[ Page 7539 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: I'm delighted to welcome today His Worship Mayor Colin Kinsley from the city of Prince George. He's joined today by George Paul, the city manager for the city of Prince George. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Sitting on the floor on this side of the House is the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and a former member of the caucus, Anne Edwards. I would like all members to give her a very warm welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of community leaders from the greater Victoria area. We had a meeting today at lunch, talking about how we can build a kinder and more caring community in greater Victoria, around the province and, indeed, across the country, and about how we can work towards a society that says no to hate and racism. Joining us today are Mr. Michael Peters, the president of the Jewish Federation of Victoria and Vancouver Island; Ms. Miriam Fisher, president of the Jewish Community Centre of Victoria; Mr. Steve Feldman, president of Congregation Emanuel; and Mr. Chuck Waldman of the United Israel Appeal. Accompanying them and co-hosting our luncheon today was Councillor Bob Friedland, from the city of Victoria. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, in your gallery today are two distinguished representatives from my community of Prince George, the spruce capital of the world -- or of the north, at least: Mayor Colin Kinsley and our city manager, George Paul. Would the House please help me make them welcome to this community.

F. Gingell: In the members' gallery today are Barbara and John Bosdet, longtime residents of West Vancouver. Barbara is an active volunteer in her community. John, having graduated from being my articled student more years ago than I wish to remember, is now a partner of Deloitte and Touche. I ask all members of the House to please join me in making them most welcome.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to welcome 20 grade 6 and 7 students from Greenwood and their teacher Mr. Chapman, along with several adults. They were in the precincts this morning. Can the House please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today another grade 5 class from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, along with their teacher and a few adults to help. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: I too would like to join my colleague in welcoming a constituent that lives in my riding and, more specifically, lives quite near me. That's Anne Edwards. Not only am I able to continue on with the very good work that she did in fact begin during her term in the Kootenays, but I am also able to enjoy all the good work that she completed while she was a minister and an MLA for the Kootenays. I would like to ask the House to again please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the House today is George Atamanenko, who is a very active community and provincial leader. He is the president of the Heritage Society of B.C. Please make him welcome.

M. de Jong: There is a large contingent of grade 7 students visiting from John Maclure Elementary in Abbotsford, along with their teacher Ms. Rosse. I hope all my colleagues in the House will make them welcome today.

Oral Questions

RESTITUTION OF FUNDS
TO NANAIMO CHARITIES

Hon. G. Clark: I've been entirely consistent in this matter from the beginning. When I was campaigning to become the leader of the NDP -- which is the time the member referred to -- I indicated that any money inappropriately diverted to the NDP which should have gone to charity will be paid back to charities. I am consistent in that. In fact, we have put aside some funds with respect to two lotteries that took place in the early 1980s, where money which should have gone to charity went to the NDP. We will be paying those to an appropriate charity as soon as possible. We have called a public inquiry into this whole affair to look into this and other parties' fundraising activities during the 1980s, to get to the bottom of this question. We have been awaiting a thorough investigation by the police, which has now resulted in charges.

I want to say very clearly that I am as angry as anybody else in this province with respect to the actions of a few individuals, some 15 to 25 years ago, which sully the name of the NDP. We're determined to get to the bottom of it, and if there's restitution, we will pay it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: If the Premier was so angry about this, why did he sit at the cabinet table to try to deny access to information, to try to cover this up, for up to six years? This is a matter of millions of dollars -- not a small, tiny fraction of millions, but millions of dollars. It has cost taxpayers in this province. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

G. Campbell: . . .between $400,000 and $500,000. . .

The Speaker: Question, please.

G. Campbell: . . .to get to the bottom of this.

The Speaker: Your preamble is a little long. If you'd get to the question, please.

[ Page 7540 ]

[2:15]

The Speaker: The rules are clear, thank you.

G. Campbell: . . .to get to the bottom of this. The Premier promised. . .

The Speaker: Your question is?

G. Campbell: . . .full restitution. . . .

The Speaker: Please.

G. Campbell: I will get to a question. The Premier promised: ". . .full restitution is made to any charities who were deprived of funds. . . ." Charities have been deprived of millions and millions of dollars in funds, and I want to know from this Premier: why should anyone have any confidence in him at all if he is not willing to restore the millions of dollars that have been taken from charities in Nanaimo?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a bit much, hon. Speaker, to take a lesson in ethics from this Leader of the Opposition. This is a member. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: This is the Leader of the Opposition that spent a million dollars of tax money on a political mailing. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, excuse me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'm not going to take any questions from anyone if the noise level stays as it was. You have points to make and you're making them, but let's do it with a little more respect for everyone in the House.

I recognize, on his second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: This is a Premier that sat at a cabinet table and tried to cover up the theft from charities, from people in Nanaimo. He stood here. . . . This is a government. . . .

The Speaker: And your question, hon. member? Your question, please.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am getting to a question.

This is a government that delayed, obfuscated, denied they were involved and pretended there was nothing to this. The fact is that this government's party has taken millions of dollars from charities in Nanaimo. Their own publication has taken thousands of dollars from charities in Nanaimo. My question to the Premier is this: how can he expect anyone to have confidence in either the Premier or his government when he backtracks on his word and will not restore the millions of dollars that were stolen from charities in Nanaimo by the NDP's fundraising arm?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, he's found his voice, hon. Speaker.

Hon. Speaker, former Premier Harcourt appointed the Parks inquiry, the forensic audit which brought this to light. It was Premier Harcourt that moved that forward. There's been a three-year, exhaustive investigation, the most exhaustive, the RCMP say, in the history of the RCMP in this province. It has resulted in charges. I have appointed a public inquiry with full subpoena powers to get to the bottom of this question. We have nothing to hide; we've been completely upfront. This activity. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we can hear nothing. The Premier has the floor.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .that took place decades ago by certain party members, we have found. . . . We will get to the bottom of it. The charges go a step in that direction. If any money was given to the political party I belong to that should not have been given to it, we will provide restitution for that. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to not renege on his commitment to give back to the taxpayers the million dollars that he stole by using it inappropriately to do a political mailer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think you've had two supplementaries already.

G. Campbell: I ask the Premier to withdraw that. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: If any member took offence from that statement, I withdraw it.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, members of this government have systematically, for three years at least, tried to cover up the extent of the NDP's criminal past. The Minister of Labour actually sat on the board of the NCHS during periods when charities were being ripped off. He sat on the board. He had no interest in bringing an end to a ripoff scheme that was costing charities millions of dollars. How can the people have any trust in this Minister of Labour -- any trust whatsoever -- if he is going to sit in his chair silently while this Premier reneges on a promise to make full restitution to all of the charities?

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, first of all, I deny categorically the assumption made in that question.

Secondly, I must say to you, hon. Speaker, that this is a rather sad day for parliament. . .

[ Page 7541 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .because we are watching now the flagrant violation of all the rules of this chamber. I would, hon. Speaker. . . . I don't need to tell you what. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, order!

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I don't need to tell you what the rules are.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: You know, I endeavour. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, maybe I should cut to the chase, hon. Speaker, and defy and challenge these members to go outside and repeat what they said.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: A sad day, says the minister -- only marginally less sad than the day charities in Nanaimo found out that this party was ripping them off.

Let's be very specific. In 1995 Mr. Parks, in his report, found that there were a number of times when the NCHS used its funds for political purposes. One of those times. . . . Several of those transactions related to this member and the payment of expenses of $150 per month to the member who is now the Minister of Labour. If the Premier won't fulfil his stated promise to pay back the charities, maybe this minister will have the courage to stand up here and fulfil an obligation -- a moral obligation -- he has to pay money back that shouldn't have been in his pocket in the first place, because it was stolen from charities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I wonder. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, my problem is that I am not allowed to answer the question. But it seems to me rather sad that these individuals, who know the rules of the chamber, are flagrantly violating them for some rather cheap political advantage. That's sad.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, one of the rules that we all know is that questions must be within the administrative responsibility of the minister involved. I would point that out to all of you. I'm sure you know that particular rule, which is very strong here in this House.

NCHS AFFAIR AND
COMMISSIONER OF INQUIRY INTO LEAKY CONDOS

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, McCarthyism is alive and well in British Columbia.

The report by Mr. Taggart. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, if you want to hear the answer.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .is exhaustive and completely and totally exonerates Mr. Barrett and Mr. Williams from any allegations. It is shameful that members opposite would attempt to slander a former Premier, who served this province for over 20 years. I would say further that if he is guilty of anything, then so is the Leader of the Opposition, who paid off a member to resign so that he could run in his riding as well.

The Speaker: First supplementary.

C. Clark: The Premier knows that Mr. Barrett is up to his armpits in this deal.

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please take your seat. If there is any more of this, I'm going to end question period.

An Hon. Member: No, you won't.

The Speaker: Yes, I will. We need order. If we've got questions. . . . There are questions and answers that are legitimate within the rules. Let's provide opportunities for people to ask a question and to answer it.

First supplementary, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- and no props, please.

C. Clark: In that picture, Mr. Barrett is drawing the winning lottery ticket in one of those fraudulent bingos. That barrel might as well have been full of stolen charity money, because that's where the winning-ticket money was going. How can Mr. Barrett continue to head up this commission when he's the guy who presided over the illegal bingo that has now been exposed and for which some members of the New Democratic Party are facing 64 charges?

[ Page 7542 ]

Tabling Documents

Petitions

Orders of the Day

[2:30]

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

I. Chong: Yesterday I started to offer some comments in support of the amendment put forth by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to hoist Bill 14 for a six-month period. I started to state that I support the hoist motion because I believe that Bill 14 is a very important piece of legislation -- so important that we need to provide for the maximum amount of input, not only from those we have already heard from but also from those that may not have had their voices heard. In particular, those would be the workers in unorganized-labour businesses.

It is without question incumbent on all of us here as legislators, and on all employers and on all workers, to come together in a cooperative manner to put in place rules and safety procedures which are not only reasonable but adaptable and acceptable. I say this because regardless of the debate that is occurring here today, it will ultimately be the workers who must practise those sound safety procedures that we wish them to have. We have to remember that although employers and regulators may impose whatever rules and administrative penalties they desire, it is the workers who must abide by those policies. So we do need to hear from them. We have to ensure that we have not overlooked some very basic and very fundamental practices.

The establishment of a safety representative or a safety committee that will receive eight hours of educational training will not in itself necessarily enhance workplace safety. It may offer more insight for those representatives, but again, it remains the workers' responsibility to understand and accept whatever changes and new procedures are to be implemented.

I'm concerned that the introduction of safety representatives and committees, while it may appear fine at the outset, is nothing more than a top-down approach to worker safety. It is more bureaucracy that is being added onto businesses without any assurance that workplace injury will be prevented. I do believe that workers themselves will even shake their heads in dismay at this procedure. That is because there are workers in some industries and businesses who have endured few, if any, workplace injuries. They are the ones who object to the imposition of more rules that do not enhance workplace safety.

Some businesses do enjoy excellent employer-employee relations. In fact, those workers and employers take pride in their injury-free workplace environment. I have seen some of those. Why are they being penalized with those other businesses and industries that have failed their employees? In some small businesses, workers have the opportunity to profit-share and decision-share with their employers. Those workers would like to be able to have some opportunity to decide how funds should be expended to enhance workplace safety and at least be given the opportunity to discuss other options.

Hon. Speaker, what really is the purpose of this bill? Well, I'll tell you. It's more about appeasing the trade union leaders, it's more about empowering the trade union bosses, and it's more about sending a message to small businesses that unions are in charge and that unions are planning to take control of small businesses. That's what this bill is about. It's the first step in allowing organized labour some control over small business. We will see the second step when the Labour Code changes are introduced later in this session. That is the message that this bill is sending out today. I believe that is the purpose this bill intends -- subliminally, but it's there.

Yesterday, when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin chose to define who our friends are, he failed to define who those opposite members' friends aren't. We know that the members on that side of the House are not friends to charities, they're not friends to volunteers, and they're not friends to non-profit organizations that own assets. We have seen that in this past year alone. I find it disgusting and hypocritical that this NDP government pretends to be on the side of the average taxpayer and the average worker -- while their hands are in those pockets.

On several occasions I have been able to offer comments on various bills due to my background as an accountant in public practice. Once again I find how valuable that is today in these debates. Previously, when I assisted small businesses in their financial reporting requirements, I was often required to assist in the completion of the WCB annual reports and the WCB injury forms 7 and 7(a). These are the injury report forms that are filled out by employers and employees alike. I had the opportunity to complete those forms firsthand. I was amazed to learn that employers were very much aware of just what WCB and workplace safety was about.

The businesses that I dealt with ranged from medical and legal offices to construction firms, subcontracting construction firms, restaurants, coffee shops, pizza takeout and delivery operations, a variety of retailers, wholesalers, roadbuilders and blasting contractors, fishing companies, insurance companies, business consultants, travel consultants and tour guide operators. I was privy to a huge range of industries and sectors in my past professional life. Most of those businesses

[ Page 7543 ]

They worked at prevention of injuries because they knew that there was a cost involved, that it was costly and detrimental both from the employers' and the employees' points of view. From the employers' point of view, it would mean a WCB demerit rating. That would mean premiums would go up, and there would be a cost there. It was also costly and detrimental to the employers in that it could mean worker stress, anxiety and less productivity. So employers didn't want to have workplace injuries.

Equally, employees did not want to see workplace injuries, because to them, if there was a problem, it would mean a shutdown. It could mean layoffs. Again, that would put anxiety on them. So workers want to have some flexibility and discretion when they are looking at workplace safety.

They want to offer that to this debate, I suppose, before these things are put in place and in stone. I am not suggesting that we allow employers and employees to decide on how workplace safety should be implemented, but surely those businesses that have a proven track record of exemplary workplace safety should be given some consideration. They should be heard, to express their views before this bill is passed.

I do want to say that, yes, in some industries there are poor workplace safety policies in place. So why do we not address those high-risk industries? Let's look at those employers who are continually jeopardizing the lives of workers because they are not aware of ways to improve workplace safety. They can be easily identified. All you have to do is go to the Workers Compensation Board and find out those who have had demerit ratings consistently and those that have filed claims consistently. We should be focusing on those high-risk industries and those high-risk businesses that frequently file and report worker injuries. They are the ones that demand attention, that need help, that must improve workplace safety. I would hope we all agree that that is where our first focus should be. Let us help those who are needing the help, and let us not hinder those who have good, sound safety procedures.

We have learned time and time again that one-size-fits-all solutions do not work. This bill is attempting to legislate just that. If this government is seriously concerned about worker safety, it should make sure that it has first canvassed thoroughly all workers and not just workers represented by organized labour. There just might be some solutions out there that we haven't heard of. Currently, I do believe there are more questions than there are answers. We need to look at those before this bill is considered appropriate and is implemented. That's why I do believe in a six-month hoist period. That six-month hoist period will provide the needed attention and the enhancement in workplace safety that is now lacking in some businesses and some industries.

Some of the members opposite might argue that more lives would be at risk by waiting six months. How do we know that? How do we know that the passage of this bill right now will stop all workplace injuries? How do we know?

I have noticed, during my term of office as an MLA these last two years, the frequency and the number of amendments that this NDP government brings forward every session. I begin to wonder why that is. Well, I believe it's either because this government is changing its direction or because this government doesn't get it right the first time. That is the thrust of our six-month hoist period, as well: to ensure due consideration is given to enhancing workplace safety. So let's get it right the first time.

Prior to my working as an accountant in public practice, I was also -- in my junior years, I suppose -- employed as a payroll clerk in a manufacturing business. My time was devoted not only to calculating payroll and payroll hours and to costing them but also to dealing with all aspects of payroll-related regulations.

I even administered the terms of the union collective agreement, and often I offered suggestions to workers, in particular to the shop steward, as to what areas they were lacking in. I believe that both management and union members saw in me an attitude of fairness and equity, which I have endeavoured to maintain to this very day. I want to make it very clear that I am not anti-union and that I do not disregard the benefits of union membership. But I want to see fairness applied so that workers and employers can work together productively and effectively.

When I was performing my duties as a payroll clerk, I also assisted with the completion of many worker injury report forms there. Those report forms were not always a result of workplace hazards. Rather, several of the workers' injuries that were sustained were in part due to worker carelessness and inattention. No one was to blame, because the employer could not have prevented those worker injuries, no matter how much education and training was available. Human errors do happen, and all we can do is find ways to reduce that.

This bill cannot accomplish reducing human errors due to carelessness or inattention. No one on this side of the House wants to see any unsafe workplace practice that would jeopardize the safety of others. That is the reason for this motion. We believe that we can and should work together to enhance workplace safety. That can be accomplished, I believe, by referring this matter to one of the many select standing committees that now exist -- to which no work is ever referred.

Within the six-month hoist period that we are recommending, we should be able to inform workers of their rights and, equally important, of their duties. We must ensure that workers abide by certain workplace safety guidelines, as the minister himself indicated, because ultimately, as I mentioned earlier, if they are not followed, it will be the workers who sustain the injuries. For that reason, too, workers must be made aware of how important it is to follow workplace safety guidelines and of the consequences that will apply if they do not. Unfortunately, this bill does not recognize that latter point.

[2:45]

I recall a particular instance that occurred while I was employed in that manufacturing business. There was one employee who deliberately defied a workplace safety practice.

[ Page 7544 ]

What message does that send out to other employees on the integrity of workplace safety guidelines? We cannot allow workers to flout workplace safety. We cannot allow a union collective agreement to intervene and override workplace safety when it disagrees with management's disciplinary actions towards employees. That just cannot happen. Where will we hold our workplace safety guidelines, in that regard?

A further reason why this hoist motion is supportable is because of what my colleagues mentioned earlier: the bill appears to be in conflict with other government initiatives. The first one that it appears to be in conflict with is the government's new 16-member task force whose goal is to find ways to cut red tape. For the benefit of the members opposite, I will not presuppose that this bill is described as government red tape, if that's what will make them happy. However, if the task force views it as that, then we are in direct conflict. So doesn't this piece of legislation thus contravene the spirit and the intent of that task force mandate?

What I also find appalling is that this government continues to ignore or dismiss interministerial discussions. All too often one minister of the Crown embarks on one particular path without regard to the effects that it may have on another ministry. I have seen that time and time again. They do this to the detriment of another ministry until it is too late. On this side of the House we are trying to avoid the too-late syndrome. We are trying to say: "Let's fix it now; let us not look at amendments one year from now to fix problems that we should have considered now." I cannot believe that in all the vast regulations we now have, and with the establishment of the Workers Compensation Board that has been around for years, there are not now other mechanisms in place that can deal with workplace safety. We should be implementing those measures now, while looking at improvements during the six-month hoist period.

We heard as well yesterday that the final report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation is not due until September 30 of this year. So would it not make more sense to hoist this bill now and wait not only for that report but also for any recommendations that may come from the small business task force?

Yesterday I listened to the arguments presented by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and I must say that he gave quite an impassioned speech. He accused members on this side of the House of not understanding this piece of legislation. Well, it's that member and the members opposite who don't get it. If this government truly cares about workers, then why did they not cover all workers? Why does this bill deal specifically with and put in place workplace safety measures only where there are more than nine employees in a business? I suppose the answer that the members opposite will offer is that, in fact, they had to draw a line because they didn't want to put a regulatory burden on those other small businesses. But that doesn't cut it, either, because as the members opposite continually say: "You can't have it both ways." Either you're for workplace safety or you're not. If they are for workplace safety, then every worker should have been considered when this piece of legislation was introduced. So I ask the members opposite: whose side are you on? This NDP government and the members opposite do not have a monopoly on worker safety, and I believe that is clearly evident now.

This Premier and this NDP government have stated that one of their priorities is job creation. Where does this piece of legislation send out a message of job creation and, more importantly, of job protection? Perhaps businesses would now not hire extra workers for fear they would go over the nine-employee threshold. How does that improve or enhance workplace safety? No matter what government is elected, we must all serve our constituents by ensuring that good legislation is brought forward in this House and that it is supportable. It must also meet this test: does it meet the needs of the people of our province? It must accomplish the goals for which it was intended. To that end, there must be some form of measurable or desired outcome, but this bill fails to offer any of that. Everything comes down to accountability, whether it's workplace safety or financial. . . . There has to be a degree of accountability, and this bill fails to offer that.

As I stated in my opening remarks yesterday, there is no question that members on this side of the House will support legislation to deal with workplace safety. But this bill, Bill 14, is not yet there.

Certainly we endorse workplace safety; certainly we endorse worker and employer accountability; and certainly we endorse protecting jobs. But to accomplish those goals, it is necessary to bring in legislation that will move us towards that. When legislation is introduced that fails to meet its stated objectives, what does it then become? It becomes government regulation that does not work.

So, hon. Speaker, I want to say once again that I am very much in support of workplace safety. We do not oppose health and safety regulations. But this government doesn't have a very good record on anything when it comes to improving workplace safety or to any other measure. Take a look at health care. Take a look at education. Things have gone from bad to worse, and that is my concern.

The members opposite care to laugh. Well, that's fine, but you should speak to the people on waiting lists; you should speak to the classrooms that have had funding cuts, where there are no counsellors and no librarians. Things in health care and education have not got better. If we accept this bill as it is without offering some amendments, then we may have our workplace safety go in that same abysmal direction.

Also, I would remind the members opposite that we are responsible to the people of this province. It was this opposition that had to shame that government into setting up a Ministry for Children and Families. That's what they seem to forget. We did that because we were concerned about protection of child care. Now we are concerned about the protection of workplace safety. And the members continue to scoff and laugh. Well, that's fine, hon. Speaker. I guess that in the coming months, time will prove to us once again just how much this government really intends to help the workers and that they are, in fact, friends of their trade union bosses and leaders.

Since yesterday we have seen one of the most scandalous events in political history. I just hope that the members take some time to reflect. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem relevant to the topic of the hoist motion.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, I would just say that I would hope the members take time to reflect on what direction they

[ Page 7545 ]

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to the amendment to Bill 14, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. At the beginning of this session both the workers and the business community thought there was finally a flicker of hope that this NDP government was finally seeing the light and realizing that things were not well in this province, seeing that so many workers in this province were not being well served by the Workers Compensation Board.

The royal commission was given a very complicated task to fulfil. We owe it to them to hear their recommendations before passing any legislation that concerns the Workers Compensation Board. The Workers Compensation Board is in serious need of an overhaul, and it has been for years. I and many others thought that was why the royal commission was appointed.

Results-oriented is what this government promised to be for small business in this province. But all they get is regulation after regulation, pile after pile of regulations. Workers in British Columbia thought that this NDP government was for the workers. But injured worker after injured worker will tell you that they are not being served by the Workers Compensation Board. The Workers Compensation Board has major problems, and it was the injured workers themselves that wanted this royal commission to look into the running of this board.

The NDP have always stated that they are the only ones that fight for the workers to make sure that their rights are protected and that their jobs are protected. To listen to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, you would think that he was the only one who stood up for anything. But they have had years of consultation. Well, they should have cleaned their ears out and listened. That is their problem: they don't listen. If they did listen, they would put forth a bill that actually did something to help the worker. If they did listen, this province would not be in the mess that it is in today.

We have taken the time to read the legislation, and we are doing our job, showing the people of this province how dysfunctional this bill is. We say to you: "Shame! Shame on you! You on that side of the House should be hanging your heads in shame. Shame on you for trying to spin your message that you're actually doing something for the worker." Somehow, somewhere, the NDP has lost sight of who they are working for and supporting in this province. It has been abundantly clear that this government has no intention of doing anything right for the workers or for the businesses in this province.

We have a royal commission that is coming forward with its final report. It is not due until the fall. This commission will be making recommendations to the government on governance, management and the operation of the Workers Compensation Board. This final report will include occupational health and safety programs and service delivery.

