[ Page 7585 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

But I think the important distinction, perhaps, is that the opposition would like to see us continue to have workplaces in British Columbia. I think the general drift of government policy in this province over the past several years has been -- through a variety of means, whether regulatory, tax or others -- to actually eliminate workplaces. We have seen the disastrous consequences of this government's activities and policies over the past several years. What it has produced is a loss of jobs that's quite unprecedented in this province. I know that the Premier has a particular affection for Jeremy Rifkin's book The End of Work. Certainly, under the leadership of this government, we have come very close to achieving that particular goal of bringing an end to work. I suppose that if this government has achieved anything, it has achieved an end to work for tens of thousands of forest employees and many other employees across the province, as well, through their ill-advised, ill-conceived policies.

We support measures to enhance workplace safety in this province. Regrettably, however, there is precious little in Bill 14 that will assist with that noble goal. The bill is lengthy. Much of it, I suppose, might be termed boilerplate from existing regulation. There is precious little in those 57 pages to assist the prospects of improving workplace safety in British Columbia.

What we do find in those 57 pages is more stifling red tape for small businesses, medium-sized businesses, all businesses across British Columbia -- a lot more red tape to choke their aims and their activities. It's ironic that just weeks or months ago we heard from this government that they had finally seen the light, finally come to appreciate that red tape, regulation, onerous taxation -- all of these things -- were stifling small business and other business in British Columbia. We heard a good deal of rhetoric from the Premier, the Minister of Small Business and others about the noble goal of eliminating red tape and regulation in British Columbia.

However, I guess it all goes back to the old saying that talk is cheap, because while we have heard that rhetoric around the elimination of red tape, we have yet to see any results in terms of the elimination of red tape. Business continues to be hampered by onerous and, in most cases, unnecessary regulation that stifles and saps the vitality of businesses across this province.

This government has done nothing to reduce the paper burden facing small businesses -- and indeed all businesses -- across British Columbia. They remain choked by overregulation. They remain choked by the most onerous levels of taxation and regulation in North America. The newspapers are constantly filled with stories about British Columbia businesses that have had enough and are moving to Alberta, Washington State or some other place in North America that offers them a much friendlier environment to operate in than is available in British Columbia.

I found it ironic, as well, that even before the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia issues its final report, the government is able to introduce some of its interim recommendations in Bill 14. I find it ironic because, to take a different example of red tape that has been promised for elimination -- namely, retroactive rent reviews on mobile home parks. . . . In the case of the mobile home parks, for years now there has been an agreement that those retroactive rent reviews should be eliminated. They are an enormous source of anxiety and frustration for a whole lot of people. Literally everyone had agreed that those retroactive rent reviews should be eliminated, but it took this government years to actually introduce a statute, which they did the other day, to eliminate those reviews. However, on the other hand, before the commission has even issued its final recommendations, the Minister of Labour seizes on the opportunity to throw some more regulation at businesses in British Columbia.

In my critic area, I think we see very graphically in forestry the fact that this socialist NDP government is capable only of adding red tape and never of eliminating red tape. They are great, unequalled, unparalleled in terms of adding red tape. There are few other provinces or jurisdictions anywhere in this world that can rival this particular government for throwing additional red tape and regulation onto businesses and individuals in a jurisdiction. This government is just great at that. When it comes to reducing it, they have an enormous problem. They're just not capable of delivering on their promises to reduce red tape. Adding it is great; reducing it is a big, big problem.

In the area of forestry, we see this again particularly graphically in the case of the Forest Practices Code. Back in '93 or '94 the government decided that they needed a forest practices code to send a message out to the world that British Columbia was going to do a better job in terms of managing its forest resources. Rather than set out a set of clear, precise, concise, results-oriented rules, this NDP government sat down and, rather than pursuing results, pursued process. Rather than stating goals and the results that they expected in a forest practices code, this government simply elaborated the processes that they wanted to see occur in the province. Rather than seeing a very concise document, as one might see in Sweden, Alberta, Oregon or a number of places like that -- a very manageable document -- we see literally thousands of pages in the Forest Practices Code.

[10:15]

[ Page 7586 ]

What we see in the Forest Practices Code, as I mentioned, is thousands of pages of bewildering and sometimes contradictory regulation. It's a huge burden that's killed jobs. By the government's own admission, the highly prescriptive Forest Practices Code that we have in British Columbia has cost the industry $1 billion more than was necessary over the past three years. The government, in their much-heralded press conference around the reduction in the paper burden associated with the code, said: "Well, the cost of the Forest Practices Code has been about $750 million a year. We think it can be done for about $400 million a year, and we can do that without losing any of the real value that is associated with the code. We will still be able to do the job at $400 million, as opposed to $750 million." So another billion dollars in costs is levelled against the forest industry in British Columbia for no good reason.

We can't expect that this government, given their orientation towards business and their frequently virulent anti-business rhetoric -- when it suits their convenience and their interest -- is going to have any particular pity for the forest industry. We can't expect that. What we should expect, however, is some pity for the thousands of forest workers that have been laid off in British Columbia as a result of this overregulation. When you unnecessarily suck a billion dollars out of an industry, can you expect that that industry is going to happily proceed as it had in the past? No, you can't. The billion dollars that was sucked out of the forest industry unnecessarily by this NDP government has had disastrous consequences in terms of investment and jobs in this province -- absolutely disastrous. The cost is in fact far higher than a billion dollars. Far more than a billion dollars has unnecessarily been sucked out of the forest industry in the province.

This government's idea of deregulation is to take five plans and roll them into three, but without eliminating anything that was in the original five plans. Somehow putting them into three categories rather than five categories is a triumph of deregulation, from their perspective. That's what we see happening in the province today. Again, as I mentioned, the real talent of this government lies not in deregulation -- that's obvious. It lies in regulation. I guess it's kind of like trying to get a dog to walk backwards or something. It's tough to do. This government just isn't naturally built that way. They have a great deal of difficulty eliminating regulation but are very good at adding regulation. The bottom line, again, is huge costs in terms of jobs and investment, and it means thousands and thousands of jobs lost unnecessarily.

What we see in Bill 14 is more of the same. We see in Bill 14 the addition of new responsibilities and new costs for employers across this province -- employers and businesses that are already suffering as a result of the overregulation of this government. One would think, given their recent bleatings about consulting with small business and understanding the challenges facing small business, that we might see something different from this government. But oh no -- when it comes down to it, we've got to add regulation; the only way to deal with an issue is to add more regulation. So here we see it again. We don't see a practical bill that is somehow going to add to safety in the workplace. We see a whole bunch of words, a whole bunch of stuff that is really not going to improve workplace safety in the province. It sets out, for example, some arbitrary numbers for the joint committees or safety representatives that are required. I believe it's nine for a safety representative and 20 for a joint committee.

One of the problems with the bill is that, as one might expect from this government, it makes absolutely no distinction between high-risk and low-risk workplaces. There is an enormous difference, obviously, between the situation of a logging crew or a falling crew, which is probably the most dangerous workplace in the province. . . . Falling trees, and so on, is very dangerous work, as opposed to a real estate office or a legal office, where those kinds of risks are not there. This bill doesn't make any distinction between the high-risk workplace and the low-risk workplace. It throws on an arbitrary and onerous burden, regardless of what kind of situation exists in a particular workplace. Again, I guess it's typical of a government that is reluctant to think through changes before it undertakes them.

To conclude, in every workplace, safety is everyone's responsibility. I've worked in lots of different places in the course of my life, and the best places to work are workplaces where safety is everyone's responsibility. Safety is not something that can be delegated off to a single representative or to a committee. Everyone in a workplace has to be constantly thinking safety if it's going to be a workplace that is safe. In a workplace, there is not any arbitrary distinction, as one might find in this bill, among an employer, a manager and an employee. Those are false distinctions. In a workplace, safety is everyone's responsibility, regardless of whether they're an employer, a manager or an employee.

It's interesting, as well, that Bill 14, while it quickly takes on a few of the interim recommendations of the royal commission, ignores the royal commission's recommendations with respect to employee responsibility. It seems to me that if the employer in a workplace is the only one on the hook for fines and penalties, regardless of what may have occurred or transpired, then it will lead in a very direct way to a more dangerous rather than a safer workplace in British Columbia. Everyone has to take responsibility. To say that only the employer is on the hook for safety, in terms of fines and penalties, is a false and obviously arbitrary distinction.

I think this government needs to rethink in a very fundamental way the approach that is contained in Bill 14. If the objective is safer workplaces across the province, then the government had better pull back on this bill, have another look at it and see if there's a better way to do it. Clearly they still have not captured the spirit that needs to be contained in a bill in order to accomplish the goal of workplace safety.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 14, the Workers Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, 1998. When I first received this bill, though, I had a little difficulty with it. When I opened the bill, I found three pages at the front which gave me the index, and then inside the bill I found blank pages. All the way through the bill were blank pages. That actually indicated the nature of the bill -- blank pages, a whole book of blank pages, some 50 blank pages in the official bill. Now, I'm not sure I can speak in favour of that kind of presentation, although let me be fair. There was a second copy which arrived, and it did have some printed words on those pages, which didn't make it any better to read or to understand, but at least there was some printed content there.

Let me put a little context into what I'm saying. It was 50 years ago, during my university time, when I worked summers at the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd. in Flin

[ Page 7587 ]

The necessity of dealing with safety is brought home by a clipping in the paper this week, on May 6. It announced the new head of the Workers Compensation Board in British Columbia, Ralph McGinn, who says that he's going to set about improving safety within British Columbia. He points out that at the present moment in B.C., five of every 100 workers are injured on the job; B.C. apparently has the worst record for injuries of any place in Canada. Ever since '91, we've had a government which has said that it was working for workers -- that it was working for safety in the workplace. Now, seven years later, we have the kind of bill that only talks about committees. It doesn't talk about safety. It doesn't talk about really doing anything worthwhile for the workers in our community. Of course, the workers are in negotiations across the province at the moment. They're in negotiations because they are concerned about their well-being.

[10:30]

We have a news release about a class of students coming to this government, saying that they're concerned about their safety within their school because it's not safe. It was built in 1912 and would not be safe in an earthquake. We have all these concerns about safety, and here we have a bill that talks about setting up committees -- not dealing with the real problems that should be dealt with. As I looked at the title of that bill, I was interested with respect to the discussion we had this week on the word "compensation" in another matter. The Workers Compensation Board. . . . It implied that workers are seeking compensation for accidents and injuries that come to them because of things that weren't properly undertaken. What we need to do is not deal with compensation after the fact, but with safety before the fact. This bill is not dealing with safety before the fact.

