, if you said to them, "Would you rather have your child in a classroom of 17 at the school next-door to where you live or in a classroom of 18 in the school next-door to where you live. . . ?" Which would you choose?

We don't even have the information on the ministry's own meta-analysis that class size makes a difference to those numbers. Yet with the class language in this agreement, that child would not be able to go to the school right next door and have. . . . If the board and the administration and the teacher all agreed that it was okay for that kid to go to school with a brother and sister, and they could bring in a teaching assistant or give the teacher more prep time, they could do something that they could all consentiently agree to and those three kids could go to school in the same school next door to where they live.

This agreement-in-committee takes away the ability of that family to do that, and that is wrong. That is not good for kids; that is not good for families; it's not good for anybody. There's no way the minister can convince me, no matter how long we stay in the estimates of Education, that for that kind of scenario, this is a good agreement for families.

I see a lot of tremendously destructive stuff for actual people in this agreement. I see a lot of silly things, and it's those silly things that we have to talk about. That's why, when the minister says we should stop quibbling about how we got through the process. . . . The reason we have process in this place is because usually that process brings you to an agreement that makes some sense -- hopefully. If you were going to put $150 million on the table, you should have given it to BCPSEA and the BCTF so they could have had collective bargaining and done what they are designed to do -- and that's to meet with each other and come to some kind of agreement that's good for kids.

I still maintain that if you step back for a month and say to those groups, "You've got $150 million on the table now; go back and negotiate," they would come to you in probably a week with a really good agreement for kids, families, teachers and CUPE people who are working on the school grounds -- for all the people in communities. I know that they would come to you and say: "Here's our agreement. With that additional money that you gave us, we've come to something that doesn't require you to take the 60 contracts, put an elastic band around them, slap them all together, lacquer them with another layer of this interim agreement or whatever -- this committee thing -- and say: 'Here's the group. If you're in an amalgamated district, not only are you going to be trying to administer the amalgamated two or three contracts, you're also going to be administering the transitional collective agreement and this shell of the agreement-in-committee.' "

You know, what do you do when your teacher goes from one school in Sparwood to another school in another part of the amalgamated district? They'll say: "Gee, that contract was better. I want it to follow me." These things are going to happen. People are going to say: "This is the most foolish thing I've ever seen." Professional people who look at this agreement say: "This can't be done by professional bargainers. The language is unprofessional and sub-standard to the kind of language that is usually seen in the bargaining done by people who do this as a profession." In fact, many people have used the language in the agreement-in-committee to tell me that they are sure that's why it's a brokered deal, and that the only thing that was supposed to happen here was that you were supposed to get an agreement, get it through and get it done so the BCTF would settle and everybody would be happy, and then all the other unions in the public sector would follow because they got zero, zero and two, regardless

[ Page 7535 ]

Notwithstanding that it takes the process of collective bargaining and just puts it in the toilet. . . . This minister talks about other members of the House and his concern about collective agreements and bargaining processes. Most people who bargain have never seen anything like this.

What I've learned today, and what's really concerning me, is. . . . And we haven't even got into the nuts and bolts of the agreement to really demonstrate in those nuts and bolts how the agreement doesn't work for kids and teachers and families and communities. We've learned from the minister that nothing happened. And you know what? I'm really proud of this minister. We spent a lot of time in this House last year; I gave him a lot of directives and said, "I think you should go and do this and this and this," and I appreciate that he did that. He did talk to the two bargaining sides and he did say to them in November: "I expect you to do something here." He gave them the disciplinary principal-of-the-school talk. I appreciate that, because I think that was necessary.

I said to the minister last year that if he didn't do anything -- if he just went home and didn't even come to the office any more -- if he got the teachers and the trustees to hammer out the provincial bargain we were looking for, he would have done more than any Minister of Education has probably ever done in our living time. He did make that attempt, and I appreciate that he had the fortitude to go and be very direct.