Here before us is a bill dealing with safety programs, and we haven't even heard from the royal commission yet. Yet in a letter to British Columbia businesses, this government states that they are putting forward legislation based on recommendations put forward by the royal commission. They say they discussed this legislation with business people, people working in the occupational health and safety field. Well, no one in the business field is aware of being consulted. When it comes to consultation, it takes a different meaning with this government. They consult with their union friends and forget about small businesses, which provide 96 percent of the jobs in this province.

What special political agenda is this government up to? Why is it so urgent that this bill come forward now? Putting the cart before the horse is typical of this government. What's the hurry? Why not wait for the recommendations? Is it possible that some of their recommendations may not be what the NDP want to hear? Or maybe I should rephrase that and say they're what big labour in British Columbia does not want to hear.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason for fast-forwarding this bill. . . . It is obvious that this bill is being fast-forwarded, by the way they are trying to rush it through the Legislature. Could big labour be the reason? They don't want this bill sitting around long enough for anyone to go over it with a fine-tooth comb. They don't want to wait for the royal commission to come down with the recommendations. There is no rationale for this bill to come forward now.

[3:00]

It's the NDP way or the highway. It doesn't matter if it serves the worker, the businesses or the province. Out of one side of their mouths, the NDP say they're cutting the red tape that is strangling business in British Columbia; out of the other side of their mouths, they continue to add red tape to the businesses in this province. It is this hypocrisy that this government continues to spout day after day.

When you read over this bill, you can see that once again we have a bill driven by big labour. Nothing has changed. This government is still hostile to business, and they will continue to leave this province for Alberta. The royal commission strongly recommended that there be fines given to workers who blatantly jeopardize the safety of themselves and their co-workers. Workers should have to take some responsibility for themselves. Do they really believe that business should pay enormous fines because they refuse to wear a seatbelt or disobey the safety rules of a company?

This bill will add to the cost of doing business in British Columbia. It states that businesses of nine or more employees must have a safety officer. Why would a number of offices such as law offices, doctors' offices, accounting firms, etc., need a safety officer? Again I ask: why would a number of offices in B.C. need these safety officers? According to this bill, it's because they employ too many workers. Their worst injury will probably be a paper cut.

This bill will encourage business to lay off workers to keep their numbers down. This is one thing this government is good at, and they do it better than anyone else in this province: helping people lose their jobs. You only have to look at the record of our youth unemployment and the unemployment rate in this province since this government took office.

This government does not have the workers' safety as its prime concern. They do not care about small businesses in this province. We need to protect the workers; we don't have any argument on that point. We want workers and businesses to have legislation that will work for everyone, legislation that will actually work for the highest and greatest good of the people of this province.

All we are asking of this government is to do the right thing for a change: to change the legislation to reflect the real

[ Page 7546 ]

Let's start moving forward and get out of the downward spiral that is destroying this province. This bill does not meet the needs of the workers or the businesses of this province. This bill gives unlimited power to the Workers Compensation Board. It states that it has "exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine all those matters and questions of fact and law arising or required to be determined. . .the action or decision of the board is final and conclusive and it is not open to question or review in any court." Even our justice system gives us the choice of appealing a judge's decision. Will the people on the board itself have knowledge of our laws so they can determine a fair treatment for those who come before them?

The more we go over this bill, the more I fear that this government is creating more problems than it is solving. We only have to take a look at the past actions of this government to confirm our worst fears: that this bill does not serve the workers or the employers of this province. We need a bill that reflects the needs of the injured worker or the employer. This bill does not reflect those needs.

This minister has chosen not to respond to the problems or the solutions that are needed so the fundamental rights of all parties are met. This bill should be put on hold until we hear from the royal commission.

T. Nebbeling: I also rise to speak in favour of the amendment to hoist Bill 14 for a six-month period. The reason I think it is good thing to do is that this bill will have a serious impact on a number of businesses. I think this bill somehow does not necessarily reflect the careful consideration that government should give when introducing bills that will have negative impacts if elements are not introduced in a proper way.

One of the first questions I have is: why is this bill being introduced today? Is it because of the royal commission's recommendations in the first report? Where is the foundation for the minister to come forward today with a bill that will have a considerable impact on smaller businesses in particular?

I attended a number of the meetings of the royal commission here in Victoria. I must say that during the times I listened to the presentations by the various participants, not once did anybody speak to the royal commission on their sense that safety measures in the workplace are such that an immediate reaction -- almost an emergency-type reaction -- has to come from this government to deal with the so-called lack of safety measures. The whole focus that I heard during the presentations I witnessed was much more on the fact that the Workers Compensation Board as an organization seems to let down an inordinately large number of people who expect, after having paid into the system, to be taken care of when problems arise in their life -- when an accident happens in the workplace and they need either temporary or long-term help.

Most of the people I heard speaking at the royal commission were there to explain that there is a serious need to restructure the rules and regulations and also to focus on how the needs of injured workers have been dealt with. I'll be frank. I have, from time to time, been in dialogue with the Workers Compensation Board because of my work for the municipality of Whistler. But I never truly knew firsthand how much hurt and pain and suffering there is amongst people who rely on the Workers Compensation Board to have the quality of life they should expect to have, where that lack of quality of life is related to an accident at the job site and the lack of a proper response by the Workers Compensation Board.

When we talk about this bill, which suddenly appears for reasons that I just do not understand. . . . As my colleagues have already expressed very clearly, the royal commission hasn't even finished its conclusions. They have until September 30 to produce the final report. If, because of the recommendations or presentations made by the public at large, there is a need to consider tightening how the rules are applied and how the health and safety of the worker can be further protected, so be it. At least then it will be based on the consideration of a group of people who make recommendations by going over all the facts. We don't have the facts today.

I cannot understand why this hurry. In all fairness, we have heard a number of members opposite speak, and not one of them has really been able to tell me why this hurry is there. Not one of them has been able to justify -- in an articulate and reasonable manner -- why this bill, as it is presented here, is needed. If I listen to the people who deal with the Workers Compensation Board, all I hear is that there are so many rules that stop the system from providing the help they need. If there is a real need, it means that these rules should be streamlined and reconfigured so that the Workers Compensation Board can truly assist people who are in need. That's not happening today.

Like I said, I listened to some of the presentations, and in particular I listened to the member for Skeena. He, as a member, started to talk about the desperate need for this bill, the desperate need for these new regulations. He, as a worker and a friend of the forest industry -- having worked in the forest industry and having lived in a forest industry-dependent community on a daily basis -- was confronted with situations that demanded that this kind of bill pass. The relationship between the employers and the employees is such -- according to the member for Skeena -- that unless the government interferes right now, more people will get hurt, and more people will have accidents that could actually be fatal. It was not that the workers are not careful; it was the employers who were so horrendously horrible, careless and callous.

When I was listening to the member for Skeena, I truly thought he was talking about the twenties and thirties, when the union was indeed needed to make some good changes for people -- when it came to the relationship between employers and employees, when it came to the need for fair wages. Of course, that was in the twenties and the thirties. When the member was speaking, I reminded him that we do live in the nineties and that we're going into the millennium and that things really have changed over the last 60, 70 or 80 years. If the member was really directed by the fact that he was still focusing his belief about the need for this bill on what he read in books prior to Karl Marx, I do not really think he had much to add to the debate as far as legitimacy for approving the bill. He certainly did not, in any way, shape or form, convince me that he was right.

Then I listened to the member for North Island. The member for North Island was, in particular, focused on the forest industry as well. He brought some statistics with him about the fatalities at job sites in the forest industry. Of course -- who is not going to look for something that will make things better, particularly in that industry? It is a high-risk industry. One of the reasons British Columbia has higher fatality rates than other provinces may well be because we do

[ Page 7547 ]

As a matter of fact, I often visit forest-dependent communities. I do visit mill sites; I do visit logging operations. What happens there. . . . The first thing I always see when I get to the site is a huge sign. There's the name of the company, and then it says, "Three hundred and twenty-eight days without any accidents," or: "Eighty-five days without any accidents." That was used as an example of why I should be convinced that this bill should get passage immediately. In the forest industry in particular they have a tremendous record of safety, and they have a tremendous record of implementation of safety rules and regulations. That doesn't mean that from time to time there isn't an accident, and that doesn't mean that from time to time there isn't a fatal accident. That is a consequence of that high-risk industry. It is like photo radar's introduction: it did not stop fatalities on the highways. What we have here is a second presentation that clearly could not convince anybody who would look rationally at the issue that this bill should pass immediately.

[3:15]

Once we did it, the NDP, the government side -- making legislation, putting in place legislation that is totally driven by overregulation. . . . The consequences are that you as a government have, been part of the demise of the forest industry, or the almost demise. Now you have another bill here that you're again trying to rush through without any thought of consequences, of what it will do to business.

I want to talk for a brief minute on what this will do to business. The rule that a business with nine or ten people working for it has to implement a new position called a safety officer, with one of the existing workers. . . . I don't think this government has thought for a second about what that means. First of all, that so-called safety officer -- who's just one of the workers -- is going to be taken out of his or her position for the time that they have to be going around the store, going around the business, to check if everything is in order. They have to check from an enormous number of different angles. It is not just: "Everything looks okay; I've done my job." No, they get a book this thick that they have to know the details of in order to make sure that the job they're doing and the reports they're writing reflect what the Workers Compensation Board is dictating. So here is a business with ten people. . . . Small businesses today have an extremely tough time keeping their heads above water because of other rules and regulations, cost factors, red tape and bureaucracy. So, suddenly now, as an owner. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: The member for Skeena sitting there opposite. . . . Well, I know that the member for Skeena has never spent a dime investing his own money to create his own business. If he had, he would never, ever talk the way he does now.

However, considering that now a small business suddenly has to give up a person -- who would normally be providing his hours towards the business -- to check on the business, thereby being totally unproductive. . . . Who picks up the tab? The owner of that small business. It may well be just enough of a factor, in addition to all the other elements, for a person to say: "You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to lay off two people. I employ ten people today, and I'm going to lay off two people so that I'm under the margin of nine employees and I do not have to do that. My other eight workers may have to work a little bit harder, but I as an owner will be able to keep my business going financially. But I'm not going to employ ten people, because the tenth person is a person that the other nine have to work for and that I as an owner have to carry."

These elements should truly be considered. The impact on businesses should truly be considered before this bill passes. As this has definitely not been the case, I will not support the bill when we come to final reading. At this point, I think there's one way out for the government: to get further consideration of the points they're trying to make by giving us more background and by looking at some of the implications. For that reason, I support the hoisting of the bill for six months.

F. Randall: I would just like to start off by saying that I'm certainly opposed to the hoist motion and that I support Bill 14. I think delaying it another half a year would possibly lead to more deaths and injuries -- if we waited six months. I think it's pretty common knowledge that there haven't been any amendments to this legislation for 20 years, and it has taken about six years to get to this point with people working on it. So I don't understand what all the panic is. The other thing that's interesting to note is that management has been involved in this, and they have agreed to practically everything that's in here. They had some dispute over the matter of applying a penalty to a worker.

Interjection.

F. Randall: That's right -- it would be a disaster. I think I'll address that point about. . . . The opposition are saying it would be a disaster to apply a penalty to a worker, and I agree. But his comments were sort of in the negative, saying: "Why not?" How you can blame workers for what happens in the workplace is beyond me, because all workers operate under the direction of a supervisor, a foreman or a superintendent. Workers do as they're told to do. If they're told to do a certain job, they do it.

Interjections.

[ Page 7548 ]

Interjections.

F. Randall: Where? You can terminate a person. . . .

Interjections.

F. Randall: You guys don't know anything about the workplace, unfortunately.

Hon. Speaker, I just want to read part 3, the purposes. Section 107 says: "(1) The purpose of this Part is to benefit all citizens of British Columbia by promoting occupational health and safety and protecting workers and other persons present at workplaces from work related risks to their health and safety." It also says:

". . .the specific purposes of this Part are (a) to promote a culture of commitment on the part of employers and workers to a high standard of occupational health and safety, (b) to prevent work related accidents, injuries and illnesses, (c) to encourage the education of employers, workers and others regarding occupational health and safety, (d) to ensure an occupational environment that provides for the health and safety of workers and others, (e) 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, (f) to foster cooperative and consultative relationships between employers, workers and others regarding occupational health and safety, and to promote worker participation in occupational health and safety programs and occupational health and safety processes, and (g) to minimize the social and economic cost of work related accidents, injuries and illnesses, in order to enhance the quality of life for British Columbians and the competitiveness of British Columbia in the Canadian and world economies."

I think comments were also made by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena with regard to too many regulations. Well, you know, he says Bill 14 has too many regulations, and regulations do not make a safer workplace. I think it's important to note that you've got to have some sort of rules for people to follow. You can't just say: "Well, everybody will go out and try to be safe." There have to be some sort of provisions, and meetings held periodically. There has to be some sort of protection for workers.

I think it's important to understand that most workers, if not the large majority, are certainly concerned about their jobs. I know that people used to vanish from their jobs and disappear. We could never find out what happened to them. What happened was, the employer just got rid of them. People who do not do as they're told -- in many, many cases -- are let go. They're laid off from the job. They have no protection. In construction particularly, there's no seniority. It is really very difficult. A lot of workers are afraid to raise an issue by saying, "This is unsafe," because the employer discriminates against them.

I have been involved in this probably since the sixties -- earlier than that, actually; it was the fifties. I'm getting old. I can tell you that there are employers who discriminate against employees who are safety-conscious. If an employee is safety-conscious, and it becomes common knowledge in the industry that they are very safety-conscious, they never get hired. In the industry I came from, again, as I mentioned, there is no seniority. The employer's job is complete, and they have to rehire for new jobs. So anybody who is safety-conscious and very keen on it doesn't work very much, I can tell you. There have to be some sort of rules to make sure the employer complies. There are employers who are very good employers, but there are employers who are not very good employers. I just want to make that point.

The other thing I just want to say again is that the proposed changes were agreed to by management. The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head over here was asking: "How come you've got a cutoff of nine?" Well, I take it that nine was obviously negotiated between the employees and management. She's arguing that if there's one employee the rule should apply; if there are two employees the rule should apply. Nine is an exemption area. I don't understand where she's coming from, when she says: "Why have nine? Why not just have it so if there's one employee it applies?" I'm sure management wouldn't agree with that. All those small employers would say: "The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is crazy. Here we negotiated nine, and now she wants it down to one."

I don't think people really understand what's happening. I think the employer certainly has an obligation to create a climate of safety on the job. There are employers who don't like any WCB claims. In fact, there are lots of jobs where you see the working wounded walking around. The employer says: "Stay here, and you won't have to do anything. But, in effect, there will not be a WCB claim." There are a lot of people who stay working at the employer's request. The employer will look after you, but just don't put in a claim.

The other thing that employers are happy about is that we have a Workers Compensation Board. In other countries and jurisdictions, if a worker is hurt, there's a lawsuit -- you sue. With the Workers Compensation Board -- by the employers paying their assessments and their premiums -- an individual can't turn around and sue the employer. The employer is protected from lawsuits by workers who are injured. This is a pretty good deal for employers, because lawsuits can run into tens of millions of dollars. The compensation board is a pretty good friend to employers by protecting them against lawsuits.

It has been mentioned a number of times, and I think it's worth repeating, that 150 workers die each year in British Columbia, and about 5,000 people are permanently disabled each year in British Columbia. Those are huge numbers. If we talk about delaying this bill for six months, just think what could happen. How many lives could we save, with 150 deaths and 5,000 injured a year? Certainly that's a human tragedy.

Hon. Speaker, I don't know how you can put up with those people on the other side continually yacking.

[3:30]

As I mentioned earlier, after six years of consultation, you say you want to keep delaying it. Some notes I have here say

[ Page 7549 ]

I would like to mention that the new regulations are designed to drive down the injury rate and prevent accidents. That's the whole purpose of Bill 14. It will certainly benefit British Columbia workers and their families. It will also reduce the cost of workers compensation for employers and the cost to the health care system. We're all aware that B.C.'s injury rate is falling, but it is still too high. As I mentioned earlier, there's a substantial number of deaths and injuries.

With respect to provisions on environmental tobacco smoke, which is certainly an issue that I feel very strongly about, this won't take effect until January 1, 2000, as far as smoking in restaurants, bars and game rooms, etc. I just want to say this, because it's very, very important: most people agree that secondhand smoke is causing illness and reducing productivity in the workplace. New regulations will require employers to either restrict smoking to designated ventilated areas or to prohibit smoking in the workplace.

I just want to add a couple of things with regards to tobacco. Thousands of chemicals are involved in tobacco. There's turpentine, which is very toxic. Acetone is in tobacco. There's benzopyrene and propylene glycol. There's arsenic in tobacco. There's butane, methoprene, cadmium, lead, ammonia -- I notice that the Minister of Energy and Mines is looking my way. There's benzine. There are all kinds of things. You want to remember that tobacco smoking is part of this bill. There's heart disease. There's lung cancer and emphysema. There are mouth cancers and throat cancers. Cataracts and stomach ulcers come from smoking. There's skin damage and -- oh God, you can lose your hair too! -- also hair loss.

There's just a little line in a letter. I won't read the letter, but I just want to make a quick comment on it. This is a letter to all of the chief executive officers of the tobacco industry in Canada. It was sent on June 18 last year. It says:

"I'm disappointed that your initial response to British Columbia's actions to protect kids from tobacco products is to hide behind your industry's lobby group -- the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Association, led by Robert Parker. I deplore your industry's public comments, made by Mr. Parker, that the cost of smoking to our society is not high when you consider that smokers die early and therefore can't collect pensions."

The other point I want to make is that all of the complaints by the official opposition are about problems with the WCB after deaths and injuries take place. This bill is to prevent that. This bill is to try and have such a safe workplace that you're not dealing with the problems that people have with the WCB. They shouldn't be on the WCB if we have a safe workplace.

An Hon. Member: But they are.

F. Randall: But we have to work to improve that, hon. member.

I just want to add this, and then I'll wrap up. I hate to say this. It really hurts me to say it, because I do have a lot of respect for elected people regardless of their political stripe. I'm really, really concerned about the anti-labour comments, in effect -- talking about big unions and union bosses. You know, "bosses" is a dirty word. That's why people that don't like unions use the word "bosses"; it's sort of bad. Everybody hates a boss, right? They all don't like the boss. But why don't people say union official or union leader? Why is it always "union boss"? It really tells me a story when I hear somebody say union boss.

I feel sorry for the opposition -- for the way they're handling this matter. I just want to say that I support Bill 14, and I urge all members to support the withdrawal of this particular amendment. If it's not withdrawn, then certainly I would ask everybody to vote to defeat it.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make a couple of introductions.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Thank you, members. Today in the precincts we have two groups. One is from Westhill Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. There are 39 grade 6 students with their teacher Mrs. McCue and some adults. They're here for comparative government and local history.

The other group is from Celebrate America, in Woodinville, Washington. There are some 25 visitors; they're here with their teacher, Mrs. Rusch. Please welcome them.

G. Janssen: I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill, and I'm pleased that we have young people in this chamber to witness this debate. Surely when they enter the workforce, these rules that are proposed in this bill will be even more profound than when we entered the workforce and when our parents entered the workforce.

Massive changes have taken place in the workforce. We're seeing a diminishing of industrial sector workers. In Port Alberni, for instance, where a Nexgen plant was built -- a $230 million investment -- only 30 people were required to run it. They're planning a co-gen facility there -- another $200 million in investment -- with 23 new workers. Those workers are more skilled; they face new challenges and are certainly going to face a different type of work environment than we presently see.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

In British Columbia we are still a resource-based industry. . . . Three workers die from workplace injuries every week in British Columbia. More than 700 suffer injuries on the job. Every day, 16 workers are permanently disabled. These injuries and accidents impose a tragic cost on the workers and on their families. The new legislation sets up structures to encourage labour-management cooperation on health and safety. It requires joint workplace health and safety committees.

I want to talk about the bill in the opposition's -- the Liberal Party's -- terms, which is the bottom line. I want to talk about the bottom line. My family was in business for 40 years. Coming from a Europeans social democratic background, we recognized the importance of protecting your workers, who are the backbone of your industry. Without them, no business has a future. This bill provides for joint

[ Page 7550 ]

Interjection.

G. Janssen: Relax, member. I will get to that in a moment.

There have been six years of extensive consultation with business, both large and small -- a consultation process with over 200 worker and employer representatives, and over 2,000 written and verbal representation.

We are seeing a revolution that will happen in the workplace. The National Institute of Disability Management and Research has done a report. This organization is based in Port Alberni. It has done extensive consultation; it has examined, for the first time in Canada, something that has been done in Europe for many years: the true cost of worker injury. In 1994 dollars the British Columbia economy lost $3.6 billion because of workplace injuries. It's a phenomenal amount of money. This was led by light manufacturing, service. . .and trades, and they accounted for $1.5 billion. I want the members to pick up copies from the institute and read it, because it will tell you the true cost, not just in human terms but in monetary terms.

The cost per person in mining for injury, for instance, was $5,993 -- almost $6,000 lost because of injuries every single year for every person working in mining. In forestry, it was $5,500 lost every single year for a worker. In fact, 8 cents out of every dollar earned in British Columbia was lost. If you're in business and you're losing 8 percent of every dollar you make, it's going to affect your bottom line. Yes, there will be some cost, but any business will recognize fairly quickly that worker injuries have to be brought down in order for a workplace to remain competitive and to stay in business.

If we don't act now, by the year 2006 workplace injuries in British Columbia will cost the economy $30.5 billion. Resource industries in British Columbia account for 81.5 percent of all major injuries in the workplace.

I want to go on to the institute for a moment, and I want to tell the members quickly -- particularly the members opposite -- about the institute. Some of the founding sponsors were the B.C. Rehabilitation Society, Canadian Forest Products Ltd. -- I think they donated to your party -- the Coulson group of companies, CP Rail System, CU&C Health, Falconbridge, Fletcher Challenge, Weyerhaeuser, MacMillan Bloedel and Northern Pulp. I want to go on about some facts and why these people invested and joined the institute. Why did they do that?

[3:45]

At the Somass division, a sawmill which employs 450 workers making -- I know the members are going to get upset about this -- between $19 and $26 an hour. . . . I know you're not in favour of those kinds of wages. The disability management staff assisted 14 workers who were on long-term disability to return to work. Six of those workers had a total of 148 years of benefit payments projected for their lifetimes, and three of these workers had been dropped from LTD and were receiving social assistance. Because they were off on a work injury, they ended up on social assistance trying to support their families. These represented a net present-day-value saving of $2.5 million, and the WCB rates, in one year, were reduced -- are you ready members? -- by 50 percent. Since 1991 the number of workers receiving Workers Compensation benefits at Somass was reduced from 37 to five.

Interjection.

G. Janssen: I'll get to the corner store.

British Columbia Hydro -- 5,000 workers, two unions representing them. The time lost because of the disability management plan has been decreased by 65 percent. Workers compensation payments were reduced by $700,000 in '96 alone, because care was taken. Based on current trends, the projected saving in four years will be $1 million.

I want to ask the members something. If you make these savings in business, every saving you make -- whether it's in productivity costs, delivery costs, efficiencies or long-term disabilities -- affects the bottom line.

I want to talk about the largest forest company in British Columbia, MacMillan Bloedel. They didn't wait for the royal commission. As the members say: "Wait for the royal commission; support the hoist." They didn't even wait for Bill 14. They didn't wait for this government. They didn't want to wait a further six months. This is a quote from Tom Stephens: "I believe in walking the talk, and it starts in this room. Safety is first. My philosophy on safety is simply that I assume that every job in the operation is being done by one of my grandkids, and I manage that environment accordingly."