Even if you look at the bill itself and its contents, what we find is a very conflicting situation. Everything within the bill is countermanded and overridden by other parts of the bill. There's no consistency in anything that's being suggested here. There are some good purposes that are set out at the beginning of the bill: for safety, to minimize the costs of accidents and to protect people. Then right in the next paragraph, it says: "The minister may appoint a committee to conduct a review of all part or of this Part and the regulations and to report to the minister concerning its recommendations." We have a review committee already operating on Workers Compensation, in all of its aspects, which is to report within a few months' time. This report is trying to set out a new process for safety within the workplace, or at least a new process of setting up committees that might deal with safety within the workplace. Starting at the very beginning of the report, even before you get into all the regulations and processes which are being put forward -- which are compulsory, by the way, and time-consuming for workers and employers and others involved, without actually having any results -- you have right here, even as this is being put in place, that there should be another appointment of a review committee to review all of that, which is being passed even before it's passed. If you're bringing forth new regulations, hopefully to have positive results, why did you establish a review of those regulations before they're even passed? Why don't you do the review so that when the regulations are passed, they don't need that kind of review?

All the way through, hon. Speaker, although it's talking about setting up committees and establishing responsibility in the workplace, in section after section it goes on to say that these committees have no power and no authority because the board has jurisdiction to inquire, to hear and to determine all matters and questions of fact and law arising out of these recommendations. We have here just a figment of the imagination, a make-work project for someone wanting to get a bill so they'd have something to put forth in the Legislature this session which sounded as if it was going to be worthwhile and would make a difference to the workers within our province. We see in this bill the shallowness of the legislation which has been prepared for this Legislature this session. We've been hearing talk of an election for a great deal of time, and it would look as if the hon. members had been preparing for an election, because certainly they haven't been preparing the kind of bills that can stand up to good scrutiny.

This is the kind of statement that you have, and this is the government that was supposed to be putting forth their ideas in plain language. Let me just read the plain language of this -- they're talking about general obligations not being limited by specific obligations: "A specific obligation imposed by this Part or the regulations does not limit the generality of any other obligation imposed by this Part or the regulations." There's certainly no simple simplicity to that turnabout of sentence.

That's the kind of bill we have here. Of course, as this side of the House, we wanted to hoist it. Of course we wanted to send it back, to have it reworked, to have it considered by the members of the unions themselves, by employee groups and joint employee-employer-management groups who could come back to us and say: "Yes, we want safety. Yes, we want to work on it together. Yes, it's our lives that are at stake. It's our bodies that are being threatened, and we want to have a say in what's happening." But that has not been the case.

Again, we have this quote: "Despite section 125" -- which is the one just before it -- "the board may, by order, require. . .an employer to establish and maintain. . . ." So they set up a suggestion of a way to go in one paragraph, and in the next paragraph they set out the objections and the possibilities of the board changing that.

[ Page 7588 ]

We've moved into an age where we've discovered that it's the front-line people who do the job who know best how the job should be done. It's the front-line workers who know what is needed for safety and are able to set forth the rules, regulations and guidelines that they can live with. They know what will work in one situation and will not work in another, so they can tailor it to their circumstances. The kind of bill that we should have had is enabling legislation, not demanding legislation where Big Brother, called "the board," is looking over your shoulder and can come in at any time -- at any moment, day or night -- and change whatever you have developed which works in your community, because sitting in the offices in Victoria, Big Brother has a different idea.

It's all the way through this bill: "The board may make orders. . . ." This is 187 sections later. Section after section, all the way through, it's simply saying. . . . They could have said right at the very beginning: "We give to the board authority to make regulations and send them out to you on a regular weekly basis. Please read them every week so that you'll be updated." Had they done that, they could have put it in one page and it would have been satisfied. But the way this is written -- the way this is put forth -- is not helpful to the people in the community.

We're in a crisis within our community at the moment. In our present comments. . . . When we're looking at the employers and the employees, who are all concerned with safety, we are saying that when it comes to bargaining within our province. . . . We have it reported that Mr. Shields is saying that the NDP government is clearly no longer on the side of working people. This is one more example that they are on the side of regulation and legislation, which is down from the top, not from the bottom up. It's not realistic, and it's not dealing with safety but with wordage. It would have been better if we had the blank pages to begin with.

Hon. Speaker, it is too bad that the hoist motion was not accepted so that this could have gone back to the community. Certainly I cannot find anything in this legislation worthy of support.

B. Penner: I too rise in opposition to Bill 14, the Workers Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, 1998. This is second reading, and I'm indicating my opposition and my anticipated vote against this legislation.

My primary concern is that this legislation contains more red tape, and that is a direct contradiction of this government's stated goal in the budget, which we heard just over a month ago. I believe that there is nothing in Bill 14 which will create a friendlier climate for small business or job creation in British Columbia. On budget day, not that long ago, the Finance minister admitted that her government's red tape and overregulation have increased business costs and made B.C. less competitive. Yet this government continues adding to the problem.

I think it's sadly ironic that the Finance minister appointed a task force on small business on April 27 to find ways to reduce red tape, and then the very next day the NDP tabled more rules and regulations in the form of Bill 14. This is on top of the hundreds of pages of new regulations that the Workers Compensation Board put into force on April 15 of this year. It's little wonder that B.C.'s unemployment rate is the highest west of Quebec.

You know, a person could start to get used to this kind of conduct: a government that says one thing and then does another. But I don't think that's acceptable to people in British Columbia. I'll give you some examples.

We have a Premier who says he's going to create more jobs for youth. He's been calling himself the Minister Responsible for Youth for about two years. What has happened in that period of time? The youth unemployment rate has gone from 13.9 percent to 18.6 percent, in March of 1998. More statistics are going to be released tomorrow by Statistics Canada. I believe they will show an even greater increase in youth unemployment in British Columbia. Already B.C.'s youth unemployment rate is higher than every other province, except New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Our unemployment rate for youth is higher than Quebec's, and it's going higher. That's not acceptable.

This is the same government that claimed at one time to have balanced the budget and, in fact, to have provided British Columbia with a surplus budget. We found out what the value of that promise was: it wasn't true. Again, it's another example of saying one thing and doing another.

Then we come to the Finance minister's speech on budget day, when she said that she was working for British Columbians to reduce red tape. I'll read a couple of quotes into the record. On page 8 of her speech she says:

". . .in all our consultations, we heard the business community's desire to develop a more efficient regulatory framework as a major way of cutting costs and remaining competitive. . . .We recognize the need to cut red tape in British Columbia. We want to make it easier to do business so that business can create jobs. . .that does not mean lowering standards. Penalties and enforcement for non-compliance should and will remain strong. What it does mean is focusing less on process and more on results."

[10:45]

"(1) A worker health and safety representative is required

(a) in each workplace where there are more than 9 but fewer than 20 workers of the employer regularly employed, and

(b) in any other workplace for which a worker health and safety representative is required by order of the board.

"(2) The worker health and safety representative must be selected in accordance with section 128 from among the workers at the workplace who do not exercise managerial functions at that workplace."

"(1) Each member of a joint committee is entitled to an annual educational leave totalling 8 hours, or a longer period if prescribed by regulation, for the purposes of attending occupational health and safety training courses conducted by or with the approval of the board.

"(2) A member of the joint committee many designate another person as being entitled to take all or part of the member's educational leave.

[ Page 7589 ]

"(3) The employer must provide the education leave under this section without loss of pay or other benefits and must pay for, or reimburse the worker for, the cost of the training course and the reasonable costs of attending the course."

I think that Bill 14 could have a very perverse effect on employment in British Columbia. As noted in section 139, certain provisions only take effect when you have more than nine employees. I think that's going to create a disincentive for a small firm that has nine employees to hire that one additional person. Because as soon as they do, they are caught by the expensive regulations in Bill 14. What a horrible message to send to businesses in British Columbia when we're trying to reduce our unemployment rate. It's encouraging small businesses not to grow in order to avoid the expensive regulations in Bill 14, and that's wrong. It's completely opposite to the direction we need to head in, in British Columbia. We need to create more opportunities for employment. We need to make it more attractive for employers in British Columbia to increase the number of people on their payroll rather than decrease their payroll.

I'll read another section for your benefit, hon. Speaker. Section 137 deals with the paperwork required by Bill 14:

"(1) After each joint committee meeting, the committee must prepare a report of the meeting and provide a copy to the employer.

"(2) The employer must

(a) if so requested by a union representing workers at the workplace, send a copy of the reports under subsection (1) to the union,

(b) retain a copy of the reports for at least 2 years from the date of the joint committee meeting to which they relate, and

(c) ensure that the retained reports are readily accessible to the joint committee members, workers of the employer, officers and other persons authorized by the board or the minister."

But that's not all. Section 136(1) says: "The employer must provide the joint committee with the equipment, premises and clerical personnel necessary for the carrying out of its duties and functions." That's another liability, another cost imposed on employers and another disincentive to hiring that tenth person, because then you get caught by this legislation.

There are 230 sections of additional red tape in Bill 14. As if that's not enough, the government in its wisdom has seen fit on page 49 of the bill to leave it open for more regulation and red tape to be imposed later. Section 224, "Cabinet regulations," goes on about how the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations.

I'll cite a couple of the specific examples: section 224(2)(c), "requiring a greater number for minimum membership of a joint committee as referred to in section 127(a) and the circumstances when the greater number is required"; subsection (d), "establishing additional functions and duties for joint committees as referred to in section 130(j)"; subsection (e), "establishing a longer period of educational leave as referred to in section 135(1)"; and subsection (f), "establishing assistance that must be provided to a joint committee by the employer in addition to the requirements in section 136."

Where is it going to end? We don't know. Nobody looking at this legislation could say with any certainty where the obligation is going to end for employers once they hire their tenth employee. Once they go over that nine-employee threshold, we don't know where their obligations are going to end. What kind of message does that send? It says: "Don't hire a tenth employee. Don't expand. Don't create more jobs in British Columbia." That's wrong -- absolutely wrong.

We're dealing with this bill, and there are a lot of questions we can't answer and a lot of uncertainty. There is a parallel that can be drawn to an experience we had last year. The member for North Coast introduced a bill, the Builders Lien Amendment Act, which was a very complicated act. It didn't get as much scrutiny as it perhaps should have, and it got past here. Then, come the fall, the private sector -- the people who had to implement the legislation and live and work with it on a daily basis -- realized that it simply was untenable.

It didn't work. There were problems inherent in the legislation, but it wasn't discovered until a few months later. I think there's a lesson we can draw from that experience. I think we can use that experience to realize that there are going to be problems in this bill for the people who have to implement it.