But then something happened, and these people never met. Here we are, it's February, and the BCPSEA, the employer, says: "We can't get anywhere." So the government comes in and meets with them, and they say: "Go and talk to the teachers. They won't talk to us." So they go and talk to the teachers and come back and say: "We can't talk to them. They won't talk to us. We have failed in our mandate." And they come back. Then the Premier's office, from the sounds of it, tells the people negotiating on behalf of government to go back and start over again, and that he expects a deal. I'm not sure if the Minister of Education was even told. I think he was left out of the loop, too, and I think that's very sad.

So what we have now is the employer -- the whole half of the marriage -- left out of the deal. We have some people from government bypassing the collective bargaining process, bypassing the democracy of that, and coming back with an agreement that sounds like an election platform, with fairly ephemeral commitments in the three years. I'm glad they're committing to their first year, and I expect and will certainly be here to hold the minister's feet to the fire for year two. But it's not in the memorandum; it's not hard, solid knowledge. There's still the opportunity that it could be gone -- the money wasn't available or something else had a priority.

So now we've got an agreement that a lot of people who work in school districts and in schools or who have children say is silly. They say it's silly because it does not address the needs of the average child in our school system, not in the way that they would be addressed if you took $150 million and gave it to the people with tremendous knowledge and experience on how to best spend it and said: "Make the system better."

I don't know. It's going to be targeted, and we've been talking about getting rid of targeting or doing away with targeting areas. This brings targeting in and really strengthens that concept. When that happens, we're going to end up with a whole lot of problems. We're going to end up with a whole lot more discrepancies between school districts. We're going to end up with contracts that have been rolled into one and the initiatives are funded but the contracts themselves are not. We're going to end up with kids being bused. We know that 50 percent of families break up, and we know we're going to end up with kids in elementary school going to two and three different schools in their neighbourhoods. We're going to end up with more portables. We're going to end up with a whole lot of stuff that no one in this room can convince me is good for kids. No one can convince me of that. If they can, then show me how that will be done, because I am all ears and all eyes and dying to see it.

Hon. Chair, I think the process is flawed here, and not only is it so flawed but we've now added classrooms to it and said: "Well, if you don't take it, you don't get the classrooms. But if you take it, we'll give you the classrooms." This is disrupting the normal process, where employees and employers would look at this agreement and say whether it's good for them.

There's no mission statement to it. There's no fairness in terms of what should be given. Maybe the teachers -- if a different bargainer had been in -- would have taken a raise this year, and maybe that's good for teachers. Maybe the boards would have done something different in allocating the money. I know they would have done something different. It's not maybe; I know they would have. Maybe that would be good for kids too.

I would like to hear the minister commit to taking this pot of money back to the two groups and challenge them to, in 30 days' time come up. . . . I mean, my God, we leave the northern doctors' strike for someone to look at for 30 days, and we leave a whole lot of other things for 30 days. You know, their contract doesn't even run out until the end of June.

Before they have a vote, challenge both groups with that amount of money to come back and make an agreement that's better for kids. I can tell you that there will be a lot of problems for families with this agreement, and I think the minister knows that. If he doesn't know it, then we need to take time in this chamber to make him aware of that and how it will happen. Because that's not good for kids in elementary school, and that is the area, more than high school, that I'm concerned about.

I think there needs to be increased flexibility. It was one of the prime things on the table from the school boards' point of view: flexibility in classroom size so that we can make these small deals, like teaching assistants for an additional child, extra prep time for one over class size or whatever it took at that local school level. When I asked the BCTF about that, and what would happen to me as a parent with that child, with one kid in kindergarten and the other in grade 2 and the other in grade 3, the BCTF wasn't even aware that that would happen. They said: "April, that will never happen."

Well, it will happen, and there will be grievances. Those children will be bused or going to different schools, and their families will make do. If there's anyone who can convince me that that's a good thing for kids, then I'm willing to listen.