Guess what they've done. It's something the opposition doesn't approve of. They have formed a union-management team, a worker-management team. A 17-member team was formed in early March and comprised of representatives from each of M&B's solid wood operations. They report directly to a steering committee of senior management and IWA members. They didn't wait. I believe they're friends of yours. Didn't they donate to your party? They saw the light. They know where the savings are, because the bottom line is affected by injuries, whether it's a big workplace or a small one; it is affected. If you don't understand that, you have obviously never been in a small business. As you've heard from Tom Stephens, a safe workplace is the first goal of MacMillan Bloedel.

More than one in ten employees in that company are injured. In the solid wood group, it's one in five. It's clearly the goal to have no injuries. But other companies in the world, word-class operations, don't have one in ten, don't have one in five. One in 100 is the norm, and we in British Columbia

[ Page 7551 ]

How are we going to pay for these safety initiatives?

Deputy Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds rises on a matter.

F. Randall: I'm having a problem trying to decide who to listen to: the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi or the speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. I'm sure all members will take that to heart and listen to the person who has the floor.

G. Janssen: As I was saying: how are you going to pay for it? There is a huge potential to improve each division's bottom line. Mr. Stephens, who took over the company, has virtually turned that company around overnight, to improve the bottom line. This is what the Liberals, the opposition, understand. They're not interested in human tragedy; we understand that. They're interested in the bottom line. They're interested in premium increases. They're worried about red tape. Forget workers' safety; forget injuries; just get rid of all that red tape. But the head of the largest forestry company in British Columbia recognizes that injuries cause an effect on the bottom line: ". . .to improve work safety and performance. However, the main priority is to provide a safe environment in which people can work. Meeting cost targets while hurting people is not acceptable." Hear that? That is humanity.

We in this province of ours have to recognize that worker safety should be the concern of everybody in the workplace. If that means that we have to give a wake-up call to some employers, the people who own those businesses, to say to them once that. . . . "If workers have injuries, my costs go up, so therefore my taxes have to come down. I don't want to have any more safety committees in my business, because that might take some time. There might be a little paperwork; there might be some red tape. There might be some costs. So I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll just go tell the government that taxes are too high and to reduce them. I'm not so concerned about how many workers get hurt in my business; I'm only worried about the bottom line." The bottom line is affected by injury.

Anybody in business recognizes that. Anybody who has seen their WCB premiums go through the roof understands that. Anybody who has seen their productivity cut because workers -- who are valuable to every industry and who are valuable to every company, no matter what size -- can't perform. . . . If your employees are hurt and in the hospital or disabled, they can no longer work for you. That affects your bottom line. You have to train new people; you have to ensure that their families are looked after. It becomes an expense for the company. Remember what we said earlier: 8 percent of the bottom line. If a company makes 8 percent today, it's considered a decent profit level, but if you're losing that same 8 percent in worker injuries, your company will quickly go broke. You'll be in bankruptcy, and you'll no longer be around.

It is time to address the issue of worker safety. That's what this bill does. It sends a clear message that occupational health and safety is important to everybody in British Columbia. It makes the government clearly responsible for the broad area of workplace safety. It establishes an appropriate legal base for the health and safety work of the Workers Compensation Board, and it establishes a legal requirement for employers to create and maintain workplace-based health and safety programs. That is a responsibility that is not just an employer's, as the members opposite say. It is everybody's responsibility, whether you're in the workplace or at home, and it's something that we should teach our children.

What about those costs they talk about? What about those onerous costs that the employers are going to face? Well, the board recently announced a 6 percent reduction to employer premiums for 1998. Costs aren't going up because of this bill; they have just gone down. And if the effect of this bill is to bring fewer injuries to the workplace, those costs will continue to go down. If you reduce costs in business, you increase profits. Everybody should understand that. If you don't, you haven't been in business.

An Hon. Member: Have you ever been in business?

G. Janssen: My family recognized the importance of safety in the workplace. We didn't just sell retail products; we did a lot of repair work that involved the use of torches, that involved casting equipment, that involved chemical products. The rule that my father always taught every last one of us was: use safety first. Because if you get hurt, you won't be here tomorrow; and if you're not here tomorrow, that means productivity drops; and when productivity drops, that means that profits drop. So take care.

This bill will reduce the number of accidents, increase productivity and increase profits for employers. Members opposite should understand that. If they don't understand it, they should go and talk to Tom Stephens, who I think deserves congratulations from this House. Before this bill came out, he went out and said to his employees, his management team: "Make this happen, because this company is losing money because of its injuries." I think that deserves some response from this government, and I congratulate him for leading the way before this bill ever came to the House.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak briefly to the hoist motion on Bill 14, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

I've listened yesterday and today to many of the arguments put forward by both sides of the House. I've listened carefully and tried to remove some of the rhetoric. What I do hear consistently from this side of the House is the fact that we do believe in worker safety. We think it's the most important thing there is. I agree with some of the things the member for Alberni talked about: that we have to have a safe workplace, that we have to have workers that work in a safe environment. It's going to be beneficial not just to the employer but to society as a whole. That's the place I think all of us should be striving to go.

[4:00]

But I want to go back a little bit. I think it's always good to go back to our own work experience and things that we did as a youngster. When I started working in the oil and gas industry in the community I still live in -- Fort St. John and Fort

[ Page 7552 ]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member across the way says that my mother probably taught me that, and he's probably right. I guess each one of us has a mother someplace who probably taught us that we should be as careful as we can be.

I worked in that industry for quite a few years. The company I worked for had hundreds of employees -- a fair-sized operation that operated in Alberta and B.C. and, like I say, into the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. As I recall, we didn't see a lot of injuries, although there were some. No doubt about it, there are always going to be some injuries; you're never going to be able to stop all of them. But we didn't have a lot of injuries, and I often think nowadays, when I go out to the same worksites and witness much the same work going on. . . . That kind of work generally goes on in a wintertime atmosphere, when it's very cold. Now we have WCB regulations in place that you have to have the steel toes and certain winter apparel and all the things that go along with it. It's almost endless -- what you have to have on.

When I watch some of those younger people as they are today, trying to work in that cold weather, it becomes very apparent to me why some of them are being hurt. That's because they can't move fast enough with all this equipment on -- to get out of the way or to stay out of the way. It's an interesting concept that maybe some members opposite have never experienced. In all the years that I worked as a labourer or as an operator, I never wore steel-toed shoes -- not once -- and I've got all ten. It's interesting. It's not just because of me; everyone was the same way. I saw that those people were able to do their jobs and still retain their health and their limbs. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that we had to watch and we had to be careful, and there were always older employees around to make sure that they looked after us.

In today's world, we've gotten to another place -- I'm not sure whether it's good, bad or indifferent -- where we expect government to tell us everything that we're supposed to do, almost from the time we leave our doorstep. In fact, in some cases, government does tell you what to do: get in your car, do up your seatbelt, drive to work, be careful. It's endless, and the piles get thicker and thicker. The interesting part is that the injury rate goes up. Probably what we've done in society, when you think about these things, is take some of the responsibility away from the individual worker and from the companies that employ those workers. I don't know whether or not we're really better off in the long run.

I go back to the business that I had for 13 years before 1991, when I was first elected to this House. I had over nine employees. I had a really good business. I had some -- in fact, all of them were -- very good employees. We didn't have a high accident or injury rate; we didn't have a safety committee in my group. But I worked with employees who, if they saw something unsafe, came to me and said: "This is unsafe. We should look at changing it around" -- or they did it on their own. It's called responsibility. In many cases, I'm sure I wasn't even aware of some of the things they changed in my workplace, the business that I had, that made things safer. I was in a business that was fairly volatile. I had a business that handled petroleum products -- well over 50 million litres a year. I moved that product all through northern British Columbia, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. We didn't experience the kinds of difficulties that some members of the government seem to think are taking place. In fact, I can't remember if we had any WCB claims. If we did, they were very minimal -- and that was through 13 years.

I didn't need a safety committee to come and meet and tell me what was safe and what wasn't safe. But that is what this government wants to put in place. It's a bit bizarre to me to think that if I were still in business, I would have to have a government say: "This is what you have to do to make your workplace safer." I'll tell you, in my experience in business, that if government got out of my face, if government got out of my business, if government got out of my workplace, I could get the job done a lot better, along with the people that worked with me and for me. In many cases, that's what you will hear from most small business operators.

The member for Alberni actually defeated his own argument when he talked here earlier about M&B realizing that their accident rates had to be brought down. Obviously they did, and it's great. They set up a process for how they were going to do it. You know, they did it. They did it without this. Isn't it interesting? They did it without this. He defeated his own argument. Why, then, do you need this? If business is already doing it -- if business is already looking at the safety factors -- why do we need another bill with 57 sections and some 200 subsections? It's because this government thrives on regulation, red tape and legislation. I arrived in this House in 1991, and on a consistent basis we have passed somewhere between 60 and 80 pieces of legislation every year, some of them exceeding 300 pages. They've done a marvellous job of choking British Columbia to death -- absolutely choking it to death.

Some members talked about the Forest Practices Code. The same rationale was used there. I remember clearly when members from the government got up and talked about how badly we needed this Forest Practices Code: our industry was going to hell in a handbasket without it. And what's happened with it? Where is the forest industry today? It's absolutely on its knees. It's gone -- and what hasn't gone is going to Alberta.

Those folks over there think that what you do is bring in more legislation and bring in some more regulation. They really believe that this heavy hand will improve safety in the workplace. As I say, I think all of us in this House are concerned about safety in the workplace, but I don't think that we have to pile endless regulation on our small businesses and our big businesses in the name of safety.

I said earlier that I was first elected in 1991. In the years from 1991 to the present, I've dealt with quite a few people with WCB concerns -- both employers and employees. Not once out of all those visits from either side did I have someone come to my office and say: "Richard, I'll tell you, we need some more regulation." Not one employee or one employer came in and said: "I want more regulation." Nary once did I hear that.

[ Page 7553 ]

Just to give you one quick example, in my business in Fort Nelson. . . . I had it there for 13 years. Maybe some folks don't realize it, but in summertime we have daylight for about 20 or 22 hours of the day -- broad daylight. I had a WCB inspector come to me and tell me that I had to replace a light bulb on my warehouse in the middle of July so that workers could see it in the dark. It's absolutely bizarre that somebody has enough time to come out and tell me something that stupid and that I have to abide by it. It's ridiculous. That's how bizarre some of this stuff is.

[4:15]

We heard the member for Vancouver-Quilchena talk about Alberta in comparison to British Columbia. We have much the same industry. Alberta has oil and gas; we have oil and gas in B.C. Alberta has forestry; we have forestry in B.C. Alberta has manufacturing; we have manufacturing in British Columbia. Alberta has agriculture; in B.C. we have agriculture. The western provinces are much the same -- other than that we have a few more mountains. When I heard the numbers -- and I wasn't aware of it until then. . . . In Alberta they have 25 inspectors -- two dozen -- and they do an average of 1,200 inspections. In comparison, British Columbia has eight times as many inspectors -- 190 -- and they do 46,000 inspections. Do you wonder why employees and employers are tired of regulation and inspectors? My goodness, it's no wonder that we're leading Alberta -- that we have more deaths than Alberta, that we have more injuries than Alberta. What's the magic here? How do you look at that? Do you look at it and say: "Gee whiz, Alberta has half the injuries we do, but they've only got 25 inspectors"? They probably have a piece of legislation that is much smaller than what we have in British Columbia for workers comp.

How does that work in relation to what the member for Alberni talked about? I'll tell you how it works. If you unfetter people, they become more responsible for themselves. If you unfetter business, they can create the jobs that are needed in the economy. You don't pile more on. It's interesting that we have a government that talks about reducing red tape. In fact, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Small Business and Tourism are part of that committee. They're going to clear red tape. Wow! You hear it daily on the radio ads; you hear it on the TV. You hear people from the government side stand in the House and talk about reducing red tape -- until you start asking them: how much red tape are you going to reduce? Well, I took the opportunity to ask the Minister of Energy and Mines. The government's own studies said that overregulation was one of their biggest problems. That was their own study. Isn't it interesting? So I asked the minister: "What are you going to do? What part of your regulation. . . ?" I had a book that was about a foot and a half high, but that only had a little bit of the regulation. I said: "What parts of this regulation are you going to tug out and get rid of?" I don't have his exact words, but his response was: "Well, we're really not going to get rid of any regulation, member. What we're going to do is try to work around it a little bit smarter." What kind of bizarre b.s. is that? Then we see them coming in with more bills and more regulation.

You know, here we have a royal commission that went out and that was supposed to have a report completed by the end of September or the first part of October. But what we had was a government that went to them and said: "Look, we want part of it earlier so we can bring in some of the regulation in the 1998 session, because we don't want to bring it all in together." It's guaranteed that if these wizards across the way are here next year, we'll have another bill that's bigger and fatter than this one to finish out what the royal commission comes through with. It's unconscionable.

What are they doing? What's going on here? Why don't they pay attention to small business? You have the Premier out there talking about trying to encourage investment, trying to encourage business. Then on the other side, they try to bring this stuff in the House and sneak it through fairly quickly and see if they can't get a little more regulation in place, because this group of wizards over there doesn't work well without it. They think you need piles of it. The Forest Practices Code was well over 1,000 pages -- well over 1,000 lousy pages. By the minister's own admission, it cost that industry on average $300 million a year for needless regulation. What a damning report on these wizards from across the way. Can you imagine? You would have thought that this spring, when the Premier saw the light -- I guess on the road to Damascus -- about reducing red tape. . . . He came out and said strongly: "We're going to reduce tape; we're going to encourage investment in British Columbia." The first thing they did was bring in some more enabling legislation, and golly knows what's going to happen with the regulation that goes along with it.

You know, the member from across the way from one of the Prince George ridings was talking to me about occupational health and safety. That's in brackets. This is the "Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1998"; that's what it is. The other little part in there is to make it sound like something that it isn't.

Before my time expires, I've got to mention one part that really bothers me. This happens to be no fines for workers. It has to do with seatbelts. I very well remember having quite a few of both employers and employees coming into my office -- mostly employers -- about this issue of wearing seatbelts and how you fine the company if the employee doesn't wear the seatbelt. Can you imagine anything so stupid? Should we be fining GM if you don't wear your seatbelt?

Or actually, when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was speeding all the time. . . . I think he had ICBC removed from his portfolio. That's when he was in cabinet, before he got caught doing all those crazy things. He ended up on the back bench. But that aside, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. . . . Really, what we should have been doing with his speeding fines is applying them to government, because that was his employer. Can you imagine the. . . ? I can't even. . . .

An Hon. Member: Tell him to start taking taxis.

R. Neufeld: Exactly.

This commission went around, and they heard from probably hundreds of companies and individuals that this responsibility should lie with the worker. Guess what. The wizards. . . . The person that just spoke awhile ago -- I can't even remember his constituency, he so seldom stands -- was

[ Page 7554 ]

You know, if a worker goes to work. . . . You have safety meetings, and I know companies in my constituency that do that; they've been doing that since a long time ago. The worker goes out on his cat -- caterpillar tractor, for some that don't understand what that means -- and is clearing a line for a pipeline, clearing brush, and decides on his own to not wear the seatbelt, even though he's been told to wear the seatbelt. The WCB inspector comes along and spots the person not having the seatbelt on. They love those kinds of fines. Let me tell you, WCB loves those kinds of fines, because the guy just runs right up behind him with the ticket.

He's writing out the ticket to the company. And guess what: the ticket's not based on $100; it depends on the size of your payroll. So the bigger the company, the bigger the fine. You know, it might surprise some of you, but I've had companies come to me that have had a $15,000 fine because their employee didn't wear a darn seatbelt. And what do they do? Can they fire that person? Only if they have good cause and they've got a file that thick can they fire that person. Then who do you replace that person with?

You know, it's the most bizarre thing. Even the royal commission had enough information given to it to recommend to this bunch of wizards over here. . . .

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: They think it's funny. Have you ever tried to raise $15,000 -- any one of you?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, member.

R. Neufeld: Through the Chair, can you imagine these companies having to pay these kind of fines because their workers will not wear seatbelts? In most cases, there's no need for wearing a seatbelt. But $15,000 is pretty difficult to come up with. In fact, they can double after that. Can you imagine? The royal commission saw through that hokey-pokey.

But this group of wizards over here couldn't. But should I be surprised? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. All they can do is laugh about it -- sit over there, laugh about worker safety, point fingers and act in their sanctimonious way like they know best. I'm here to tell you that they don't know best.

I notice that my time is coming close to expiry. I thank the Speaker for the time given to me to put on the record some of the issues that I think are serious -- serious flaws with this type of legislation, brought in by this group over here who actually dislike business, who want to send more business to Alberta, who are actually being the best economic officers Ralph Klein has ever had. They want to keep that record, they want to keep at it, and they are doing it.

With this kind of legislation and the regulations attached to it, there will be more companies moving. There will be more jobs lost -- it's a sad day, isn't it? -- not because some worker's injured, but because of some stupidity from a government that doesn't quite understand and doesn't quite get it that when a royal commission recommends something, you should listen and apply it.

R. Thorpe: We're here today to talk about hoisting Bill 14 from this House. But I want to make it very clear that I and my colleagues know how important workers' safety is. We know how important it is to have safety in the workplace, because we have worked on the floors of businesses, have built businesses, have owned businesses, have turned businesses around. And we know that those things can only be achieved by employees and employers working together, with as little interference as possible from big, central bureaucratic government. We know that, and workers know that.

[4:30]

You know, on March 30 the Minister of Finance said in this House: "We want to make it easier to do business so that business can create jobs. We know that red tape and overregulation have increased business costs and made B.C. less competitive. We are determined to improve the way we work with business." Although the Minister of Finance's budget was judged by all to be a complete failure, some people did want to believe in the words. They wanted to believe that a new direction might be seen and followed. Maybe they had finally got it that big, central overregulated government was strangling and killing British Columbia. In fact, it was driving our unemployment rates up to double all of those in western Canada.

Of course, the biggest crime of all is the unemployment with respect to our youth -- 18.6 percent in British Columbia, the highest west of Quebec. Where were many of those youths traditionally getting their jobs? In small businesses. You do not have to be a graduate of the NASA school of business or the NASA school of anything to understand that it is small business that's going to build the future of our great province. But apparently we're going to have to wait for a change in government. You know. . . . I thought I heard a whimper over there, but I wasn't sure.

Bill 14 is about workers compensation. It's an amendment act to the Workers Compensation Act, yet the government members over there continue to ratchet up the rhetoric to pit workers and owners and employers against each other. That is wrong, and the members over there should be ashamed of themselves. Bill 14 is not about results; it's not about building a better tomorrow for British Columbians; it's not about reducing the unemployment roles in British Columbia; it's not about addressing the problems of youth unemployment. It's not about any of those things. It's about more red tape.

The Finance minister's speech of March 30 talks directly about red tape. It says, in point 5 in the document of March 30, "Cutting Red Tape": "We want to make it easier to do business so business can create jobs." Again: "We know that the number of regulations and how they are administered adds to costs and delays. . . In this session," the minister goes on to say, "legislation will be introduced to streamline filing. . . [and] eliminate duplication. . .to work on the unique issues faced by small businesses, a task force, made up of business and government representatives will [report back to this House] by June 30 on how to cut red tape, improve competitiveness and create jobs for British Columbians."

We now know those are idle words, more broken promises, or else government members would be standing up and

[ Page 7555 ]

So what happens? We have this government that believes that legislation and regulation and books and piles. . . . They measure their success by the depth of their regulation. But nowhere in the world, especially the free world. . . . Maybe in the not-so-free world it does work. I don't know that Russia or Cuba is that successful today, either. But we do know that legislation and regulation do not equal worker safety. They do not. Worker safety comes from people working together, from employees understanding employers, from employers understanding employees, and from people working together as a team and being responsible to each other. That's how you protect worker safety. That's how you build a very safe and sound workplace. That is what the successful businesses in British Columbia have done, both small and large.

But what do we get from this government, on April 15? We get more WCB regulations, two inches thick. Now we get Bill 14, with 57 pages and 200-plus sections and who knows how many more regulations to follow. As you know, hon. Speaker, our most important role as elected officials is to work with our constituents. That is why we are here. I am here to represent the people of Okanagan-Penticton. Let me just take a second and talk about what happens in my communities, whether it be Peachland or Naramata, Summerland or Penticton. I have not had one employee, since I was elected to this House, come to me and say: "We need more regulation; we need more safety committees; we need more red tape." Not one. But what have I had? Who has come to my office to talk about WCB? Employees who are hurt, who are not serviced properly, who continually meet delay. What this government should be doing is hoisting this bill and giving direction to WCB to get their organization in shape, to get it streamlined, to get it working, to get it working for the injured workers of British Columbia -- not adding more red tape and more regulation on top and strangling everyone in the process. That's what we need in British Columbia.

It's interesting. Why does this government go through the expense of a royal commission and then not listen? Oh, I remember. It was so the Premier could stand in this House and say: "It's before a royal commission." He had no intention of listening to this royal commission. Quite frankly, he listens to no one anyhow; it's the one-man band. Why is this NDP government ignoring its own royal commission -- a royal commission that has travelled throughout the province of British Columbia and talked to hundreds if not thousands of individuals, associations and employers to get their views? The provisions for ten to 19 employees are not recommended by the royal commission. It's just layers and layers of more red tape.

Yesterday one of my hon. colleagues, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, challenged the minister responsible to produce the research by experts that says that what this government is doing is correct. Unless I am not up to date, I do not believe that research has been delivered to us as yet. We are led to believe, in fact, that the research does not exist. What's going on? The experts are saying no; there's no research to support it; employees aren't asking for it. Why are we doing this? Whose idea is this? I wonder where this comes from. You know, this is a very serious issue. I don't want to get into attacking people, but I have to make an observation. I'm not so sure that the government of the day understands the complexities of business today, understands that it's a globally competitive marketplace we're in. I think they're locked into the factory mode, the smokestack mode, and it's time for them to wake up. They have to wake up for the workers. The unemployed workers of British Columbia deserve better than what they have over there.

Our future -- we've heard the Premier say it; we've heard the minister responsible say it; we've heard the Finance minister say it -- is small business and tourism. That's what they tell us. You know what? We know that to be the case. We're just glad that the government finally woke up to the fact that that is the case. The Minister of Small Business says that he is an advocate for small business and tourism in this House and at the cabinet table. That's what he says. That's what he's told the industry, and that's what he's told this House. I challenge that minister to come into this House and speak to Bill 14, to have the courage to stand up to his government and tell them that it's wrong for small business in British Columbia, that it's wrong for tourism in British Columbia today. I challenge that minister to have the courage to vote to hoist this bill.

No one is saying that parts shouldn't move forward. We're saying: "Let's step back, take a review, understand it, amend it, fix it." You don't just go in and buy a blue suit just because you want it. It has to be tailor-made sometimes, because some of us have things that have to be covered.

But we need this minister to come into this House and take a position on behalf of British Columbians -- of the small business and the tourism operators he said he was going to be an advocate for. We need that to happen in this House, or his words, too, are hollow and idle and are more potentially broken promises. I look forward to that minister visiting the House and talking about this bill.

The royal commission said that legislation belongs in the hands of the legislators. But what happens here? The WCB gets all of the power -- the power taken away from the elected representatives, taken away from the people of British Columbia. What is going on? It's more central power control and building of bureaucracies, the hallmark of this NDP government. It's big, central, socialistic government. It doesn't work.