It's not us, hon. Speaker. It's not the MLAs who sit in this chamber, all 75 of us, who have to figure out a way to make this work. It's the people who pay the bills in British Columbia who have to figure out a way to make this work. They haven't had a chance yet to seriously take a look at this bill and have input into the process and recommend changes. There are legislative committees that are struck every year when the House resumes. Most of the time those committees never sit, and they don't do the work that I think they should.

I think this would be a classic example of the kind of bill that should be put before a legislative committee that would take submissions from employers and workers around British Columbia to find ways to make it better. With consultation, I think we could make it better. We could provide more certainty and, hopefully, create a situation where employers will be encouraged to hire additional employees rather than be discouraged by ever-increasing amounts of paperwork and regulation and costs associated with hiring more employees.

We all want safer workplaces, but Bill 14 is more about process, red tape and extra cost than it is about safety. The NDP admits that they made a mistake with the Forest Practices Code by focusing on process rather than results. Unfortunately, they're making the same mistake again, this time with Bill 14.

K. Krueger: This week's debate has been a sad confirmation that nothing has changed with regard to how British Columbia is going to be governed in this session and beyond. There are the same tired old approaches -- the same approaches that brought eastern Europe to financial ruin before socialism finally collapsed.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: We have the hilarity of the Minister of Fisheries speaking to me across the floor, Madam Speaker -- the

[ Page 7590 ]

It's the same old unwillingness of this government to listen. A minister who introduced this motion for second reading of the bill with the words that he was going to be completely open, yesterday demonstrated that actual lack of openness by leading the government benches in opposing a very reasonable amendment to give the employers and employees and the public in British Columbia an opportunity to have input on this destructive legislation in order that it be amended and not be another nail in the coffin of investment in B.C.

As a result of the debate that's gone on this week, the message to anyone considering investing in B.C. is very, very clear. The message is: nothing has changed; there's still a dike around British Columbia, interlacing bricks of overregulation, overtaxation and interference in labour-management relations. It's folly to put your money into B.C. when you don't face those difficulties in jurisdictions all around the country. It's a lot easier, a lot better, a lot more productive and profitable for employees and employers alike to locate in Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Alberta -- anywhere but British Columbia.

The results of that approach by this government are manifested all around us in the ruin of our economy. It's not going to get better until there's genuine change on the government side -- or until we're on the government side. Of course, we've come to believe that that's the only answer that will actually work for B.C. We need an election. It's high time we had an election, because the people of British Columbia have struggled under this yoke long enough. They're fed up with the chicanery and misbehaviour of the government that they've had to deal with.

We listened yesterday in amazement to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin as he went on a rant, with his voice cracking in bogus indignation, talking about how this legislation is essential to the safety of workers. This government has been in power for seven years, and only now it suddenly sees this as such an essential move. If it was a genuine move, if anyone on this side actually believed it would save a single worker's life or prevent a single worker from being injured, we wouldn't oppose it. But it won't do that. It's just more red tape. It's some sort of bizarre competition between the ministry and the out-of-control Workers Compensation Board to do end runs around the royal commission and upstage it, even though this government itself struck the royal commission. It's nonsense, it's ridiculous, and worse than that, it's very, very costly for British Columbians and small businesses throughout B.C.

It's insulting, particularly to the many women who have turned to small business as their way of making a living, of employing people and of making their way in the world, trying to get ahead. They have this patriarchal, Big Brother government presuming to tell them how to do things, presuming to say: "This is the way you are going to do business. It's going to be good for you. Take it and like it." They don't expect that from an NDP government. They won't get that from a B.C. Liberal government. I'm sure that women across this province are saying: "The sooner the better. If we can only get rid of this corrupt government, get rid of this type of block-headed intervention in our affairs and get on with life in British Columbia, we'll all be so much better off."

Of course, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin couldn't name a single case over the past seven years where an injury or a fatality would not have occurred had this legislation been in place, because no one can identify such a case. It's not practical legislation; it's not sensible legislation; it's just onerous, expensive and wrong-headed.

I talk to small business people all the time. Restaurateurs in particular tell me that the labour legislation of this government, the ordeals they have in dealing with the Workers Compensation Board, the Employment Standards Act and all of the impositions that they've suffered from the NDP are causing them to either shrink their businesses or close their businesses -- and I named an example of that in my remarks with regard to our amendment -- or at least not to expand their businesses. In many cases they've taken over doing the labour in their businesses themselves just to avoid having more employees, because they are under such ridiculous constraints because of this NDP government trying to be managers of employees. So they try to cut back their payrolls, and they'll try even harder. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, people will try very hard to avoid getting over the threshold of nine employees that this legislation arbitrarily imposes.

[11:00]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Thank you for taking the place of our Speaker and giving her a break. I just wanted to acknowledge that we have the Deputy Speaker in the chair.

This was the very same person for environment and for forestry, looking after a region the size of the region that 70 people service out of Merritt -- where it takes four months to make a change in logging boundaries. That's the contrast that people are looking at when they consider whether to set up business in British Columbia or in Alberta. They have nowhere near the red tape in Alberta that they do here. They have far more cooperation from government and far better service. There is absolutely nowhere where that is more clear

[ Page 7591 ]

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Once again, Mr. Speaker, this minister would rather heckle than listen -- and this is a problem. We saw this problem when he was Speaker; we saw total ineptitude with regard to conducting the affairs of this House, with regard to administering the budget of this Legislative Assembly. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Order, member. Continue, member -- just be careful of your remarks, please.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you'd admonish the minister in the same way, because he's a rude man and a bit of an out-of-control man, as we've seen. He's a man who has made sure that he personally profits greatly from sitting in this House -- half of the only husband-and-wife team to ever sit in cabinet in British Columbia -- with $150 each in per diem expenses and a four-wheel-drive vehicle each.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could you take your seat, please? Member, I don't think I should have to remind you of the rules of the House, and I would ask you to please limit your debate to the bill.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point that I'm making is that we need someone competent in charge of the Workers Compensation Board. We need somebody who isn't feathering his own nest but who is genuinely interested in the concerns of workers and employers throughout British Columbia. We don't need somebody who delivers the kind of nonsense that we see in Bill 14, clearly drafted by the friends of the New Democratic Party -- a bill brought on by a minister from Nanaimo. The constituents that he serves have been subjected to the most horrendous mistreatment by the New Democratic Party, the most bizarre breaches of trust and chicanery and fraudulent behaviour in ripping off charities, ripping off nuns -- the poorest of the poor.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat. I won't take the time to remind you again. If you're not going to debate the bill, we'll have to go to another speaker.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am debating the bill. I'm debating why this minister and the caucus that he represents would rather continue to drive stakes in the heart of investment and employment in British Columbia than listen to the people, than do what they've said they will do, which is to cut back on regulation, cut back on taxation and try to make British Columbia a more friendly investment climate. But of course they have no experience at all in making business work. They have no track record of that, and they don't understand how. So they're sticking to these same old, tired approaches, these standardized "lay the regulation on them and maybe we'll get the results we want" approaches. It's a patriarchal attitude. We don't understand why this government cannot learn, why it has to keep beating its head against the wall and the heads of British Columbians along with it, why it can't get past those tired old ideologies about how to administer British Columbia, how to do government in British Columbia.

British Columbia has become a weird anomaly in Canada. In a time of great success for the rest of the country, we've been moving backwards. In a time of immense prosperity in the nineties, British Columbia has taken a nosedive from first to worst in the economy. It's a stark illustration of the failed ideologies of socialism and of this NDP group in particular.

I think that the minister should concentrate on fixing the Workers Compensation Board -- stop this colossus from rolling over workers the way it continues to do, stop it from harassing employers and getting in the way of workers and employers working out the things that are best for their particular types of business in British Columbia. The minister talked about competitiveness. There's no more absurd comment in his preamble than suggesting that somehow this legislation is going to enable British Columbia's businesses to be more competitive. He's essentially saying: "I'll take your money. I'll take your autonomy. I'll take away your right to work things out with your employees in a way that's beneficial to you both, and in doing that, I'll make you better able to compete with the rest of the world." Of course, that won't work at all.

It's time for change. If the government can't change its attitude, then it should change the benches. We've had a judge have to tell this government that it's in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada with regard to gaming. We've had a judge have to rebuke this government for telephoning him as they tried to beat down the small business people of Prince Rupert, the unsecured creditors of Skeena Cellulose. We've had interventions from this cabinet in the Agricultural Land Commission that were illegal and inappropriate. We've had the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal, totally discrediting not only this government but the entire party that it represents.

It's time for change, and if the minister wants to get out of the trough and start doing the right thing, then he should do it now by changing his mind about this ridiculous legislation and the things that he and his comrades have been imposing on the people of British Columbia for so long. So we're calling on him to change his mind. Of course we know he won't, and he can expect a vigorous debate on many sections of this bill in committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: I call on the minister to close the debate.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to resist the temptation for the moment to respond to the member for Mensa. I want, rather, for the record, to make a number of comments essentially in rebuttal to comments that have been made opposite. First of all, two points. Number one, I want to offer a very sincere thanks to all members for articulating their particular positions, concerns, reservations, etc., about the bill. Particularly I want to thank the critic from the opposition -- the member for Vancouver-Quilchena -- who provided, I think, a pretty thorough and, from his perspective at least, reasoned critique of the bill before us. That's what second reading debate is all about. Alas, many of the other comments that came didn't carry on in that fine tradition. Instead, frankly, we got some gratuitous insults and incantations of the new theme that the sky is falling and we're all being drowned in red tape, etc. I'll deal with some of those as we go along, Mr. Speaker, but first I want to respond to the substantive and specific points made. I think they do deserve response.

Let me start -- and I'm taking these roughly in the order in which the member for Vancouver-Quilchena presented

[ Page 7592 ]

The first point made by the opposition in looking at the bill is that the legislation will result in increased costs to small business, increased red tape, increased bureaucratization and overregulation. To put it charitably, members, that's overstated. This legislation is a consolidation of existing legislative and regulative authority as well as board policy, as those impact on occupational health and safety. There simply are not dramatic new levels of legislation in this bill. That is not the intention. There may be, to be sure, some additional costs for some workplaces, from the requirement for joint committees and for paid educational leave for committee members. Our contention, however -- and I think it's at least arguable and in my opinion certainly demonstrable -- is that this will result in a reduction in employer premiums, from the lower accident and injury rates. That should more than offset any additional costs. That's the logic of the bill and the regulatory regime imposed.

The second point that the opposition offers is: "The new occupational health and safety regulations were just introduced on April 15, and only two weeks later" -- they intoned dramatically -- "the minister introduces new legislation which duplicates the regulations and increases red tape for business." Sounds great -- but wrong.

For the first time in 20 years, the Workers Compensation Board introduced new occupational health and safety regulations. But they did it in September of 1997. Where have the members been? What happened shortly before this legislation was introduced was that the effective date of the new regulations came to pass. In other words, businesses had an opportunity, from September to April, to look at the regulations, to hear about them, to consult to find out what the impact might be. They were not dumped upon them. That is simply not true.

The new occupational health and safety regulations, it's also worth noting, followed six years of extensive consultation with business, both large and small, and with labour. The consultation process involved over 200 worker and employer representatives, it involved unions and associations, and approximately 20 subcommittees and working groups looked at industry- and hazard-specific topics. Five sets of public hearings were held, and during the consultation approximately 2,000 written and verbal submissions were made. Labour and employers reached consensus on almost all of the 4,000-plus regulations. Really sounds like "imposed from afar"; really sounds like it was just dumped on people, doesn't it? Consensus on almost all of those regulations. Well, well, well.

Indeed, this was the most extensive consultation process on occupational health and safety regulations undertaken in North America. We take some pride in the fact that we did it that way. We're trying to set a benchmark for the way it should be done if we want to decrease the incidence of death and serious injury and time loss due to injury in the workplace.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: This bill -- to deal with that chirping cricket across the way -- provides the legal, statutory. . . . Sorry if I'm using words of multi-syllables, member, but I can't think of others to help you. This bill provides the legal, statutory framework for the regulations, based on. . .

[11:15]

Hon. D. Lovick: That "loud laugh" truly does bespeak "the vacant mind," to quote an eighteenth-century poet.

. . .what the Workers Compensation Board said: that that was not their proper role; rather there should be a statutory authority, because the regulations they made were effectively social policy. That belongs to duly elected governments so people like the member opposite can debate and ask questions about them. That's why the legislation, to answer his specific question.

The majority of provisions in the regulation -- this huge document, to be sure -- are not new. Rather, they are updates based on changes in industry, technology and work practices. Additions include new training requirements in the forest industry, new ergonomic requirements, new provisions to control and/or eliminate environmental tobacco smoke and new standards for indoor air quality. This legislation, in case the point isn't clear, does not duplicate those regulations; rather, it provides a framework to allow their ongoing review and to ensure accountability for their content. The royal commission very clearly laid out the rationale for a legislative framework.

The third issue that the opposition raised has to do with expense. The opposition cited average employer premiums of $5 per $100 of assessable payroll and stated that Alberta's premiums were well below those in B.C. Let me just respond as follows. B.C.'s board recently announced an average 6 percent reduction to employer premiums for 1998. This brings the average employer premium to just $2.12 per $100 of assessable payroll -- the same level as in 1993. B.C.'s assessment rates are among the lowest in Canada, while we pay workers the highest levels of compensation in Canada. If anybody over there thinks I'm apologizing for that -- wrong. It seems to me that's something to be proud of, not to apologize for.

On number four. . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: If I make a mistake, I might.

. . .the issue they raise is. . . . The opposition referred to the royal commission report with respect to joint health and safety committees. You know what they said, Mr. Speaker? They said that the legislation is in direct opposition to the recommendations of the royal commission. As our kids say: "Wrong." It's just not true. The opposition member stated that the royal commission did not recommend establishment of joint committees in workplaces with 20 or more workers, nor did the royal commission recommend the need for worker health and safety representatives in smaller workplaces, but rather that government should look at this.

The opposition member also stated that government ignored the recommendations of the royal commission and was imposing committees on all workplaces of 20 or more. Wrong. The royal commission did state that it has not determined whether the current hazard classification system or some other system was most appropriate for determining threshold levels for joint committees. The royal commission

[ Page 7593 ]

Government did not ignore the royal commission's recommendations. In fact, government considered them very carefully. Reviews of the hazard classification system have been undertaken in past years without any success. Business and labour could not agree during the regulation review process on issues respecting joint committees. They had anticipated that the royal commission would address the issue, but the royal commission did not address it fully. Both business and labour called for early resolution to this outstanding issue. Those are the facts, members; they should be noted.

The next substantive point that the opposition members made is that there is no research which establishes the benefit of joint committees and worker representatives in reducing accidents. Indeed, I think that point, sub rosa, is made by most of the people who've spoken thus far in the debate.

The counterargument is as follows. Simon Fraser University recently conducted a research survey, funded through the board's grants and awards program, which was designed to examine the effectiveness of joint committees in reducing fatalities and injuries in forest-product mills. Initial results demonstrated positive support for joint committees.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Wait a minute.

Second, there has been considerable research conducted in Canada, primarily in Ontario and Quebec, and also in the United States, primarily in Massachusetts, and in the United Kingdom. Results of the studies which have been reviewed by the board suggest that joint committees are an effective tool for improving occupational health and safety performance and practice, often leading to lower injury and illness rates. Further, in an independent assessment of occupational health and safety in B.C. conducted in 1992 by two researchers from Massachusetts, the authors noted that to ensure healthy and safe workplaces, there should be an expansion of the health and safety committee system and a significant strengthening of their role and mandate. In fact, the authors recommended that consideration be given to requiring health and safety committees in all workplaces, regardless of size.

The next point made by the opposition: they state that the reporting requirements of joint committees will add another layer of bureaucracy. Let me just respond by saying this: joint committees are required -- and the legislation makes this clear -- to prepare a report following each meeting, as is the current requirement in the regulations. However, based on concerns expressed by business, any other reporting requirements for joint committees and worker health and safety representatives were eliminated from the legislation. That's called a reduction in red tape, friends. Government, then, listened to the concerns of business and responded to those concerns. In fact, changes made to early drafts eliminated additional administrative costs, which had been recommended by the royal commission. Government is, then, doing what government must always do in all legislation: attempting to balance competing interests. It's a tough job, but that's what it's about. It's about balancing competing interests.

An opposition member -- I think it was the member for Vancouver-Quilchena; I'm sorry if I'm wrong -- stated that the way committees are set up in the legislation, requiring both management and worker members, is based on the old factory model and fails to recognize the culture of workplaces today -- i.e., that workplaces are not based on two separate entities, management and workers, but on a more consultative, collaborative approach. I think that's a more philosophical point, and there's probably some validity to the argument presented.

However, let's never forget that however consultative, collaborative and friendly we may be in the workplace, there are times when the interests of the owners of the workplace are not at all compatible with the interests of the workers. That's why people organize trade unions. That's the history of labour and the history of that entire important activity throughout free and democratic societies everywhere in the world. There are moments, to be sure, when workers and their employers can sit down and work things out without any outside interference. But talk about a spiralling downward marketplace. Talk about when they're confronted with layoffs. Talk about when a foreman is told: "Hey, we're losing money, and your production team, your shift, is not coming through the way they ought to. You'd better make things happen, or it's you who is out the door." Well, at that point, friends, the consultative, cooperative, friendly workplace -- I'm sorry -- tends to take second place. That's nobody's fault. That's not business's fault because they're bad guys; that's just systemic. That's the reality of a workplace. That's the reality of an economy.

What we're saying in this particular bill is that we dearly hope that there will be a cooperative, consultative workplace and that workers and supervisors and owners and managers can all work in harmony. But we must put in place a framework to protect workers, hopefully, against the imposition and the continuation of unsafe working conditions.

Government listened, you know, to the concerns of business and responded to those concerns. In fact, I think it's safe to say that this legislation supports a collaborative, consultative and cooperative approach to occupational health and safety in British Columbia workplaces. Having both employer and worker representatives on the joint committees surely acknowledges that occupational health and safety is indeed a shared responsibility and that both workers and manager-supervisors have knowledge and expertise, and contribute to making the workplace safe and healthy. Current regulations requiring joint occupational health and safety committees require both employer and worker representatives.

I might, if I may, pick up on the point that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena made about the culture -- and I appreciate the term he used, "the new business culture." I would suggest that the culture we're trying to grow in this province is a safety culture.

I think it was the member for Vancouver-Langara who made the point that what this is really about is prevention, and that we ought not to be always talking about workers compensation in terms of what we do at the other end. Of course we need to; that's what part 2 of the royal commission is about. But surely we have an obligation to try and prevent accidents, injuries and fatalities. That's the way this bill should be examined. That's its fundamental purpose. We need a safety culture; we need an accident prevention culture.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The opposition then stated that input from business was ignored and that the B.C. Federation of Labour was really

[ Page 7594 ]

The point to note is that both business and labour had strong voices in the development of this legislation, and both were heard by government. While government was and rightly should be responsible for drafting the legislation, the development was informed by the input of business and labour, through the royal commission as well as through the reference group process.

The member -- and I want to pick up on that now, because he also responded to the reference group process -- made the point that the royal commission had recommended a separate occupational health and safety statute, but that the government chose to include occupational health and safety as part the Workers Compensation Act because labour wanted it that way. Again, the hon. member is wrong.

The initial intention was to create a separate occupational health and safety statute, like most jurisdictions in this country. However, at the first meeting of the reference group, there was clear consensus between both business and labour that a separate statute was not necessary, but that it should be part of the Workers Compensation Act.

The member's information is not correct. The obvious question, then, is: where does he get his information? Remember, the accusation behind all this is that it's really labour writing this stuff -- right? It's that they're the guys who did this, and they're the guys pulling the strings. Well, where did this information come from? May I submit, ever so delicately, that it came from particular representatives of the focus group: the business types? One could fairly and rhetorically ask: who else may have divulged that? Indeed, after listening to the comments made by most members of the opposition, I can guess who has written the briefing notes, because I've heard most of the arguments before.

[11:30]

Next, the opposition stated that the government changed the royal commission's recommendation regarding full cabinet regulation-making powers based on the recommendation of labour. Again, not so. It is true that the royal commission recommended that cabinet have full regulation-making powers for occupational health and safety. It's also true that the legislation varies from the royal commission's recommendation by splitting regulation-making power between cabinet and the board. But there's a good reason for that. The good reason is simply that the regulation powers are separated in recognition of the expertise required to make the technical regulations of the board as well as the incredible additional administrative burden on the government if the royal commission's recommendation were to be adopted in its entirety. It is not true that the concept of split regulation-making power was at the request of labour. In fact, labour had voiced concerns about the approach. Again, then, wrong.

The opposition critic states finally that the bill will directly affect the regulations which just came into effect on April 15. I think it's true that there will be some impact on the new regulations when this legislation comes into force, and there may be a need to have a review of the new regulations to ensure that there are no conflicts with the legislation. Some regulations were brought within the statute. Those regulations will indeed need to be repealed. I think that's a fairly straightforward process in the introduction of any new legislation.

So much, then, for the substantive arguments. As I say, I want to commend the member opposite, because I think -- with the exception of some particular errors of fact and obviously not the best source of information -- he made an honest and sincere effort to point out what he perceived to be flaws with the legislation. Because the debate became a little heated, a little acrimonious -- frankly, a little insulting and gratuitous in the extreme -- let me briefly deal with some of the other arguments we had to hear.

Let me, before going to those, offer an apology to some members opposite that I was not able to be in the House to hear all of the comments made. I had some other duties that I couldn't escape. I do want everybody to know, however, that I have reviewed Hansard, and therefore I am familiar with the points made by all members opposite.

To some of those other arguments, then. I guess it's the caucus research department in action, but we heard over and over and over again the phrase about putting the cart before the horse. The argument seems to be that if the royal commission is established and is going to make another report -- albeit a report totally separate and completely distinct from the occupational health and safety report -- you should therefore not talk about occupational health and safety. I'll leave that to any student of logic to grapple with. It seems to me that if the royal commission says, "These are our recommendations on occupational health and safety, and we have another report coming down to talk about the larger problems of the Workers Compensation Board," there is nothing logically inconsistent with saying that we're going to deal with those as two separate packages. The notion, then, of putting the cart before the horse, it seems to me, is frankly ludicrous.

Second, we continue to hear references to the terrible impact that this will have on business. It's going to be awful; they're going to be running out of the province; they're going to be escaping to Alberta; they're going to be escaping to the state of Washington; it's going to be a disaster; the sky is falling -- that's the theme. The only problem with that argument is that the only people who are saying that are these folks. We're not hearing that from the business community. The business community hasn't been saying that, because the business community, I think, is a little more sophisticated, a little more realistic, a little more sensible when it comes to recognizing that workplace health and safety is everybody's business -- theirs too. They recognize that we need to do something about the problems with injuries and accidents and deaths in the workplace, and therefore they are not lighting their hair on fire, to coin a phrase.

I've got to tell them also, hon. Speaker, that the impacts have indeed been considered; they have been looked into. Regulation, we know, is not without its downside; inevitably, it is. But to suggest, as some have, that any regulation at all means the end of the free and civilized world as we know it is rather overstating the case.

The other claim. . . . I have to respond in kind a little bit here to some of the more outrageous claims made, or at least with the passion that was offered. The claim again and again from the other side of the House -- and it saddens me -- is that: "Oh yeah, we support workplace safety; we believe in

[ Page 7595 ]

And you know what? I fear that it's the theme that grows out of the points made by the designated speaker on the other side, who clearly is speaking for the Liberal opposition, especially given that he closed the debate for the other side as well. He spoke twice on this bill. That's the point I think he makes when he talks about "the new realities of management."

An Hon. Member: Is that: "Whack 'em"?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think it is; I think that's what it is. I want to just remind everybody what was said by that member, because I fear it is in fact really where some people on that side of the House are coming from -- the new realities of management. Here's what he said, July 1996, in this House: "The way good managers" -- remember, not average, not ordinary, not mediocre, but good managers -- "deal with conduct problems is called progressive discipline." Wow, we all say. What could that mean? Progressive discipline -- I wonder what that means. Well, let me tell you what it says. Here is the definition of progressive discipline. "You whack them once. If they do it again, you whack them again. Eventually you turf them right out."

That's the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, the designated speaker on the other side, talking about management. Those are the same guys who want to tell me and tell us: "We care about worker safety. Oh yes, we care deeply -- oh, deeply. But whack 'em again, because that's the only way those lazy beggars are ever going to learn to do what they're supposed to do."

Now, friends, you can't have both those points of view. You can't have that patent hypocrite stand there and tell us about his deep concern for workers and then say something like that; it just won't work. Nobody out there in the business community or the worker community believes for one moment the iteration, the claim, that they care about workers, because the evidence, I'm sorry, is too demonstrable that they do not.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, you'll notice that the red light is on, and your time is now up.

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe, hon. Speaker, as a wrap-up speaker, I have the same privilege as a designated speaker. I think your rules would demonstrate that.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, I would draw your attention to standing order 45A on page 43. The words are: "They do not apply to closing remarks in the same way that they do to the designated or opening remarks." With regret, I have to point those out to you, hon. minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: Can I continue?

The Speaker: No, it means that you cannot continue. I'm happy to read the paragraph, if the minister would like me to.

Hon. D. Lovick: I simply want to invite all members to. . . .

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

The Speaker: Having used the time to wind up the debate, I'll put the question now on second reading.

Second reading of Bill 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Evans Kwan Streifel Orcherton Goodacre Gillespie Conroy Miller MacPhail Farnworth Sihota Bowbrick Giesbrecht	Zirnhelt Hammell Pullinger Stevenson Walsh Robertson Priddy G. Clark Lovick Waddell Smallwood Kasper	McGregor Boone Lali Calendino Randall Cashore Petter Dosanjh Ramsey Hartley Sawicki Doyle Janssen
NAYS -- 29
Sanders De Jong Neufeld Jarvis Weisbeck Hawkins Hansen Van Dongen Masi J. Wilson	C. Clark Plant Coell Anderson Nebbeling Coleman Thorpe Barisoff Krueger	Farrell-Collins Abbott Chong Penner Hogg Stevens Symons Dalton McKinnon Reitsma

Bill 14, Workers Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: I am delighted that there's such a large turnout in the House for me to make note of the presence in the gallery of 55 grade 5 students from Lake Hill Elementary School in my constituency. They are accompanied by teachers and student teachers from the University of Victoria, and I believe there are some parents along. They are enthusiastic, intelligent and -- I warn the opposition -- an astute bunch.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Grade 7! There we go. I guess I'm known in this House as always underestimating and exceeding the targets, and I'm glad that these students have proven me right yet again. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Janssen: Moving from the academic community that can't read to the motorcycle community that can, I remind all members that the rain has stopped and the motors are warm. It's Motorcycle Day for the MLAs. We'll be out on the front steps. The bikes are ready, and anybody who wishes to come

[ Page 7596 ]

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

Hon. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:13 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

A. Sanders: I just want to start this morning by looking in Estimates: Fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, and asking the minister where exactly the funding for year 1, which is necessary for the agreement-in-committee, is accounted for in the estimates for Education?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is not reflected in that estimate. It is in contingencies for general government operations and will be transferred to this ministry when ratification is completed.

A. Sanders: Where on the order paper is the motion saying that this will occur, that we will be asking for money to go from contingency into the ministry's operations budget -- as these are the official records of the estimates for Education?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure what the member's question is. At the time that this budget was prepared and tabled, there was no agreement-in-committee. Therefore these were the expected operations of the ministry. As I say, we have committed to spending that money, and it will be available for this ministry to spend and transfer to school districts.

[10:15]

The Chair: Member, the motion is out of order as the committee cannot alter the destination of any grant.

A. Sanders: What could the minister do to ensure that that money will in fact go into the Ministry of Education, above and beyond a promise? It seems to me that if we are going to be asking for $150 million to go into the Ministry of Education over three years, and there is nothing on the official record to show that any move has been made whatsoever for that money to be allocated to Education. . . . What positive things can the minister do for parents, teachers and children to show them that the minister is serious, that this is a commitment which will not change?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have nothing further to add on this point at this time.

A. Sanders: The suggestion would be that this money does not exist or that the minister has no intent of making the commitment in the official records of the Ministry of Education. I would appreciate knowing what the minister is planning in the next month to make sure that Treasury Board provides that money and that those people who are concerned know that we have the money here.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The intentions of government to fund the agreement-in-committee have been made very clear, both in this chamber and in a number of other venues. The necessary arrangements will be made to transfer that money to this ministry and to disburse it to school districts.

A. Sanders: Not only has the minister committed $25 million this year from a supposed contingency fund to pay for education -- none of which we can find on any of the records here -- but we've also committed a very large amount of money to capital construction. Where in the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1999, will I find the capital allocations for building of schools, additional portables, etc.?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe the member is referring to the budget summary for the Ministry of Education. In that summary, she will find a sum in the estimates for 1998-99 of $269 million for debt service contributions, public schools, and the amount of $151 million for amortization of prepaid capital advances. Those are the amounts that support the announced capital envelope for the Ministry of Education this year. It does not include support for the announced addition of 1,000 classrooms pursuant to the agreement-in-committee. As with my previous answer, arrangements will be made to have that money available to the Ministry of Education.

A. Sanders: Is this money coming out of the contingency in the Ministry of Education?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

A. Sanders: Does it come out of the government contingency fund?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

A. Sanders: How much money is in the government contingency fund?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's $75 million.

A. Sanders: We need $25 million this year. The minister mentioned the capital construction that is not approved. Where will that money come from?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's the same answer.

A. Sanders: What will the amortization cost of that be?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have the figure for the member; obviously, that will be reflected in the restated estimates for '98-99 and for subsequent years.

[ Page 7597 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry's estimate is $370 million over the five years.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what the amortization policy is on the building of those classrooms?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Twenty years.

R. Thorpe: Therefore the annual amortization cost would be what -- $75 million? Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The average amortization cost is $37.5 million per year. Obviously, that will rise as the buildings are constructed, and then stabilize and decline over the remainder of the period.

R. Thorpe: So, I just want to make sure I understand this. With respect to the contract, we have $25 million for some costs over here that are going to come out of the contingency fund. I think we confirmed that earlier. Now we have $37.5 million in costs that are going to come out of the government contingency account. Do we have a total of $62.5 million committed out of the government contingency account?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No. Amortization costs in the first year, 1998-99, will be very modest.

R. Thorpe: What will the amortization cost in 1998-99 be?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Less than $1 million.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister confirm whether this is within accepted government accounting policies, or is this a new accounting policy?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's within accepted government accounting policies. I ask the member's indulgence in not grilling me too thoroughly on the changes in accounting for debt services that are reflected in the estimates we have before us. I've had it explained to me three times, and I think I'll need it explained five before I fully understand the change. The member for Delta South can help us out, I think.

A. Sanders: Of the $370 million that will go into capital construction, what is the amount earmarked for the year 1998-99?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A very small amount -- around $2 million. The work in the first year will largely be planning.

A. Sanders: Does the minister recognize that that figure may be very inaccurate and very low compared to the needs of the individual school districts for capital investment for portables in the year 1998-99?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We believe these are accurate estimates of what's required to get underway with the project of building 1,000 new classrooms to accommodate reduced class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3.

A. Sanders: I am concerned. We left off last night after quite a significant amount of time discussing the significant, and very concerning, inaccuracies of the forms on which all of this entire agreement-in-committee has been based. The numbers have been generated to the point that many of the school trustees who look at those numbers have said that they are silly. Now the minister is saying that we have $25 million coming from contingency into the agreement-in-committee, although there is no accounting for it anywhere in the ministry operations budget. It doesn't exist, as far as that is concerned.

In addition, we're looking at $1 million in capital construction for the school year starting September next. This is of concern, inasmuch as there will be significant funding shortfalls. I will give you an example again. We were talking about the greater Victoria school district yesterday. I have the revised figures from the greater Victoria school district, and I wish to start with a copy of the analyses of the proposed collective agreement-in-committee projections. I said yesterday that their projected need for year 1 was going to be $1,206,000. The revised number is slightly lower -- $966,096. I wish to report that on behalf of the school board of Victoria, for accuracy in the record. It is important to have the right figure.

However, let's look at something very, very different in terms of the figures generated by the agreement-in-committee. In the greater Victoria school district, the reduced class size initiative in '98-99 requires 16 FTE teachers. When we discussed this yesterday, the minister and I were talking about how many classrooms would be needed for that initiative. The minister said very few -- very little capital construction. That's reflected in $1 million in the first year. However, if we look at the tables generated by the agreement-in-committee for the Victoria school district, the number of teachers that are suggested as necessary to implement the K-to-3 agreement is zero. We have a very large discrepancy: zero teachers needed in the K-to-3 initiative in the greater Victoria school district and 16 needed by those people on the front line who actually crunch the numbers.

Now, if we are making such a huge difference in terms of the estimations in one school district, how does that magnify and multiply when you look at 60 school districts? Where is the problem occurring? We're talking about these as being accurate forms -- on which we're basing all of the information and generation of numbers -- and in one school district the K-to-3 initiative requires 16 teachers, and the AIC tables say zero. Could the minister explain that discrepancy?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The tables attached to the agreement-in-committee to which the member is referring reflect FTEs for non-enrolling teachers. They do not reflect numbers for the K-to-3 class size reduction initiative.

A. Sanders: Well, 16 extra teachers, nevertheless -- these are enrolling teachers, hon. Chair. What we're looking at for Victoria alone is the sum of almost $1 million for those 16 teachers. This is 19.3 percent of the entire $5 million put into this initiative in year 1 -- and this is one district. One district requires almost 20 percent of the entire initiative. Typically, the greater Victoria school district gets about 4 percent of the total share. That's its allocation, or aliquot, of the total share, not 19 percent. Yet 19 percent additional funding will be required for this agreement to be put in place in year 1. Is the minister going to fund the difference between the $5 million hard-capped provincial amount and the very significant differences that will probably arise from the implementation in year 1 of the agreement?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're getting into territory we canvassed rather exhaustively yesterday. The impact on staffing

[ Page 7598 ]

[10:30]

Does the minister recognize, when he says he will fund the initiatives but not fund the collective agreements, that school districts will in this case have a very significant overrun and that as a result of the elimination of the escape clause -- if this agreement-in-committee is implemented -- the solution to the problem for the school districts will be arbitration? In that arbitration, in the language of their contracts, they will have to lay off non-teaching staff to pay for the agreement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, this was canvassed yesterday.

A. Sanders: I'm pleased to see the minister has acknowledged that there will be quite significant layoffs of non-teaching staff.

Does the minister recognize that in year 2, for the school district of Victoria alone -- a district which has very little or no population growth -- 15 additional portables will have to be purchased by the school district?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Currently, Victoria as a school district is running at around 80 percent capacity in use of existing space.

A. Sanders: That's right, and the additional 20 percent will be used to accommodate the K-to-3 initiative in a no-growth district, and 15 additional portables will be required. This is at a time, of course, when the Premier has said: "We're going to remove 50 percent of the portables on the school grounds of B.C." It's very difficult to spin that argument in the face of the information from school districts.

Does the minister know the cost of the 15 portables, plus the installation, plus maintenance, heat, light and cleaning?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has asked me to accept her assumption about the need for additional portables; I do not. There is considerable surplus space available to the school district in Victoria.

A. Sanders: It's very important to record that this is not my assumption; in fact, this is the information directly communicated to me from the Victoria school board. So the minister's comment that this is in some way the critic's assumption doesn't wash. It is in fact the information from the people who provide the service on the front line.

In Richmond, the agreement-in-committee will require 44 additional ESL teachers to be hired there. There aren't 44 additional ESL teachers trained and ready to be hired at this time in B.C. Where is the minister suggesting that we find these qualified teachers?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are currently close to 6,000 certified teachers in British Columbia who work entirely as teachers on call. They represent a large and actively working pool of professionals.

A. Sanders: That's definitely a one-size-fits-all answer. These teachers require specialized training. The minister knows that and is most definitely aware of it. Teachers on call are teachers on call; they're qualified teachers, and in that way that are qualified to go into a classroom and perform the duties of a classroom teacher. However, they are certainly not trained in ESL. We used to fund and have a very good program for training ESL teachers. That is virtually non-existent now in British Columbia. There is no program left to train ESL teachers.

Is the minister saying, then, that we'll be hiring ESL teachers in the first year who do not have the qualifications or the experience in ESL to perform that service?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Once again, I don't accept the member's assumption that there are not people with the appropriate training to fill these available positions in British Columbia.

A. Sanders: Does the minister have a list of the teachers in British Columbia who are qualified -- as we speak -- to teach ESL, with the experience and expertise necessary to provide that service in the classroom?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

A. Sanders: What will happen in the circumstance where there are not enough ESL teachers to hire? Will the minister not hire those teachers in the districts, or will he direct people with lesser qualifications to fill those jobs just because they exist?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The positions will be filled, and teachers will be hired.

A. Sanders: I used to teach science, and I can tell you quite confidently that not everyone could come into my classroom and do the job. My children are in elementary school, and I can tell you quite confidently that there would never be a circumstance in which I would want to be the teacher in that primary grade without any experience, either at the education level in my training or in experience. It is a very diverse field, and not everyone can do the job of an ESL teacher, a high school science teacher or a kindergarten specialist who is trying to develop the skills of literacy and numeracy in children who are five, six, seven, eight or nine.

We can assume two things. One is that we are just going to provide teachers for ESL who are not trained and train them on the job. That would be a perfectly logical solution, providing there was money to provide them with that training, but I see nowhere in any of these ministry figures any money for training of ESL teachers. The minister does know that we do have a good program in Vancouver for the training of ESL teachers that's virtually bankrupt. It has not been funded for really quite some time, and all of the ESL teachers who are available are teaching ESL.

So we are in a circumstance where either the minister never had any intention of hiring 44 ESL teachers for Richmond, or we're going to have teachers being put in there who do not have the qualifications to teach ESL, with no funding for those teachers to improve their skills and competency in a very difficult area to administer.

Will the minister tell this member if he intends to put money back into the training and professional development of

[ Page 7599 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Currently districts have around $11 million in this budget available to them for professional development. I must say that some of the member's questions about implementation of the agreement-in-committee reflect real challenges. This one is largely smoke and mirrors. No district has indicated to this ministry that they have any difficulty in finding sufficient instructional personnel to fill the additional places. My experience in travelling the province is that there are a significant number of teachers who'd be pleased to fill additional teaching opportunities in our schools, both in the specialty of ESL and in other disciplines and areas of public education.

A. Sanders: Professional development funds are for many, many more things than ESL; they are for all the professional development of all of our teachers. ESL is a percentage of those -- there's no question -- but it will most definitely require additional professional development funds to make sure we have the appropriate people in the appropriate jobs. The minister is indicating that there is no money for that.

How many boards will be producing deficit budgets this year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As of April 21, seven districts have submitted letters asking permission to run a deficit in the last fiscal year, '97-98. None have requested a deficit for '98-99. In fact, as I think the member knows, they are legally required to submit balanced budgets.

A. Sanders: Would the minister please read those districts into the record?

Hon. P. Ramsey: They are 27, 47, 49, 62, 64, 70 and 82.

A. Sanders: How many more boards does the minister project will have deficits at the end of February 1999?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The districts that I've listed have requested permission to run a deficit for the last fiscal year, '97-98. The budgets they are expected to submit will include plans for retiring that deficit. Preliminary budgets have not come in for '98-99 across the piece, so it's very hard to estimate what the member is asking for. I expect that there will be a small number that do request, at some point in 1998-99, permission to run a deficit for that year.

[10:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Districts are required to submit balanced budgets. If they run into difficulties during the year 1998-99, then they would be requesting permission to deal with exceptional circumstances to run deficits, with the expectation that that would be retired in subsequent fiscal years. That's been the policy and procedure of the ministry for some time.

A. Sanders: If there were seven districts that ran a deficit budget for the last fiscal year, and they are submitting their preliminary budgets for this fiscal year, does the minister expect that the number of boards requesting to run a deficit will increase, decrease or stay the same?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't expect any significant variation. We've got around seven this year. I expect that we'll probably get about the same next year, as they grapple with a variety of challenges around the province. Some districts are faced with declining enrolments. That makes it very difficult to bring budgets into line, and they often have to ramp down services to meet a declining enrolment over time. That's happened to some of the districts that I listed. Others have other challenges that they are facing. So there are challenges they face. We seek to work with them. We also provide advice to districts on how to cope with financial difficulties through efficiency advisory teams and through other means of assisting districts in dealing with their financial circumstances.

A. Sanders: With respect to the boards that have submitted deficit budgets for the last fiscal year, how does the minister expect these boards to retire their deficits? What kinds of cuts does the minister expect the boards to make?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That depends almost entirely on the circumstances in which the district finds itself. I don't see any great patterns across districts.

A. Sanders: Could the minister outline for this member the reasons given by the districts that ran deficit budgets?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The most common reason that districts say they're forced into finding themselves in a deficit position is declining enrolment. That was the reason given for district 27, district 47, district 70 and district 82. In one district, it's a dispute over revenues regarding a local education agreement with a first nation, which has caused them -- I'm not sure -- a deficit or a cash flow difficulty. But the most common one here is declining enrolments, where staffing and service levels have to be ramped down to the appropriate level, given the declining number of students that this district is serving.

A. Sanders: How many of the districts that have deficits in fact have an increased enrolment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as staff can determine, none.

A. Sanders: With respect to operating budgets and the collective agreements that are underneath the agreement-in-committee, what dispute resolution mechanism will work in this contract, should it be ratified?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Grievance and arbitration procedures are included in this agreement.

A. Sanders: Does the minister recognize that arbitration will not work very well even if the agreement-in-committee is accepted, because the terms of reference aren't spelled out?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, I think I'd simply disagree with the member opposite about the provision of mechanisms for grievance and arbitration. I think there are appropriate procedures in this proposed collective agreement. I would also say that I think there's a strong desire to make this agreement work. That means working out difficulties before they reach the grievance and arbitration stage.

A. Sanders: Suffice it to say that it's important to the minister for it to work, and that those who do this kind of

[ Page 7600 ]

Whatever happened to the efficiency scheduling? This was one of the other huge areas that has been totally, completely not discussed with respect to the Premier's agreement. We are building schools now with 13 new regulations on top of the other red tape in building schools. One of them was efficiency scheduling, extended day. . . . There was a lot of talk from this minister last year about this -- and a lot of fear in rural areas about what it would mean for rural kids, above and beyond the hours they already spent on buses and at school. Whatever happened to efficiency scheduling with respect to the agreement-in-committee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The agreement-in-committee contains what the agreement contains. It does not contain this issue.

A. Sanders: Now that we're building schools based on the fact that we're having extended day. . . . Programs were submitted and sent back to school districts to be redone for efficiency scheduling. All that money was spent in changing architectural drawings and redesigning schools with less space, and this facility. . . .

A Voice: Cheaper and smaller.

A. Sanders: Smaller, and less space per pupil. Now we have an agreement. One of the things that the minister put his whole time and effort into last year, with forums on extended day. . . . We get this agreement that doesn't even mention an extended day. There's nothing in there that talks about teachers' contracts that do not allow for an extended day. There's nothing in there about grievance processes or procedures for dealing with those districts that don't have an extended day -- and the ministry wants them to implement them. There are no provisions in there to settle that issue prior to it coming into the schools and being a factor that teachers, administrators and parents have to deal with.

Why was that left out of the planning -- something so important that we have spent a whole lot of time trying to convince families and teachers it is a good idea, saying that our capital construction is based on it? One of the criteria is the extended day and the ability to have to get into the extended day. Now we have an agreement-in-committee that this Premier wants us to accept and stick on for the next three years, regardless of the fact that there's no money in any of the votes for it. And the minister won't promise anything beyond a year. Why was the efficiency scheduling not considered as an important part of the agreement-in-committee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As I think was made clear at a number of discussions around efficiency scheduling, there was always intended to be limited use of this in high-growth areas. Where there are significant pressures for new schools, that work with districts and teachers will continue. There is a variety of efficiency scheduling already in place, and there will be more.

A. Sanders: How will grievances be handled when we have high-growth areas? We have an agreement-in-committee that doesn't even mention the extended day. We have teachers whose collective bargain says they don't work extended days. What mechanism has the minister in place to deal with these situations that will surely arise?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll continue to work with the district and teachers. There will be additional implementation of efficiencies in use of facilities across British Columbia.

A. Sanders: How will the minister deal with the inequities of this situation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure what inequities the member refers to. I've talked to a number of teachers who actually recommend efficiency scheduling, as an initiative that makes educational sense, to their counterparts in districts that don't have it. It also makes a lot of sense, obviously, in efficient use of public resources.

A. Sanders: Does the minister recognize that this will create have and have-not schools?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure which schools will be have or have-not.

S. Hawkins: That is the problem.

A. Sanders: As the member for Okanagan West said, that is the problem: the minister doesn't know. Inequities will exist, and we will have problems with this. The reason that we had the employers and employees at the table was to work out all of these kinds of things, instead of bringing in some amateur agreement that doesn't deal with any of the needs of kids and parents and teachers in schools.

Part of this Premier's agreement is on early retirement. The cost of this plan is considered cost-neutral. Is this the minister's understanding?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that's my understanding.

A. Sanders: Does the minister recognize that under the Premier's agreement, all employees who are retiring and who are between the ages of 50 and 64 will receive a retirement payment, even if they were going to retire anyway? In the case of the particular teachers who would have retired anyway, there will be extra costs which will not otherwise have been in existence. Does the minister recognize that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: My understanding is that those have been costed in, in this early retirement plan.

[11:00]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The work around an early retirement plan was not to accrue large savings but to enable people to retire who wish to and to move towards renewal of the teaching force. Obviously there is a gap in salary between people that are at the end of their teaching career and the people that will be replacing them in the public school system. That's the balance that we've got here. John Cook, the commissioner responsible for superannuation, says that we are predicting the costs of this plan reasonably.

A. Sanders: Well, certainly if we are asking mature teachers to retire and bring in new teachers, which I am very

[ Page 7601 ]

Does the minister recognize or understand, or has his staff made him aware, that in the 1,000 new classrooms and the $150 million in the Premier's agreement. . . ? Nowhere in any of those moneys going to education is there one single cent for textbooks.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Operating budgets, as you know, are reflected this year in a $105 million increase, which also includes money for texts and resources. Obviously, as additional classrooms are created, that formula will recognize the additional requirements.

A. Sanders: Is the minister aware of the serious lack of textbooks in many of our schools, especially with the introduction of new IRPs?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are obviously some additional needs to equip additional classrooms, but we have the same number of students and therefore the same requirement for the number of books. So I'm a little perplexed how taking the same number of students and dividing them into a larger number of classes so they can get more individual attention creates an additional demand for books.

A. Sanders: Is the minister aware of how many teachers are at risk of violating copyright because they have to xerox large portions of textbooks for their kids to use in their classrooms?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have heard such things, anecdotally. I would urge all teachers to adhere to the copyright provisions in the law of Canada. I would also tell the member that there are a significant number of districts that are running, in some cases, quite significant surpluses in their trust funds for learning resources. Recently we asked school districts how they were doing with the implementation of new curriculum, as far as having materials available. The great majority said the materials were available and that they were ready to proceed with implementation.

A. Sanders: Does the minister have personal concerns about the issue -- that many, many teachers in our system are having to violate copyright regulations on a daily basis because we do not provide them with textbooks, the materials required in that course, to teach the courses that they are required to teach?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Same question, same answer.

A. Sanders: Does the minister recognize that so much xeroxing has to occur in many schools that teachers are allocated an individual number of pages of paper to xerox in a week? At one school, for example, it is 110 pages, and once the teacher has xeroxed that many pieces of paper, that is their share of the paper budget. Is the minister aware of this issue?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A variety of schools do their budgeting in a variety of ways, hon. member.

A. Sanders: Is the minister aware that many PAC groups in schools have to raise funds for buying paper in schools?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have been told this by some PAC groups. Actually, in my own district I think I had one or two PAC groups that say they are doing fundraising for that purpose. Frankly, I was puzzled, and I raised that with the school board. There are 65 schools in district 57, and I was puzzled as to why budgets were adequate for 63 of them to purchase paper and xerox within budget, and for two they weren't. These are issues that need to be addressed at a school and district level.

A. Sanders: Has the minister looked into the paper budgets of individual schools, or the total paper budgets of individual districts?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I have not. I thought I heard a clear plea from this member the other day for recognizing the responsibilities and autonomy of districts. No, I do not intend to intervene in how they allocate paper.

A. Sanders: I'm just asking the minister to be consistent. He certainly didn't recognize the autonomy of the bargaining process between employees and employers. So there's no reason for me to consider that he listens to anything else I say.

Is the minister aware that many PAC groups have been told that they are not allowed to raise funds to buy textbooks, because the ministry feels it makes them look bad?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

A. Sanders: Then I'm glad to bring that point to the minister's attention. This is a very serious concern, and if the minister looks into the paper budgets of schools, he will find that they have expanded extremely. . . . For example, if we look at the new resources listed on the IRP for social studies, there are very few schools in British Columbia who could afford a class set of those resources, let alone a set for the teacher who is teaching the course. Materials out of that IRP that the teacher would use would have to be xeroxed on the local school xeroxer and handed out in great big buckets for the kids to read the material, because they sure as heck don't have the resources in the school to provide the information that's required on the ministry curriculum.

Looking at this paper war as a real festering sore and as an indication of how poorly we are doing in terms of putting the money where it's needed -- in classrooms -- adds more to the argument that this agreement-in-committee, this Premier's agreement, is a political deal and not what's good for kids. It certainly does not indicate that we're going to have more in the operating budget to spend on books and equipment. In fact, with the agreement-in-committee we will have less, and cuts will be made in those areas as well as to the ancillary support staff that work in schools.

While we're talking about the paper problem and the PACs, and what the government allows PACs to do and not to do for PR reasons, how much money are the PACs getting from government this year to support their activities?

[ Page 7602 ]

As far as support for PACs, the British Columbia Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils has received a grant this year of around $340,000 -- the same as last year. That's the central organization of parent advisory councils. There's an allocation to each district based, I think, on number of students. I'm asking staff to get me that figure so we know what's available for individual PACs and individual districts. It's not a large amount of money, and PACs -- both in working with staff and, in many cases, by raising funds for ways to enhance their children's education -- do excellent work. I surely did that when I was chair of a parent advisory council at my children's elementary school, and PACs have continued that work.

A. Sanders: Is the funding this year to PACs less, more or the same as last year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Same as last year.

[11:15]

"Dear Mr. [Minister]:

"Re: budget cuts affecting Harrison Hot Springs Elementary.

"I was impressed with the recent announcement that millions of dollars were being made available to improve our education system. My nine-year-old daughter has been telling me that times are tough in her school, and that next year they may not have money for text books. Therefore your recent announcement was a relief.

"A recent letter from my daughter's school announced that a key staff person will be let go due to budget cuts necessary due to reduced funding. This means that my daughter's quality of education will be drastically affected. I was told that the amalgamation would not adversely affect the education that our children receive. I thought our schools would see more money, not less. Our area schools produce some of the top students in the province, in spite of having one of the lowest median incomes. I believe that this is due to generous support from our teachers and teachers' assistants. My daughter's class of 29 grade 3 and 4 students has included ESL students, special needs students and children that have not been labelled special needs but who need extra assistance on a daily basis. The reduction in funding to our school district means that the teachers' assistant, Mrs. Powell, will be let go. This will result in an unacceptable quality of education. I am asking you to take a special interest. Mrs. Powell must stay. Mrs. Powell makes a substantial contribution to this class and other classes in the school.

"On a personal note, Mrs. Powell is recovering from a brain injury and has shown the children that hard work and patience can overcome disability. I know without a doubt that if you take away Mrs. Powell, the. . .students will suffer. The administrators advised the parents not to look at the budget cuts and staff cuts on an emotional level. We must look at our children's education on an emotional and human level, not on a bureaucratic level. Please take an interest in Harrison Hot Springs Elementary School. . . . Allow extra funding to this school district so the valuable staff. . .can stay where they are needed."

Here's another letter, hon. Chair, from Pam Robb of Nanaimo. Nanaimo is in the news a lot today: "I am writing to you regarding the overcrowding at Dover Bay Secondary School. I represent a group of concerned parents and other community members who are known as. . .Parents for an Additional Secondary School." Again, I'm not going to read the whole letter, but I use Mrs. Robb's letter as an additional example of the problems inherent in the system, despite the fact that money has been put into it.

Here's a letter from school district 78, Fraser-Cascade, to the MLA for that school district:

"Please be advised that school district 78. . .has received the 1998-99 operating budget in the amount of $16,386,633. With local revenue in the amount of $298,644 and estimated expenses of $17,409,417, we are facing a $724,140 shortfall in the 1998-99 school year" -- the year that we're talking about now -- "I have attached a copy of our budget information and proposed reductions for your perusal. I would like to draw your attention to the efficiency adjustment of $146,129, which has increased $16,784 over last year. It appears unfair to us that we were required to implement significant efficiency adjustments through the amalgamation process and also be required to have our budget reduced by an efficiency adjustment. . . . This is the same efficiency adjustment that is required of other districts that weren't forcibly required to amalgamate to save money for the provincial government. This equal treatment of unequals is unjust and unfair."

These are the things that the public wants an explanation of. They want to know why he feels that it's good for kids and schools to accept an agreement-in-committee that's not going to have sufficient funding to fund the collective agreements. There are not going to be textbooks in some schools, and there are going to be paper bills, and there are going to be problems. I think the minister needs to address some of the issues that have come to me from parents and students, such as the three that I've read into the record.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm always willing to talk to parents who are concerned about their children's education, and to teachers and staff who are committed to making our public school system the best that it can possibly be. For the record, let's get some actual figures on the two school districts that I think the member is referring to. I believe the school in Harrison is actually part of the Chilliwack school district. Far from receiving a cut in funding this year, the funding for the Chilliwack district went up by $1.73 million. Their enrolment went up slightly too -- around 1.5 percent. So we have, again, a lift in budget that's significantly higher than the lift in enrolment, and that surely reflects what we said we intended to do with

[ Page 7603 ]

Obviously the allocation of funds among schools is the responsibility of the school district, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to do, other than to make sure that staff are asking the district to be aware of this parent's concerns about how allocation of that fund is affecting one school.

The other district that the member refers to -- school district 78, Fraser-Cascade -- has actually had a very minor reduction in funding this year of just over $50,000 on a base of $16 million. That's around 0.1 percent -- I think it's actually less than 0.1 percent -- of reduction. Regrettably, that district is projecting a significant decline in enrolment, of over 2 percent. So while we were obviously able to give more funds per student, and while we're able to cushion the impact of declining enrolments on the district, it would be inappropriate not to say that service levels have to decline to reflect a decreased number of students in that district. It would be unfair to other districts who are grappling with increased enrolments and getting the funding for an increased enrolment in their district.

Finally, we went over some of this ground that the member is talking about rather thoroughly yesterday, but since she wishes to put it on the record again today, I will put this side of the House's commitment to education on the record as well. Far from funding only the enhancements that are contained in the agreement-in-committee, this government has enhanced operating budgets this year by $105 million -- $93 per student. That's the largest increase in district operating grants that we've seen in British Columbia in five years -- a huge and significant commitment to saying that kids are our first priority and that we're going to help them. Attached to that money is also a significant new initiative which we talked about yesterday -- the provincial learning network -- to help all our children get access to the very latest in technology and the latest in information on the Net and to link all 1,700 of our province's schools to that latest in technology and the latest in educational resources. Now, that's good for kids.

Finally, we do have a clear difference between this side of the House and the other on whether the agreement-in-committee is good for kids. I'm not quite sure why that it is. I understand the necessity of opposing government initiatives politically, but when I talk to parents, the idea of lower class sizes for their children is a positive. They see that as a significant and welcome government initiative. When I talk to teachers about being able to give individual students more attention because there are fewer of them in a class, they find that a positive initiative and one which will enhance their ability to provide a quality education and a good start for all the children in their classes. When I talk to students themselves, particularly the upper levels who are looking back on their career, they note that at times they felt they weren't getting the attention that they needed, because of too many students. So this is a good initiative. It's one that will enhance the quality of education in our public schools. It's one which this government is proud of and one that I believe both trustees and teachers will work with government to implement.

A. Sanders: The minister is -- unfortunately for parents, teachers and kids -- presenting those parts of the argument that parents, teachers and kids would agree with, and not presenting the parts that they don't understand yet. Mark my words, they will understand it in the school year starting in 1999, when they take their kids to school and find that their kids are going to a filthy school because they cannot pay for janitorial services because those have had to be cut, and when they put their kids out on the elementary school playground and there's no supervision because those jobs had to be cut in order to fund the agreement-in-committee -- the Premier's agreement. They're going to be upset when their kids develop asthma because they no longer have carpet-cleaning budgets and custodial services, and when there isn't toilet paper in the washrooms because there are no more daytime custodians and because the principal -- who has now taken on that service -- doesn't have the opportunity to get out and do it as often as would be necessary.

They don't yet have the knowledge that they may have three kids going not to their neighbourhood school where they live but to three different schools, because of rigid class-size language. These are all the things that the Premier and the minister have not told parents and teachers and kids -- not to mention that they'll be in a portable in year 2 because we won't ever be able to keep up with. . . . In year 2, they will not be able to have the schools built for these kids to go to, which the initiative will require. Some schools don't even have space on their playing fields for the portables, let alone the additional ones that they would require in order to house the differential language, should that be the case. Not only do they not have that, they don't have the funding for the additional teacher at the school board level that would be required in order to develop a classroom of seven kids in one class and ten in another -- if that was the only decision that could be made.

These are things that are very important for parents to know, and it is my duty as the opposition critic to bring up these concerns and to register them in the public record, in addition to all the good things that would come -- like lower class size. It's only one factor, and if we're going to talk to people, let's be honest with them and talk about all of the factors, all of the concerns and all of the things that would have to be cut in order to accommodate the rigid language of an amateur agreement-in-committee that doesn't address the 105 principles that were on the bargaining table and needed to be looked at, negotiated and resolved between two groups who had the expertise to do the resolution of those 105 things.

I have 75 letters from Dover Bay school in Nanaimo, from the Parents For an Additional Secondary School committee. I looked in the records of the capital construction that the minister's staff provided to me, and I did not see any construction for a Dover Bay school. This school, for the record, is built for 1,200 students, and there are 1,613 students registered and 15 portable classrooms. This serious overcrowding raises safety, educational and morale issues. It is evident that an additional school is desperately needed in north Nanaimo. "We need this issue to be given your immediate and full attention due to the length of time it takes to build a school. By the time a new school is built, the overcrowding will be much more serious. Our students are today's learners and tomorrow's future. We need your help." They need another secondary school built in the north end of Nanaimo as soon as possible. Based on the proposed construction plans of the ministry, with the additional money they have said they will put into school construction. . . . As we address the issue of Dover Bay, could the minister tell me what the answer for these parents is?

[11:30]

[ Page 7604 ]

A. Sanders: When will a new school on the capital project list be built? When will a school be built for these families?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm informed by the staff that the board has it on their list for two or three years out.

A. Sanders: What would be the projected enrolment at Dover Bay school next year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have that information.

A. Sanders: Based on demographics for that area, is the enrolment going to increase, decrease or stay the same -- a rough estimate?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have that level of detail in this chamber.

A. Sanders: Will the minister endeavour to contact, or have his staff contact, Parents For an Additional Secondary School and obtain that information either from them or from the administration, to get an idea of the seriousness of the problem there?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff will be visiting Nanaimo district in the next four to six weeks to discuss this and other projects.

A. Sanders: Would it be satisfactory to the minister to find out that in the next two or three years there will be a significant increase in the size of the population at the school at Dover Bay? They will in fact be in a school almost 100 percent over the enrolment that. . . . Sorry -- they will be in a school that could go as high as 2,000 in the next three years, prior to that school being built. What kind of contingency plans are in place to work with the community of Nanaimo to prevent serious issues of safety at that school?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We work to address the district's capital plans on a regular basis. We'll be working with them intensely in the next fiscal year to implement the portable reduction strategy as well as to plan for the thousand new classrooms that will be required for smaller K-to-3 classes. This and many other projects, I'm sure, will be the subject of intense discussions between ministry staff and the Nanaimo school district as we work with them to plan for construction of new facilities in their district.

A. Sanders: It could have been an oversight, but I'm interested to know from the staff if, in fact, the Dover Bay project was even listed on the Nanaimo capital plan, as I did not see it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, it is in their capital plan. As I said, what we provided them with this year are some funds to do the work of site acquisition. They're looking at a Crown site, so they're working with the municipality and Crown Lands.

A. Sanders: Is it listed as a high priority in the capital plan?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The site acquisition was listed as a priority because they want to get on with the planning and construction of it, though obviously, as I said, they're projecting that for two to three years after.

A. Sanders: It's concerning that we're in a circumstance where the planning of the school is a high priority, but we've got three years to go. What kinds of circumstances in the contingency plan will help the students and teachers who work at that school and go to that school over the next three years? What kinds of scenarios has the ministry got in order to make sure that this school is safe?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's primarily a district issue. Ministry staff will be meeting with Nanaimo staff in the next four to six weeks to discuss this and other projects.

A. Sanders: Has the ministry staff contacted. . . ? I'm sure these letters have gone to the minister's office as well. Have any of the families been contacted to say that the ministry office has received the letters and will pay attention to them?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry does respond to letters it receives.

A. Sanders: Specifically, have these letters been responded to?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll check with the communications branch and advise the member.

A. Sanders: Will the minister communicate the answer to that question back to this member?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I intend to keep it secret. Of course I'm going to communicate it to you, hon. member.

A. Sanders: Well, everything else has been kept secret until the last, last, last dying breath. So I have no expectation that this is. . . . I learn by example, so. . . .

Other things I'm very concerned about with this agreement-in-committee are the safety, cleanliness and air quality issues that occur at the schools, where the implementation of the Premier's agreement would in fact jeopardize the consistency of ancillary services that keep our schools as safe, healthy places for our kids to be. Can the minister comment on what kinds of action plans have been implemented to ensure that our schools will be clean after the implementation of the agreement-in-committee?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm tempted to say "asked and answered," but I will say one other thing. As additional classrooms are constructed, obviously the factors in the funding formula that reflect square metres serviced by a district will rise. Funding allocations based on maintenance for that square-metre amount will also rise.

A. Sanders: Let's look at a specific example of a school that people were interested in recently. I think it's Hjorth Road Elementary School. Could the minister bring us up to date on the investigation into this particular elementary school?

[ Page 7605 ]

Hearing the sound of the bells and noting the time, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:41 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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