[5:30]

[ Page 7536 ]

I think the only significant advance over what has been said previously in this committee is the member's concern with what will happen with smaller class size and the potential need to create a couple of classes in a school where only one existed before. We have that situation right now in many school districts, some with flex and some without. School districts, teachers, principals and others do their best to make sure that family disruption is minimized when population in the catchment area creates these sorts of difficulties for school composition. It happens right now.

What will happen after this agreement is ratified is that we will see smaller classes -- much smaller classes. I've been in many classrooms over the last year since we last did estimates in this chamber, actually. I think it's one of the other things I think the critic and I agreed on: that a minister of education should actually get out and get into classrooms and see what's going on. I saw some classes that I thought. . . .

I'm going to talk about kindergarten-to-grade-3, the ones where I felt that the children were getting the attention, both by teachers and by other professionals that they needed, and the ones where they weren't. The one commonality to ones where you had the sense that the individual attention wasn't there was, frankly, size. Yes, it's a crude measure -- absolutely -- but if you have fewer kids per teacher, you have more teacher to go around.

That's surely been my experience as a teacher in teaching classes anywhere from. . . . I think the collective agreement I worked under at one time allowed for class sizes as low as 15 and as high as 50. I could surely tell the difference in the attention I was able to provide for different students, and as I toured classrooms, I was surely able to see what happened.

I was in a classroom, actually, in Richmond -- I don't remember whose riding it was -- and the critic was there with me to announce the portable-reduction strategy. After the announcement was over, I took some time to tour the school, to talk to a couple of classes and spend some time in the staff room, as I usually do, to find out how the school is doing, what they are proud of and where they think some of their stresses are.

I found myself in a grade 1 class -- I think it was a grade 1 class, and not a 1-2 split -- that had 27 students in it. Now, that's pushing flex quite a bit. I submit that if we can get that. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: None. Hon. Chair, the member asked about teaching assistants. The answer is that there were none.

I submit that if we can get average class size down around this province, there'll be some lower and some a little higher than average. Right now, from kindergarten to grade 3, if you add them up all across the province, regardless of collective agreement, it's around 22. We can get that down to 18 over the next four or five years, and this agreement gets us halfway there. We have an opportunity to make a significant difference in giving our kids a good beginning. Yes, there are lots of challenges as it gets implemented. Some of those challenges exist now with catchment areas and composition of classes. At the end of the day, I think teachers and trustees will say yes to this agreement.

F. Gingell: I just have a request. When I look back through listings of the various announcements that have been made about this, that and the other thing, I think about grid increments. I think about the provincial learning network commitments; I think about the enrolment increase. Would it be possible, before we come back tomorrow afternoon, to have a piece of paper which starts with $3,498,914,000, which was the 1997-98 grants to the school boards? And at the bottom of the page it comes to $3,601,254,000, which is the grants for 1998-99. We can just see that this is the amount of money they got last year; there are these additional funds required to be paid in to look after the enrolment increases; there are additional funds being paid to school boards to look after commitments that had been made in a prior year; there are additional funds paid to look after the provincial learning network -- so we can just follow all those things through. If that's on one sheet of paper, that would be most helpful.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We can do that, but I believe your critic actually has a sheet that does the equivalent thing with the $93-per-student lift. It says so much of that lift goes to PLN; so much goes to the 1 percent raise for teachers on April 1, 1998; so much goes to WCB premium increases; so much goes to various objects. That breakout is there; it's a simple matter to do the multiplication times the number of students to give you the provincial picture. That may be the information that you require.

F. Gingell: Yes, it will. One will have to do some math, but you also need to have a good feel for the numbers that you've used for enrolments. I presume this will deal with grid changes. I mean, grid changes can be positive; they can be negative. It depends on whether you've got more people popping off the top or coming in at the bottom. But my reaction at the moment is that grid increments will probably be an additional cost rather than a reduction in cost, particularly as a lot of new teachers coming in are off the substitute lists. So they're not coming in at the bottom end; they're coming in at the median. At any rate, if I could get that to deal with the total dollars tied in here, that would be most helpful.