This government has talked about the time for meaningful, open, public consultation. If this government is really, truly concerned about worker safety and workplace safety, and if it truly is concerned about small business and tourism, it will step back. Surely they've seen the errors of their ways, with the Forest Practices Code costing us billions of dollars and almost single-handedly destroying the economy of British Columbia. Surely they've heard about that; surely they've seen that.

This government is so bent on its central control and red-tape bureaucracy that it has lost touch with the families, the unemployed of British Columbia and the people whose businesses are vanishing. This legislation before us does not take into account seasonal businesses or part-time workers. It just adds more bureaucracy.

This government does not understand British Columbia. It does not understand small business in British Columbia, and it's not even prepared -- nor does it have the courage -- to step back. What shame can there be in stepping back to

[ Page 7556 ]

[4:45]

And what's going to happen? We're going to have less investment in British Columbia today and tomorrow. And when we have less investment today and tomorrow, we have fewer jobs today and tomorrow. When we don't have the jobs tomorrow, that means that our youth are going to face higher unemployment rates than they already face in British Columbia -- a staggering 18.6 percent. That is criminal in the province we live in.

Let me, if I could, just look at a few notes. As the official opposition critic for Small Business and Tourism, I've tried to familiarize myself with some of the background that goes on in the ministry. Recently, through a freedom-of-information request, I got some documentation with respect to the consultation with small business. I want to quote what the key message was, the government's key goal they wanted to achieve in consulting with small business. "The ministry will consult with small business to determine ongoing and future program and policy priorities." Then when we look further on in the documentation, the number one priority -- and there are six strategic directions listed -- is consultation with small business.

Well, let's see what small business throughout British Columbia is saying. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is saying, as they list a 19-point plan for jobs and economic renewal, that one of their key concerns is the Workers Compensation Board. What a surprise! Their number one priority is improved WCB service to small and medium-sized businesses. This bill does not address that. Yet this government says that consultation with small business is the number one priority. The facts do not support that.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking with the fastest-growing sector for creating jobs in British Columbia: the Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Their comments were that this is just going to make it tighter and tighter. What we're going to do is end up hiring less and less. Is that what we want in British Columbia today -- to hire less and less? It doesn't make sense.

What is the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. saying? They have identified labour issues as one of their five top priorities, and they are saying that with B.C.'s economic uncertainty, the wisdom of further changes is dubious at best. At the same time, some of the existing policies are unrealistic for the unique nature of the tourism workforce. But are these very legitimate concerns addressed in this amendment act to the Workers Compensation Act? The answer is simply no, they are not.

Let us see whom we have here. We have the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds and Resorts Association, another employer in small business. What do they say about the Workers Compensation Board? The WCB has just completed three years of revising the rules and regulations. There are now over 4,000 regulations, of which one-third are new. What do they say they have to do? "We need time to educate our members on their responsibilities."

We do not need at this time, hon. Speaker, more regulation in this bill. We need some time for these very responsible groups to review it, to work with it, to fix it and to make sure it works. Everyone is concerned about worker safety and safety in the workplace.

What does the British Columbia Hotels Association have to say? "This act is contrary to the provincial government's commitment to cut red tape and regulations and to foster a climate of business growth." Now, this is from a government that says its number one priority is to consult with and listen to small business. I don't think they're doing it.

You know, hon. Speaker, the government -- Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- recently conducted some public consultation in 11 communities around British Columbia. I believe that some of the members on the government side -- because, unfortunately, no members from the opposition side were invited to those -- recently held one in Campbell River. Apparently one of the issues for that meeting. . . . I'll just quote here: "A Royal Commission on Workers Compensation report recommends health and safety committees be established in all workplaces and that occupational health and safety provisions should be applied to businesses, including home-based." I received this under freedom of information because I wanted to know what was going on. We weren't invited. But do you know what I got back? The response I got back had been severed off. What are people telling this government that they don't want to share? There's got to be something here that they're hiding.

I'm going to conclude here shortly. People throughout British Columbia want worker safety. They want safe workplaces. But they have no confidence in this government, through red tape and regulation, being able to make that happen. They have less confidence in WCB being able to make that happen. People have real-life experiences with WCB, and in the ones I hear about, it ain't working that good. So why don't we pause, step back, fix it and then move forward if need be?

This bill takes away individual responsibility. In fact, we need individual responsibility, and we need individual accountability. I know that was one of the first and greatest lessons that my mother and father taught me: having personal accountability, taking personal responsibility for my actions. That is one of the things my wife and I have tried to pass along to our children. In our society today, with big government -- centrally controlled, socialistic, the state will look after you -- they've taken people's responsibilities away. They're trying to get people to stop thinking so that their propaganda can work. We have to have individual accountability; we have to have individual responsibility.

I would hope, when two or three of the government members find the courage to vote for this amendment, that during the six-month review period, which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has put forward, we will be able to work with government members, with WCB and with the experts so that we can get some of that individual responsibility and accountability in there. I know from working in both large businesses throughout Canada and in small business within the Okanagan that responsible owners and managers and employees know that they have to work together. It's about teamwork; it's about respecting each other; it's about looking after each other. I guarantee you, hon. Speaker, that

[ Page 7557 ]

C. Clark: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Clark: Joining us in the gallery today is a very good friend and an excellent supporter of mine in my constituency. He is very active in Port Coquitlam and is always a great contributor to his community in every way he can be. His name is Mr. Sperill Chambers, and we're very pleased to have him with us today. I hope the House will make him very, very welcome.

R. Coleman: On budget day the Finance minister admitted to British Columbians that red tape and overregulation have increased business costs and made B.C. less competitive. Yet the NDP government still continues to add to the problem. It's sadly ironic that the minister appointed a small business task force on April 27 to find ways to reduce red tape, but that the next day the NDP tabled more rules and regulations in the form of Bill 14. This is on top of hundreds of pages of new regulations that the Workers Compensation Board put into force on April 15. No wonder B.C.'s unemployment rate is the highest west of Quebec.

Yesterday we put forward a motion to hoist Bill 14, the Workers Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, for six months. This would allow workers and employers who will be affected to have more input and would permit more detailed analysis of Bill 14's impact.

Let's take a look at Bill 14. Let's talk about what's in it, and let's have a little discussion with regard to what we're facing right now. Within the bill, there's one descriptive platitude or one descriptive section that I think anybody in this House would probably agree with. That's section 107(2)(g): ". . .to minimize the social and economic costs of work-related accidents, injuries and illnesses, in order to enhance the quality of life for British Columbians and the competitiveness of British Columbia in the Canadian and world economies." Although we can agree with that statement, we have to question whether this government is taking the proper actions to reduce or eliminate workplace injuries and diseases.

[5:00]

There is no provision for worker penalties in this bill, but huge ones for employers. The bill follows the royal commission's recommendations on some points, but the bill does not include the recommendation for financial penalties on workers who knowingly break health and safety regulations. Workers who have been properly trained and supervised should then be responsible for their actions. The careless actions of workers can injure not only themselves but other workers as well.

The government also seems to be misinformed, to say the least, about what is happening in some other jurisdictions. The Premier, on CKNW radio, stated that no other jurisdiction in Canada fines workers. This is not correct. Both Ontario and Manitoba issue fines to workers as well as employers -- generally in the range of $100 to $300. It is also worth noting that the B.C. Federation of Labour issued a news release on February 11, 1998, which stated that no other province in Canada has a system for worker penalties. Sometimes one would love to work in an environment with less rhetoric and misinformation and ask those who are pushing issues towards us to do their homework.

The bill ignores the government's own royal commission. The bill expands the requirement for a joint health and safety committee from high- and medium-hazard industries to all industries with 20 or more workers. The royal commission, in its interim report, recommended that the entire issue of joint health and safety committees be examined prior to making any change to the numbers. The government has chosen to place a burden on small business and low-hazard environments, with no evidence -- at least, none presented to this House -- to support this action.

There are also some impractical requirements within this bill -- an impractical requirement to post orders, for example. The bill requires employers to post at the worksite all orders written by the WCB for the previous 12 months. This is impractical and, I would suspect, somewhat confusing. The orders that are posted should be current orders which have relevance to workers. Putting all the orders up on the worksite will undercut the importance of any current orders and the necessary action to correct situations.

It creates more bureaucracy for small business. The bill requires all businesses with more than nine workers to have a health and safety representative and to train that person for eight hours in health and safety matters. The royal commission recommended that this issue be examined; but once again the government is acting without examining, thinking, researching or coming up with the facts. There is no evidence to suggest that adding a health and safety representative will make the workplace safer or healthier. What it will do, though, is add one more cost and more paperwork to small business.

Those costly work refusals paid for by employers is another aspect of this bill that will cause concern to small business within our communities. The bill requires the employer to pay the wages for all workers affected by a refusal to do work that is alleged to be dangerous. Payment must be made for the balance of the shift or until the issue is resolved, whichever comes first. That sounds fine. But this can be abused for labour relations issues as well. While the employer is allowed to discipline the worker if the worker does not have reasonable grounds for believing that the work is unsafe, this does not address the cost to the employer for all other workers who have to be paid under this bill when such an incident takes place. What's even more frustrating to small business is that while this is going on, the worker who has the problem has to be given some reasonable alternative work. In a business of ten to 20 people, oftentimes everybody is doing the same work. There is no reasonable alternative work -- so what are you going to do with that employee? What are you supposed to do in the interim while this is taking place?

There's an unreasonably long period to appeal discriminatory action. The bill allows the worker who feels that a

[ Page 7558 ]

There's duplication in this bill -- duplication of regulation, if you can imagine. When we're trying to reduce regulation for small business -- and, going back to the comments of the Minister of Finance, trying to get it done -- this bill creates duplication. In a number of incidents, the bill duplicates requirements which already exist or have the force of law. This is confusing to workers and employers.

An example is the reporting requirement. This is an excerpt from the bill -- section 172(1):

"An employer must immediately notify the board of the occurrence of any accident that (a) resulted in serious injury to or the death of a worker, (b) involved a major structural failure or collapse of a building, bridge, tower, crane, hoist, temporary construction support system or excavation, (c) involved the major release of a hazardous substance, or (d) was an incident required by regulation to be reported."

Clarity is needed for the WCB's entry powers to private residences. This bill has a little clause in it that I find rather intriguing. Home businesses are targeted for special treatment in this bill. It is not clear whether or not the powers of entry given to the WCB inspector go beyond those of the RCMP. Are home businesses to be treated less favourably than criminal activity in this country? It is not clear that the consent of the occupier is required before entry can be made or if the other conditions would permit entry, even if the occupier did not consent. At a minimum the bill needs to be amended to add "and" after each qualifier.

Employers are treated less favourably than suspected criminals in this bill. The bill allows a WCB inspector rights to seizure without a warrant that are not permitted to police officers by the Supreme Court of Canada. The bill sets up two standards of justice: one for employers in British Columbia and one for the rest of Canada.

The bill further restricts employers' time and opportunity for appeal. Under the existing new revised WCB policy, the employer has 90 days in which to appeal an occupational health and safety order to a prevention division regional manager. The employer has a further right of appeal, within an additional 60 days, to the director of the prevention division. There is then an additional right of appeal to the vice-president of the prevention division within an additional 60 days.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

It is in place, in these rights, that the new legislation allows only 60 days to appeal to a reviewing officer appointed by the WCB. This is an unreasonably short period of time to gather information and prepare a defence. As well, the new legislation provides only two levels of appeal, with no further recourse. There is one additional appeal possible -- to an appeal tribunal, within 30 days.

The punitive action approach ignores logic. The new legislation creates an offence for an officer, director or agent of a corporation who authorizes, permits or acquiesces to the commission of an offence. What a mouthful. This section allows the WCB to pursue a penalty against a person, whether or not the corporation is prosecuted in the offence. This does not seem to be a logical process to me.

As I said, there are severe penalties to employers but none to employees. This legislation provides for a penalty of up to $500,000 for a first offence and an ongoing fine of up to $25 for each day the offence continues and up to six months imprisonment, or both. For a second offence there is a penalty of up to $1 million, an ongoing fine of $50,000 for each day the offence continues and a prison term of up to 12 months, or both.

We're talking about small businesses here. We're talking about an arbitrary system that allows for search and seizure of documents. We're talking about the ability to go in without a search warrant -- which even the RCMP can't do -- just because you happen to want to employ people in this province.

This legislation clearly singles out employers. It sends a clear message to employers from this government: they are the enemy. That's what this legislation tells me and tells the employers of British Columbia.

This legislation further demonstrates its bias against employers by stipulating additional penalties which can be imposed -- all contained in section 219, which we will deal with in debate.

The legislation gives cabinet wide-ranging powers to add responsibilities to employers without any reference to outside prior consultation. At the whim of cabinet we can throw a bunch more things at small business in this province -- without consultation, without discussion, without caring how it might affect businesses and whether they will be able to survive.

It gives sweeping powers to the Minister of Labour. The legislation allows the minister to make recommendations for changes to regulations directly to the WCB. Where the WCB does not follow the recommendations, the minister has the power, through cabinet, to impose those changes. What's the point of having the WCB? Why doesn't the Minister of Labour just run this all by himself and close it down if he's not going to listen to what they say when he tries to impose a regulation on them?

The WCB is not required to hold hearings for regulation changes. The WCB is required to review the new legislation and change its regulation when there is any conflict. The WCB is not required to hold any public hearings before those

[ Page 7559 ]

I sat in this House yesterday and listened to the bombastic attack and statements of rhetoric by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and I can't stand in this House today without making some retort. Let me say this: it's fine for somebody to stand up in this House and make a statement if it's based on true caring and true knowledge of what they're talking about, but when somebody stands up in this House and criticizes the official opposition because they've had five days to read 57 pages of legislation. . . . He stands up in this House -- when he was once the Minister of Labour, and he's been in government for seven years -- and tries to lecture my party on whether it's standing up for workers' rights. If this were so important, why didn't he do it seven years ago? Why did he just do it now? Why is it just being done now? Don't be self-righteous when it takes you seven years to bring in a piece of legislation. Don't be self-righteous when you interfere with quasi-judicial bodies. Don't be self-righteous when you've taken money from children and young people and charities in the province of British Columbia. Don't be self-righteous with me. Don't even talk to me like that.

The Speaker: Hon. member, take it easy.

R. Coleman: Don't for one minute try and put 72 lives on the opposition with some cheap shot in this Legislative Assembly, when you know darned well that you don't have the facts and figures to determine whether this legislation saves lives or not.

C. Clark: I too want to quote the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who spoke on this bill yesterday. Here's what he said. I want to put it on the record again. When he was speaking against this hoist motion, he said: "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 its camouflage and shows very clearly who it is that they stand for in this province. Here they are in this Legislature. . . [representing] the narrowest of business interests in the course of this debate. . . ." And who was that "narrowest of business interests" that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is talking about? It's small and medium-sized business. That's who he's talking about.

Who is he to define small and medium-sized business in British Columbia as the narrowest of interests? Who is he to do that? A former Minister of Labour, no less, he should know what small and medium-sized business contribute to this province. He should know that they are the driving force behind our economy. He should know that this is the area of the workforce that is most likely to employ young people in a province with a government that has allowed youth unemployment to get to 18 percent -- the highest rate of youth employment west of Quebec. That is an absolute disgrace from a government that says it cares about youth and from a Premier who says that he's the Minister Responsible for Youth. Well, we have a Premier that's responsible for youth all right. He's responsible for youth unemployment. He's responsible for the sense of hopelessness that youth feel when they're finishing their university degrees, because they can't get jobs. He's the minister responsible for the fact that young people don't get jobs in the summer anymore to be able to pay for their tuition. That's what this Premier is responsible for.

[5:15]

You know what? If the B.C. Liberals didn't sit in this House, and if this House were made up of all New Democrats. . . . Goodness knows, maybe that's what the government would like. Maybe next time they can get 100 percent of the seats with 39 percent of the votes. But if the B.C. Liberals weren't in this Legislature to represent small and medium-sized business, nobody would. Every single member on that side of the House would sit silently by and let small business in British Columbia be taxed to death. They would let small business in British Columbia be strangled by regulation. They would let small business be forced into a situation where they have to decide to pull up stakes and move their families to another province, because that's the only place where there's an economic climate where they can survive. If the B.C. Liberals were not in this House, those people would go completely unrepresented.

The reason I'm speaking on this bill today is because you bet I'm prepared to stand up for those people. I am prepared to stand up for those people who run those small businesses in my community and in every single community in British Columbia, and who employ people. They employ young people disproportionately; they employ women.

Did anybody on the government side realize that women are disproportionately successful in small business, that it's a real growth area for women? Small businesses provide an opportunity for women to succeed that isn't normally there in other areas of the economy. Did anybody on the government side -- all those great social democrats -- realize that? Did they realize that young people and women and all those people that they have put out of work in British Columbia -- all those people who don't have jobs in the forest, mining and agriculture industries anymore because of this government's policies -- are the ones who go out and start up small businesses? Did they realize that by shutting down these avenues for small businesses, those are the workers that they are hurting?

It's the workers that they've already hurt once by putting them out of work. It's the workers who have already paid the price for this government's skewed priorities, inept governance and total lack of caring about the people who are expected to work in British Columbia; who've grown up here; who deserve to have a job -- the people that this very government depends on to pay the highest taxes in North America, the people that this government expects to get money from so that they can pay for their fast ferry programs, so that they can pay to bail out the member for North Coast when he's got to save his job.

Those are the people that pay the bills of this government, and those are the people that won't be paying anybody's bills. They won't be paying their own bills, and they won't be paying the bills for this government or for the member for North Coast. If they're out of work, then this government is going to be out of work. You know what? I'll tell you this: because they've put so many people out of work,

[ Page 7560 ]

But the economy will not thrive as long as this government keeps up its chokehold on small business. Small business is the chief driver of our economy. It is the height of cynicism for this government to say on the one hand that small and medium-sized businesses are the fundamental part of our economy, they're the part of the economy we should be supporting. . . . I heard the Minister of Small Business say in the House that we should always remember that 96 percent of the jobs are created by small business, that 99 percent of the businesses in this province are small businesses, and that they create jobs. Take the advice of your own minister. If you won't take it from me, take it from the Minister of Small Business. Presumably he knows what he's talking about. He's sure getting a nice, big, fat cabinet minister's paycheque to take home; he should know what he's talking about. If you won't take my advice, take his advice; listen to him. He said you should always remember that 96 percent of the jobs are created by small business and that small businesses create jobs.

Well, I agree with him; I agree. I'm prepared to stand up in this House and speak in favour of putting this legislation aside for six months because I believe in supporting small business; I believe what the minister said. I believe that if we don't support small business, none of us will have a future in British Columbia. It's not just about who governs or who fails to govern or who ineptly governs. It's about all of us and about our families' futures, and about the fact that we would all like to be able to remain in British Columbia and have our children stay in British Columbia because they can work here -- that's my vision for this province. I want to live in a province where there is some hope for the future, where people can be proud of the place that they live, where people can trust the government that they've elected to do what they say they're going to do. When the Small Business minister makes statements like this, and when he puts out press releases that say that he's going to consult with small business to cut red tape, there may be people who believe him. When he said that, I applauded. I said: "Great. Maybe the government gets it; maybe they want to cut red tape."

I know that this government is interested in press releases; I know that this government is interested in getting their pictures taken. Remember when the Premier went down to Hollywood and got his picture taken with Mickey Mouse? I'm surprised he didn't get it taken with Pinocchio; maybe people would have noticed the family resemblance. Nonetheless, we know that this government loves to operate by press release; that's how they govern. But on the other hand, when it comes to actually doing something, what we see is a government that does the exact opposite of what it says it cares about. It brings in a 60-page piece of legislation that's going to mean more red tape and more regulation for small business, and that's disgraceful. It's disgraceful to see a government on the other side of the House that will say one thing and do another, every time.

I want to give you some statistics, if I can, hon. Speaker, about small business in British Columbia. I don't think, despite the words of the Minister of Small Business, that this government cares. I think it's true that this government really believes what the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said, which is that small and medium-sized businesses actually represent the narrowest of interests in British Columbia. I think that's where this government stands on these issues. Small businesses: two-thirds of the small firms in British Columbia have hired in the 15-to-24 age group. They are responsible for the bulk of job creation. Most of them in British Columbia pay well over $15 an hour. They have a payroll of $10 billion a year, and it's the fastest-growing area of the economy. And you know, after this government has killed the forest industry, after this government has killed the resource industry, they're now going after small business. Now they have the gall to go after small business and refer to them as the narrowest of interests.

Well, I'll tell you who small business is, in case nobody on that side of the House has ever seen them. It's Marty, who runs the coffee shop at the corner near my office -- that's a small business. He employs his daughter there. He'd employ a heck of a lot more people. . . . But you know what? He's got to work extra hours because he can't afford to hire more people. And you know why he can't afford to hire more people? It's easy; it's obvious. It's because this government is taxing him to death and regulating him to death. When it's almost impossible for him to even get a liquor licence, when he's harassed for putting an ad sign out on the street, when his tax burden and his regulatory burden are so high that he has to spend a third of his time in the office fulfilling the government's requests for paperwork, that means that he has a lot less time to go out there and actually produce economic benefit in British Columbia; that's what it means.

That's what the government needs to understand: there is a relationship between the regulatory burden that this government puts into place and the ability of small and medium-sized business to create jobs. There is also a relationship -- and I'm going to draw it really clearly here -- between the ability of small and medium-sized business to create jobs and the unemployment rate in British Columbia; there is a direct relationship. As we see the unemployment rate rise in British Columbia, we also know that what this government is doing to small business -- strangling them, choking them on regulation -- is not working. It is time for this government to take its own commitments and its own press releases seriously and to actually go out and consult with small business.

You know, I went to the library. It's a great source of ideas for us. I mean, it's certainly a great way to find out what the government said in the past, and I found something from 1993. Here's a government that, through their Minister of Small Business at the time, said:

"In the past, the business community has often been informed of regulation changes only after they have been implemented. Because the business community is directly affected by these changes, it should be given early notice of these changes in regulations and have an opportunity to respond before any decisions are finalized. It is important for cabinet and cabinet committees to formally consider the impacts of significant proposed regulations and policies on small business."

You can look back to 1993, and I'm sure you can find these empty words from the government in thousands of

[ Page 7561 ]

[5:30]

On the other hand, though, I suppose that this might be a government that doesn't listen. This might be a government that doesn't care, a government that isn't interested in representing the interests of small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia. That's the only other conclusion that can be drawn. And I'll tell you, after having spoken to small business people about this bill, they don't remember being consulted. They don't remember anyone in this government ever going to ask them about whether they thought this new regulation would help. If they had, they would have said no.

I am proud to sit on this side of the House and say this. Do I support small and medium-sized business? You bet I do. Do I care what they think? You bet I do. Do I understand the challenges that are facing small businesses in British Columbia? You bet I do. Do I understand the relationship between the small and medium-sized business community and job creation? You bet I do. Do I understand how important small business is to employing youth and to employing women? You bet I do.

And am I proud to stand up on this side of the House and represent those interests? You bet I am. And if I and my colleagues don't stand up in this House to represent those small and medium-sized businesses, I'll tell you, it won't happen. At the end of the day, despite all the government's fancy press releases, all their promises and all their empty, vapid words, it turns out that this government isn't prepared to represent small business. It doesn't understand small business and doesn't even care to consult them. That's what we found out as a result of this legislation.

I will conclude by saying that I hope that the members on the other side of the House will reconsider their decision. This hoist motion is before us so that we can give the government the opportunity to do the right thing: go and find out what small business wants in British Columbia. That's what we're giving them the opportunity to do. We aren't standing here and saying -- yet -- that we want to kill the legislation. We're saying: "If you think it's so good, if you think this legislation is something that small business will find palatable, go out and ask them." We're giving you the chance. That's why we're standing up today; that's why we're moving this hoist motion. That is why I am proud to support this hoist motion. I am proud to stand up and represent those small business people in my community who otherwise would go completely unrepresented by the members on the other side of the House.

G. Campbell: When I first came and stood here and thought of the obligations that all of us share in this House, I looked at the House as a place where we might be able to solve people's problems, where we actually might be able to come together, build on one another's experiences and say: "This will make life in British Columbia better; this will make life for the people that live in this province better." I believe that we all have an obligation to look clearly at legislation that's brought before us, including this legislation to amend the Workers Compensation Act, and ask ourselves: will it make life in British Columbia better? Will it even make it safer, as the minister suggested when he introduced this bill? Well, having looked at the bill, I see literally nothing that will make the workplace safer or that will make employment safer for the people of British Columbia. But I am willing to be convinced that indeed this is the way to go for us to provide for safer, more secure workplaces for the people that live and work in British Columbia.

Let's ask ourselves how we do that. I look across to the other side of the House -- and we've done this before -- but I don't see anyone that has had the experience of running a business or that even begins to understand the burdens that this government has imposed on people across the province or the burdens that they have loaded up the small business owner, the small business operator, with. I see no one on that side of the House that even cares about those burdens. One of the problems that I think the people of the province are beginning to have with this government is that they're recognizing that they're willing to learn nothing.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, it was some time ago now -- 1993 -- that the government started its propaganda campaign on small business. But it's sort of reminiscent of the campaign that said they balanced the budget. You know, the problem is that people don't trust this government for a minute.

Listen to this quote. This is from the government's own report. There's a fancy picture of the former Premier, here, smiling stupidly at the camera -- and it is a stupid smile. It's a stupid smile, because he doesn't mean a darned thing that's said in this thing. People are tired of a government that misleads them and abuses them and abuses their families and abuses their lives, and that's what this legislation is really about. It's not about helping people. It's not about providing a safe workplace. Listen to this: "The Ministry of Small Business is leading an initiative called the governmentwide team on small business issues." That's an encouraging thought: a governmentwide team made up of people who will not talk to anybody in small business, who don't care about anybody in small business, who couldn't care less about the regulatory burdens and the taxation burdens that they're putting on small business and who unfortunately don't care that they're driving thousands of jobs out of the province of British Columbia because they're killing small business in this province. They're going to have a governmentwide team.

This team has been working. Everyone will be glad to know that the team has been hard at work. They were working tirelessly from 1993 to 1995. They finally figured out, this team, that they're supposed to raise awareness on small business concerns. So after five years of work, the former Minister of Small Business comes forward and says: "I've figured it out; I've got it. Small business is suffering from overtaxation and increased red tape." Imagine the work that has to be put together to come to that conclusion, when every single person you talk to in British Columbia, from the Harvey's store owner on the corner to the small café owner and the person who's trying to put together a small high-tech company, will tell you that in their small business, regulation is costing them too much. Regulation is making them make a decision that says: "I'm not going to hire anybody else."

[ Page 7562 ]

I happen to know that small business owners and operators care about their employees, the most valuable asset they have. They will bend over backwards to make sure that those employees are working in a safe, secure workplace. I will guarantee you that this happens, because people know that when you train and can count on a worker, they are there for you and for the business. The worker and the business owner are working together. That's something, again, that I think this government doesn't understand. We have to have a flexible regime that allows employees and employers to work together, to succeed together. They will do that if we give them a chance.

This bill is going to require. . . . I'll tell you the first thing this bill is going to do. A small business is ready to grow. They have five or six employees, they're ready to go, and they might want to grow to 12. They say: "Just a minute. Do we want to grow to 12 employees? Oh, we've got to do all this committee stuff. We've got to start giving people time off to work this thing through -- things we've done all the time as a matter of course." Why won't the government talk to these people? Why won't the minister go out and actually talk to small business owners and find out how this might work in their lives? Why won't he talk to employers across the province and ask why and how this might work? I'll tell you why: he doesn't want the answer.

That's the problem with this government. They are so ignorant and so frightened of the fact, that they won't even consult. And worse, if they do manage to consult for one small period of time, they ignore what they hear because it doesn't fit the ideology -- does it, folks? It doesn't fit the committee system. "Let's have more committees. If we just had more committees in this world, it would be a much better place. With more committees, there would be no actions. We all know that. You'd have to refer it to a committee before you could have that." That's nonsense.

What you have to do is make sure that your workers know what's going on, that your employers know what's going on and, equally importantly, that the government knows what's going on and actually understands what's taking place here. They may, in fact, be making things worse for workers. They may be making things less safe. We've seen that before, when regulations are thrown on the table by the government because they know best. "There's no sense in talking to anyone who is actually hiring somebody or who has a safe workplace. Let's just load up the costs. Let's just see if we can make it so onerous to be a business in British Columbia that they won't hire anybody."

Well, that 's a disgraceful attitude, and it is the attitude of this minister and this government. This minister stood up yesterday and talked about how he was worried about the safety of workers. He is so worried about them that he won't even talk to the people he worked with. He won't even talk to the people they work for. That's a huge mistake. Small business tells us consistently that they have not been consulted by this government, by this minister, and that this government and this minister do not know what they are talking about.

It reminds me of the Forest Practices Code. I remember that the government came in and said: "It's all going to be fine. No problems. It won't cost any jobs at all." What it has cost so far is $1 billion in the industry for no benefit to anybody. I'll guarantee that when you add $1 billion in costs, the first people that suffer are the workers in the industry. They're the first to be laid off. That's what this government did.

As I said earlier, we are perfectly willing to work with the government to find ways that we can make the workplace safer. But we believe that we have to include all British Columbians in these discussions. And we believe that when we do that, it's important that we learn.

More importantly, it's important that the government learn, because the fact is that we've put the cart before the horse again. Once again, before we even have a final report out, the government is jumping the gun. They're trying to get something in there before they know what its impacts will be; they're trying to get something in before they even understand what its impacts will be. I will guarantee you that this will add costs, this will cost jobs, and this will not provide for a safer, more secure workplace. There is not one thing in the Workers Compensation Amendment Act that will provide for a safer, more secure workplace for any single worker in British Columbia. That's certainly how we read it today.

But we are willing to learn. What we are suggesting and what has been moved by the opposition is that we hoist this legislation to give people a chance to have a full chance to have their input -- a full opportunity. We're talking about having an impact on the workplace. The impact so far is 152 separate clauses, I think the number is. No, sorry -- it's 200 and something, 226, 230. It's going up. Here we go -- 230 separate clauses and 57 pages.

Why not let the small business community, the business community in the province, the people, even the individual workers, maybe the non-union workers, have a look at this? Why not say to people: "Have a look; see how you think this will work. Is there any way we can improve this, because we are committed to safety"? If you go to the people who are on the front lines and ask them how things will work better, they almost always will tell you how they'll work better. They'll almost always tell you where you're making a big mistake -- before the mistake is made.

[5:45]

It's been mentioned already today that one of the members from the opposite side. . . . Where is that member from? You know, he stands over there.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin; thank you very much. The forgettable member -- right? I wasn't sure they'd know who it was if I said former minister.

He claims that the opposition is snivelling away to the narrowest business interest in the course of this debate. I think the fact of the matter is that it is the small business community in this province that provides jobs. We know that; the government should know that. It is the small business community in this province that will provide the economic engine to create a

[ Page 7563 ]

I think all that workers would ask. . . . I would like to just highlight this for the government. This is not just about business owners; it is about workers. There are many workers in small businesses who would say: "What on earth is this all about? Why didn't they take time to find out what they were doing before they did it?" Those workers will come forward, and they will help the government come forward with improvements to the Workers Compensation Act, improvements to the way their workplace works, so that they are safer, more secure. Those workers are willing to take responsibility, to help lead, to contribute to making this legislation work.

But they need the time to do it. Most workers today in British Columbia are working an awful lot harder and are not getting any further ahead. When they go to their employer and say, "I'd like an increase in my wages," the employer says: "Well, sorry. We can't quite afford that. The government has just loaded on a whole bunch of additional costs." The worker will sit there and say: "Hmm, what's my choice -- more money to the government or more money in my pocket?" The worker would pick his or her pocket every time. They know that under this government their take-home pay has gone down six of the last seven years -- certainly because of taxes, but also because of masses and masses of red tape and regulation that make no sense.

I would ask the government to support this hoist motion. Put aside your politics. Support the hoist motion so that people do have an opportunity to do things; so people don't have to close down their businesses, as the hon. member opposite did; so people can in fact maintain the employment of young people in this province, of older people and of people who are supporting their families in this province; so people do have a sense of hope. The hope would be that maybe, just maybe, this government has opened the door to learning and is willing to listen and learn when people tell it that what it's doing doesn't make any sense and tell them that what they're doing will drive jobs out of the province.

Most people in this province would like to go back to a province where they had hope and opportunity again, where they knew they had job security, where they knew their children could find work. What we know from this legislation is that today. . . . Having talked to many, many people in the small business community in all parts of the province, from the Kootenays to the Peace to the northwest. . . . When you talk to those people, they will tell you that this is exactly the kind of bureaucratic, regulatory overload that will accomplish nothing and cost a lot, which they're tired of.

This is an opportunity for the government to grasp the goodwill of the people in this province by bringing them into the process as opposed to excluding them from the process. As they bring them into the process, they may find answers that will help us secure healthier, more secure, safer workplaces for everybody. I encourage this government to stop the pressure for a moment, to stand back, to give it six months, to legitimately go out and talk to small business owners, to legitimately go out and talk to the people who work in these small businesses across the province. Ask them how things would work. Get away from the idea that only big institutional players know what's happening. Get down on the shop floors; get down on the office floors; get into the retail spaces. Talk to those people and see how this will work. Come back with ideas that are fresh, that are new and that will provide for the kind of safe, healthy and secure workplace that we all want for the workers of British Columbia. I urge the government to do that. I urge them to support this motion to hoist this legislation for six months, so we can come back and have the kind of legislation that will work for everybody in the province.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 27
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Plant	Abbott
Neufeld	Chong	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Weisbeck
Nebbeling	Hogg	Hawkins
Coleman	Stephens	Hansen
Thorpe	Symons	van Dongen
Barisoff	Dalton	Masi
Krueger	McKinnon	J. Wilson

NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Hartley
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	Janssen

Hon. J. MacPhail: Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

[ Page 7564 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

A. Sanders: Just some housekeeping duties to start the afternoon with. Yesterday I asked the minister who the deputy minister and government bargaining team had direct liaison with in the Premier's Office. At that time the minister wasn't sure who that liaison was, but he said he would get the name for me. Today I would be grateful for the name of that individual.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's not my recollection of what I committed to. Frankly I said that I briefed the Premier on the negotiations at times. At times we were both briefed by senior staff who were at the table, and I identified those staff. I'm unaware of any other liaison person in the Premier's Office, and I suggest that the members ask the Premier.

A. Sanders: I'll have to go back through the Hansard. I know that I did ask the minister who he dealt with directly in the Premier's Office. Was it the Premier or was it a liaison person from the bargaining team? He did say -- and I'm sure the notes will prove it -- that he would get the name for me today. I'll just ask the question again.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me run through it once more. There are three people on the government bargaining team: my deputy, Mr. Avison; Mr. Russ Pratt, who works for the Public Sector Employers Council and reports to the Minister of Finance; and Mr. Tony Penikett, who reports directly to the Premier. That's the team. At times they reported to me, and at times they reported jointly to me and the Premier. At times I briefed the Premier on the progress at the table.

A. Sanders: Actually, yesterday the minister told me there were two members of the bargaining committee. There was Mr. Pratt and Mr. Avison. Mr. Penikett was not named. I did review the Blues on that. So I appreciate it if it was Mr. Penikett who was in fact the liaison to the Premier's Office.

Now that we know it was Mr. Penikett who was that liaison, after the agreement was reached -- after the bargaining team reported that they were unable to get an agreement with the BCTF, and they came back to Victoria and then were sent back to strike a deal with the BCTF -- who in the Premier's Office instructed those bargaining members from government, the three gentlemen, to do so?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member persists in trying to create a series of events which are contrary to what was said. Yesterday I very clearly indicated at least twice that Mr. Penikett was part of the bargaining team that met with the BCTF. I welcome any review of Hansard, because it will demonstrate that.

These were difficult negotiations; they were back and forth. At times it was not clear that an agreement would be reached. At times one member of the team would seek further meetings, and at times another. The series of events that the member is trying to construct is simply. . . . Well, she's been trying to construct it, but I'm not sure it has a great deal to do with the agreement we have presented both to the teachers and trustees of British Columbia.

A. Sanders: Who was it in the Premier's Office. . . ? Or was it the minister himself that was able to release the $150 million to be put on the table at the last hour? Was that the job of the minister? Does he have the authority to do that? Or was that from the Premier's Office?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was a decision of cabinet.

A. Sanders: Then is it my understanding that when the bargaining team went back the second time to negotiate with the BCTF, there was a cabinet meeting that did release $150 million for that bargain to be struck?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Once again, the train of events that the member is adducing is simply not accurate.

A. Sanders: Then I would ask the minister to provide me with the train of events that is accurate; I'd be most appreciative.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Cabinet authorized the amount early in 1998. The bargaining team knew what their mandate was.

A. Sanders: When in 1998 was the $150 million authorized?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have that information today, hon. member.

A. Sanders: What about a ballpark, like January, February -- you know, something nice and round, 30 days either side?

Hon. P. Ramsey: An excellent ballpark.

A. Sanders: I'd be willing to take a break for the minister to get me that information if that were necessary. I'm sure that it's available somewhere.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Prior to having government involvement in negotiations, the negotiators had their mandate.

A. Sanders: But up to February 15 the BCPSEA did not have any money on the table; they were in a revenue-neutral circumstance. After that, $150 million was procured, presumably from cabinet or the Premier's Office or Treasury Board, for the minister to go and direct his bargaining team to have new money on the table. This is not meant to be a disparaging question. I'm looking for when the money was on the table, and if in fact it was on in January, why did BCPSEA not know that they had $150 million to bargain with? Why were they bargaining in a revenue-neutral circumstance, then asking government to come in and intervene on February 15, if they had all that money on the table?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize the member's interest in this line of inquiry. I do not share it.

A. Sanders: Well, it's relatively irrelevant to me whether the minister shares my line of questioning or not. This is the purpose of estimates: not only to look at the process by which we've arrived at agreements, but then to build upon those agreements a fabric, a framework for people to understand how the agreement has been procured, and to ascertain that we as legislators have done everything in our power to ensure that everything is done appropriately and within the law. And finally, to bring out, to fan out and recognize prior to ratifica-

[ Page 7565 ]

I'm really shocked that the minister considers this line of questioning so. . . . He takes it so secretively and with the misunderstanding that there's anything more here than: "When did the $150 million come on the table, who authorized it to be there, and when was it available for the group to bargain with?" And if it was early that cabinet authorized it, why for heaven's sake did cabinet not tell the two groups -- the B.C. teachers and the employers -- that they had $150 million to play with? They would have come to an agreement of some substance if they had known there was extra money there for them to deal with.

[2:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll try it one more time here. The team that went to the table knew that government was interested in investing in K-to-12 education and in making a major difference in the K-to-3 area. They had a monetary mandate before they went to the table. Government was interested in doing that sort of investment. We were able to accomplish that through this agreement-in-committee with the BCTF. There are no secrets here.

At the same time, in late '97 and early '98, the Premier of the province was making it quite clear in his public statements that he was quite interested in doing something about class size, particularly in the early years. This was the mandate that our negotiators had. They had a monetary mandate and some goals to achieve at that table. I'm very pleased that they were able to achieve an agreement-in-committee that will enable us to reduce class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 around the province. It will enable us to ensure that children in our schools have access to the same out-of-class resources regardless of where they live in British Columbia.

As far as what might or could or possibly would have transpired had another bargaining route been chosen, we do not know, nor will we ever.

A. Sanders: Was the minister at the cabinet meeting that authorized the $150 million to go into the bargain?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Investments in kindergarten-to-grade-3 were a matter of discussion among government throughout the last, probably, six or seven months.

A. Sanders: Specifically the minister has said there was a cabinet meeting in early 1998 that authorized the $150 million additional injection. Was the minister at that meeting?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Funding levels for education were discussed and established both in Treasury Board and in cabinet, and I surely was present.

A. Sanders: Does the minister remember: was that meeting in Victoria or elsewhere?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Give me a break.

A. Sanders: The minister is suffering from significant synaptopenia in terms of the answer to a very simple question. This is a very straightforward question. If anyone is looking for information that the minister feels is completely open and honest and there's nothing sinister tied to it, then I don't understand why it's so difficult to produce either the month of January or the month of February as the answer to the question -- or the month of March. There are three choices. It's not like we've had two years go by and the minister has to rack his brain for the plethora of events that he's gone on. Pick a month and tell me the first letter. I mean, can you remember anything about which month it was in? You could only have had one or two cabinet meetings, I would think, when the House was not in session. It either had to be when the snow was on the ground or not, and it had to be between January and February and March. If it was at cabinet -- and it wasn't at Treasury Board; it was in fact at cabinet -- and it wasn't at the Premier's Office, or if it was. . . .

I know that the minister is withholding the information. I know that it is not that the minister does not know or cannot remember. I am convinced that the minister will not tell me, and that is a whole different. . . . You know, we are here as legislators to look at $3.86 billion or whatever it is. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's $3.58 billion.

A. Sanders: That's $3.58 billion in education. This is the most important thing that we provide for British Columbians. This is the most important thing to the minister, I'm sure, and to myself. We're both parents in the public education system. This is not a small amount of money. This is a $150 million authorization at a time when government is making decisions about how much more in debt they want to take us. This is a very serious decision. I'm looking to see when the minister knew that $150 million was authorized by cabinet -- not for the bargaining employers to go for but from this self-appointed board that went from the ministry's office. When was it that that money was given to them? When was it procured for them to take forward and bargain on behalf of the employer?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I share the interest of the member opposite in the education of children in British Columbia, and I look forward to debating the impact of this huge investment of $150 million in new funds into making education better for children around the province. The people this government sent to the negotiating table to improve education for our children had a mandate and were authorized to do so by this government. They acted within that, and we now have an agreement-in-committee that both the teachers and trustees are considering.

Frankly, we've canvassed the rest of it, including the question from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast yesterday.

A. Sanders: The minister well knows that when Ken Werker from BCPSEA came over on the Friday that the agreement was announced, even that day he had absolutely no knowledge of the $150 million, despite the fact that he was heading up a bargaining team that was bargaining on behalf of the employers. He had no knowledge that there was extra money. There is not one person on that team who knew there was $150 million in the kitty for them to divide up between the teachers of the province -- not one. If the minister says that a cabinet meeting approved the money sometime in early January, then that sounds to me like deliberate subterfuge with the $150 million, so that those people would not have the ability to use that to bargain a fair, exacting and wonderful

[ Page 7566 ]

Did the government say in January that they were going to put the money in? Did they not even tell the people who are half of the bargaining team, half of the marriage between the employee and the employers? Did they plan it all along, or did it come in at the last moment? If it came in through a cabinet decision, how much time was there between the money getting cabinet approval and going onto the table? Why was that not done? Why is this such a big deal? If it is completely aboveboard, as the minister says it is, then there would be absolutely no reason for me to stand up and ask the question: how many times has it been now? This is deliberate avoidance of the issue. The minister has something to hide, or he wouldn't be wasting our time here.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members!

A. Sanders: If the minister would answer the question, the question would be over and we would move to the next question -- because the one thing that's important is not to waste time here.

So again, if Ken Werker of BCPSEA, one of the chief members of the employer bargaining unit, knew on the Friday an hour or so before the announcement was made, how long was there between cabinet approving that expenditure and the money becoming available?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Premier of British Columbia and I made public statements in late 1997 and early 1998 that we were both interested, and that this government was interested, in finding ways of improving the opportunities for children in British Columbia to get a good start in kindergarten-to-grade-3. We wanted to see some significant improvements in the teacher-student ratio, a real chance for kids to get the attention that they need in this very diverse public school system that we have so they can succeed in their school. Everything I've seen says that class size has an effect on student learning and that if we're going to invest, it should be done in the early years. There was much debate around that.

The member keeps asking for specific dates. I can tell her that there were discussions around how we did that sort of enhancement throughout the budget preparation process. In January and February it became clear that we could potentially achieve some of that and that the desire to reach an agreement coincided with our desire to make some significant improvements there. The people sent to the table concluded an agreement within their mandate.

G. Wilson: I'd like the minister to pay particular attention to this set of questions and to consider his answers before he provides them. I've gone through yesterday's Hansard and have sat down with a number of people who are far more versed in labour law than I am. Frankly, we're finding it hard to understand how what has been done is even legal in British Columbia, so maybe the minister could let us know how that transpired.

I'd like to bring to the minister's attention, just for clarification here, the Public Education Labour Relations Act and ask the minister if he concurs that under the bargaining structure, the employers association "is deemed to be the accredited bargaining agent for every school board in British Columbia and has the exclusive authority to bargain collectively for school boards and. . .to bind the school boards by collective agreement." Does the minister agree that that's the way the law is written?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have the act before me. I assume that the member has read it accurately. BCPSEA now has this agreement-in-committee before it, and it is deciding whether to recommend it to its members for ratification.

G. Wilson: So could the minister tell me, then, if he interprets. . . ? It's under section 4(b): ". . .has the exclusive authority to bargain collectively. . . ." Is it the minister's impression that this so-called agreement in committee was bargained collectively exclusively by the employers association?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are two ways I could answer that, I guess. First, let's be clear here. To "bargain collectively" under labour law has a very specific meaning within that law. There are other sorts of negotiations or discussions that can be characterized as "bargaining collectively." Government, at the request of BCPSEA, engaged the BCTF in that sort of negotiation process, and at the end of that process an agreement-in-committee was struck between the government negotiators and the BCTF negotiators. That agreement has now been taken to the two bargaining agents that the member references -- BCTF and BCPSEA -- for presentation to their members.

G. Wilson: I don't think so; in fact, I'm pretty certain that's not the way it worked. If we look at the bargaining agent for the employee, it says: "The British Columbia Teachers Federation is deemed to be the certified bargaining agent for the employees, has the exclusive authority to bargain collectively for the bargaining unit and bind it by collective agreement. . . ." The agency registered its negotiators in this set of negotiations, perhaps even under the Labour Relations Code. In trying to find out how those negotiators could have been changed, it's hard to understand how people who were not party to the set of registered negotiators could sit down. . . . Under what authority could they sit down with the government and negotiate on behalf of the teachers? When was the authority changed? By what venue was it changed to allow the two registered negotiating teams to be excluded from the discussion and have the minister then enter into some kind of a backroom deal -- with the Minister of Finance and the Premier, as he tells -- that came up with an agreement-in-committee? How did that work under the law?

[3:00]

G. Wilson: Could the minister tell me under what section of what act did Mr. Russ Pratt and the other two individuals who were negotiating with the BCTF have jurisdiction? Could he point me to a specific act and a section of an act that gave them authority to negotiate?

[ Page 7567 ]

Now the parties to the negotiations -- the BCTF and BCPSEA -- are looking at this agreement. As you know, they had their AGM last Sunday. In fact, I think you spoke to some of the members there, hon. member. The BCTF is taking the agreement-in-committee to its members for consideration. I expect that both parties will ratify, and then we'll get on with the job of improving education in British Columbia for our kids.

G. Wilson: Let the Hansard record show that the minister did not answer that question, that there is no statute that provides for an appointment by the Minister of Education. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: You know, hon. Chair, the minister laughs and jokes about this. I've got to tell you that there are a number of other public sector bargaining units that are quite interested in how this worked: namely, BCGEU, CUPE, HEU -- just to name three that are interested to see how government intervention in the free collective bargaining process works under this government.

I wonder if the minister might turn his attention to the mediation and dispute resolution section, part 7, of the Labour Code. When you have two designated bargaining agencies at the table who reach an impasse, the labour law provides for mechanisms by which that impasse can be addressed. It's under section 7 of the code.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I'm hearing from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the former Minister of Labour. . .

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Wilson: . . .saying that it's not the exclusive mechanism. It requires it to be written notice.

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, order.

G. Wilson: The act requires there to be written notice. Can the minister tell us when. . . ? Perhaps he can provide us with a copy of the written notice that was provided to this minister from BCPSEA requesting this government to appoint three unrelated negotiators -- three lawyers who don't know the first thing about education, if I can believe the BCTF and BCPSEA. When was that written notice given to require those three individuals to come in and take over? Under what section of the Labour Code did they have authority?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member knows the answer, so I'll give it to him. The provisions of the Labour Code were not used. There are other ways that parties in a negotiation can seek to bring about resolution. In this case, BCPSEA asked government negotiators to get involved to see if we could reach a deal. That is what happened. Now, maybe the member would like to have had some other provision used; it was not. The way that it was used was successful in reaching an agreement that enabled government to put in money to improve education and to commit that we can do better for children in our province. That was the goal here; the mechanisms used to achieve that goal. . . . Frankly, I think it's a good deal for kids in our province.

G. Wilson: We've now established. . . . There are those who are far better versed in labour law who will be watching and listening carefully and reading carefully the comments of this minister with respect to this procedure. We now know that they did not use the provisions within the Labour Code under the mediation and disputes resolution mechanism.

So let's come back then to the other section they may have been able to use. Again, that is under the Public Education Labour Relations Act. Now, I am told by the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association and also by the negotiators who sat on the BCPSEA team -- all of them -- that at no time did they request this government to negotiate on their behalf. They asked for facilitation, and this act -- the Public Education Labour Relations Act -- is very specific about how facilitation should occur. So perhaps the minister can name for me the individuals who are members of the BCPSEA negotiating team that came and asked the government to negotiate on their behalf. Perhaps he can provide me with the written documentation that demonstrates where they said they wanted to be excluded from the table in the interest of three unrelated negotiators to negotiate on their behalf.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well! Much heat. Let's see if we can get a little light. The facts are these: BCPSEA said that these negotiations were stuck and requested that government provide. . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .some third-party assistance to engage with the BCTF. Mr. Ken Werker, among others, requested that of government.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Now the member says: "Well, they negotiated." Hon. member, you can't have it both ways. If BCPSEA had indeed delegated its full authority to this team, we would not now be asking BCPSEA to take it to its members for ratification. In this committee yesterday, we clearly established that what we had here was an agreement between the parties at the table that would need examination and ratification by both parties. Hon. member, this is ground we've already well tilled yesterday.

G. Wilson: These are questions that we did not have on the Hansard record yesterday, but we now have them on the Hansard record. And we now find out, through this minister's answer, that BCPSEA did not in fact relinquish their position as the sole negotiating agency. Under part 2, section 4, of the

[ Page 7568 ]

Will the minister tell us why, when they asked for assistance, they did not go through either mediation services or the industrial inquiry commission? Or, if he believed they were really going nowhere, why was an independent arbitrator not appointed, as the act requires? Why did they act in a manner that is not covered in the law, which many labour lawyers today are saying is questionable in terms of its legal authority?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We've answered these questions. Yes, there are provisions under the Labour Code. We chose to use other provisions. We chose to use another mechanism. Parties to a negotiation don't necessarily have to use the provisions of the Labour Code in order to facilitate reaching an agreement. I know the member has been involved in negotiations and in unions. I have too, and I assure the member that at times I was able, as a negotiator, to find ways of facilitating rapprochements with the employer that had nothing to do with the Labour Relations Board. And I know the employer at times had ways of facilitating work with the union that had nothing to do with the Labour Relations Board or its mediation service or its arbitration provisions or its industrial inquiry provisions or any other provisions of the Labour Code.

We had an opportunity: the interest of getting a deal with the teachers and the interest of investing in education coincided. Government had an interest, and that interest was in making education better for our kids. And that, I forgot to say, has received no attention from that side of this chamber so far in the debate of these estimates. None. Zero. We've got lots of time here on labour law, and that's fine; we'll debate it forever. The facts are these: we had an opportunity, we took it, and we have a deal. The formal parties that the member refers to are now seized of that agreement-in-committee and are recommending it to their members.

G. Wilson: That is categorically false. The BCTF negotiating team split to not recommend it to their members, and BCPSEA and the B.C. School Trustees Association are not unanimous in their recommendation to their members. To suggest that they are recommending this deal to their members is categorically false.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will acknowledge that I misspoke myself. Actually, the BCTF executive has recommended it to its members; BCPSEA has not yet decided what it wishes to do.

G. Wilson: I want to come back to this business about finding some other mechanism, because this is something that is being reviewed by labour lawyers in British Columbia today. They are seriously questioning whether or not free collective bargaining in the public sector is even possible if the government's going to have this kind of massive intervention.

The minister has said that when he and I were negotiators, we perhaps used other mechanisms by which we could move off positions of intransigence. That's true, because those positions are taken by the two official bargaining agencies that are at the table. They are not taken by the government, who will intervene by appointing three unrelated negotiators to meet with the executive of the B.C. Teachers Federation, who were not the registered bargaining agent. They were not registered, sitting at that table.

I don't care how this minister tries to paint this. There is no way that the law that is provided by the Public Education Labour Relations Act was followed in this case. Maybe the minister can tell us if there was some other way. Under what statute -- again, I ask this, and please give careful consideration, because there are many other public sector agencies that are looking at this -- did the government of the province of British Columbia appoint three unrelated negotiators and move to directly negotiate with the executive of the B.C. Teachers Federation? Under what provision of law? BCPSEA did not ask for it, did not condone it, and neither did the B.C. Teachers Federation negotiating team. Under what statute did this government act?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member might want to raise that last point with the members of the BCTF negotiating team. I know that many members of that team did, indeed, meet with the folks that we've talked about representing government. How the BCTF. . . . I'll leave it there.

I see no new question here. I've told the member opposite precisely how government got involved in these negotiations. I've told the member who was involved with them. I've told the member that this was an agreement-in-committee that is now being taken to the bargaining agents for their consideration on ratification. The member knows, as I do, where it rests right now. The BCTF executive has recommended acceptance of it to its members and is out there right now. BCPSEA, which is still considering its options and is meeting with the folks from the school districts, will decide what it wishes to do.

G. Wilson: I appreciate getting some of this on the record, because it will become interesting grist for more legal minds. I just have two other questions, which I was asked to put to the minister by people who are reviewing this on behalf of other public sector unions, people who are extremely concerned by the level of government intervention re collective bargaining. This is unprecedented in British Columbia, and if this was any other than an NDP government, I can tell you right now that the unions would be out on the street -- and justifiably so. This is an absolute outrage.

[3:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess the choice of the term "committee" was simply to recognize what I have acknowledged and what the member has acknowledged -- though at considerably more volume -- which is that this is an agreement that must go back to the parties for ratification. This committee, in the negotiations there, were not bargaining -- as the member describes -- as the bargaining agents under the act. It must go back to the bargaining agents for ratification. The committee is the government and some folks from the BCTF that worked together to hammer out this agreement.

G. Wilson: Just two more questions in clarification on that point. The minister is saying that this committee is not duly constituted under the labour relations act. It was not a mediation committee. It is not a committee that was struck under the provisions of the change in union representation at

[ Page 7569 ]

The minister is now telling us that it was kind of like just a committee of government and some folks from the BCTF. When that so-called committee was struck, what did the minister believe was the legislative legitimacy of that committee? Under what act, under what sections of an act -- given that there are very clear guidelines as to how public sector bargaining has to occur, especially with relation to the matter between BCPSEA and the BCTF -- under what section of law does this committee have any authority to do anything at all?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The committee of folks from the government -- the negotiators from government, which I've talked about repeatedly -- and representatives from the British Columbia Teachers Federation started work in February. They concluded their work in April. The British Columbia Public School Employers Association asked for some government assistance to get negotiations unstuck. This was a way of hammering out an agreement which could then be used by the parties to reach settlement. That is what's going on, hon. member. The agreement is now before the members of the BCTF for ratification. BCPSEA is now considering what it wishes to do with the agreement as well. That's where the matter rests.

G. Wilson: Well, perhaps this will be my last question on this, because we've already determined that BCPSEA has exclusive authority to bargain, not some ad hoc committee. Will the minister perhaps, in order to finish this line of questioning, agree that this committee was an ad hoc committee set up directly through the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance and the office of the Premier to negotiate directly with the executive of the B.C. Teachers Federation and essentially cut a backroom deal -- excluding the right, the legislative legitimacy, of two members who are sitting at a bargaining table in active collective bargaining? Will the minister agree that this is exactly what transpired?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is no.

G. Wilson: Well, hon. Chair, we can be left with no other conclusion, because the minister has told us that this was not under the Labour Code. There were no provisions of the code. . . . There's nothing at all with respect to the Public Education Labour Relations Act that gave it legitimacy. We know that BCPSEA did not ask for it. We know that the BCTF negotiating teams did not ask for this committee.

They asked for assistance. Under the act, assistance talks about mediation, the industrial inquiry commission or the provision for arbitration. It says nothing about an ad hoc "committee" that has no legal legitimacy anywhere to cut a backroom deal with the executive of the B.C. Teachers Federation and the government, which holds the financial purse strings with respect to any other negotiation.

Hon. Chair, the minister can paint it any way he wants. But this agreement spells the end of free collective bargaining in the public sector in British Columbia, and the minister knows it. From this point forward, we're going to have public agreement by fiat, by whatever the government chooses to fund. If the minister doesn't believe that, perhaps he can explain how this is anything other than an ad hoc committee for a backroom deal.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's precisely that sort of characterization of the work, which was engaged in by representatives of this government and the teachers of the province, that I reject. I simply find that the sort of derogation of. . . .

A Voice: They were not representatives.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Excuse me.

I simply find the characterization of the bargaining and of the parties to it unacceptable.

Let me again repeat: BCPSEA did ask for assistance in unsticking negotiations that were clearly going nowhere. Now, members of the opposition may believe that in some way they were going somewhere. That's not my assessment, nor was it the assessment of government. A group was asked to help facilitate these discussions. That group was people whom this government appointed to make sure that we could hammer out a deal and get some resources invested in the classrooms of our province.

The member has asked repeatedly, and I've answered repeatedly, whether this was done under the provisions of the Labour Code. No, it was not. There are a variety of ways that the parties to a negotiation can ask for facilitation. Some of those are done through the Labour Code; some are done otherwise. That's surely been my experience; I suspect it's been the member's experience as well.

They hammered out a proposal. Frankly, you know, had they been what the member keeps asking them to be -- and that is a "bargaining committee," with the two parties at the table -- we would not now have BCPSEA considering whether to recommend ratification to its members. The facts speak for themselves. As soon as there was an announcement to be made, it was made. As soon as we had an arrangement which would enable us to do the significant investment in public education, we demonstrated our commitment to making these improvements happen.

G. Wilson: This is very much my last question, and I was asked to get this on the record. Will the minister just confirm or maybe enlighten us as to whether or not any member of BCPSEA specifically asked for the involvement of any one of those three individuals who negotiated that committee? When were they asked to be involved? Were they asked to be involved to negotiate an agreement? If so, can the minister perhaps tell us specifically who, representing BCPSEA, made that request?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Mr. Werker, who I think is one of the staffers and negotiators at BCPSEA, requested that of Mr. Russ Pratt in early February.

I've already explained that BCPSEA did not delegate its authority to negotiate an agreement. Had they done so, they would not be seized of the decision about whether to recommend ratification. What we have is a facilitated agreement between representatives of government and the BCTF. The parties are now considering whether to ratify it.

A. Sanders: Was the $150 million that was put on the table by cabinet put on before or after BCPSEA asked the ad hoc group to come in and facilitate bargaining?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've indicated that the deal for a $150 million investment fell within the mandate that the bargaining team had. They had that when they went to the table with the BCTF.

[ Page 7570 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I acknowledge the members' interest in these issues, but I must say that we're now well into the bounds where I'm simply going to say that these were matters for cabinet discussion. The team that was sent out had a mandate, and it negotiated within that mandate. What the mandate was at particular times is something I'm not prepared to discuss in this committee.

A. Sanders: You know, hon. minister, when members of the communities that we live in read the proceeds of this debate, they will be very disappointed with the deliberate avoidance by the minister of very simple questions. And if the minister's true intention was that this agreement is good for kids and for teachers and for parents, there would be no deliberate avoidance of the issues. Let's look at what we learned yesterday.

No, I'm going to take a different tack. Does the minister feel that this is the best agreement that the BCTF and BCPSEA could have reached for kids in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, of course it's not an ideal agreement; there is no such thing. It's the best agreement that could be reached under the circumstances, and I think it is an excellent agreement for kids in this province.

I must say, I do believe that when members of the broader community read the transcripts of this committee, they'll be amazed to see a Liberal opposition that doesn't want to see an investment of $150 million into classrooms across the province. They'll be amazed to see a Liberal opposition that says that committing $370 million to building a thousand additional classrooms is in some way "a bribe," rather than a commitment to making this agreement possible and make the benefits that flow from it a reality in schools across British Columbia. They'll be amazed to see their lack of interest in the sort of outcomes that we can have as a result of this agreement.

A. Sanders: Let's look at what the minister told us yesterday about this wonderful agreement. The first thing we learned about the agreement yesterday, hon. Chair, was first of all that it completely contravened what we know as collective bargaining. That's a given; we've learned that; we've seen the avoidance by the minister; we know that to be true.

The second thing we learned was that the new agreement, if you put it into place. . . . A single parent with three kids -- one in kindergarten, one in grade 2 and one in grade 3 -- who lives next door to a school. . . . Under the language of the contract, all three of her children could be unable to attend the school that she lives right next door to. One could be bused in this direction five kilometres, another in that direction and one way over there in some other direction. That's three kids under the age of eight getting on a bus, and a single mom who is trying to go to work at the same time.

If you can tell me, hon. minister, that that is good for families, if you can tell me that that is good for any family in this province, and that I as a legislator in the opposition should not stand up here and say, "Let's get it straight before this is law," then you're wrong. You're dead wrong. This is not a good agreement for kids; it's especially not a good agreement for kids in grades 1, 2, 3 and kindergarten, unless they happen to be lucky enough to get into a classroom that doesn't have the exact number of kids and still has room for them, and unless they happen to live in the area so that they can go to their neighbourhood school. But the rest of those kids are going to be bused all over God's green earth to try and get their schooling, and that's not good for kids. And if you think it is, then I'm terribly disappointed.

[3:30]

So we will have, hon. Chair, programs like band gone, because those school boards will be looking for places to cut. We're going to have CUPE workers and other ancillary workers gone. So our communities. . . . With the safe schools initiative's $1 million, we're going to have $43 to $53 per school, and nobody on the playground, no adults on the playground.

My kids are going to go to school and there's going to be no adults on that playground to supervise them. Teachers don't supervise them; that's part of their collective agreement, and those agreements are still in place. But my kids are going to be going to school, my school district is going to have a deficit, and they're going to cut the ancillary workers who are supervising. They have nowhere else to cut. The agreement says: "You can't cut teachers." So we're going to have a problem, and the problem's going to come in October 1998. It's not going to come ten or 15 years from now. We're supposedly going to have 150 million new dollars in the agreement, and we can't even use it.

If we decide that instead of having that grade 1 child bused somewhere else because the class language is hard, solid, rock, diamond-drilled kind of stuff. . . . We can't have the principal go and say: "Mrs. Brown, I know we've got one extra kid in grade 1, but that kid lives next door to this school, and his brother and sister are going here. I want that kid in your grade 1 classroom, and I'm willing to deal with you. I'm willing to offer you a teaching assistant, extra prep time. I'm willing to look at a whole bunch of different things so we could accommodate that extra child." So instead of having 17, you might have 18. We know that the studies don't say that 17 is a hard number, and 18 might be okay, and we can do some horse-trading. We can actually have this kid go to school with his brother and sister and have the language of the classroom violated slightly without the union coming in and calling a grievance, calling a problem or having the kid bused elsewhere. We can make those trades. You know what? In the contract language, there are flex factors; and the flex factors say that Mrs. Brown can take that extra kid, even if it's one kid over, because she's got a trade-off. Her board, her principal

[ Page 7571 ]

This contract, if ratified, will ensure that that can never happen again, and that is wrong. It is wrong for kids in British Columbia who are trying to go to their neighbourhood schools and whose parents. . . . Fifty percent of all the women in this province are at work, 50 percent of our families don't have two parents, and you're going to send those little kids on buses because they have rigid class language and they can't go to their neighbourhood school. If this minister tells me that's good for education in this province, then he's got a lot to learn.

The other thing we learned yesterday was that we're not getting 300 new teaching assistants and 400 new teachers in the system. The government advertising was misleading. These are the usual teachers that we would get anyway, because we've got 8,000 more kids coming into the B.C. school system. Why didn't we send out a press release last year saying around a thousand teachers were hired? We had 12,000 new kids in B.C., and I didn't see any press releases there. So if it wasn't politically misleading and wasn't' done on purpose, then why don't we send that out every year?

We have teachers being given the message by the Premier's Office that: "It's my way or the highway." If the teachers and boards don't accept the Premier's deal, the $150 million and the 500 extra classrooms are -- poof! -- off the table.

We've got a BCTF executive who has forbidden the dissenting members of the BCTF bargaining team -- the ones who said this isn't a good deal for our teachers or our kids. . . . We've got those people on the bargaining team who dissented not being able to go into classrooms and into schools to talk to their own union members. Why are they not allowed to do that? What's the big deal? What's the big worry?

If this is such a great deal, what have we got to worry about? Why won't the minister tell me when the money was on the table? If this was such a great deal and not a brokered deal, a backroom deal, something not totally aboveboard, then this session would be gone. We'd be done. We would be out of here, having coffee. There's obviously something to tell.

We've got a minister who has said that we should consider that this might be legislated if it's not accepted and ratified by the two sides. So it still might be legislated. We've got school boards seeking a legal opinion to see if government has contravened the labour acts and the practices of collective bargaining by bypassing BCPSEA as the employer agent and dealing with only the BCTF as the employee. We've got problems with questionable legislative legitimacy.

Further, this minister said: "I can't believe that the Liberals are saying this, this and this." Do you know what I said to this minister yesterday? I said: "If this is such a great deal, put your feet to the fire." If this is such a great deal, go back to BCPSEA and say: "Here's $150 million. How about it if you and the BCTF work together and, 30 days from now, come back to us with a deal that's the best deal for parents, families, children, school trustees and government?"

Can you imagine what people with that amount of knowledge and expertise could have done in the last two years if they had had $150 million to work with? We are not the experts in this subject. Three people who work in the ministry who have never been in a classroom are not the experts in this subject. The experts in this subject are out in the field. They are the teachers in the BCTF. They are the employers who work for or with school boards, either as their legal negotiating person or actually in the school board office in the community. They are the legally elected representatives of my community, as the employer, and the teachers as the employees. That is who should be doing the bargaining.

Let me make it clear, hon. Chair. The B.C. Liberal position and the position of this critic is that the right thing to do here is take that $150 million, give the two groups 30 days, have them go back and have them come up with an agreement. You know what? They'd be back in 15 days; they'd be back in one day; they'd be back in two hours. They never had a cent on the table to bargain with, above and beyond the status quo. This minister and his Premier stuffed that in at the last minute to make a backroom deal in a memorandum that guarantees money for the first year. It doesn't even guarantee it for the second or third. We know where their memorandums go, and we know where their accords go, and we know where their promises go. And then we flush.

Let's look at what we didn't get. On the table in the collective bargaining process, working between the employee and employer in good faith, were 105 initiatives. These are very important things; these are not things to take lightly. Look at what they were asking each other to look at and to agree to -- and to move on and get out there and do their jobs. These are the items that are left unsettled in the new agreement, that have just been rolled over: discipline for misconduct by teachers; dismissal for performance; seniority; layoff procedures; severance pay; teacher probation; and instructional workload in schools with respect to cultural diversity, socioeconomic distribution, special needs kids and ESL. With respect to teacher evaluation, there are matters that have no resolution: teacher knowledge of content, instructional ability and skills of teachers in our classrooms, preparation and planning, classroom management skills, ability to accurately assess student achievement, standards for professional deportment.

Other areas that haven't been solved for our teachers: sexual harassment, personal harassment, falsely accused teacher assistants, complaints against a non-employer, professional development funding, sick leave, personal leave, WCB leave, pregnancy leave, academic leave, class size and the need for flexibility in class size, posting and filling. How many teachers is it good to have in a grade 1 classroom? Is it okay for your six-year-old kid to go to school and have four grade 1 teachers in a year? Is that okay? Or is it okay to have two grade 1 teachers, or one? I don't have the right answer to that, but I know that the teachers and the employers could have come up with the right answer. I know that they would have differed on that answer, but I truly believe that under bargaining they would have come to an answer that they could all live with.

So now we have an agreement. You know, in some areas of the province people have pretty good agreements. The first thing my brother said to me was: "I'm really glad that I get to keep all my benefits, because we have way more benefits in my district than in some of the other districts around me." I am sure that this government hasn't even thought about what those will cost in the future.

Now we have an agreement that cements into place all of these items of importance to kids, parents and everyone who cares, which have not got any resolution. We haven't moved an inch on them; in fact, they've disappeared. They are off the table. Then we've got school districts that are amalgamated, and now they have to administer three contracts all with different language and different provisions. None of the stuff

[ Page 7572 ]

My question to the minister is: why have the items on the table -- the very, very important items on the table -- not been dealt with? What is going to happen with these items to make sure that at some point in the future they might be addressed by somebody?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That was a long way to get to a question, hon. Chair, and the member already knows the answer. The agreement-in-committee that has been reached proposes some significant changes to some portions of contracts, particularly around ratios of non-enrolling teachers, ratios in K-to-3 and a few provisions around other aspects of teachers across the province. Other provisions of collective agreements remain in place. I believe that the member actually said that herself.

I think that long speech deserves at least some of an answer, since it sounded very much like the speech the member delivered yesterday. First, let's correct a few -- just a few -- of the misstatements of fact. I know that this member has been in the chamber since 1996. When I was first elected to this chamber back in 1991, the per-student funding in this province was $5,439. The budget for education that we're debating today provides for $5,849 per child. That's an increase of $410 -- the highest level of increase in per-student funding of any province in this country. That is a record of which everybody in this chamber should be proud.

[3:45]

But we didn't stop there. We have a vision for how we wish to improve education in the province. Part of it is clearly embodied in the agreement-in-committee that has been reached with the British Columbia Teachers Federation, a vision that says we need to ensure that every child has a good start in school. Lower class sizes are part of that, and I think everybody in the chamber knows that is important, knows that if you're a kid in a class of 25, you're not going to get the attention that you would if you were a kid in a class of 18.

That's simply accurate to everybody's experience of what happens in school. And if there's any area of our public education system where we are making every effort to make sure that kids get the attention they need, it's in the very early years. We know that a child's success in later years of education and in life is crucially linked to what happens in those first few years. That's why we have committed to putting in over the next three years $150 million of additional money to make sure that kids get the attention they need.

The member talks about some of the difficulties of making sure that kids get accommodated in a neighbourhood school. Those difficulties are there now, and teachers and trustees and principals and parents grapple with them in districts every day. I suspect that they'll be grappling with them in the future.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member says that the funding is not adequate. I must say that when Premier Clark and I announced the increase of $105 million to the operating budget this year, do you know who else was in the room? We happened to have the president of the British Columbia School Trustees Association there. She said: "It's a good day for education." She was delighted. She said: "You heard what we were concerned about, and you've answered." Do you know who else was in the room? The president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. The member said, and I want to quote her: "The teachers are the experts." I think that's what she said. And the British Columbia Teachers Federation president said: "This is an excellent budget for schools in our province."

This record of funding and initiative on education really does reflect our government's priority for education to be put at the top of the political agenda, not at the bottom. I think I've heard this member and this Liberal opposition say that they oppose this agreement-in-committee with the British Columbia Teachers Federation. I want to be clear about that, because when I report to the parents and teachers and students of the province on what I hear in this chamber, I want to be accurate about what I'm hearing.

What I will be telling them is that the Liberal opposition doesn't want to see class size go down. They say very clearly they want to keep class size up. The Liberal opposition in this chamber doesn't want to see students across this province have access to librarians and counsellors and ESL specialists and special education resource teachers -- the same in every school across British Columbia. They oppose that concept. Far from having another idea, they propose no idea -- no idea at all.

I submit that that is the position of this Liberal caucus. That's what I've heard today in this chamber. They don't like the deal with the BCTF; they want to tear it up. They don't want to see lower class sizes -- even though this was negotiated with the teachers of the province, who I think the member opposite said are the experts.

Well, teachers recognize that class size makes a difference. Research conducted says that class size makes a difference. It makes the greatest difference in the early years, and that's what this agreement is focused on. I'm pleased to hear the Liberal opponents' views on this, their opposition to this deal, because I think it has to be crystal-clear for everybody who's reading this transcript. Who is on the side of schools in province? Who is on the side of children? Who wants to make sure that every child gets a good start in K-to-3? That's this government, and this deal with the BCTF helps us get there.

A. Sanders: I would like the minister to commit to leaving the $150 million on the table for education and to have the

[ Page 7573 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We've had nearly two years of negotiations; we now have an agreement-in-committee that has been recommended by the teachers union to its members, and the employers are considering what they wish to do with it. I do not intend to. . . . I intend to watch how that process works itself out.

A. Sanders: For the record, that is my position, and that is the position of this side of the House. It is the right position, and it is the position of those who do care about what happens to education and those who aren't looking for a quick and dirty deal.

Hon. Chair, the minister has said that the teachers and school trustees are surely going to ratify this because it's such a great deal. This news release of May 6 from the B.C. Public School Employers Association, says: "School trustees have objected strenuously to the fact that government representatives left them out of the negotiations with the British Columbia Teachers Federation. Government and BCTF concluded a tentative collective agreement on April 17. Government negotiators have recommended this agreement to school boards."

The press release goes on to say how frustrated they are in a flawed process and how frustrated they are that their bargaining team was bypassed. So, on behalf of one-half of this marriage between BCPSEA and the BCTF, here's one partner who wants a divorce before they even get to the altar.

Just for the record -- although I don't usually like to rise to taunts from the minister -- he mentioned that education budgets had been decreasing in other provinces, and I'd like to point out that the prime reason for that is decreasing school-age children and not funding. Also, he bragged about his per-student amount being highest among the provinces, and I will remind him that 95 percent of all of the money going into education goes to wages, and that we pay more in British Columbia. We do not necessarily get more; we pay more for what we get. Those are the decisions that we've made in this province, and it's just how you look at the facts.

Let's look at the K-to-3 initiative of this deal, this agreement-in-committee. How many extra classrooms will be needed by the 59 districts for the K-to-3 initiative on October 1, 1998?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Before I get to the specific question, let's deal. . . . I wanted to respond to the member's reference to the news release of the British Columbia Public School Employers Association of today's date. I want to very clearly acknowledge that the members of BCPSEA have some concerns about the process that led to the agreement-in-committee. When I talked to the trustees of this province last weekend, I said very clearly that I acknowledged that the process was not what everybody had wished when we started out on this journey some two years ago. But I also recommended to them -- urged them -- to look forward and not back, to look at the benefits in our classrooms that would result to students from the deal, and to look at government's commitment to making those improvements possible. It's clear from their release that BCPSEA is doing that: they are looking hard at the deal and considering their position. It's also clear that relations had broken down. BCPSEA has recognized that. That was the reason BCPSEA invited third-party assistance.

I did want to deal with that very directly. I have met with representatives from BCPSEA and heard their concerns about process. I have committed to them that we will do all we can to work with them to clarify the terms of the agreement-in-committee so that they can take it to their members with as much knowledge as possible.

There's one other matter that I simply must raise. We do have the highest per-student funding in the country here in British Columbia. Contrary to what the member says, other provinces have been cutting greatly, in excess of any reduction in the number of students, and per-student funding has been going down in those provinces. Those are simply the facts on the table. Yes, 90 percent plus of school district budgets in British Columbia is spent on wages, and that's very similar to what's spent in other provinces. Education is a people business. Education is about the people who do the instruction, who provide the support, who do the classroom assistance, who provide the audio-visual materials, who clean the schools and who administer them. Education is about people, so it doesn't surprise anybody that 90 percent or more of budgets are consumed by wages.

I would ask the member to clarify her concerns about high wages, though. The information I had suggests that, far from leading the way, British Columbia teachers are pretty much in the middle of the pack as far as average salary goes. And now we have an agreement with the teachers -- an agreement-in-committee -- where teachers have explicitly forgone any wage increases for two years, because they recognize the advantage of improving instruction in our classrooms. That's what we have in front of us as far as comparisons between this province and others go.

[4:00]

These are relatively modest decreases in the first year. It was deliberately done that way. We haven't spoken a great deal about how the $25 million a year for each year of this agreement is allocated. For the benefit of members opposite, if it's not obvious in the agreement -- I thought it was -- I want to explain. We've said that in the first year of the deal, of the $25 million, only $5 million should go into the initiative to reduce class size. The $20 million of the $25 million will be spent on hiring of teacher-librarians, counsellors, ESL specialists and special education resource teachers -- what the education jargon refers to as "non-enrolling teachers."

In the second and third years of the agreement, we begin to make some real progress in reducing class size. We're devoting $20 million a year, in each of the second and third years, out of the $25 million increase to reducing class size. That will take class size down, in year 3 of the agreement, to 20 in kindergarten and to 22 as a maximum in all other grades -- grades 1, 2 and 3. Actually, the average in the province will obviously be lower than that. These are maximums. Right now the average class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 is probably around 22, depending on how you do it. We want to see that go down significantly. We want to see it go down by four in the next five years. This agreement gets us a significant way there.

[ Page 7574 ]

A. Sanders: What is the number of classrooms that will be needed in October 1998 for the kids in the first year of the K-to-3 initiative?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I answered that question. The answer is that we expect very few to be needed. We can accommodate the great majority of them within existing facilities, because class sizes are not going down that much this fall. That's what the agreement says. We're only devoting $5 million of the $20 million to that object.

A. Sanders: When does the flex factor. . . ? If the agreement is ratified, when does the contract language in the agreement-in-committee start? Does it start in September, on the first day of school? Or does it start on the first of October?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It starts on the first day of school.

A. Sanders: So could the minister please explain to me. . . ? If a parent moves into a community, and then October 1, 1998. . . . If the maximums are already achieved for kindergarten-to-grade-3 in the classrooms where the children would go to, what will happen to those children in the prototype school district?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're making much of the flex factor here. I mean, I don't know what the member's experience has been. My experience in dealing with teachers has been that where there has been a flex factor, it has automatically been used, and classes have been raised to the maximum possible under flex. Then you have a cap there, and then you have to figure out how to deal with it.

The question is not whether or not school districts, principals, teachers and parents have to deal with the limitations of class size. They do. They do now; they will in the future. I expect that teachers and principals and parents will seek to deal with them in ways that are as non-disruptive as possible for students. This is not a new problem. It has been there forever -- for as long as there have been class size maximums, with or without flex. What we have done is say under this agreement: "We are going to lower those maximums, whether we call it a result of flex or whatever, and kids in schools are going to be working and learning in smaller classes."

A. Sanders: How many additional classrooms will be needed in the year 1999, in September, to accommodate the rigid class language?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Between 250 and 300. Part of the work, as we move to the implementation of it, is that we need to work with districts to ascertain precisely where additional classrooms need to be constructed.

A. Sanders: Is that number based on the number of students this year in the school system, or does it also accommodate the approximately 6,000 additional students we expect to enter the school system in 1999?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It accommodates the projections, hon. member.

A. Sanders: How many districts will have the extra classrooms in 1999 to accommodate those initiatives?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I apologize for the slight delay. I wanted to make sure I had some figures that would be of interest to the member.

There are around 1,300 elementary schools in the province, and staff estimate that 65 percent of them have surplus space in them now that can be used to accommodate additional classes. Somewhere between 800 and 900 have surplus space within them now -- maybe one classroom, maybe four or five. The other 400 or 500 do not; they're pretty full.

A. Sanders: Has the ministry done any projections on how many schools will have to send kids out of the neighbourhood in order to attend schools that have additional space?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry does not have information on that; that rests with school districts.

A. Sanders: Will the ministry be asking school districts to start sending that information in, so that the ministry can make some kind of plan?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We will be working with the school districts to make sure that we're building the additional classrooms where they are needed. That work will be done in conjunction with districts.

A. Sanders: Did the minister have any kind of overall plan, prior to these announcements, that would say: "Here is where we're going to need classrooms"? Has the minister directed the school boards to lay out a plan of where the additional space is, how many more portables they're going to need in the district, which schools are already at maximum and are going to have to bus additional kids in 1999 -- and a few in 1998 -- and where we're going to have to build additional classrooms? Is there any overall plan to give some kind of schematic representation of where those factors are going to be taken into account?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two things. After this agreement is ratified, school districts will be providing to the ministry -- with copies to their local teachers -- K-to-3 staffing plans for each school enrolling primary grades, which will set out how the funding that is being providing will be utilized to staff within the class size maximums. They will also be submitting -- in the summer, as is normal -- their capital plans. Part of those capital plans will, of course, be the addition of classrooms to accommodate reduced K-to-3 class sizes.

A. Sanders: Will the minister provide this member with a copy of that information?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure what information. . . . Perhaps the member could clarify.

A. Sanders: The districts' K-to-3 initiative plans -- when those are submitted to the ministry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: They are public documents that school boards are submitting, but I caution the member. I've been advised by staff that this, for example -- I think I can use a

[ Page 7575 ]

A. Sanders: Would the minister commit to providing me with a copy of a document, should I require to look at it in the future, after they're submitted by the school boards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

A. Sanders: The agreement-in-committee provides for an increase of 2 percent to the teachers in the second year of the agreement. Does government intend to change the monetary mandate framework of zero-zero-2 for the public sector employees so that all employees will receive a compensation increase in the second year of their agreements?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is no. The mandate of zero-zero-2 remains. It's our view that this agreement does adhere to that mandate. The 2 percent pay increase occurs in the 2000-2001 fiscal year for the province. So that's two fiscal years after the year's estimates we are now debating. The teachers' previous raise was dated April 1, 1998 -- just a bit over a month ago. We think it's a reasonable salary increase, and it's one we will be funding.

A. Sanders: What does the government estimate to be the costs to school districts of the increased pay raises for the teachers on call?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The improvements to benefits for teachers on call has an estimated total cost of zero in the first year, zero in the second and just over $1 million in the third. The pay improvement for a four-day assignment for teachers on call has an impact of zero in the first year, zero in the second and about $1.5 million in the third year. We will be funding that increased cost.

[4:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought that's what I just said. Yes.

A. Sanders: I just wanted to hear it again, hon. Chair. Does this increase fall within the monetary mandate framework?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

A. Sanders: Do teachers on call receive a 2 percent increase in pay rates on April 1, 2000, as other teachers do?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is yes.

A. Sanders: Is the minister aware that in some circumstances the teacher on call will now be paid more than the teacher in the regular classroom that they are replacing?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As is the case now.

A. Sanders: The agreement-in-committee uses ministry data from a form called a 1530 to establish a baseline of services provided by non-enrolling teachers like counsellors, learning assistants, special ed, ESL, etc. Are you assured that these forms accurately reflect actual service levels and have been completed consistently in all districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're in contact with districts to ensure that the data we have is as accurate as possible.

A. Sanders: Yesterday we had the example that school districts said there were 4,200 kids coming into the system, and the minister said 8,000. When we're building an entire agreement around one form, this is a very concerning differential in terms of accuracy. Are you assured that these forms accurately reflect actual service levels?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I just answered that. There is some work necessary to make sure that any concerns about how funds are distributed are dealt with, and to make sure that we are accurately funding increased services for kids.

A. Sanders: Is the minister aware that a very large margin of discretion is given to districts in the guidelines for completion of the 1530, and districts have applied varied definitions in completing the forms?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Boards have been asked to confirm their numbers.

A. Sanders: Isn't it true that the information provided through these forms does not really provide an accurate picture of the baseline of services in a school district?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand that there've been some concerns. That's why we're confirming the numbers.

A. Sanders: How is the minister confirming the numbers? Is it by sending out another 1530, or is there a new way for him to gather that information?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're asking the school districts to confirm their 1530 numbers.

A. Sanders: Are they resubmitting another 1530, or are they aware that the guidelines are not 100 percent clear for each district? Are they submitting the same 1530 or are they being asked to physically provide it in another way that may give a more accurate representation, with the understanding that the agreement-in-committee, if ratified, would now be the basis on which they would be funded?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're simply attempting to confirm the numbers. It's clearly in everybody's best interest that the distribution of funds flowing from the agreement-in-committee be based on data which is as accurate as possible.

With that, hon. Chair, I note the hour and a certain tiredness, and I would request a 15-minute recess.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Oh, ten -- whatever.

The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[4:30]

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

[ Page 7576 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, the member is getting several jumps down the road. First we need to secure the information and do the work.

A. Sanders: There is one school district that has several part-time librarians, and they've reported those librarians as if they worked full-time in the library. Will the district have the opportunity to amend and correct its report, now that they are going to be funded based on the 1530?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have little to add to what I said before. We're seeking clarification of information. We'll consider whether any modifications need to be made after we've got it.

A. Sanders: The ministry directions for accounting provide for a portion of classroom teacher time to be reported under the special education programs when students with special needs are integrated into regular classrooms. Some districts follow this provision, while others do not. Those districts that follow the provision may actually show better-than-required service levels. Will they be asked to maintain those better-than-required service levels?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Is the member really telling me that the districts have been so badly misrepresenting the extent of their service to the ministry? Frankly, I imagine there are some minor discrepancies. We're out there to gather that information so we can consider whether any modifications are necessary.

A. Sanders: The minister knows full well that the forms are flawed, and that is why the information can be reported, with good intention, in several different ways. Districts that do not follow this accounting procedure may in fact show lower-than-required service levels and may actually receive funding for additional special education teachers under the terms of the agreement-in-committee. Services that one district has reported high may in fact be exactly the same in another district. How does government intend to address these inequities that spring from relying on a faulty baseline, which springs from relying on a faulty form, the 1530?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Same question; same answer. First we're going to secure the information, identify any discrepancies and then figure out if any modifications are needed.

A. Sanders: When will the minister have that information secured on the follow-up?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We had hoped that we'd at least have the data-collection portion done by the end of this week.

A. Sanders: How will the ministry then decide what modifications are needed? What's the process?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll examine the data and see if there are significant discrepancies that need to be addressed and whether any modifications are necessary.

A. Sanders: What is the process that the minister will use?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The staff will do the work and recommend to me.

A. Sanders: As the minister is sort of the head person here, what criteria will he be using to assess that the ministry is doing the work?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Same question; same answer. We're going to ascertain if there are discrepancies from baseline and decide if any modifications are necessary.

A. Sanders: Can the districts come up to the raised ratios if they are already under?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're seeking accurate information about levels of service provided, so we can accurately distribute the moneys that we have to improve education for students in our schools.

A. Sanders: That should probably be prefixed with "achieve under the agreement what's best for kids in schools" -- not "what's best for kids in schools."

In the agreement there is a number of appendices. The appendices show that some districts will receive additional non-enrolling teachers to achieve the target service levels described in the appendices. Other districts will receive no additional teachers and will be required to maintain service levels better than the targets established in the agreement. Can the government explain how this provides equitable opportunities for students in all school districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're ensuring that all students have access to a baseline level of service which is significantly improved for districts across the province. To do that, we intend to invest some $75 million into non-enrolling teachers over the next three years. This is not an insignificant investment; it's quite a substantial improvement in funding for education services across the province. As with all distribution of resources, we want to make sure it's done well. The appendices that the member refers to are a way of doing that.

A. Sanders: Further to the last question, the government's going to provide funding to districts based on the AIC. For those districts required to maintain service levels provided by non-enrolling teachers, will the government provide funding that is better than the target established in the AIC between government and the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The baseline of services that people are ascertaining is what exists now. We intend to fund improvements to that baseline, and the appendix that the member refers to is a way of doing that.

A. Sanders: Am I to understand that this means the districts that have better than the targets will in fact have to maintain that service level?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that's what the agreement says.

[ Page 7577 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This has been an issue of concern to trustees. It's one that I addressed in my speech to them at their convention on Saturday. I acknowledged very clearly that the impact of the agreement varies across the province, and that's just the reality of any agreement. I can't see an agreement that would be applied the same way in every district. They will have variable impacts. What we were attempting to do -- and what we are doing -- through this agreement is making sure that we have a baseline of services. Where that baseline is below what we consider acceptable, we raise it up. We make sure that kids do have access to those non-enrolling resources that are so important to success in classrooms.

A. Sanders: Again, this agreement-in-committee further makes sure that those inequities in different districts are cemented in place and will cause further disparity between districts, not improve that or change it or take it away. In fact, the reason that those disparities exist and the reason that people were bargaining was to come to a provincial collective agreement so that all of the school districts have one agreement. This minister has done nothing to get to that point. In fact, now we've got all those disparities in place if this AIC is accepted, and that is unacceptable.

The provincial government funds the school boards in the province through what is an equitable funding system: the block funding. Trustees then have the authorization, because they're elected and are responsible, to deliver education programs that are appropriate for their community.

In the proposed agreement -- the Premier's agreement with the BCTF -- there is this $75 million that will be put into new staffing for non-enrolling teachers: to people in libraries, ESL and so forth. This new funding, although promoted as equitable, will not provide equitable services; in fact, it will instil and solidify a very inequitable process.

Little or no funding to maintain the staffing will be provided for school districts that, through efficiency in local decision-making, have adequate staffing of non-enrolling teachers. So they tried to do what was right for their local community, and the government is going to make sure that they're penalized. Districts that through choice -- or inefficiency, and it's for none of us to say which it is -- did not need those new staffing ratios for non-enrolling teachers will be funded.

That's like doing it wrong and getting the money, but if you do it right, you get penalized. If a board supported a music program instead of a library, for example, it will now be funded for both. If the board did library only, they will only maintain that, and there will be no funding for both. So you're going to put people in a have and have-not circumstance through no fault of their own, other than the fact that local decisions are now being cemented in place. You 're rewarding the people who perhaps didn't do as good a job as the people who did.

S. Hawkins: Or who didn't have the means to do it.

A. Sanders: Or didn't have the means.

If a board provided special education services for students mostly with teachers, it will not receive new funding. If it provided student support for those same kids mostly with teachers' assistants, it may receive new funding. We're talking about the same kids. The kids don't care who's giving them learning assistance. One group will get it because they had CUPE, and another group won't.

How does the minister intend to deal with these very obvious inequities? Does he view this as fair in the system? Does he view this as the kinds of efficiencies we want to see in our school districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that the opposition doesn't like this agreement and don't want to see $150 million invested in our classrooms, and that's fine. I said very clearly that there are variations in how this agreement will affect various districts, and frankly, I can't conceive of an agreement that wouldn't have some variable impacts in districts across British Columbia.

But what we are doing -- and what is the goal of this government -- is providing that the student in Nakusp, Pouce Coupe, Fort St. James, Campbell River or Burnaby will have access to the same resources for non-enrolling staff. Now, that's the goal here. It's a goal that focuses on children and on what they have available to them. That's the goal of this agreement. It's the goal that the British Columbia Teachers Federation and representatives of government think will improve education in the classrooms of our province.

If I had a child in kindergarten-to-grade-3, I think it would be very valuable to me to know that, whether my child was enrolled in Burnaby or Victoria or Quesnel, the class size that my child would experience would be the same -- the same ratio, the same chance to get a good beginning. That's what this agreement is about: making sure that we have those teachers there to do the work that we need them to do for our children.

[4:45]

By entrenching non-enrolling teacher ratios in the collective agreement, as this AIC does, school boards will no longer have the ability to decide these staffing levels. You're going to have winners among the school boards, and you're going to have losers. You're going to have those decisions on how to deliver education services based on 1997 figures. The more a district worked and made other reductions to protect services in areas of non-enrolling teachers, the less they will get of the $75 million. The more they tried, the less they get. That doesn't make sense to me. All this is going to be based on form 1530, which collects inaccurate information and was never intended to be used for the purpose of basing an entire agreement-in-committee on -- the Premier's agreement. Those are very significant problems.

I want to go back to one of the questions I asked the minister, and I would like an example of where he. . . . This is something he has said that I'm not aware of. In many cases the teachers on call in the AIC will be receiving a greater day's

[ Page 7578 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll ask staff to provide some information. I'm not sure we've had anything particularly new in the last speech by the opposition critic. It's clear that the establishment of ratios in contracts for non-enrolling professionals in the public school system will provide equity of access to those professionals for students enrolled in the public school system. That's the goal. That's a goal we're committed to; that's the goal we're spending $75 million on achieving. It will mean that when a family moves from one district to another, they can expect the same level of attention to the needs of their child in the school. I've said that there are variable impacts of this around the province; that's clearly true. We don't want to see additional reductions in these non-enrolling teachers. We share that.

Frankly, I'm surprised. I thought most members in this chamber did share a commitment to ensuring that those services were there for children in our schools, whether they are teacher-librarians or counsellors, ESL specialists or special education resource people. This agreement provides a level playing field, a way of making sure that those resources are equitable, a way of saying that the band of ratios will narrow considerably and that there will a clear level of service that must be provided in every district in the province. That's a goal this side of the House is committed to. I'm sorry to hear the opposition is not.

A. Sanders: In the agreement-in-committee -- the Premier's agreement -- certain target service levels are set for special ed teachers. These targets are based on the total number of students in the district; they're not based on the number of students in the district with special needs. Does the government understand that this fails to address the needs of students in districts that have a large population of students with special needs?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Once again, we're trying to set a floor to make sure that all children in the province -- special needs kids -- have access to that out-of-class resource. Obviously, if a district has more high-level special needs kids, that is reflected in the funding formula, which the member has already referenced as a way of distributing the $3.5 billion or more that's distributed to school districts. This sets a floor under it. The funding formula takes account of the variations, particularly in high-need, low-incidence special needs kids.

A. Sanders: Why in the world did the government not base the service levels on the number of students with special needs in a district?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The people who worked in committee to establish this agreement felt that this was the best way of recognizing how we set the floor for access to this service. There are obviously higher levels of funding that go to districts with high levels of special needs kids.

A. Sanders: I would probably state that the reason that the people in committee didn't use the number of special ed students in a district is that they had no idea what they were doing. Not one of them has ever been in a position where they were looking at these kinds of bargaining things in a school district. Setting the floor on something you don't understand turns out such ridiculous things as funding for special needs on the basis of the number of kids in the school district rather than the number of kids with special needs.

We have islands and pockets of large concentrations -- epicentres -- of special needs kids around places where those facilities can be delivered. People move into those areas in order to get special needs facilities and hospitalization and special learning stuff for kids outside of the school district as well as in. That's why the agreement should have been bargained by the people who knew what they were doing, not three people from the Premier's Office and the executive of the BCTF.

Does government understand that a district will be required to maintain special education teachers under this AIC -- this opus -- even after students with special needs graduate or otherwise leave a school district?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's get rid of some of the rhetoric. I think the record of funding for special needs education in this province is pretty clear. The attention to it is demonstrated by increases every year that I'm aware of. It now stands at over $400 million a year in funding that's provided to districts for special needs kids. In every district there's a level of low-need but high-incidence special education. That's the floor that this agreement seeks to put in place to make sure that a level of service is available for those children. Obviously, where there are pockets of very high-need kids, as the member talks about -- and that can vary from district to district -- funding then changes. This is a floor, hon. member; I think it's a good floor. Our circumstances are such that we continue to have kids with special needs coming into districts. I'm unaware of any study that says any district will at any time not have to devote considerable attention to children with special needs.

A. Sanders: Does the minister recognize that by signing the AIC -- the Premier's agreement -- the districts will be required to maintain special education teachers even after students with special needs have graduated?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be delighted to hear about this district where there are going to be no special needs kids coming into school as kids graduate.

A. Sanders: The minister is being facetious and knows exactly that that is not even close to what I mean by that. This will be a detriment to other services should the numbers of special needs kids change. If every child with special needs leaves the school, any kind of child can come in, with any other kind of need. This agreement will put in place a silly circumstance where special needs kids have graduated and school boards are left having to fund for kids who have special needs. That's ridiculous. It's made up by a bunch of amateurs from the Premier's Office who thought they could fix anything.

Could the minister explain to me in what terms, in what form, the Premier's agreement provides for school board discretion and autonomy in meeting the local needs of services to students? I've just pointed out a way that it doesn't: it's got a silly artificial floor that funds for base population instead of the numbers of special education kids in the classroom. They graduate, and you're still having to fund for special needs, even though you have a lesser number. Give me an example

[ Page 7579 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand that the Liberals don't wish to see ratios for non-enrolling teachers embedded and provincewide measures that ensure equitable access to those services for our kids. That's a shame. This agreement-in-committee enables a government and school districts to say, really for the first time in British Columbia, that whether your child is enrolled in Vancouver, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Prince Rupert or down in Cranbrook, the access to these specialists -- counsellors, teacher-librarians, special education folks, ESL -- will be equitable across the province. And we're committed to putting in significant resources -- $75 million over the next three years -- to enable that to happen. That's what this agreement is, in part, about. It is a good goal, and it is one that I believe both teachers and trustees will recognize as a good goal for education in their districts.

A. Sanders: The minister knows full well that this is not the best agreement that could have been achieved for students, families and teachers. It's an agreement from the Premier's Office that's been developed to suit a political cause and will. It has nothing to do with kids in the classroom. It has nothing to do with lowering ratios and including flexibility in agreements so that teachers and boards can deal with each other and arrange for the best. . . . They are the only ones who have any idea what's best for kids in the classroom. It certainly isn't this minister, and this agreement will certainly not do that.

Let's look at who will be laid off when this agreement goes into place. When the agreement comes in, the language is so rigid that everyone is going to have to take stock of their employment. School boards will be forced, because of the rigid contract language, to reduce other services in their schools. They'll be forced to have less clerical service; they will have less custodial service. We already know that our kids are sick because they're in our schools, because of the air quality in our schools. The schools are dirty. There are many schools that will be cutting daytime custodians. The minister knows that. People who are doing maintenance in schools will be cut. Transportation will be cut; administration will be cut. We're already among the lowest levels of any province for administrative services.

[5:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: In answer to the last specific question, that data is not collected centrally.

Now let's deal with a couple of issues here. I wish it were true that there was going to be a declining need for special education in school districts across the province. That's simply not the case, though. This year, for example, it looks like we are anticipating an increase of around 9 percent in students with severe behaviour difficulties -- to just over 6,000 -- and an increase of 1.5 percent in the sort of high-incidence, low-cost kid with some special needs -- to over 3,330. In all, there are around 6,500 kids in the province that have some form of special education need. As I say, funding this year has gone up again to help with that.

I await the information on this mythical district where the need for special education services is vanishing -- information on where that is actually happening. What the agreement-in-committee provides is a base level of servicing for special education, so that all children across the province have access to those base levels.

There's one other thing the member said that I just want to deal with quickly. This was the whole concern about operations and maintenance funding. I think the member said something about severe, drastic slashes to that funding around the province. Right now, it looks very much as though operations funding for the current budget will be at $433 million; last year, it was $425 million; the year before, it was $415 million -- a pattern of increases, not decreases. It is a luxury of opposition to oppose, and it's good to see the member's taking full advantage of it.

What we have here is a government that has committed itself to education, that has said we're going to spend $105 million on increasing the services we have now. We've said we want to make some significant improvements to our education system through lowering the K-to-3 class size, through ensuring the same ratios of access to services outside the classroom, through providing the necessary classrooms for those reduced classes, through linking all our schools to the latest in technology through the provincial learning network -- and more to come. This is a commitment that we are making to the children of our province, because it's important that we do so.

One way we're achieving this is through this agreement-in-committee that is now being taken by the BCTF and BCPSEA and is being considered. It gives us an opportunity to reduce class sizes, an opportunity to make improvements in the access that children have to services in our schools. It's an opportunity that I think both teachers and trustees will seize.

A. Sanders: The minister knows full well that if he truly wished to make significant improvements to the education system, he would do as I suggested to him: give the $150 million to the teachers and the school boards, and tell them to go back and in 30 days come back to us with a real agreement -- not this phony, trumped-up agreement from the Premier's Office and a bunch of people who were sent there, ad hoc, to try to see how they could cut a deal and do it before anyone had any idea of what was going on and then try and sell to us that this is the best way to distribute $150 million in education. It doesn't wash -- it doesn't wash at all.

Can government guarantee that no school district will be required to spend more than the grants received from the Ministry of Education to provide for the non-enrolling staffing levels established in the terms of this agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're seeking to ensure that the data is accurate and that staffing levels are achieved within the moneys available.

[ Page 7580 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: They're collected at district levels. I think the member knows that they tend to be high. School districts tend, at times, to overestimate the number of layoffs that are required, for the same reasons we talked about in terms of underestimating growth of enrolment.

A. Sanders: First of all, this is very valuable information to the Minister of Education -- the number of teachers who had layoff notices going out to them two days ago from school boards. The minister knows that it was in fact by his ministry that those school boards were told not to send out layoff notices, and that they were not allowed to send out layoff notices to non-enrolling teachers, because it would be bad for the political image. So even if he doesn't have the numbers, he knows that he has instructed those school districts that they are not allowed to send out layoff notices.

Based on the minister's look at the agreement-in-committee -- the Premier's agreement, seeing as he's the only one who had any say in it, by the looks of it. . . . In the Premier's agreement, the layoff notices for the ancillary staff, the non-BCTF staff, will be sent out on May 31. How many of those notices does the minister project will have to be sent out to members of allied unions if the AIC -- the Premier's agreement -- is ratified?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't anticipate that the number will be large. I would say that there will be layoffs in some districts in British Columbia. We have significantly declining school-age enrolments in some districts in B.C. So in some districts there will be some layoffs. Because of enrolment pressures and the other aspects of the $105 million increase to operational funding, there will be 400 additional teachers in the system next fall, over and above what we have right now. Over the next three years there will be 1,200 additional teachers in non-enrolling, and in K-to-3 there will be around 400 more of them next fall. So there will be around 900 more teachers working in British Columbia schools in the fall of 1998 than there were in the fall of 1997. That's a significant increase in the staff that are devoting their professional lives to taking care of our kids.

I need to correct, for the record, the member's allegation that districts were instructed to issue layoff notices to any teacher involved in a non-enrolling function. That is simply not true. We did tell school districts to submit budgets as usual and to be mindful of the agreement that has been struck in committee with the teachers.

A. Sanders: Just for the record, I'll remind the minister that the 400 additional teachers are the ones that would have been hired anyway, because we have 8,000 more kids. They are not additional teachers that this minister has injected into the system above the enrolment of kids in the province.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: Status quo.

The Premier's agreement provides for reduction in K-to-3 class size in the next three years. Unless the agreement is renewed, class sizes would then increase to levels currently in collective agreements. Is it government's intent to restore larger class sizes in the school years 2001 and 2002?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

A. Sanders: When the minister says no, does that mean he will make every effort to make sure that that does not happen, should he still be here?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, I'll repeat some of what I said earlier. I mean, I don't like to rehash every speech that's made in this chamber, but this one is worth rehashing. The Premier of the province, Premier Clark, back in the fall and in early 1998, made a number of public comments on his view -- which is shared by caucus and cabinet -- that we needed to do more in our schools and that a specific area where we needed to do more was in ensuring that every kid had an opportunity for a good start in those crucial kindergarten-to-grade-3 years.

I've said -- and I haven't heard any contradiction from the opposition, so I assume they agree with it, and they should -- that every bit of research I've seen suggests that if we have significant moneys to invest in the education system, where we ought to be putting it. . . . One of the first objects should be to make sure that we have good starts for kids in our schools. That requires focusing hard on kindergarten-to-grade-3 levels.

If we can get class size down, we can ensure that every child gets more attention. I think that's increasingly important in a province where children coming into schools have a diversity of backgrounds -- a diversity of socioeconomic backgrounds, of ethnic backgrounds. They bring a huge diversity into our schools, including familiarity with reading and writing in English. So there is a huge challenge here that our schools face. If we have additional resources, one of the prime places to put it is in kindergarten-to-grade-3.

As I've stated here, and I'll state it again, our goal is to reduce the average class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 from its current level, which is around 22 -- this is not maximum, but average; if you take it all across the province, it is around 22 -- and push that down to around 18. We think it will take us around five years to do that. This agreement gets us around half or a little better of the way there by reducing the class size everywhere in the province and investing $75 million into doing it.

So, hon. Chair, far from wanting class sizes to go back up, the platform of this government is to continue to move them down, to continue to make that investment in the early years of our children's education so they can succeed in the rest of their school career and their lives.

[5:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've seen summaries of it.

A. Sanders: Can the minister tell me how those summaries. . . ? I've actually read the entire report. Can the minister tell me how that report is similar to the planned K-to-3 reduction -- if it in fact has any correlation with the research?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, in the final report, April '97, some key findings were that reported effects of class size on students are greatest for kindergarten-to-grade-3, becoming smaller as the grade level increases, with some questions about both quantity and quality of research related to high

[ Page 7581 ]

A. Sanders: Based on research, what is the ideal class size for kindergarten?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The words that come to mind are: ideally, as low as possible. I think the research suggests that once you get down around the level of 17 or 18, you start to make some real differences.

A. Sanders: Actually, I beg to differ. That's not what the research says, and I would refer the minister back to the report.

Based on the research, what is the ideal class size for grade 1?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the research suggests that we want to get down around 18, and that's where we intend to get. Frankly, we can debate "ideal" forever. Much of it also has to do, of course, with composition of class, which I think is where the member is going. My submission is that if we can get a lower class size, that's an excellent base, and that's the goal of this agreement.

A. Sanders: Well, in fact the size of the class is, in research, not related at all to the agreement that's been signed by the three members from the Premier's Office and the BCTF.

For grade 2, what is the ideal class size?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be glad to hear what the member opposite feels is the ideal class size.

A. Sanders: What is the ideal class size for grade 3?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The same response, hon. Chair.

A. Sanders: Well, for a former educator, this minister is in a circumstance where he thinks the numbers are around 18 or 19, or around something like that. Yet he wants B.C. teachers and school board members to accept an agreement that says it is 22 -- it is this; no flex factors, no nothing. It's 17. It's not 18. It's not 17-1/2 -- it's one solid number. And if the teacher decided that she could teach 18 kids, the contract language will say she or he doesn't have the opportunity to teach 18 kids in that classroom, because that teacher cannot request a teaching assistant or extra prep time or anything. The class language is rigid, solid, solidified, hard. That teacher cannot make the decision that one more child and some additional services might best suit the academic aspirations of that child and that family.

The class size language says that flexibility is important, because in fact what determines it is more the mix of the class than the number of kids. That's based on 1,200 different studies, a meta-analysis that has looked at class sizes from several hundred to one.

In fact, having fewer kids in a classroom isn't necessarily the best academic situation. In other words, it's really hard to debate by yourself. If you've only got one person in a classroom, that may not be the ideal class size for a debating class. Class size depends on distribution, on the mix, the number of kids, the type of kids and the background of the kids. It isn't some hard figure of 17, 18, 19 or 23. It's up to the teacher, the mix of kids in the classroom, the administration, and this agreement will take that away.

It will take away the professional ability of a teacher in a classroom to say that one more kid would be okay if it means that the kid doesn't have to be bused to another school down the road and if they get a teaching assistant. That might be a better education outcome for that grade 1 class -- to have a teaching assistant and a teacher -- if we're talking about individual attention for kids in primary grades. That's what we're talking about. How kids learn better is with individual attention in primary grades. It's not necessarily class size. This agreement will take that away, and that's wrong.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, I am surprised. I never thought I'd see the day when a former teacher would stand up in this chamber and say that class size has nothing to do with the quality of education or the attention that kids get. I don't know what classes she taught in, but they sure weren't the classes I taught in, and they're not the classes that teachers in this province teach in either, hon. member.

The teachers of this province, who this member said are the experts, came to the bargaining table and said they shared this government's vision to get class size down, and they cut a deal which put money into class sizes, not money in their pockets. That's good for kids, and I'm tired of having this member stand up and say that it's not. This is good for kids.

This member stands up repeatedly and pretends that there is no current cap on class size. Well, there darned well is. Once you get the flex factor factored in, you have a cap, and the member opposite knows darned well that teachers in this province are faced with going to that flex-factor cap every day in classrooms around this province.

What this agreement with the teachers has done is allow us to lower that cap and say: "This is the cap." Yes, there will be classes a lot lower than that, and yes, there will be teaching assistants where there are special needs within them, but we are going to get that class size down. And that is going to make a difference for kids. I'm tired of this member standing up and saying that it's not. I'm ashamed to have her say this in this chamber, because she knows darned well it's not the reality for teachers and kids in our classrooms in British Columbia.

A. Sanders: I really couldn't care less what the minister's opinion is. These questions need to be asked, and I'm going to continue to ask them, and you're going to continue to answer them.

I've been in a classroom, and it wasn't a university classroom. It was a grade 6 classroom, and a grade 8 classroom, and a grade 9 classroom, and a grade 10 classroom, and an outdoor-education kind of classroom for university-aged students. And I can tell you, hon. Chair, that class size is one factor. It is not all of the factors.

If this minister truly wanted an agreement that was good for everyone, he would take up my offer to have $150 million

[ Page 7582 ]

Well, let's talk about the flex factor. The minister really hates it when I talk about the flex factor, so I think I'll put the burr under the saddle here. The Premier's agreement puts an end to the flex factor, and this has allowed many school districts to put an additional child over the class maximum into the class during the school year. In districts with a flex factor, kids could attend their neighbourhood school with brothers and sisters. In districts without the flex factor, children could be sent to another school or the district would be required to provide a classroom with another teacher and reorganize all of the classes. This could happen in October. The classes are all set up; you've got your grade 1 class. Then one more kid comes in, and all of a sudden your kid in grade 1, who's bonded to that teacher, is told that they're not having that teacher anymore. Now we've got to split the class in two. For the record, what was the reason? When the one thing that the school boards wanted more than anything was less rigid class-size language in the agreement, what was the reason -- if there is a reason -- for agreeing to eliminate the flex factor for all school districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're attempting to bring down the class sizes in kindergarten-to-grade-3 around the province; this agreement allow us to do that.

A. Sanders: Will the government provide funds to school districts, particularly those that are growing and those that have large populations of transient family groups? For those particular areas, will the minister provide midyear funding for hiring additional teachers to allow students to attend their neighbourhood school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we've canvassed this topic. Currently schools across the province deal with the fact that they need to adjust classes within and between schools, depending on how many kids in certain grades show up. With or without flex factors, there are maximums. With or without flex factors, there are caps that have to be dealt with by principals and teachers and parents. They deal with them in as sensitive a way as possible, and I expect they will continue to do so.

A. Sanders: I assume that means no. Does the minister recognize that if he did in fact fund in the middle of the year, this could create a lot more. . . ? Having taken away the flexibility, it could create a lot more useful kinds of situations for children, in that they could go to their community school. Would the minister consider midyear funding, so that midyear hiring could occur?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have no plans to change the current funding arrangements with school districts.

A. Sanders: Well, in some areas where they have transient families or parts of families and high growth, there'll be a whole lot of kids finding that they're not going to their community school in this province.

The agreement between government and the BCTF, with respect to the primary program, results in increased costs because of the reduction in class size for most districts. The loss of the flex factor is just another complication to take away any kind of plasticity for the school district. There will also be a further requirement to reduce class size for split classes. Are the costs of all three of these factors -- the agreement-in-committee, the reduction in class size and the loss of the flex factor -- funded from the allocations provided within the Premier's agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm sort of surprised that the member is interested, since she doesn't seem to feel that lower class size has much to do with the quality of education. But the answer is yes. Those factors are accounted for in our calculation of the additional teachers and funding that are required to make these class sizes real.

[5:30]

The agreement-in-committee -- the Premier's agreement -- puts a layer of contract language on top of the other existing language. The lower class sizes in primary can be further lowered by the application of existing contract requirements, including integration clauses. In one district, which requires the class maximum be reduced by two for every student with special needs, this would mean that a kindergarten class maximum would be reduced to 16 if two kids with special needs were included in the class. Is this what the government intended?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We intend to lower maximums for kindergarten-to-grade-3 and preserve other contractual arrangements.

A. Sanders: Is the minister aware that the numbers that would be created by the two -- the Premier's agreement over the top of the collective agreements from the transitional agreement -- do not in any way reflect any of the research on the subject?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm sorry that the members opposite don't think the goal here of lowering class size is an area of primary concern. It surely is when I talk to parents, teachers and students around British Columbia.

A. Sanders: Class size is important to parents, but what's more important to parents is that their children are taught and receive an education -- an education that's the best it can be, with the best and most efficient use of dollars, and with accountability from this minister and his ministry. And they will not get any of those things in this agreement.

Government did not discuss the content. The Premier's agreement continues the terms and conditions of all 75 existing collective agreements with teachers, except where these terms and conditions are improved by the agreement-in-committee. In many of these collective agreements, school boards are required to employ more teachers at a greater cost than is supported by funding received from government. School boards and trustees from across the province have repeatedly asked government to fund the bargain. The agreement-in-committee -- the Premier's agreement -- increases costs of existing collective agreements. School dis-

[ Page 7583 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Asked yesterday; answered yesterday. We intend to fund all the enhancements that are contained in this agreement -- $25 million more this year, $50 million the year after, $75 million the year after that. We intend to fully fund any increases to base costs, such as the teachers' salaries that are contained in year three of this agreement. We intend to continue to fund the inflationary pressures and other increased costs that school districts face, as we have done this year with our funding of $105 million.

A. Sanders: Then why was the language of this agreement-in-committee made so loose that the minister can escape from that commitment after year one?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've made these commitments repeatedly; I stand behind them.

A. Sanders: Well, what will happen next year when the Finance minister tells this minister there's no money in the pot for the Premier's agreement? What arguments will he be bringing forward, other than his word?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member can't have it both ways. She can't both ask me to guarantee this funding and make a commitment -- which I have done -- and then say I can't make the commitment.

A. Sanders: I don't think that does anything more than point out that the minister can't make a commitment. It's not up to him to make, any more than it was up to him to give the $150 million in the first place. What was the sense, what was the reason, what was the thinking behind removing the majority rule for splits?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to understand the question. I believe what the member is asking about is the provision in the agreement-in-committee where it says that when you have a mixed class, 2-3 or 1-2, the class maximum for the lower grade applies. I would just ask if that's what the member is referring to.

I saw nods. In that case, the answer is that it was the goal to say: "Look, we're going to get the lower class size applied." We're not going to assume that the higher class size should apply if you have that sort of mixed grade. It's consistent with the whole goal of driving down class sizes.

A. Sanders: I think the minister recognizes that there will be a significant increase in split classes if this agreement-in-committee is legislated. Again, the lower class size. . . . What used to happen was that whichever class was the largest -- the grade 2 or the grade 3 or the grade 1-2 -- you took the size as the grade that had the most children. Now that doesn't apply anymore.

What will happen? Has the minister estimated or has the minister asked districts to give him information on how many more split classes there will be in British Columbia in 1999 than there were in 1998, based on enrolment projections?

Hon. P. Ramsey: On this side, staff are having considerable difficulty grappling with the premise of the member's question. Frankly, we can see no reason why there would necessarily be an increase in the number of splits as a result of this agreement -- in fact, there could be a case made that there would be fewer. That being the premise, I simply can't answer it -- because we disagree with the premise. As far as when we know, school districts will be reporting to us on implementation and providing for us their staffing models under this agreement. We'll know at that time what the number of splits will be. It will be interesting to see if the data confirms the member's projection -- or staff's projection that it could be lower.

A. Sanders: I'd be interested in having the staff look into that. When I looked at the numbers, I thought there would be more split classes. If there are more split classes, this is another thing that needs to be looked at quite carefully. My experience with split classes is that in general, families are less happy with split classes -- where you have two or three grade 2s in a grade 3 classroom -- than they are with their child being in one grade, for social reasons.

In the Premier's agreement, the K-to-3 provision in the agreement has a ceiling of $5 million in the first year. Greater Victoria alone will require $1.207 million -- this is a quarter of the entire provincial allotment. Many other school boards that I have asked have given similar figures. Where are the boards going to get the additional dollars?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be interested in hearing where that number came from. Staff don't have it.

A. Sanders: I've looked at a number of the different districts, and their projection in year one is quite considerably different than. . . . These are projections from numbers that were given to me by various districts. Greater Victoria has told me that they will require approximately $1.207 million. This amount is what they will require to implement the K-to-3 provision. With a ceiling of $5 million being committed to this provision in year one, there is a very large, substantial difference in the amount available -- the $5 million -- and we're just talking about one school district.

So is the minister. . . ? What process does the minister have in place to look at these figures, to tell the school districts. . . ?

Interjection.

A. Sanders: It's about 25 percent of the entire budget for the implementation of the K-to-3 provision in year one.

The Chair: Noting the time, I recognize the minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It looks like this is the last answer of this sitting of the committee.

We'll deal with the specific question first. Frankly, staff will not provide me with any information that's at all congruent with what the member's saying. I'd ask the member to check and see if that potential figure doesn't cover all three years of the K-to-3 class size reduction initiative, or if it doesn't include the other aspects of it as well, because it doesn't seem to fit with some of the figures that I'm being shown.

[5:45]

[ Page 7584 ]

Just in closing, we've spent a lot of time here today, and we actually did, at least at the end of it, start to debate some of the real issues that are embedded in this agreement. I recognize that opposition has a responsibility to hold government to account, but I did detect -- at least in some of the critic's more recent comments -- a recognition that reduction in class size and ensuring access to out-of-class professionals would be enhancements to our education system. That's clearly the view of this side of the chamber and of this government. We have sought hard to find ways to make that a reality for kids across the province. This agreement-in-committee is one tool for doing that. I think that at the end of the day both teachers and trustees will see the advantages of this improvement to education for our kids.

With that, and noting the time and the restlessness at the head table, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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