Hon. P. Ramsey: At the risk of giving homework to my staff, I think we can accommodate the member.

R. Coleman: Looking at the time, I'm obviously not going to get to all my questions this afternoon, but I will start out with a couple. When we started out, there was $25 million, $50 million, $75 million and all the rest of it. I decided to go back and look at one school district. We talked about simple math a minute ago. These changes affect my school district by $1.736 million. If you multiply that by 60 school districts, we're somewhere up around $100 million in the first year, and you've only put $150 million in over a three-year period.

Who has done the math, and is there a breakdown? Have you gone to the school districts with this agreement, and do you have a breakdown, by school districts, that has been provided back to you by the administration of the school districts who are looking at this -- at how it is actually affecting their classrooms, what they've got available, what teachers they've got available? Where are you getting your numbers for the $25 million in the first year? We've got $1.736 million in one school district. I've also looked at the numbers for Vancouver and some other places. When I look at this, the math just doesn't work for me. The math says to me that we're going to have a shortfall with the agreement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The impact of this varies greatly, district by district. Some districts are already at or close to, for exam-

[ Page 7537 ]

It will vary from district to district. As staff work through quantifying it, the impacts on these ratios and how we attain them over three years -- remember, it's over three years: not one, but three -- we believe that the $25 million increase per year, $150 million cumulative, does accomplish the ratios for non-enrolling teachers and accomplishes the ratios for K-to-3 class size reduction across the Peace. The impact does vary from district to district. Staff in the ministry have been meeting with BCPSEA and school trustees over the weekend to go through some of the impacts district by district, so they can gain some understanding of it. Clearly there will be different impacts in different districts.

R. Coleman: I find it interesting that you would meet with BCPSEA over the weekend to discuss the impact of the agreement when they weren't allowed to be part of the negotiations agreement in the first place. Now we're asking them to give us some numbers. It's like closing the barn door after the cows have gone. You've now decided to go find out how much this thing is really going to cost you. I come from a very fiscally responsible district, and I'm told that in year two the numbers are even higher because of the number of children that are expected in the catchment area in the K-to-3 group -- that the numbers are going to get worse, not better. If I look at this thing, I just have to ask myself. . . .

The cost of this deal in my district is $165,000 per student. That's the cost. In addition. . . .

Interjection.

R. Coleman: When we change the flex, the next student is $165,000.

When I look at this. . . . You go make a deal, and now you ask the people who have to manage the deal to come up with the numbers as to how much the deal is going to cost us -- and you ask them on the weekend after you've announced the deal already. It makes no sense to me. If we start going through school districts, you're going to find that your numbers are way out. I think that you're going to find that you're going to need a lot more than $25 million in year one, and then you have a major problem. I was in here earlier, and I didn't hear the definitive answer; maybe my critic heard the definitive answer. Is the funding guaranteed in year one, year two and year three of this agreement? Is it guaranteed now, if they go ahead with this agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I did offer that guarantee, and then I got heckled by the opposition, who said: "You might not even be the minister then." I made the guarantee, hon. member, and we intend to stick to it and put this money into resources for kids around the province. Yes, there'll be variable impacts depending on the districts. Some districts have already tried to focus on K-to-3 and keep class size down; others have not. There will be variable impacts on both of those.

The other thing I will say to the hon. member is -- and I hope you're not doing this -- don't confuse funding of overall growth in your district, because you will have more students in Langley next year than this year, and probably a lot more the following year than next year. There will continue to be growth in Langley, Richmond, Surrey, Central Okanagan and Comox Valley and some other high-growth districts around the province. We intend to keep on funding that enrolment growth, as we have done this year. This agreement-in-committee is on top of that to make sure that we can do the job we set out to do in improving the chances of every student to get a good start in public school.

Noting the time, hon. Chair, I think it is appropriate for me to move that the committee rise, report heated progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada