Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 30 -- Sunday, January 27, 2002

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27 (Committee Stage)		937
	J. Kwan Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail

Point of Order		964
	Hon. G. Bruce

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27 (Committee Stage continued)		964
	J. Kwan Hon. G. Bruce

Education Services Collective Agreement Act, Bill 27 (Report and Third Reading)		966

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage)		966
	J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Hon. G. Bruce J. Kwan

Introductions by Members		980
	Hon. C. Clark

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage continued)		980
	Hon. G. Bruce J. Kwan J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Royal Assent to Bills		981

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28 (Committee Stage continued)		981
	J. Kwan Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail Hon. C. Clark

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, Bill 28 (Report and Third Reading)		1009

Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Committee Stage)		1010
	J. MacPhail Hon. G. Bruce Hon. C. Hansen Hon. G. Collins J. Kwan

Point of Order		1027
	Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Committee Stage continued)		1027
	Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen K. Krueger Hon. G. Hogg

Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, Bill 29 (Report and Third Reading)		1039

Royal Assent to Bills		1040

Hon. G. Collins: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I call committee stage on Bill 27.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Perhaps before we begin, the minister might actually take a moment to introduce the staff who are with him.

Hon. G. Bruce: I have with me the Deputy Minister of Skills Development and Labour, Lee Doney, and the deputy minister for PSEC, Mr. Rick Connolly.

J. Kwan: The employer, the teachers all signed off on this article in 1998. My question to the minister is: why is the government now, unilaterally, imposing a new provision that the parties had jointly agreed to for inclusion in the last collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: Could you be just a little bit fuller in your question? I haven't fully understood what article you're talking about.

J. Kwan: Section 2(1)(a)(i) speaks to the terms and conditions and renegotiations of the collective agreement. In the previous agreement, which was agreed to in 1998, that agreement with respect to this provision…. All the parties had actually agreed to this provision, the employer as well as the teachers. They've all signed off on this provision. The government now, in this piece of legislation, has imposed new terms, new provisions, which the parties had jointly agreed to in the last collective agreement. My question to the minister is: why are you imposing these new terms, which the parties on both sides, the employer and the teachers, agreed to in the previous collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: In the last round it was that the superior benefits had been legislated, and what we're saying in this instance here is that the parties will have to negotiate the superior benefits.

J. Kwan: In fact, the employer and the teachers signed off on this article in 1998. It was not an imposed provision of the last agreement. Both parties actually signed off on it, so it is therefore not an imposition.

This provision removes the special provision for junior kindergarten students in terms of the limitations for class size. Will the minister first explain to the Legislature what the makeup of a junior kindergarten is?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, Mr. Chair, I'm having a little bit of difficulty hearing. That may just be because of my age. If you would work with me, could you just be a little clearer? You're talking about junior kindergarten. Could you just be a little clearer on your question for me, please?

The question to the minister is about junior kindergarten. Could the minister please explain to the House what the makeup of a junior kindergarten class is?

J. Kwan: I'm still on section 2(1)(a)(i), which speaks to the issues around terms, continuation and renegotiation, within which the proposed legislation that's being tabled addresses the junior kindergarten class size. My question, first, to the minister is that I'd like him to explain to the House what a junior kindergarten is.

Hon. G. Bruce: Just a point of clarification. We don't have "junior kindergarten" in the act. Could you just be a little clearer? We have "kindergarten" in the act. The government doesn't cover junior kindergarten.

J. Kwan: The act that is before us — Bill 27, section 2(1)(a)(i) — is actually going to revamp the collective agreement, impacting junior kindergarten in article A.1. Junior kindergarten, for the minister's information, is composed of children who are four years entering into the school system — earlier than the age of five. That is the makeup, I believe, of a junior kindergarten class. Would the minister please confirm that information.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. As I mentioned just as I was sitting down last time, the government doesn't fund junior kindergarten. If a local district wishes to put something like that together, it's not funded through the provincial budget.

J. Kwan: The act that is before us, Bill 27, is actually an act that impacts the collective agreement impacting junior kindergarten. The act makes fundamental changes impacting children who are in that age bracket — four years old — who enter school in advance. There are schools in my very own riding that have junior kindergartens, particularly the inner-city schools, actually. This act impacts them very specifically. That's

why I'm asking this question. Does the minister know what the current maximum class size is for junior kindergarten classes?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. The class size that we have here covers K-to-12. It does not cover junior kindergarten.

J. Kwan: Section 2(1)(a)(i) is to delete article A.1, entitled "Term, Continuation and Renegotiation." Therefore, it actually does impact junior kindergarten, in which there are children who are four years old entering into the school system early. That's why they're called junior kindergartens. There are at least four schools in British Columbia that provide for junior kindergarten classes, some of which are in my own riding, as I mentioned earlier. So it does impact children. Perhaps the minister would like to confer with the Minister of Education around this issue before he answers my questions.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, to be clear: junior kindergarten is a local decision. The class size is determined by that local board. It's not covered under this act. It's not covered under this jurisdiction. It's a local decision.

J. Kwan: That's precisely the point, in that the local districts have made agreements with the teachers on the class size for junior kindergartens. That was agreed to. That was not imposed. Both sides agreed to it. So the question I go back to is: why would the minister now bring in a piece of legislation that would override a joint decision agreed to by both the teachers and the employer, by the district? It was negotiated and agreed to by both sides.

Hon. G. Bruce: I understand what the member is trying to get to, so let's be clear. This act, this bill that's before us, is dealing with K-to-12 classes in the provincial realm. Local districts — those that choose to, and not all do — can have a junior kindergarten program. If they have a junior kindergarten program, they can establish the class size, as they have, of what they feel is the best for their situation. What we're doing here does not deal with junior kindergarten. This deals with K-to-12 and the class size in the provincial realm.

J. Kwan: The proposed replacement for article A.1 removes any additional or superior provisions from, in this case, the provincially negotiated language in the collective agreement. For example, the existing collective agreement provides for lower numbers in junior kindergarten than are found in this bill and in Bill 28.

Right now the class size for junior kindergarten is actually limited to 15. With the changes here, what could be is that those numbers could increase by seven. The class size for junior kindergarten could increase by seven. That's what would be impacting the students. This section, 2(1)(a)(i), speaks to the term, continuation and renegotiation of the collective agreement and impacts that very specific area and that very component of the children in our school system.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear, again. This act does not include junior kindergarten. The School Act says that a child at the age of five…. That's where it begins. That's where we're starting: at kindergarten, K-to-12. The junior kindergarten program is a program that districts locally can choose to arrange for. The class size is then determined by that particular school district. I want to be very clear that this act does not include junior kindergarten. This act deals with K-to-12 and the class size relative to K-to-12. It does not include junior kindergarten. Junior kindergarten is not found under the School Act.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that this act overrides the collective agreement, the section that has been outlined in the collective agreement — the collective agreement that has been jointly agreed to by the teachers and by the employer. That is a fact. It will change the numbers of the class size for junior kindergarten, to the potential of increasing the class size by seven. That is the actual impact.

What provisions does the bill make for the combined primary classes? Will the minister explain to the House what a combined primary class is?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just a point of clarification, because I think it's important. There may be some people watching and wanting to feel comfortable with or understand what's going on and what we're talking about. Let's be clear. Let's not leave anything to people's imagination when it can be clear.

That's in respect to junior kindergarten, as you have brought up. Junior kindergarten is not covered under this act. The student that's under the age of five is not covered under the School Act. It's a locally negotiated issue. If a district wishes to offer it, they may. Because it's locally negotiated — a local issue — it's not covered under the bill that we're providing right here. They can continue to negotiate that. They continue to provide it in the way they think is best for their students. That's really what we're trying to do in all of this. Whatever we're doing, we're trying to do it in the best interests of the students of British Columbia.

Further to your second question, in the primary classes it could be a mix of grade 1, grade 2.

J. Kwan: The current collective agreement sets the maximum class size for combined classes where there are kindergarten children enrolled at a stated maximum for the kindergarten. That made sense to the local parties, who understood, again, the unique needs of combined classes and the extra workload for multi-age groupings and the challenges that the multi-age groupings in a classroom would present to the teachers.

Hon. G. Bruce: To the point. They're very good questions, and I understand that, but we have three bills before us: Bill 27, Bill 28 and Bill 29. Bill 28 is the bill that will specifically deal with the class sizes. For

some order and the ability to move the House along, I would respectfully suggest, if I may, that we deal with the sections before us in this bill — Bill 27. I understand that some of them will relate as time moves on. I'd be happy to try and cover them both as we go, but the questions specifically being asked are really being asked of Bill 28. I would think it would be easier for all of us if we deal with the matter that's before us, and that's Bill 27.

J. Kwan: But the act before us changes the collective agreement that is now in place. Yes, in part it deals with class size, but it changes the terms as they are now in the collective agreement. That's what this section of the act does, which is why I'm asking these questions so that we're clear about what this section of the act will do in terms of changing the overall impacts of the school system for the students in the classrooms. That's why I'm asking these questions relating to kindergarten, junior kindergarten, primary, mixed classes, split classes, etc.

Hon. G. Bruce: Respectfully, that really is Bill 28. We're dealing here with an act that, through the House, puts a legislated settlement in place. That's what this bill is about.

I appreciate that there are some issues surrounding class size. Junior kindergarten is not part of this act; I'll just re-emphasize that. I really do believe that we will do better for everybody if we deal with Bill 27. Class size is very specific in Bill 28, and we should deal with that particular issue when we deal with Bill 28.

J. Kwan: Does this section of the act remove locally negotiated superior provisions that both parties have agreed to?

Hon. G. Bruce: This act is neutral on superior provisions. If you want superior provisions, you'll have to negotiate them.

J. Kwan: The minister is suggesting that for split classes, as an example, the local agreements between the teacher and the employer that they have negotiated would override and supersede this act.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, to be clear, we're trying to move into Bill 28. This is Bill 27, and class size is not in Bill 27; it is in Bill 28. I think, for the whole issue of trying to move things through the House, Mr. Chair, it would be good if we tried to keep those issues to Bill 28.

The Chair: I must remind the members to keep the questions relevant to this section.

J. Kwan: Absolutely, keeping the questions relevant to this section. My question to the minister was: would this section of the act…? Let me just rephrase this. He said earlier that locally negotiated provisions would still be the provisions that would apply in spite of this act. I'd like to get a confirmation from the minister, once again, that locally agreed-to provisions that have been jointly negotiated that now exist in the collective agreement will override this act, under section 2(1)(a)(i), with respect to provisions that are superior to what is being proposed under this legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: If a local provision is in conflict with this act or the School Act, then it's overridden.

J. Kwan: Just so that I'm completely clear: I believe the minister actually gave two different answers within the last ten minutes or so. Previously, when I asked this question, he said that the locally negotiated provisions would override this act. Just now he got up and said that this act would override the locally agreed-to provisions. Which is it?

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be very clear. Class size, as we said, is not part of this bill. Class size is part of Bill 28. That's where you'll find it, and that is not part of this debate here that we're having right now.

We spoke about the superior division. You're starting to get a few of the issues muddied and cross-referenced. I understand that there are technical details here, but they're not one and the same. I think we've been clear and canvassed this issue. The class size will be found in those provisions in Bill 28. That is the next bill that we're going to be dealing with, and that is overridden.

The superior provisions that we were talking about, where they can be negotiated locally if that's where they are at, are neutral in Bill 27.

J. Kwan: There are some provisions in the collective agreement that are superior to those of this act being tabled today. My question was: would the jointly negotiated local provisions that are superior to this act that have been jointly agreed-to and negotiated between the two parties override this act? The minister said yes a little while ago. The minister then got up and said no a little while ago. So it's actually not clear to me: would the locally negotiated provisions that are superior to this act override this act? Or would this act override those superior provisions that were jointly agreed-to and negotiated by both parties, regardless of the nature of those provisions?

Hon. G. Bruce: Perhaps to draw better clarity to this, the member would like to offer a specific example, because she's getting into a generalization of all this.

Let's be clear, again: Bill 27 does not deal with class size. Class size is found in Bill 28. The School Act applies, and where you have these situations you're talking about, those that are not in conflict with or in contradiction of the School Act or this bill can be locally negotiated. For clarity, so that we're not missing something here and we're all doing exactly what we are intending to do, perhaps the member could give me a specific example.

J. Kwan: Better yet, perhaps the minister could give some examples to the House of which provisions exist

now in the collective agreement that have been jointly negotiated by both parties — the teachers and the employers — that are superior to this act and that would not be overridden by this act. He's the Minister of Labour, after all. He's the man who has introduced this bill in the interests of students, so one would have assumed that he would know the details around that and would make sure there's clear understanding with respect to these issues for all British Columbians before this section of the act is passed.

Hon. G. Bruce: There are 60 agreements. There are different examples. What we are saying is that this bill, Bill 27, is neutral on those issues. Those issues that are not found under the School Act and that are not found with class size can be negotiated, but they have to be negotiated between school districts. I think that's about as clear as you can get. If you are concerned about a specific district issue and are asking to bring clarity to it for people who may be impacted by that and would like to offer that example, we'll check that right through and make sure that's not the case.

In the intent and purpose of this bill — I think we've canvassed this now three, four or five times — I think we're very clear on what it is we're doing.

J. Kwan: Does the minister not know what the provisions are that are superior in our collective agreements as they exist now, that have been jointly negotiated and agreed to by both parties, the teachers and the employer, that would be beneficial to the students? After all, we remember that in second reading the minister actually said this was meant to be an act that improves the education environment for students. What are the provisions that are superior to this act that will still stand after it passes that would aid the students in ensuring that the learning environment is protected?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, let's be clear on these so-called superior benefits. They're locally negotiated. They're not being handed. They'll have to be negotiated between the two parties.

When we get to the next act, Bill 28, which is where most of this discussion actually should be, there is an arbitration process where there are issues that need to be resolved. We shouldn't get into that until we've dealt with this act. I think we've canvassed this on a number of occasions to this point. I think we've been fairly clear on how this issue is to be resolved.

J. Kwan: I will take from the minister's answer, then, that the superior provisions that have been jointly negotiated by the teachers and the employer would prevail over this act, given that the minister has been unable to give even one example of what those provisions might be. I'm going to take from the minister's answer that the superior provisions that exist now in the collective agreements with many different districts throughout British Columbia would be deemed to be superior to those of this act.

Hon. G. Bruce: Those superior provisions that both parties are happy with that are not in conflict with this bill and not in conflict with the School Act will remain.

J. Kwan: I have to say it worries me greatly that the minister is in a big rush to bring in this bill that was introduced on Friday, in a big rush to get through this bill this weekend, in a big rush without consulting and informing the public so that they could actually have time to go through the bill.

The minister can't even give an example of what provisions would be superior. One would have thought that the minister, whose interests are supposed to be placed on the students in the classrooms first, would have known what provisions are superior and what provisions are not. One would have expected that, but that is not the case with this government. I don't think that's the intent of this act, and that is the focus on the students. It's clear from some simple questions at the beginning of the act that the minister is unable to identify what provisions within the collective agreement that has been jointly agreed to by the teachers and the employer are superior to what this act would be and how they impact the classrooms. This causes great concern to me and ought to cause great concern for all of us. I think it clearly outlines the intent of this government, which is that the focus of this act had never been intended to be on the children and the students of British Columbia.

On the question around salary for section 2(1)(a)(ii), how does the minister expect to attract and retain teachers in a time of shortage, when these increases will do nothing to bridge the gap in salaries paid to teachers in Ontario, in Alberta, in Yukon, in provinces and areas other than British Columbia?

Hon. G. Bruce: The wage offer that has been put here in this act is 7½ percent over three years, which is a good offer in the economic climate we're currently in. I respect the question.

The fact of the matter is that with this offer that every teacher in the province will receive, it will still make our teachers some of the highest-paid in Canada, and I'm happy to say that and proud to say it. I'm hopeful, as well, that there will still be people who will be interested in moving back to British Columbia. As British Columbia turns the corner, as things become better and as we get past the difficult times that were left by the previous administration, it will be a place that will bring people back.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yeah, it's funny, and I don't want to go down this road, so I will be as reserved and as considered as I can.

We've been government here for eight months. It has been a difficult time. The previous government did a very good job of making it as difficult as they possibly could….

The fact of the matter is that what we're doing here in this act and what is before us is putting in place a legislated settlement that after ten months of negotiation was only able to resolve three issues of about 40 or 45 issues. That's clear. Section 2 and what we're dealing with here is the settlement offer. The settlement offer is 7½ percent over three years to every teacher in British Columbia. It will keep our teachers proudly as some of the highest-paid in Canada, and we're happy to do that.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that when the government took office in the new administration, there was a surplus in the budget. In fact, if the minister doesn't have that information, he might just want to check with the auditor general. That information is public. It is open for all to see. The minister might actually discover that there was, in fact, a surplus left over from the previous government.

The Chair: Member, I just want to remind you to stay relevant to section 2(1)(a)(ii). We're not getting back into second reading debate here at this point. This is Committee of the Whole. Stay relevant to the section, please.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was simply responding to the minister's question.

On the question around salary retention and attraction, I'd like to ask this question of the minister. Does he know the looming shortage that is going to be faced by British Columbians in the area of attracting educators into our system and what the number is of the looming shortage over the next ten years in professionals in the area of education?

Hon. G. Bruce: Before this salary offer goes into place, our British Columbia teachers were the second-highest paid in Canada in both the minimum salary and the maximum salary. That's before the additional 7½ percent, which we are happy to be able to offer over three years. We're proud to have that.

British Columbia is a beautiful place to live in, with a great climate. In spite of a little bit of snow every now and then here in the lower part of Vancouver Island, the width and breadth of the beautiful place we've got here and the resources we have…. We'll get the economic situation turned around. We'll get this province moving again in the right direction. I think there'll be a great number of people who will be continually wanting to move back to this province and to live here, including a number of teachers as well.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister was: what is the number — does he know? — of the looming shortage of educators in our system in British Columbia? Perhaps the minister may want to confer with his staff to get that number so he is advised of the looming shortage that is coming to British Columbia in the area of teachers and educators over the next ten years.

If the minister doesn't know the answer to that, perhaps I can refer him to Hansard. That information was provided by the Education Committee. It is important for the minister to actually know the challenge ahead of British Columbia in the shortage of teachers, and it is relevant to this section because it goes to the question of retention and attraction. Salary is one component that deals with attraction and retention.

The Chair: Minister, I believe these questions are second reading debate. They're talking about theory. We should be specific to this section, which deals with percentage increases.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We certainly are guided by your direction.

If I could just clarify the relevance of this section. This section deals with the budget that will be allocated to pay teachers. The amount applied to an individual teacher will affect the overall budget, so it does seem — in order to understand the actual costing and accounting of a 2½ percent wage increase, as the government is so interested in, over at least the next three years with their multiple accounting — that it is important to note what the pressures will be, not only this year but next year and the year after by the government's own multiple-year accounting. It's just the pursuit of that and understanding whether there will be more teachers or fewer teachers putting pressure on the wage bill.

Hon. G. Bruce: I understand what you're talking about. I think it's instructive to again take a look at the situation across the country. Our wage scale in this province is not tenth. It's not eleventh, it's not seventh, it's not fifth, it's not fourth. It's second and, in some instances, very close to the highest. Teachers in Canada are going to look at all of that, and they're going to be interested in part of the wage scale. They're going to be interested in the lifestyle. They're going to be interested in the commitment made by people in a province to education.

We've made a very strong commitment, as a government, to education. We said we are going to put students first. That's what we're doing. In this particular act what we're talking about is the wage scale that you have referred to, and the fact of the matter is: this offer is 7½ percent. What we're putting in through legislation is 7½ percent over three years for every teacher in British Columbia. I think that's fair. I think that deals with your question and your concerns relative to teacher shortages or no shortages, where we are in the age group and demographics of teachers, where they would move and live.

Much of that comes back to the big picture, and we're turning that big picture around, albeit with difficulty, from what was left before us. We're going to turn that around on an even-keel basis to make British Co-

J. Kwan: The looming shortage that's coming in the area of education professionals, educators, is estimated to be about 13,000 over the next ten years. I worry that the section of this bill which speaks to a salary of 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the next three years would jeopardize B.C.'s opportunity to attract teachers and young people to going into the profession so that the shortage would not become a crisis in our education system.

I wonder if the minister knows that there are 39 school districts that have reported shortages in key areas, and they anticipate further difficulties in attracting and retaining teachers. I wonder if the minister can answer the question: how does he expect that the environment that has now been set, the salary that is being proposed and imposed by this bill, would actually address the shortages in these 39 districts?

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, Mr. Chairman, let's try this again. This offer is 7½ percent over three years. Prior to this offer, our teachers in British Columbia received virtually the second- highest amount in both the minimum and the highest categories, so this is 7½ percent on top of that. I think that's good. I, and I on behalf of the government, am proud that we are there. This is not zero-zero-and-2 as a previous administration gave; this is 7½ percent over three years. I appreciate that it's not 18 percent. This is 7½ percent. It's not 18 percent, because that would be irresponsible in the situation that we are faced with here in British Columbia, but it is 7½ percent over three years. It will make our teachers about the highest-paid in Canada, perhaps the second — it's arguable — but it certainly isn't last.

As the member opposite would know, it's more than just salary conditions that bring people into the educational field as teachers. There are other things that they take into account and are interested in as to why they go into that. I think we have about 1,700 graduates a year in the teaching profession. So you know, it's not zero-zero-and-2. It's 7½ percent over three years in a situation that economically, in this country, around the world and here in this province, is very difficult.

I believe it's a fair offer, and I believe it's an offer that, compared to what's happening across the country and around the world, will help to continue to encourage people to go into the teaching profession and, quite frankly, encourage people from other parts who are thinking of moving from one jurisdiction to another to consider British Columbia a good place to come back to.

J. Kwan: It's true that it's not zero-zero-and-2. It's true that salary alone is not the only thing that attracts and retains teachers in British Columbia, because it is also the work environment. It is also, I think, the overall impression that the employer would leave to the employee — in this case, it would happen to be teachers — in terms of their attitude and their respect for the work of the employee.

I would suggest that when you look at all of these factors combined and with the passing of this bill — especially in the latter part, which I understand to be very important to many, many teachers, above and beyond salary — the respect that they expect from the employer, from the government would be paramount to the question of them staying in the education system and attracting teachers to the education system.

Zero-zero-and-2, as it relates to the work environment, was coupled with reduced class size, and that was paramount to the teachers. The teachers went into the environment with zero-zero-and-2 and with a reduced class size. One would argue that on the question around salary, they actually took the reduction in their salary on their backs to benefit the students in the classroom so that the class size could actually be smaller and the learning environment for the students would be better. Of course, the teaching environment would also be better. It was a joint package that came together.

In this instance, we have 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years, and then we have provisions that actually increase class size, which I know we'll debate further under Bill 28. Those things will come together.

Of course, that, too, combines with back in August when the minister brought in a provision — essential services — that was supposed to bring calm to the school system, even though people predicted otherwise. In fact, it now has quite the opposite impact, and that is the key issue in terms of setting the environment as it relates to the question of the attraction and retention of teachers. Salary is one component of it, no doubt. It's not the only thing.

Does the minister expect that the best and the brightest students will want to enter into the profession of teaching with a starting salary of $41,000 by the end of the agreement, when other occupations already offer substantially higher starting salaries? I'm talking about other occupations, such as pharmacology. In fact, I know that my brother, who is completing his PhD as well as his pharmacology degree at the same time, has been offered a salary, bonuses, not only just….

The Chair: I don't think it's important to bring other professions into this. We're dealing with section 2. We're talking about a 2½ percent increase. I'd ask you to please stay relevant.

J. Kwan: I am. I'm setting up an example in terms of how 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years for teachers would attract and retain teachers. I'm bringing in an example of pharmacology. Other people in pharmacology would enter into a starting salary of much higher than $41,000, even with the 2½, 2½ and 2½, and with a signing bonus, as well — not only in British Columbia but, in fact, outside of British Columbia. In the United

States, as an example, these other professions are being sought after by other people.

How does the minister expect, with a salary of 2½, 2½ and 2½ and the working conditions that are now being imposed on the classrooms after this legislation has been passed, that this salary proposal would attract young people, particularly with a looming shortage of over 13,000 educators that will be needed in British Columbia? How are we going to fill those positions and attract young people into that profession with this proposal?

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, we as human beings are a diverse group. Some of us would like to do other things; some of us are capable of doing other things. Some people can pick up a hammer and a saw and make a creation out of a piece of wood that's absolutely remarkable. It's a piece of art. Some can pick up a hammer and smack a nail a hundred times — bang, bang, bang, bang — and they never hit their thumb once. Now, if I grab a hammer and pick up a nail, look out. Actually, you don't have to worry. I'm in a lot of trouble. I'll hammer my hand a hundred times. I'd never make it as a carpenter.

Some people are great as doctors. They go into that medical profession because they've got a feeling. They actually have a calling.

I happen to believe each one of us has a calling. I also happen to believe that the majority of people aren't driven simply because of what the dollar amount is. I don't believe that. Maybe the members opposite categorize everything as "you wouldn't do this, because it's X number of dollars," but I think the diversity and the wonder of a human being is the fact that they like to create things, and they like to make things happen. They like to build things. Maybe it is that they like to teach or they like to heal, or maybe it is that they like to build or create art. Each one of us has our own particular skill.

I don't think we wake up in the morning and say: "Well, I think that when I look at the scale, this person makes $1 million a year, this person makes $500,000 a year, this person makes $100,000 a year, this person makes $50,000 a year, this person makes $26,000 a year, and I'm going to base my decisions on what I want to do based on that." I don't really think that at the bottom of people's hearts that's how they go about doing it. I think it's by what's in them, what they've been given, the creation of what they can offer to society.

Boy, what a calling it is if you can teach. You can see the difference between people that can really teach and really offer. You can see the difference when they walk into that classroom and how that class responds and how that school responds to the talent of those individuals. It's a God-given gift, absolutely, and they don't wake up at night and say: "Boy, I'm going to rate what I'm going to do based on how much money I'm going to make."

The fact of the matter is that on balance, what we're talking about here, to come back to the specifics of what's being offered in this settlement — and I digressed; I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman — is 7½ percent over three years. It keeps our teachers as some of the highest-paid in Canada — if not the highest-paid, then right there at the second level. We have a province here that's turned around. It's starting to go in the right direction now, in the proper direction, after years of going in the wrong direction. I think we're going to find we still have people going into teaching. Like I say, it's a God-given gift.

J. Kwan: Does the minister recall that the first act of the government was to give deputy ministers large increases in salary? Does he remember what the percentage range was for deputy ministers and why? How does that compare to the salary proposed here for the teachers at 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's true, you know. The atmosphere that was built here over the past ten years…. There were professional people that looked at British Columbia and said, "No, thank you" — "no, thank you," for how the public service had been treated, "no, thank you," for turning the deputy ministers sector into a political arm, as the previous government did. It's true.

What we're at here in this respect is that we're on this bill — Bill 27. We're dealing with the wage package. What we're talking about is that this wage package that's been offered is fair and competitive across Canada. What we had to do in respect to the deputy ministers' scales was to make them fair and competitive across Canada, just as we're making this one fair and competitive across Canada. They're balanced. They're difficult decisions, but they're balanced. This is a fair and equitable offer. It's 7½ percent over three years. It's not zero-zero-and-2. This government has made education a high priority — its highest priority. We are putting students first. That's what we're setting out to do here. We do have some damage. We do have some difficult challenges ahead of us left over by the members opposite, but we are going to get at each one of those and get this system turned around.

J. Kwan: The fact is that the deputy ministers' increases ranged from 18 percent to 32 percent — the first act of this government. The rationale was: "We've got to attract and retain high-calibre professionals in government." Well, of course, as the minister well knows, many of the deputy ministers that are now in government are the same people that were hired under the previous administration. So much for the notion of politicizing, because those high-calibre deputy ministers are still here working for this new-era administration. The argument on politicizing, quite frankly, doesn't work, with the exception of Andrew Wilkinson, I think. We didn't hire him. He was the president of the Liberal Party. The new-era government hired him.

The deputies got an 18 percent to 32 percent wage increase on the first day. Teachers are now being forced into 2½, 2½ and 2½ imposed over three years. That is the reality. That is the reality of what this government is doing, and their intention to attract and retain teach-

ers in our education system…. One would argue that teachers are very paramount in impacting the future of young people. They spend a lot of time with children and foster the children's growth. The salary of teachers is one component of the attraction and retention formula, along with working and teaching conditions and education conditions for the students.

Can the minister name one or two districts that are now faced with shortages in the teaching profession? How will he advise those 39 districts on how to handle the shortages that exist now, not just future shortages coming down the pike?

Hon. G. Bruce: There were 32 positions that were vacant after a canvass of 51 districts.

J. Kwan: The question was: are there any districts faced with shortages right now in our school system? I know there are at least 39 districts that are faced with shortages. One is Stikine. The Stikine area is faced with huge shortages. They have a hard time right now retaining teachers. Yesterday in second reading I mentioned some facts about that district: within a one-, two- or three-year time span, students in schools in that district could be faced with a number of different teachers in terms of the turnaround. That is what's happening in the area of Stikine. With 2½, 2½ and 2½, at a $41,000 starting salary for these districts faced with particular difficulties in attracting and retaining teachers, how will the districts manage to attract and retain? Even now as we speak, they are faced with that difficulty — never mind the future.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all due respect, I'm happy to talk about this. It's a difficulty that we're faced with in this country, in this province, in all sorts of occupations and regions, because of the regional differences.

I have to remember my own sister and brother-in-law. He was a teacher in his first job, having lived here in southern Vancouver Island in this very gentle climate — compared to much of the rest of British Columbia's climate during the winter. Their first teaching assignment was in the little village of Kitwanga with huge amounts of snow, bears around the trailer — the place that they were living in.

It was a complete change in life, obviously, from what they were accustomed to, growing up and living here on Vancouver Island, but they went there. He's a great teacher. They went there and started their career in the teaching profession. I don't think he would have been driven by the money. He had studied long and hard to become a teacher. He loves the students he deals with, and that was his first opportunity.

Now, you mention other regional areas that we can talk about. Yeah, those are problems. Those are challenges for us at all times, not just in the area of teaching but in all walks of life. There are challenges for all of us in all the professions that we have to deal with.

This offer — 7½ percent over three years, making our teachers nearly the highest-paid in Canada — is a good and fair and balanced offer in respect to the situation we're in and, like I say, in regard to the national average. It's one that we gladly make.

J. Kwan: The minister speaks of the national average. The fact of the matter is that if you compare the highest-paid categories information in terms of what other provinces are doing and how much they're paying their teachers relative to British Columbia, there are a number of situations where other provinces are paying a higher pay rate than that of British Columbia — Ontario and Alberta, to name just two provinces. I know this government aspires to be just like Ontario and Alberta. Their pay grid and their salary is actually higher than that of British Columbia.

It's outlined here in the bulletin. These are the facts. Of course, in Alberta they are up for negotiations. In fact, in February there might even be a strike in Alberta. As to the salary question, as you compare British Columbia to other provinces, the fact is that other provinces do have higher pay scales than that of B.C. That makes the competition for attracting and retaining teachers even more difficult. Those are the facts. I would urge the minister to check out the facts, because they're there. I didn't make them up. These are facts; these numbers exist. They are published; they are public. Anybody can get this information and check that out.

The teachers in seven of the nine districts which will have their agreements amalgamated under section 4 of this act are going to lose moneys, starting in the second year of the agreement.

The Chair: Member, we'll get to section 4 ultimately, but will you please stay with section 2. Thank you.

J. Kwan: I am bringing up this question now, because it relates to the salary question.

The Chair: Member, I ask you, please, to bring that question up in section 4.

J. Kwan: I want to get assurance from you, then, hon. Chair, because I don't want to go to section 4 and then be advised that we can't talk salary anymore because the salary is under section 2. I just want to get assurances from you, then, that when we go to section 4 on the amalgamation question I would be able to bring up the salary questions as they relate to amalgamated areas.

The Chair: If the question is relevant to section 4, we will bring it up in section 4.

J. Kwan: No worries, members, because I have lots of questions. You may as well just sit back and relax.

J. Kwan: I'm just informing the House that I have a list of questions, and it will take some time for me to get through the list.

Why is there no increase to the daily rate for teachers on call, when the services of these teachers are already, of course, in short supply in many of the districts?

Hon. G. Bruce: As long as the member wants to sit here and ask the questions, I'm prepared — these are important matters — to do the best I can to answer her questions. I'm glad that she does have lots.

In reference to Alberta and Ontario, I think that particular magazine that you have here — and your wage scales…. Alberta and Ontario have made some pretty difficult decisions during the past years — the past ten years, in fact — while this particular province, under your guidance as a government, basically drove down the opposite direction that one ought to go in, virtually taking this place apart person by person in the wrack and ruin that you were able to spread from one end of this province to the other. People did leave, undoubtedly.

Had we not had that ten years, that decade of decline, in fact I would say, standing here, that our teachers would be far and away the highest-paid in Canada. We would probably have the best health care system in the world. We probably would have a ferry fleet that runs on time and on budget. We probably would have economic development happening throughout this province. We probably would have people moving into this province.

We probably would have a very bright, shiny day here in British Columbia, but — respectfully — your party chose a different path. Your government chose a different path, opposite to what was necessary, unable to make the difficult decisions, unable to represent all of the people of the province. That's why you will see those anomalies of specific issues, but across the board, on average, our teachers will be, right here, one of the second-highest-paid or highest-paid in Canada.

In respect to your grid question in regards to the casual teachers, the call-out teachers, most districts have local agreements where, when a teacher is called out — I believe it's two or three times; is that correct? — on average two or three times, they would move onto the grid system.

J. Kwan: On the question around the decline that the minister has brought up, the fact of the matter is that when the previous government left office, the economic growth was at 3.9 percent. It was just reported out today. I urge the minister to go and look at those facts and understand them. If he doesn't understand them, maybe talk to the auditor general; I'm sure that he would be prepared to assist. I'm sure of that. I'm sure that David Bond would be prepared to assist and explain to the minister that when you squander taxpayers' money for the biggest tax cuts for the wealthiest of British Columbians and say that magically the revenues will just come back, in fact they won't. I'm sure that David Bond would explain that to the minister.

On the question around salaries, the fact of the matter is that if you look at just one example…. In Ontario some of the schools, where their salary is actually higher than that of British Columbia — higher than that of British Columbia…. Some of the districts, some of the schools where the teachers receive a higher salary….

I'll give you some examples. Superior North's collective agreement in Ontario is higher in salary than that of the teachers in British Columbia. Thunder Bay Elementary, Thunder Bay Secondary, Toronto Elementary, Toronto Secondary, Windsor Elementary, Windsor Secondary are just some examples. There's a whole list of them relative to the salary as they compare British Columbia to another province — in this instance, Ontario. There is a stark difference in terms of their salary pay rate as they compare to that of British Columbia.

I asked the question: why is there no increase to the daily rate for teachers on call when the service of these teachers is in short supply in many districts? As districts compete for this category of teacher, why is there no pay increase in the daily rate for these teachers?

Hon. G. Bruce: On average, teachers on call-out, if they've worked the three days, go onto the grid system. The grid system, by this proposal here, is a 2½ percent increase per year. It's 7½ percent over the course of the next three years.

J. Kwan: Is the minister suggesting that the teachers who are on call would receive the same pay rate increase?

Hon. G. Bruce: Once that teacher moves onto the grid system, they would receive that increase.

Hon. G. Bruce: Every district has a grid system. It varies according to that district. A teacher comes on and moves through the grid system according to the years they're there. Grid systems are found in a number of different professions.

J. Kwan: Within the grid system, what is the range? Is it step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? What is the range within the grid? Could the minister also explain the categories for the evaluation for salary for teachers?

J. Kwan: That is for the grid system, for the categories for evaluating teachers as they relate to salary.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all due respect, the relevance to this is the 7½ percent over three years that's been put in this act, which will be the settlement for the teachers. Basically, we have a variety of grid systems, as were mentioned — different qualifications of experience,

qualifications as they go through that grid system. In respect to how you came to this question in regards to the teachers on call, on average it's three days. That's on average, because every district's a little bit different. Then that teacher would find themselves on the grid system. I believe that's the relevance of what we're talking about here.

J. Kwan: The question is relevant in terms of salary. We're talking about increases in teachers' salary. I'm wondering how the government, how the minister, arrived at this salary increase and what factors he took into consideration. One would have assumed that the issue around the categories…. The categories, for the minister's information, are that the teachers' training and experience are taken into consideration and form the categories within the teachers' evaluation in terms of their salary rate.

The other piece is the grid system, which varies from district to district as it relates to salary, which is why I asked the question as it relates to teachers on call. When a teacher is called into the school system to teach, the daily rate for the teacher varies from district to district also. When a teacher first starts in the system, where does this on-call teacher arrive within the grid, in the category formula as it relates to salary? Then there's the question on the salary increases and their application.

Hon. G. Bruce: To be specific, as this bill applies, we are not making any changes to the grid system. We are not making any changes to qualifications. What we are doing through this act is implementing a settlement of 7½ percent over three years to every teacher in the province.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I didn't quite get the minister's answer. Did he respond to the question about the on-call teachers when they first get into the system? Where do they land within the grid and the categories? The application of the 7½ percent — the 2½, 2½ , 2½ increase. I'm sorry. I missed that answer.

Hon. G. Bruce: They land on the grid according to their years of experience and qualifications. As I mentioned, every teacher in the province will receive 7½ percent over the course of three years.

J. Kwan: Can I take the minister's word that the teachers on call will receive the increase of 2½ , 2½, 2½?

Hon. G. Bruce: Once a teacher moves onto the grid system — experience, qualifications — they get 7½ percent over three years.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all due respect, we actually dealt with that about 15 minutes ago. For one further time, the districts are somewhat different, but on average it's after three days on call.

J. Kwan: The question about the teachers who are on the daily rate: does the 2½, 2½, 2½ increase apply to the daily rate?

J. Kwan: Irrespective of the fact that the on-call teachers have moved onto the grid system, the daily rate at which they are being called to work would not receive the 2½, 2½, 2½ increase.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's try this again, with all due respect. A teacher that moves onto the grid system, is there for a month as a substitute and lands in their proper position on the grid according to qualification and time, will during that period receive the 7½ percent over the course of the three years. On a daily rate, there is no increase.

J. Kwan: The teachers' on-call daily rate would receive no increase for three years. Is that correct?

We've actually canvassed this thing, but it's okay. I'll stay with you. We've gone around it, and we can go around it again however many times you wish to go around it. That's fine. I'm quite prepared to do that with you.

Hon. G. Bruce: Teachers on call would vary from district to district, but let's be clear. I want to get this straight, because the questions come in a number of different ways. I understand what you're trying to get across.

A teacher going onto the grid system to teach on call has been, on average, like three days. They would then land on the grid according to their qualifications and time. In most instances, they would get that rate for the prior three days, as well, if they're on their period. That is a 7½ percent increase over three years. Now, if teachers go to work on a call-in basis — if I get this correct — and they're there for longer than the three days, they would land on the grid system according to their time and qualifications. While they're on that system and working that period of time, they'll be receiving the rate that was there, which is the 7½ percent.

J. Kwan: Many of the assignments for the teachers who receive a daily rate and who are on call do not receive long enough hours to actually be put on the grid, so this legislation does not include them in terms of the pay increase. Their pay is on the basis of a daily rate, and that's excluded. That's zero percent for three years for teachers who are on call. They will receive a zero percent increase over three years on the basis of this legislation, because they are on a daily rate and because they don't get assignments for them to accumulate enough hours to get onto the grid. Why do

these employees, whose daily rate is not tied to the grid, not receive an increase in the next three years?
I'm asking the question of the minister. Why do the teachers who are on call on a daily rate and who are not tied to the grid not receive any increase? They're getting zero over the next three years.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm pleased to carry on this debate on the same point. We'll go around again.

For the teacher that is on the very casual basis of one day, there is no increase. I've said that. I'm very clear about that. We've said that.

J. MacPhail: You just said that now for the first time. Teachers out there don't understand that.

Hon. G. Bruce: So here we are. We'll be clear on this. I'll try and answer every question you have as best I possibly can.

Teachers who go in on a call-out and are there for three days will go onto the grid system as it applies to their qualifications and their length of service, and they will receive that increase by virtue of being on that grid system. In most instances, as the local agreements are, they receive that retroactively for those three days. A teacher on a one-day assignment will not receive that increase.

J. Kwan: The employer offered $190 as a daily rate for the teachers on call. Why, at least, has this minister not included that rate for those who are currently paid less?

Hon. G. Bruce: There were varying things; there were 45 issues on the table. We elected on this to make sure that every teacher in this respect on the grid system would receive 7½ percent over three years. That's what we've decided to do. That's 2½, 2½ and 2½, and it makes our teachers here in British Columbia amongst the highest-paid in Canada.

J. Kwan: The question was about the teachers who are on call on a daily rate. The minister had just said in this House that they will receive zero-zero-and-zero for the next three years. That's what the minister said. The employer at the negotiating table has offered $190 as a daily rate for teachers who are now on call who receive less…

J. Kwan: …under this offer. The employer at the negotiating table actually offered $190. My question is: why didn't the minister include what the employer has already offered in negotiations?

Hon. G. Bruce: It was a decision that we felt was important — that our full-time teachers receive a 7½ percent increase over three years. That was our decision. I appreciate that perhaps you don't like that decision and that maybe others don't like the decision — very clear about it. All of the teachers that are full-time that are on the grid system are getting 7½ percent over three years — okay?

The question was first asked in regards to the casual teachers on the one-day category, whether they'd be getting an increase, and I stood up, and I said no. That was clear. You got the answer. You asked the question; I gave you the answer. I said no. That's clear. You understand that. Now we're talking about this other aspect of going around again. It's 7½ percent over three years, and that's what the increase will be.

I'm pleased to have the members opposite here question what's in this legislation. I know it will be long and lengthy, and that's what this House is for. I know there will be some difficulty in getting all the answers clearly through to the members of the opposition as well as getting everybody to understand what we're attempting to do here. I understand that, but that's what this House is here for, and of course, that's what you're here for: to ask those questions to make sure that people understand it. It's also important, when we do answer the question, that, in fact, you reiterate…

Here, let's just recap: no on the casual — zero on the casual. If you're on the grid, that's usually after three days, in most of the districts, on a local, negotiated contract basis. You would go onto the grid based on your time and qualifications. Because of that grid, as a teacher you would receive that 7½ percent over the three years in that grid situation. In most instances, the way the local contracts are, the first three days that you are there are retroactive, and you would get that. I believe that's pretty clear.

J. Kwan: Was $190 the last offer by the employer to the teachers on call on a daily rate?

Hon. G. Bruce: A teacher that's a casual teacher, that goes on the grid system — we're together on that — after three days will go on the grid system, and according to their qualification and their time will receive that 7½ percent.

J. Kwan: I'm asking the question to the minister for the teachers who are on call, on a daily rate, who are

not, not, not — I repeat, for the third time, for clarification, for the minister — on the grid system. What will they receive now under this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: The daily rate, if you're not on the grid…. I'll try this another way….

J. Kwan: Let me explain this to the minister: the teachers who are on call, on a daily rate, who are not — and I repeat, not — on the grid, received, at the last offer from the employer, an offer of $190 from the lowest rate. The minister seems to be fixated on the grid; I'm talking about the group of teachers who are not on the grid. The lowest rate — that is, for the teachers who are on call, who are not on the grid system — is in Merritt. They are the lowest in the province. The employer offered $190 to increase their daily rate, and they also offered 7½ percent for those who were receiving the $190. So that we're clear, who in the educational system will not receive the increase of 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years?

In British Columbia, there are over 6,000 teachers who are on call, receiving a daily rate, right now. They will get zero, zero and zero for three years. Of those 6,000 teachers, they tend to be young, and they tend to be female. Approximately 60 percent of those 6,000 are young, female teachers in our system who will be receiving zero, zero and zero over the next three years, even though at the bargaining table, the employer offered 7½ percent and to top up to $190 for those who are now receiving the lowest rate in the province. This legislation on the 2½, 2½ and 2½ does not apply to those 6,000 teachers right now in our province who are on call, on a daily rate, throughout British Columbia.

How does the minister expect that those 6,000 teachers will be attracted into our system on a long-term basis? How does the minister expect that other people who might be looking at the education system as a profession and who might have to enter into the system first on an on-call basis with this proposal…?

Hon. G. Bruce: Okay. For a teacher on the daily rate, there is no increase in the daily rate. There is no increase for a teacher on a daily rate. If, though, that teacher on a daily rate ends up on an assignment that's longer than one, two or three days — and that's only an average; in some districts it's a little bit different, but on average that's about what it is — then they land on the grid of where their qualification time puts them. In that instance, they would receive that higher level pay relative to the grid. That would be the 7½ percent over three years.

The member opposite talked earlier on about teacher shortages and looming shortages. As we know — with these numbers, within the Ministry of Education, and what you have — there are also, in fact, at this point, 6,000 teachers on a casual basis here in the system.

Let's just put it all together again. You're asking me the daily rate. There is no increase in the daily rate. A teacher that works one day, whatever that daily rate is relative to the district they're currently in, will receive that same amount of money. If that teacher, however, works longer than a day — depending, again, on what that may be in the district they're in; there are 60 contracts here…. If it's a three-day qualification, and they go onto the grid system — they're now on an assignment that's longer than the three days — they, of course, would receive the grid level that now has encompassed in it the 7½ percent over the three years. Those days that they first worked, the retroactive days, would also be included in it.

J. Kwan: There is fierce competition now between the districts and the services of teachers on call. Those who are on a daily rate, especially in the more remote districts…. Even the employer recognizes that fact. They have proposed in negotiations to increase the daily rate for teachers on call to $190. They have recognized the difficulties, especially in the remote areas, of ensuring that they're competitive in trying to attract teachers to the table who are on call on a daily rate. They have proposed an increase of the lowest salary to $190 and for those who are making $190 now, to increase it by 7½ percent.

Why wouldn't this government, this minister, accept the employer's proposal, especially when the government suggests that they respect local district differences and want to give them flexibility? This legislation limits the ability of local districts, especially those in the remote areas, to attract and compete for teachers on call who are on a daily rate.

Hon. G. Bruce: With all due respect, I'm really trying to get to the answer this member is looking for. We've canvassed it a number of different ways.

We chose not to accept the employer's offer. We chose not to accept the BCTF offer. We have brought through a proposal here in legislation. We thought it was incumbent that every teacher receive a 7½ percent increase over three years. I'll qualify that so that we don't have to go through this again. That would be every teacher on the grid system. We understand that there are teachers on call. There are about 6,000. You've mentioned that. We know that. It's been said.

We made that decision because we thought it was important that every teacher who's in that category on the grid would receive a 7½ percent increase over three years. That was our decision. That's what this legislation says, and that's what we're doing.

J. Kwan: I think it's unfortunate. The minister and this government claim that they want to put students first in the classroom. They want to give flexibility to districts to attract and retain teachers, and yet on the issue of on-call teachers, those who are on a daily rate — of which there are some 6,000 in British Columbia, and approximately 60 percent are young and female — would receive a zero, zero and zero increase over the next three years, in spite of the recommendation and the suggestions made by the employer at the negotiating table. That is for the rate to be changed to $190 in-

stead of for those who are now lowest in the province — the city of Merritt actually has the lowest rate right now in British Columbia — and for those who are at $190 to receive a 7½ percent increase.

The minister has chosen not to accept that and include that in this section of the bill — to apply the 2½, 2½, and 2½ over three years for all teachers, not setting two classes of teachers, those who are on call and those who are not. I think that's most unfortunate. I think the minister and the government should recognize the recognition the employer has already made at the bargaining table in terms of the importance of this provision as it relates to salary for teachers on call.

I'd like to move an amendment to section 2(1)(b). That section is amended to read:

This amendment has been tabled with the Clerk. I would ask the Clerk to please give a copy of the amendment to the minister for his information.

Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you for the copy of the amendment. Does this amendment add cost?

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, speaking to the amendment.

The Chair: As far as our understanding, this amendment does not add cost to government, and it is in order. Would you like to respond to that?

J. Kwan: I'm sorry; I didn't hear the minister's response to the amendment. I was wondering whether or not the minister is interested in accepting the amendment. The amendment does not add cost. It speaks to a process question.

The Chair: I have ruled on the acceptability of the amendment, so I'm putting the question now.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, as I mentioned earlier, the amendment does not add cost to the collective agreement. It simply speaks to changing the negotiation process and the provisions that have been negotiated and accepted by both parties during collective bargaining. The major change is to ensure that, whether or not such acceptance was conditional on acceptance of another bargaining proposal. It's a change to the process. I think it is an important component to add to the process, so of course I would urge the government members to support this amendment. It is not substantive in nature. It is a minor amendment in relation to the bargaining process.

Hon. G. Bruce: There were three items that both parties had agreed to. Those three items are included in this bill, so this government on this side of the House will not be supporting this amendment.

	YEAS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

The Chair: We'll just give a few moments for members to go about their duties before we proceed with section 3.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister…. Does he need to wait for his staff?

Hon. G. Bruce: What section 3 does is provide for a dispute resolution process. There were three items that the parties had agreed to. What this does is allow that if there's any misunderstanding or misinterpretation by

the parties in this respect, there's a dispute resolution process in place to deal with those three items.

J. Kwan: What possible purpose would this serve if there are only three items agreed to, as the minister says? Can the minister tell us what those three items are?

Hon. G. Bruce: The first item is article A.8. This states that any legislative changes that impact the collective agreement will be reviewed by a committee. The parties will meet to make modifications to the collective agreement that are legally possible in order to achieve the intent of the collective agreement. If the parties cannot agree on the necessary modifications, it will be left up to an arbitrator to add, delete or amend the articles affected by the legislation.

The second is letters of intent and understanding on school district housing. For those districts that provide housing for teachers, a committee of local teachers and school district officials will be made to address any issues. If the local committee cannot resolve the issues, a provincial committee of representatives will address the issues. The provincial committee will also prepare a report for government four months after its first meeting to address and/or outline any issues arising from school housing. This relates to remote communities and is a relatively small number. I believe there are 17 districts.

The third issue of agreement was that the provincial sexual harassment language will apply to the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association. In 1996 the parties agreed to a provincial policy on harassment and sexual harassment. One school board, the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association, was red-circled and not party to the provincial language. With this agreement, the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association is no longer red-circled and is a part of the provincial policy on harassment and sexual harassment.

J. Kwan: The minister acknowledges that there were only three items agreed to. One may ask: why is that? Surely the minister must agree that the government's constant interference in the process by removing the incentive for the employer to get to the bargaining table is a major problem in impeding progress at the bargaining table and in the negotiation process.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not sure I see the relevance, in respect to that question, to section 3. We've canvassed it in second reading. The member knows all too well how long the negotiating process has taken to get to here and how little movement there was by either party over the course of the life of this process of ten months.

J. Kwan: Actually, the government brought in essential services legislation back in August. At that time the minister said this was going to accelerate negotiations, perhaps, and that it would not disrupt the negotiation process. It would, in fact, resolve many of the issues at the table. Many people predicted at the time that that would not happen, that it was going to encumber the bargaining process.

At every turn, when government interferes and intervenes in the bargaining process, it inhibits the employer's incentive to actually get the matters resolved. Perhaps that's why we've only been able to arrive at three items on the table — because the incentive for the employers to engage has simply been taken away. Continuously, members of the executive council have spoken out in public to say that they would bring in legislation to legislate the teachers back on a collective agreement. That is perhaps the reason why we've arrived at only three items.

Is there a level of complexity to any of those provisions such that the parties wouldn't understand what they have agreed to?

Hon. G. Bruce: This provision is what you might term a fail-safe provision. I would hope that the parties would be able to agree as to what they've actually agreed to already on those three items. But in the course of bringing through a legislated settlement such as we are here, we're just making sure there's a provision available so that if, of the three items, there is some difficulty in remembering what it was they both had agreed to, we have a provision that we can arbitrate that dispute. That's what this section does.

J. Kwan: The parties had agreed to the wording of several other proposals, subject only to the agreement of a larger package. Some of those items that were nearly agreed to include mileage, tax receipts for purchase of supplies, new teacher mentorship programs, president's leave, etc. Will the minister include those provisions as agreed to for the purposes of this section of the act?

Hon. G. Bruce: These were the only three items that were presented to me as formally signed off by both parties.

J. Kwan: Then that is to say that the items that were agreed to — and there were several items that were agreed to, subject to the larger package — would not be included for the purposes of this act?

J. Kwan: I'd like to move an amendment to section 3(1) at this time. Section 3(1) is amended by deleting the phrase "by the minister" and adding the phrase "under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement," to read:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and we would ask that a copy please be given to the minister.

The Chair: After looking at the amendment, it seems to be in order. We will carry on.

The purpose of the amendment, again, is not one about money but rather one around process, so that in the process, instead of simply having the minister appoint an arbitrator…. This is the section that deals with the resolution of disputes between the agreed provisions. In the name of fairness, I think, and in the interests of independence, to ensure there is a perception — an actual feel — of independence in the process, the arbitrator ought to be appointed not by the minister but rather under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement.

That is what this amendment is speaking to. I would ask the minister whether or not he agrees with the issue of independence in reality and in perception.

Hon. G. Bruce: We believe that section 3 as it's written is written in an adequate way that will protect both parties, so the government will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Kwan: Will the minister explain to the House what the difference is between the motion, as the act stands now, for the appointments to be made by the minister versus that under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: I have made clear the position of the government. The government will not be supporting this amendment. We believe the provisions that are in the act as presented are sufficient to look after any of the issues that may arise.

J. Kwan: I'm not asking the minister whether or not he agrees with the amendment. I'm asking the minister whether he knows the difference between what is in the act now versus the proposed amendment on the issue around process. Maybe the minister can explain to the House what the process is under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement in this instance.

Hon. G. Bruce: With the greatest of respect, this is your amendment. If you'd like to explain it, go right ahead. The position of the government is that we will not accept this amendment. The fact of the matter is that we believe we are properly covered by section 3, which applies to these same circumstances.

J. Kwan: I know very well that this is my amendment. The question is: did the minister understand, when he rose and said that he as a government is satisfied by the provision as it is laid out now in the act, that there is indeed a difference between what is being proposed — that is, for the appointment to be made under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement? If the member doesn't know there is a difference and what the difference is, then I would like to get a sense of how he arrives at the notion that his provision that he has put into the act is the right one. I'm trying to get an understanding from the minister on what elements he took into consideration to arrive at that decision.

Hon. G. Bruce: Unless I misunderstood the member opposite about five or six minutes ago, I thought I heard a tone that there was an inquiry as to why we even needed section 3. At any rate, I'll be clear again. This is your amendment. If you would like to wax eloquent on the differences between what your amendment is and what it is that we've put before you in section 3 of this bill, obviously it's your opportunity to do so. The government believes that the bill as written, section 3, is sufficient to look after the concerns that have been expressed. Therefore, I'll mention again that the government will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Kwan: I'll take from that answer that the minister actually doesn't know about the difference. He simply wants to adopt a biased approach — if not in reality, at least in perception — whereby the arbitrator would be appointed by the minister, rather than adopting an option whereby the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement allow for the parties to actually agree on an arbitrator so that there is agreement on both sides with respect to the appointment of an arbitrator.

If there were to be no agreement, if there were a dispute between the two sides in terms of who the arbitrator ought to be, then the matter would be referred to the head of the provincial arbitrator bureau. That process would make certain that there was a reality and a perception of independence and fairness to any dispute arising. In the interest of rebuilding….

I think of the atmosphere that has been created by this government, the poisonous atmosphere, as a result of this act. One would have thought the minister would agree to this minor change as a hand being offered to both sides — the employer and the teachers — in a conciliatory way, in a cooperative manner, to ensure that there is at minimum a perception of fairness and independence with respect to dispute resolution. That's why this process is absolutely critical to what's happened to date in terms of the poisonous environment this government has chosen to impose on our education system.

The Chair: Order, please. Members, would you mind having a little order, please.

	YEAS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan
	NAYS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Weisbeck	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

J. Kwan: My first question to the minister is: is the minister aware that neither party raised this matter during the negotiations for the new collective agreement or for the previous collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 4, in our view, is a commonsense approach. We have 60 districts; we should have 60 agreements.

J. Kwan: Let me try this question again: is the minister aware that neither party raised the matter during negotiations for this new collective agreement or, for that matter, for the previous collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: The Minister of Education, through her travels — and they have been extensive, going from district to district — found on a number of occasions, in dealing and talking with different boards, that in the amalgamated districts they had to manage several agreements. In fact, I believe one district has three agreements that they have to manage. As we said, this is a commonsense approach. There are 60 districts, and the view was that there should be 60 agreements. That's what this act provides for.

J. Kwan: I know what the act provides for. The question was that at the bargaining table, during the negotiations between the employer and the teachers, this issue was never brought up by either side, not only for this collective agreement but also for the one previous. It was not an issue. Why would the minister see a need to fix a problem that actually didn't exist? It didn't exist for the teachers or for the employer.

Hon. G. Bruce: We thought this was a commonsense way. There are 60 school districts in the province. There was an amalgamation process that the previous government put in place. They were unable at that point, for whatever reason I don't know, to amalgamate those agreements after they amalgamated the districts. We believe that in the commonsense application of this, if there are to be 60 districts, there should be 60 agreements. I believe it affects nine agreements here.

J. Kwan: The districts and the teachers unions chose to preserve the separate arrangements in spite of the amalgamation of school districts. Wouldn't the minister agree that this one-size-fits-all on all of these districts goes against the government's mantra on the issue around flexibility and choice?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd just like to be clear. The districts had indicated that this was difficult — a lot of administrative time spent dealing with two agreements. We're very clear what's here — nothing untoward in all of this. The fact of the matter is that rather than having that administrative time, the cost and expense of trying to administer two different agreements, we can best put those resources where they ought to be, and that's in putting students first. That's what this is all about, and that's what we're doing.

J. Kwan: Actually, the fact of the matter is: if it was an issue for the employer, it would have been raised at the bargaining table. It wasn't — not this round, not the last round. The government now has only just made it into a problem in their own heads. Otherwise, the employer would have raised this as an issue, and it wasn't in the last round of bargaining. The problems or concerns or whatever they are that exist in the minister's head exist only in the minister's head. Otherwise, they would appear on the bargaining table.

The employer didn't raise it as an issue. In fact, in the last round people wanted to keep the separate arrangements because they recognized that between the districts there were differences. That goes to the issue of flexibility and choice. Perhaps the minister only sees flexibility and choice in his limited vision of what that is, and those concerns only exist in his own head and actually not with the employers.

Can the minister assure this House that no teacher will lose money as a result of the imposition of this bill?

Hon. G. Bruce: Not to go back to that other discussion we had, every teacher will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½, which is 7½ percent over three years.

J. Kwan: Let me repeat the question slowly this time for the minister so that he can answer the question. The question is: can the minister assure this House that no teacher will lose money as a result of the imposition of this bill, as it relates to section 4, through amalgamation?

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear and respectful, as I understand it, all teachers in this situation will receive the same salary and the increases.

J. Kwan: I know the minister is having difficulties in understanding the question. The question is: will any teachers lose money, lose their income or have a reduction in their income as a result of this bill and section 4 under the amalgamation scheme?

Hon. G. Bruce: I tried "no" one other time on an issue, and we spent 15 minutes on it. I thought this time I would try a different thing, and maybe we could move along.

Hon. G. Bruce: The intent in this provision of section 4 is that teachers coming across on the grids will not receive less money and will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½.

J. Kwan: In fact, we know that seven teacher groups set out in the table in this section will face a reduction in salary, starting with the second year of the imposed agreement. The communities or districts where teachers will lose salary as a result of amalgamation are Kimberley, Golden, Princeton, Lake Cowichan, Kitimat, Armstrong and Burns Lake. Will the minister confirm that this is, in fact, not the case?

The information I've received indicates that the teachers at category 5, at maximum, will lose $1,800 in their salary. The teachers at category 6 in Kimberley will lose $2,505. The teachers in Golden at category 5, at maximum, will lose $300. The teachers in Princeton at category 6, at maximum, will lose $160. The teachers at Lake Cowichan at category 5, at maximum, will lose $640. The teachers in Kitimat at category 5, at maximum, will lose $370. In Kitimat, again, teachers at category 6, at maximum, will lose $670. Teachers in Armstrong at category 5, at maximum, will lose $100. The teachers at Burns Lake at category 5-plus, at maximum, will lose $5,000, and teachers at category 6, at maximum, will lose $1,300.

Hon. G. Bruce: Be very clear, as it's stated here, that for the districts that have more than one agreement, we are amalgamating the agreements. We are not amalgamating the grid. By not amalgamating the grid, we're ensuring that every teacher does not lose any money and will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the course of the three years.

J. Kwan: The issue in terms of the loss in salary for the teachers in the districts that are being amalgamated….

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Perhaps the minister is not interested, and perhaps the members of this House are not interested.

Earlier we discovered that some 6,000 teachers across British Columbia who are on call on the daily rate would not receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ in salary increase over the next three years. They will in fact receive zero, zero and zero for three years, in spite of the fact that the minister, outside of the House and in the House, has said that all teachers will receive 2½, 2½ and 2½ over three years. That information was, in fact, incorrect, as we discovered in this House as we were debating section 2 of this act.

Now we have arrived at section 4 of this act on the issues around amalgamation as they impact teachers in terms of their salaries, particularly for the areas where they are amalgamated together — even though the employer did not raise this as an issue and the teachers didn't raise this as an issue. It was an issue that somehow existed in the minister's head.

We now find these concerns being imposed in this legislation. I want to be certain that there is no misunderstanding, no misinformation like that suggested by the Minister of Education that all teachers will receive the 7½ over three years when, in fact, 6,000 teachers across British Columbia would not. I want to make sure that facts are actually tabled here in this House, debated in this House and clarified in this House so that there is no misunderstanding or misinformation.

On the question around amalgamation as it relates to teachers. The information, as I mentioned, for the teachers under the different categories in seven areas, actually, as we understand the way in which the act is written, has an impact on their salary. It is actually a salary reduction — in some cases very, very significant. In the case of Burns Lake, we're looking at a $5,000 reduction. It's not a small amount of money. It's a large amount of money in Burns Lake, especially in these areas where it is difficult to attract and retain teachers.

I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. I want to make sure that the minister explains clearly in this House what the protections are for these teachers, what protections are not in place for them and what they stand to lose.

Hon. G. Bruce: Under section 4, the amalgamation of the district agreements, there are nine extra district agreements, and we are amalgamating them so that there will be just one. We are not amalgamating the grids, and by so doing, it ensures that every teacher on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ and will not lose any money.

J. Kwan: The minister says he's not amalgamating the grids, but the grids are part of the agreements that are now void. The collective agreements through this act, if it is passed in this House, when it is passed in this House, are no longer in place. They will now be void. Is the minister suggesting that there would be different grids that would apply in one district in one agreement?

J. Kwan: I wonder, then, if the minister can point out in the legislation where it spells that out clearly — that there would be two grids and one agreement, that the salaries of the teachers would exist under two different grids and that the salaries of the teachers would not be reduced when they go through the amalgamation through this agreement.

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 4, "Amalgamation," with respect to the grids and teachers. The grids will remain in regards to those districts. Teachers will not be reduced in any salaried categories. They will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase. That is what we are attempting to do here under section 4.

J. Kwan: If the minister suggests that through the amalgamation there would be two grids, as it applies in one agreement…. Quite honestly, I don't see that it actually says that under section 4. I don't see it at all. Maybe the minister can point me to the line and the words that actually say that so that I will know and so the teachers who are impacted will know that there is absolute protection. Although I suppose that, even if it was written in the act, it could be overwritten, because this government promises they will tear up agreements just because they feel like it.

Nonetheless, I want to go through the process to make sure that at least in this agreement that we're now talking about, in this legislation, it is actually written in here in black and white.

Hon. G. Bruce: The intent of this was to bring some common sense to the aspect of having two agreements in one district. That's what we're doing: bringing one agreement to the district. We want it to be very clear that no teachers would receive any less money because of the two agreements coming together. By policy, we've said that would be the case and that at the end of the three years, the parties, in dealing with the actual grids, can work out how those grids ought to happen. What we're trying to do here is to have 60 agreements, 60 districts and none of the teachers on the grids to lose any money and all to receive 2½, 2½ and 2½.

J. Kwan: Then I would ask that the minister stand down this section and write in the clarification to ensure that the teachers who are impacted by this amalgamation will in fact not lose salary and that there would be two grids in one agreement so that it is clear that there is no misunderstanding. The minister could easily do that: stand down this section — section 4, on amalgamation — to make sure it is clear and that there would be no dispute afterwards.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think we've been clear, and I've stated it. I'll state it again, if you need me to state it. We've made it through policy. The reason why we're doing this is to have the two agreements come together in regards to the district. What we're talking about is the fact that this will run for the three years. No teacher will receive any less money because of the amalgamation. Every teacher that's on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½. That's what we're attempting to achieve here, and I believe that's what we'll do.

J. MacPhail: I think, for the benefit of all government members, that they might listen to the counsel of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, because what the government is now doing is creating a brand-new type of agreement that's never existed before. They're doing it through silence in legislation. There will now apparently be — is it nine or ten? — agreements that will have, for the very first time in their history, two grids. That's never existed before, and all of a sudden, teachers — covered by districts of members who sit here in the Legislature — will have to take it on the word of the Minister of Labour that there will be an agreement, for the very first time, with two grids.

I expect that there would be thousands of teachers affected by this who would like assurances beyond just the word of the Minister of Labour that there is a new type of agreement being created. I fail to understand what the difficulty is. Of course, we could walk away from this chamber, and teachers would be left with the word of the minister with no substance behind it, assuming that they have one agreement, two grids. But they have no protection to turn toward, Mr. Chair. I assume that the Minister of Labour speaks from his heart and speaks factually and has the support of his cabinet that there will now be two grids. Therefore, I don't understand what the harm is in a technical amendment clarifying that.

The downside of not clarifying that is to leave teachers at risk that their agreement in columns B and

C is void, including the grid which is now part of that agreement. It's very, very risky business to leave this unspecified in legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: I've been very clear, and I'll state it again. The purpose of this act is to bring the two agreements together. We have districts that have combined multi-agreements. The purpose is so that we can deal with one agreement per district. Also, we wanted to make sure that all teachers that were on the grid system didn't lose any money by the amalgamation of the agreements and that they would receive 2½, 2½ and 2½. We've made that clear, and we're hopeful that with the negotiating process at the end of this contract the parties can find a way to bring the grids together as would best suit their districts.

J. Kwan: Let me help the minister out, then. I have an amendment to table. I'd like to move an amendment to section 4 by adding section 4.1 as follows:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I would ask that the Clerk give the minister a copy.

I would trust that the minister would not have a problem with this amendment, because that's what he said. He said that where there are two different rates in different districts now amalgamated into one and where there are two different grids as they apply in terms of the rates, the teachers' salaries would be protected. That's what this amendment speaks to, and that is the intent as I understand it from the minister, so he ought not to have a problem with this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, member. I've had a chance to look at the amendment, and I find it out of order. It's a direct negative to section 4.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I understand your capacity here to rule. Perhaps, then, the minister could say if this is out of order, even though it reflects exactly the comments made by the minister. Not to deal with your remarks, Mr. Chair….

I'm a bit taken aback, because this amendment reflects exactly what the minister himself has said. The government is trying to bring stability to the education system, and after today it is going to take all of our energies to bring stability to the education system.

In ten different, direct districts at least there will be teachers who will wake up tomorrow morning in a state of absolute confusion about what they're being paid. All this amendment was doing was reflecting the comments of the minister himself. Therefore, it comes as a surprise to us that this in any way would be contrary to the intent of the legislation, seeing as how it reflects merely his own words.

I do understand that many would like to believe that the word of this Minister of Labour is enough. But I also expect, given the passing of time and the changing of personalities and representatives, that teachers who are showing up each and every day to work in the Rocky Mountain area, in Kimberley, Golden, Princeton, Cowichan or the Coast Mountains just want to know what salary grid they're on. That's all this amendment does. I don't know. Maybe the minister could read into the record that he supports the content of the amendment so at least teachers have words of legal language upon which to rely.

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear, again, it's the position of this government that we are amalgamating the multiple agreements that are found in nine districts throughout the province. It is the government's intent that all parties…. No teachers will receive less money in regards to moving across in those agreements. They will also receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ over the course of the three years, in the agreement as it applies, and I will give this House an undertaking that I'll write to both parties to ensure that is the policy they understand to be the case.

J. Kwan: All we have right now is that the Chair has ruled this amendment, which simply clarifies the differential in pay grids through the amalgamation and that the superior pay grids would supersede and would still be retained in this legislation…. The intent of this amendment has been ruled by the Chair to be out of order, contrary to your own words, hon. minister, where you said that is exactly the intent of this amendment. Now the Chair has ruled that it's against your intent.

I'm getting the sense from you that it is, in fact, your intent that those amalgamated districts where they have salary grids superior to those they are amalgamated to would have a lower grid supersede. I want to make sure that that is in place, so that it's not your word, but rather that it is actually in place. I'm simply asking the minister; maybe he can just say yes. That's all I need in Hansard. My question is: will the minister accept the following?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll reiterate what I said before: I would give this House an undertaking that I will write both parties to ensure that they understand the policy of this government in regards to the amalgamation of the contracts — the agreements that were there through the nine districts that had multiple contracts — and that, with the amalgamation of those contracts, no teacher on the grid system would lose any money.

J. MacPhail: We have a ruling from the Chair saying that this amendment is against the intent of the legislation. Now, I accept the goodwill of the Minister of Labour that he will write a letter, but when one goes in to examine legislation, Hansard debate is what rules. We have legislation that is completely contrary to the words of the minister. In fact, the Chair has said that. The Chair has said that the legislation is contrary to this amendment, or this amendment is contrary…. Well, it works both ways, actually, but I agree. I'll clarify my words: the amendment is contrary to the intent of the minister's legislation.

My gosh, if you're a teacher in Creston, Kaslo or Princeton or North Okanagan–Shuswap, you'd want that confusion to be straightened out. I would expect that you, in good faith, would want to clarify a ruling of the Chair that says such an amendment is contrary to your legislation — not with a letter but with your own amendment. The government should bring in its own amendment, then, to clarify. You're talking about thousands of teachers who have no idea what they're going to be paid tomorrow.

Hon. G. Bruce: I've been very clear on this. I've made the political commitment on behalf of government on what this explanation is in regards to section 4 — how it will affect teachers. I'll just reiterate that where the districts that have multiple agreements are amalgamating, by virtue of this piece of legislation, the grid, as it applies in respect to teachers that are on the grid system…. Nobody will lose any money, and all of those teachers that are on the grid system will receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½.

J. MacPhail: Well, with this state of absolute confusion around this issue, we'll just have to wait and see what teachers say tomorrow about the lack of legislative protection. This is an imposition of the government itself. This is being imposed by the government. The government's own imposition has created a state of confusion for teachers — I expect hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers — throughout this province.

I expect tomorrow teachers will say: "I have no idea. I can only assume I'm taking a pay cut." Regardless of the personal intent of the minister, some teachers may doubt the veracity of his word. That's all I'm saying. Tomorrow there will be hundreds of teachers who will wake up and say: "I'm not reassured by the individual commitment of one minister, when the legislation says exactly the opposite."

Let me see whether I can clarify another example about what teachers should think about what they're being paid tomorrow morning as a result of the government imposing an amalgamation of agreements. Let's talk about the daily rates of agreements under the amalgamation. Let's just talk about the daily rates.

Now, what we know about the daily rate for teachers, the 6,000 teachers who often are given assignments where they're paid only the daily rate…. The daily rate in the Princeton agreement is more than $190 per day. That Princeton agreement, to quote the legislation, is being made "void and cease to have any effect." We know the people on daily rate are getting zero, zero and zero over the course of the next three years. We know now, because of the government's refusal to amend the legislation, that the Princeton agreement is null, void and ceases to have any effect and will go under the Merritt agreement.

The daily rate in the Merritt agreement is $117 per day. What will be the daily rate for teachers who are now being paid $190 under the Princeton agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear on this, there are the nine districts we talked about that have multiple agreements. The way some of those agreements are being amalgamated, as I'm sure you're aware, depends on which agreement is the larger with respect to membership. Some agreements will go up, and some will go down.

With the daily call-out rates, those that are going to an amalgamated area where the daily rate is higher will go up, and those that are going to an amalgamated area where the daily rate is lower will go down, but they will go to the grid when they work their one day or their three days. They will go to the grid, and after they're there the three days, they will get whatever that grid actually reflects on it. That's the process of what section 4 is all about.

J. Kwan: This is very, very disappointing. Just to be clear, with this legislation that we're debating right now, teachers will, in fact, receive a reduction in salary — not just as when we discussed earlier the 6,000 teachers who would receive zero, zero and zero for three years. Now we discover that teachers will actually receive a reduction in their salary.

The teachers in Princeton, where their daily rate now is $190 or over, would actually receive a lower rate, because they're being amalgamated to a district with a lower salary, of $117. They're being amalgamated to the lowest rate in the province — Merritt — which is $117 on a daily rate. To be clear, teachers now under this legislation imposed by this government…. Not only will 6,000 teachers receive zero, zero and zero over three years, teachers will actually also receive a reduction in their salary.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear. We're talking about the teacher in this instance that doesn't go onto the grid system — that is, the daily call-out teacher. That's what we're talking about. In some instances, that daily call-out will go up. In some instances, that daily call-out will go down. Much of the time, the teacher goes onto the grid system beyond the three days or whatever the average is across the province relative to the agreements they have. Where that is, all those teachers will receive 2½, 2½ and 2½. That's 7½ over the three years of this collective agreement.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear. The salaries of the teachers in the Princeton agreement in the district here — those who teach in Princeton on an on-call basis, who receive a daily rate, which is $190 now — will be reduced to the lowest rate in the province — $117. Is that right?

Hon. G. Bruce: Only if that teacher is on an assignment that is less than three days.

J. Kwan: As was mentioned earlier, in fact, teachers are often called on for assignments that are fewer than three days. They often are. The daily rate right now for teachers in Princeton is $190. Through this legislation that has been tabled by this government — imposed by this government — their daily rate would actually be reduced to the lowest rate in the province, the same rate that the teachers in Merritt are getting — $117. They will actually receive a reduction in their salaries. Will the minister confirm the figures for the Princeton teachers who are on a daily rate on-call? Are they receiving $190 right now? Will their salaries be reduced to $117 for a daily rate after this legislation passes?

Hon. G. Bruce: This agreement was very much aimed at the aspect of full-time teachers, to make sure that full-time teachers receive 2½, 2½ and 2½ which is 7½ over three years under the collective agreement. We've been very clear on this aspect of these two multiple agreements that we have with regard to the nine districts of how we're merging them together at the end of the three years. The parties can work out the grid system so that they can amalgamate those grid systems in a way that would be best for them. That is a direction we're taking in section 4.

J. Kwan: Is the minister aware that the Merritt school district wrote to the B.C. Public School Employers Association and asked them to do something about the low rate for the daily rate of on-call teachers?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again I will reiterate the policy of what section 4 says. We're very focused on the aspect of our full-time teachers. We want to make sure that all of our full-time teachers receive the 2½, 2½ and 2½ — the 7½ percent increase in total over three years. That's what we're attempting to do here. We have nine districts with multiple agreements. We're bringing those agreements together. At the end of the three years, with the process of negotiation, they can work out the differences on the grid.

J. Kwan: The Merritt school district actually wrote to the B.C. Public School Employers Association and asked them to do something about the low rate, because Merritt has the lowest daily rate for on-call teachers in the entire province. They could not get teachers to go there, because they have the lowest rate in the province. The Merritt school district wrote to the B.C. Public School Employers Association and asked them to do something about it. At the bargaining table the employer, the B.C. Public School Employers Association, tabled to increase the daily rate for on-call teachers to $190 for Merritt so that the school district could try and get some on-call teachers there.

This legislation, this government, this minister have chosen now to ignore the need of the students in Merritt, where on-call teachers are necessary to fill in for teachers who might be sick, to fill in for teachers because of the teacher shortage, because of the troubles and difficulties on the question around retention. Now Princeton is going to be faced with the same problems that the Merritt school district is faced with.

Is this the net result that this minister wants to bring to our education system in British Columbia? Does the minister think that this is in the best interest of the students and that it would enhance the students' learning environment?

Hon. G. Bruce: Where a new teacher comes on as a TOC in that area that they're at, they will go up or go down according to what that agreement is. In the accepted practice in the districts, most of those teachers that are TOCs would be red-circled. As I mentioned in respect to the grid system, if they go onto the grid system, they would receive their 2½, 2½ and 2½ as they apply to that grid system.

J. Kwan: Where does it say in the legislation that those teachers are red-circled? Can the minister please identify specifically where in the act it says that?

Hon. G. Bruce: In respect to section 4 here, we're very clear. What we were trying to do in respect to that was to take the areas, the districts, that had more than one certification, more than one agreement, and amalgamate them into one. We were very focused on the fact that we had full-time teachers there. We were looking to make sure that they would get a 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase — 7½ over the course of the three years. That's what our focus has been placed on here.

In respect to the call-out — the teachers on call that you're talking about here — as it goes across the province, there are differences. Some will go up; some will go down. That's the point; that's what will happen when agreements are amalgamated. The reason for us leaving it over that course of the three years was so that districts with the bargaining unit could work out a grid system they were in agreement with. That's what we're looking to achieve.

The point of this amalgamation of these agreements was to bring some common purpose in regard to their agreements relative to that district. That's what we're attempting to achieve.

J. Kwan: My question to the minister is: can he define "red-circled" and how it would apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, I'm going to come back to the point of what this section is about. We're talking about the fact that we have nine districts — okay? We have an amalgamation of agreements that are….

The Chair: Order, please. If you want to address, address through the Chair, please.

J. Kwan: Actually, my question was not to the answer the minister gave, but rather my question is around red-circling, which he brought up a little while ago. I'm asking the minister to define "red-circled" and how it would apply. He said that those teachers whose salaries are higher would be red-circled, so I'm asking the minister to define red-circling and how it applies in this act.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, I'm going to come back to the principle of this act, section 4, and the districts that have multiple agreements. The purpose of this was to bring them into one agreement. We wanted to make sure that our permanent, full-time teachers did not receive less. We've made sure of that. We're looking for them to achieve a 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase over the course of three years. Teachers who are on call in some districts will go up. The new teachers coming on will be at the rate that's there. In regards to the issue during the course of the three years, we're hopeful that the two parties can work out a grid system that works for them in that system.

J. Kwan: Is the minister now suggesting that his earlier statements, where he said those teachers' salaries would be red-circled, do not apply — that he was actually wrong, and it was just simply a slip of the tongue?

Hon. G. Bruce: Some districts, by policy, will red-circle, and that's what they're intending to do.

J. MacPhail: Well, here we are, in a section that affects hundreds of teachers and thousands of students, and we're doing legislation by slip of the tongue. That's what we're doing. Then, because the legislation is being drafted by slip of the tongue, the minister is promising that he'll write a letter to the various parties. In that letter, we now have that he will say to the districts: "Trust me; your salary's not going to go down." Then we heard that he'll say, "You'll be red-circled," but I think that's off the agenda now. Now we have the minister saying: "We hope the parties can get together and make up a new grid."

We started off getting the minister to confirm — but he wouldn't do it by legislation — that there would be one agreement, two grids. "Trust me," he said. "We don't need to actually put that in the legislation." Then we found out that, oh, sorry, that grid wasn't going to be the grid for some teachers. Those teachers would be red-circled. That was the slip of the tongue. There actually aren't going to be two grids. "We're hoping the parties," he says, "will get together and make up a new grid." I guess that'll be a third grid. And we have: "Trust me."

Mr. Chair, we in the opposition urge this minister to stand down this clause, rewrite it and get it right. If they are truly committed to making the world better for students, then that is exactly what he should do. He doesn't have a clue how this legislation, under section 4, will apply to hundreds of teachers and thousands of students in this province.

J. Kwan: When this legislation was written and when it was, I assume, brought to the caucus for discussion, did the minister consult with his colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet on what his thoughts were on salaries as they related to the teachers on call for the community and school district of Merritt? They now, as it stands, cannot get teachers on call to go up there on a daily rate basis.

Did the minister talk to the MLA who represents Princeton in the community with respect to this legislation? This now impacts, we find out, the teachers in Princeton, also, who could face, as a result of this legislation, a reduction in salary. Now the school district of Princeton is going to be having difficulty getting teachers on call on a daily rate in their district.

J. Kwan: The question is a simple one: did the minister consult with his colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet with respect to the reduction in salary for the area, the school district of Princeton, under this section 4 of the act and for the area of Merritt, where they are now already having difficulty attracting teachers on call as it stands right now in terms of the amalgamation scheme that's being proposed under this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think the purpose of this section of this act is clear: we're amalgamating the agreements that are found in nine districts. After the previous government amalgamated districts, we have nine different districts now that have multiple agreements. We're amalgamating them. We've canvassed this issue, I think, quite extensively. The fact and the focus of what we're attempting to do there is to make sure any teacher that was on the grid system would not lose any money and would enjoy the 2½, 2½ and 2½ percent increase — 7½ percent over three years. That, in fact, is what we're attempting to do here.

J. Kwan: To the contrary. In fact, this section of the act is especially unclear. Earlier we talked about the issue around the teachers who are being amalgamated where their existing agreements — provisions — are superior to the areas that would be inferior where that amalgamation takes place. It is not clear at all that the

superior provisions would actually be the provisions adopted under this act. It is not clear at all.

An amendment was tabled that the Chair had ruled out of order, even though the intent of the amendment is exactly, supposedly, as the minister says. But that's not clear at all; it doesn't say it clearly in this act.

Now we've arrived at another issue with teachers on call. The on-call, daily rate for teachers on call, where they are being amalgamated — particularly in the area of Princeton, where they would be amalgamated into the area of Merritt — would actually be reduced from $190 to $117. First, the minister was evading this question. Then he said: "Okay, that's right." Then he said: "No, they'll be red-circled."

It's actually not clear at all what the intent of this legislation is. It appears to me that the minister is making up this legislation as we speak. I wonder how, from the Minister of Education's perspective, this would apply to enhancing the learning environment for students in Merritt and Princeton when they couldn't get an on-call teacher to go into the classroom. The Merritt school district has already written to the employer, asking them to do something about it. The Merritt school district had said: "We need to increase the daily rate for on-call teachers in Merritt, because we can't get any teachers to come in right now." That was actually tabled at the bargaining table.

I wonder how the minister feels about that and whether or not that actually makes for a better learning environment in those classrooms for the students where there is no teacher there. They couldn't get one there, because the on-call rate is too low — the lowest in the province. Now Merritt and Princeton are going to be faced with the same problem, and I can't tell from the words of this minister — who switched over three or four times now in this short debate, in the last half an hour or so — which is actually the applicable one as it is defined in this act. It is not defined in this act, and it is unclear to me what the intention of this minister is in relation to these issues.

J. MacPhail: On the concept of red-circling that he raised and says will apply, will the red-circling apply to daily-rate teachers on call?

Hon. G. Bruce: The point of section 4 is to bring the amalgamation of different agreements that are found in nine different districts together under one. We wanted to make sure that none of the full-time teachers received any less money. We've made sure of that. What we've done is make sure that each of those teachers, as they go onto the grid, as we've talked about before, would receive 2½, 2½ and 2½. At the end of the three years of this agreement, the parties that are there and joined in this would work out a different grid system. It's up to them to try and do that which would be best for their district. That's what we're doing through section 4.

J. MacPhail: I take it the answer is no, that there will be salary cuts for daily-rate teachers and that now the students of Princeton may have empty classrooms, the same way it sometimes faces students in Merritt, because the board can't recruit daily-rate teachers. That's really good for students, really good. There's a step forward.

On the concept of red-circling that the minister brought up, does red-circling apply to the collective agreement grid or to employees?

Hon. G. Bruce: I understand that you don't want the amalgamation of districts. I fully understand that. It hasn't been a short debate on this particular issue; it's been quite extensive. The concept was such that we have nine districts out of 60 that have a multiple of agreements. We're putting those agreements into one. We're making sure that those teachers who are full-time teachers would not receive any less money for the work they do and that they would all receive that benefit of the increase of 2½, 2½ and 2½. That is what this section is dealing with, and that is our intent, which we are fulfilling through section 4.

J. MacPhail: I'll just ask it one more time: does the concept of red-circling that he raises, which isn't incorporated in the legislation and which teachers are supposed to rely on his word for, apply to the grid itself or to the employees?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm going to say it again. I fully understand that the opposition would like to frustrate this particular section of this act. I understand that. Obviously you didn't deal with it when you were in government. We are now dealing with it now that we are government.

Calmly and coolly, what we have here is a situation where there are 60 districts in the province through the amalgamation efforts of the previous government. You didn't finish the job. You didn't then find a way to bring those agreements together. We are bringing those agreements together, but we are also cognizant of the fact that we want to make sure that all permanent full-time teachers receive the 2½ percent increase and do not lose any money. That's, in fact, what's accomplished by section 4.

J. Kwan: Let us be very clear. In this act that is being debated in this House right now…. When it is passed in this House, it is clear that Princeton would actually have a reduced salary for teachers who are on call, because they're being amalgamated into the area of Merritt — the lowest pay rate for on-call teachers in the province right now.

The pay rate for Princeton teachers who are on call on a daily-rate basis is now at $190. Tomorrow, when this legislation is passed, if they're being called to do work to replace, to be a substitute teacher for a day or two in Princeton, they will find, per this legislation, that their rate on a daily-rate basis will have been reduced. Is that not correct, and is that not what this legislation says?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's been clear from the get-go that the previous government didn't have the jam to follow

through with what needed to be done. You went through a process of amalgamating districts, and then left everything in disarray, as you pretty much have left this province in disarray.

I'll repeat it one more time for everybody here. What we have is a situation in this province….

Hon. G. Bruce: If the member opposite would like to listen, it would be appreciated.

J. Kwan: There is no dispute on this legislation, because it is clear. I have asked the minister time and again to point out to me whether the teachers in Princeton, where the daily rate is now at $190 for being on call, would be protected in this legislation. Where does it say that in this legislation? He could not identify where it says that in this legislation.

The fact of the matter is that tomorrow the teachers who are on call in Princeton will find themselves faced with a reduction in salary. It's as simple as that. The minister is trying to mask it under all kinds of language. He's even trying to blame the previous government — that somehow we're responsible for reducing the salary of the Princeton teachers who are on call on a daily rate under this legislation. Boy, talk about a far stretch.

Tomorrow morning in Princeton, when the teachers who are on call on a daily rate wake up, they will find their salary has been reduced, contrary to what the Minister of Education, the Minister of Labour and the Premier have said — that all teachers would actually receive a 7½ percent increase in their salary over three years. What we've found through the discussion in this House right now is that teachers will find themselves faced with a reduction in their salary. That is the truth.

Then we also find that 6,000 teachers will find themselves not faced with an increase over three years of 7½ percent but rather zero, zero and zero over three years — 6,000 teachers across the province of British Columbia. That is the truth.

You know, the minister cannot come clean and just tell British Columbians what this act is and what it stands for. He would not. Why wouldn't he? He's suggesting that the opposition is trying to confuse, when we're trying to clarify to make sure that it's clearly understood.

I can understand why the minister would not want to make sure that this information is actually clear to British Columbians. He wants to mask it. He wants to make sure that people think that all teachers have received a 7½ percent increase over three years when, in fact, 6,000 teachers receive a zero percent increase over three years, and teachers in Princeton would actually have received a reduction in salary. That is the truth.

The students in Merritt and the students in Princeton will find tomorrow that if they need an on-call teacher on a daily rate basis, they will be faced with the difficulty of being unable to get teachers into the classrooms. That somehow is supposed to enhance the teaching environment and enhance the learning environment for students. I'm sorry, I fail to see that logic. I absolutely fail to see that logic.

This bill sets in stone now and ensures that the Princeton teachers will receive a reduction in salary. When they wake up tomorrow their salary will have been reduced from $190 a day to $117.

Hon. G. Bruce: I know the member opposite doesn't mean tomorrow, because I know the member opposite is clear on the bill, that that wouldn't be until July 1 of this year. I know it makes no difference in respect to her argument, but from the standpoint of the general public knowing what's going on, this, in fact, becomes effective on July 1, 2002.

Again, the point of this was that there was an amalgamation that took place with the previous government. I'm not going to blame the previous government for what we're doing here. The previous government has lots to stand for and will have lots to stand for over the course of the next few years. What we are doing here is regularizing something.

We're taking where there were nine districts that had multiple agreements, and we're putting those multiple agreements into one agreement per that district. We wanted to make sure that for all of the full-time permanent teachers, first of all, none received any less money in salary by these actions and that they would all enjoy the increase that is being effected by this legislation, which is 7½ percent over three years. That's what we're accomplishing. That's what section 4 is all about.

	YEAS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. Kwan: Section 5 allows for government to appoint a commission of inquiry to examine the facets of the collective bargaining in this sector. Under this process, it appears to me that it continues to allow the government to interfere in the collective agreement between the two parties. Why did the minister not provide for a commission composed of persons acceptable to the parties to the agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: There's been nobody appointed. When the time comes — and you'll see that the operative word is "may" — we'll look to both parties to give names and help in how we can do this. The idea with this is to find a way so that we can get past the impasses that we've had in the negotiations that have been there for many years relative to the BCTF and the employers group in this particular sector. The point in regards to this particular section is to find a way to bring about a new process so that we can achieve negotiated settlements.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's at the discretion of the Minister of Labour to make that appointment. They may make that appointment, may invoke this particular part of the section. Really, I think, prior to 1994 we haven't had a negotiated settlement. There needs to be a new way to discuss these types of situations and to find ways that we can get negotiated settlements. That's what this section is dealing with.

J. Kwan: What hope does the minister hold for the commission to be successful, given that it will be operating in a climate of confrontation — upheaval, even, if you will — created by the bills that are being tabled in this House? Salary reductions, some 6,000 teachers who would receive zero percent increase in their salary over the next three years…. What hope does the minister think that the commission would have for success in this environment?

Hon. G. Bruce: There has been difficulty in reaching a negotiated settlement this time, last time, the time before that — numerous times. What we're trying to do here is to provide a forum, a body, a process so that we can have a way of achieving a negotiated settlement. No, it won't be easy. I'm not standing here saying this will be easy. I'm standing here saying: "Listen, we need to deal with it, and this is how we're intending to deal with it."

J. Kwan: Wouldn't it be more advantageous to create more of a cooperative environment — instead of having the minister come forward with a commission, at his discretion, instead of just doing that unilaterally — to ensure in the provisions of this act that the opportunity is afforded and enshrined in legislation to allow for both parties to come to agreement on the commission so that it is agreed to by both parties, to enhance the opportunity for success?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think we're all aware in this province of the situation taking place. We're just getting through here. This has been ten months in respect to this issue of negotiation. There have been subsequent problems in the past in the negotiation process. We need to try and find another way to negotiate these settlements. What we're trying to do here by this legislation is provide for that opportunity to exist. I think it's very straightforward. There's nothing untoward in this. Section 5 addresses that issue.

Hon. G. Bruce: Not immediately. I think your point about the feelings that are out there right now…. It's important that we're going to have to go through a period of time here. Obviously I would like to move along in this respect so that we can get to the point, as negotiations unfold for the next set, that we're into a new manner of how we go about doing it.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is dealing specifically with this bill and the dispute that we're settling here today. That's why.

J. Kwan: There seems to be a double standard. The issue around bringing forward a commission appointed by the minister applies to teachers, but in other circumstances, like doctors, for example, that is not necessarily the case. Does the minister agree that at a minimum, the existing terms and conditions for teachers and students should be allowed to continue while the commission conducts its work?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's clear that we have a situation where a negotiated process does not work in reaching settlements. There have been too many examples over time of government having to come through with legislated settlements. What this section of the act does is provide a way for us to review how the negotiation process takes place and try to invoke a new way of doing it so that we can reach negotiated settlements. That's what section 5 is about.

J. MacPhail: The imposed collective agreement expires on June 30, 2004. Does the minister expect to have a new bargaining structure in place by June 30, 2004?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. We've watched seven, eight, ten years of difficulties now, I guess, in this sector being able to reach negotiated settlements. I don't like bringing in legislated settlements, and I would rather find a way to develop a new process so that we don't have to do this. This agreement is for three years. I would hope that in the course of this three-year period, in the time that's available to us and with the parties together, we can find another way of trying to get that negotiated settlement so that we have our students first and our students in the classroom, and we don't have the angst and the anxiety placed upon everybody that happens when negotiations fall apart.

J. MacPhail: My question was very specific. Does the minister expect to have a new bargaining structure in place by June 30, 2004?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll try again. My intent here is to try to find a new process with the parties so that we can reach negotiated settlements in this sector. I don't need to go back over the history of how many haven't been negotiated. The members opposite know it just as well as I do. I can cite them all here, as you can. That's not going to get us anywhere.

We've got a situation where we've got 45,000 to 50,00 teachers in the province of British Columbia. As time went by, through each of these agreements, we found that we couldn't get a negotiated settlement. I would like us to try to find a way of getting a negotiated settlement. This agreement is for three years. I would hope that we can try to find that process and put it in place prior to that next negotiation so they can work through that new system.

J. MacPhail: The collective agreement imposed by the government expires on June 30, 2004, so it's just a little over two years before this imposed agreement expires. There will be other changes happening in the education system.

The Minister of Education announced in the fall that she was going to bring in a new funding formula for education. There will be a change in the roles of school boards as per the community charter that the government is introducing and, I expect, passing. There are two years left in this collective agreement. The minister himself has put a commission on the table to examine not the entire education system but one portion of the bargaining sector of the education system. All we're trying to do is find out the time line.

Can the minister assure us that even though it is at his discretion, he is committed to a commission and that the time lines of the commission and the reporting out will be completed by the beginning of the next round of bargaining?

Hon. G. Bruce: For the best efforts of this minister, that would be my intent. I would like to get this underway. There is due time.

You both have mentioned the issue of emotions that run high in a situation like this. Obviously sitting down tomorrow probably wouldn't be the most appropriate thing to do. It's a difficult thing to do. I certainly am committed to getting on with this but in a way that the parties can mutually arrange to come to an agreement on how we want to make those changes so that we do get negotiated settlements. That's what section 5 of this bill speaks to.

J. Kwan: Will the recommendations from the commission be binding, or will they be legislated?

Hon. G. Bruce: That would be up to the Minister of Labour as to what proceeds from there. The point here is that we're trying to involve the parties so that we can get negotiated settlements. No, it may very well not be. Life changes; I don't have a problem with that, but the fact of the matter here is that we're….

Hon. G. Bruce: That's not what I said. What I said was that the fact here is that we have this section here — section 5. It's not something to be incredulous about; you can read the number of times here that you haven't reached negotiated settlements over the course of the last ten years. It's obvious to all that the processes in place need to have review, and that's what we're intending to do. We need to do it with the parties so that we can get negotiated settlements. That's what section 5 speaks to.

J. Kwan: What we're looking for here is very simple: certainty and stability in the system. The minister is introducing a commission that will look at the new structure. We're asking a very simple question: will the commission's findings and recommendations be binding or not? Right now I'm asking you, as Minister of Labour, about your perspective. Is it your intention that the recommendations from the commission be binding, or will they be legislated? What is your intention?

Hon. G. Bruce: My intention is very simple: I would really like to find a way that the parties could negotiate a settlement. After ten years, we have not been able to do that. Section 5 speaks to that, and it speaks to there being a report to the minister after the parties have gone through this process, however we develop it.

There is latitude. Absolutely, there is latitude in this, because we're trying to find a way to bring people together. Section 5 speaks to the need for a new process in how we can try and find negotiated settlements in this sector.

J. MacPhail: The minister can rest assured that we're also trying to bring some certainty to the education system. I don't think today will go down as a day in history where certainty and stability in our education system were enhanced.

One of the reasons why we're trying to find out how this commission is working is because of the fairly

interesting subsection 5(3), where it says: "The commission may not recommend the expiry or extinguishment of the collective agreement constituted under this Act before the expiry date set out in that collective agreement."

That means that on June 30, 2004, all bets are off. The commission can do whatever it wants after that period of time.

The minister was unclear about whether June 30, 2004, was his goal. He's unclear whether the recommendations are binding, whether the agreements will be brought to this chamber to be legislated. The commission only applies to half the education system.

Our goal is certainty, and we think the answer to those questions will enhance certainty.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, I think it's important that we understand what section 5(3) says. What we're inferring by this is that the commissioner cannot look at the existing agreement. The existing agreement is the agreement that we are putting in place here today. That can't be looked at.

What we're talking about is the negotiating process and that the commissioner can report back with the parties working out an agreement on how best to go about trying to achieve a new process of being able to reach negotiated settlements in this sector.

J. Kwan: I don't think that in the teaching environment and in the learning environment after today, when this legislation is passed, there's going to be stability and certainty assured by the acts of this government. I don't think that's going to result. After today, I worry very much what the impact of the actions of this government is going to be.

I think the work of the commission is going to actually increase. In the last section, we dealt with the amalgamation question on the issue around Merritt and Princeton, etc. The commission will now likely have to look at this issue as well.

Merritt's daily rate in 1992 was set at $110. It is now at $117 — an increase of $7 or 6 percent in ten years. Now, with the amalgamation scheme, we have increased the numbers of teachers on call that would be paid at the lowest rate in the province, with no hope of an increase for the next three years. That's what this legislation has just done — no real increase for Merritt in 13 years. It will send Princeton back to almost the point Merritt was at 12 years ago. That's the effect.

The commission is going to have its workload increased by having to look into this issue and by having to look at the effects of this act outlined in section 4. The minister could have actually addressed that, but he refused to. The commission now will have its workload increased by having to look at the effect and the impacts of that on the students in Merritt and the students in Princeton when they can't get an on-call teacher into their area because their rates are the lowest.

Not "if," because the school district for Merritt had already spoken with the employers and said that they couldn't get on-call teachers in, because they have the lowest rate in the province. They asked them to increase the rate to $190. This government refused to listen — not only for Merritt but for Princeton as well, now creating two districts with a problem, two communities with a problem.

I suppose the minister had already discussed the matter with the member from Yale-Lillooet, and he's agreed. He's not advocating for his constituents, making sure that his students' learning environment is protected and making sure that there would be teachers on an on-call basis. That's really unfortunate. Now the commission is faced with additional work, and that is a shame.

A copy of the amendment has been tabled with the Clerk, and I would ask the Clerk to pass on a copy to the minister.

J. Kwan: The importance of this amendment is really quite simple. If the government were truly intending to ensure that there would be a set of meaningful bargaining procedures and structures, it would then appoint an independent commission with equal representation from the parties involved and with the agreement of the parties. It would allow for the terms and conditions of the employment, which this very bill is shredding and destroying today with the companion bill, Bill 28, to continue through the term of the next agreement. It would allow for various parties to examine the issues in a period of relative calm instead of an environment of confusion and confrontation that these two bills — misguided bills — promise for the education system of British Columbia.

Therefore, I think it is a reasonable amendment to ensure that we begin to foster cooperation in the bargaining structure and in bargaining procedures with a simple step: that the commission being brought in be one that is completely independent, one that all of the parties agree to and that all of the parties would not have disputes about. It is a simple task for this government to achieve — to begin the steps of fostering and rebuilding an environment that is positive and cooperative and to send a strong signal to all of the parties that that is the intent of this government.

Hon. G. Bruce: My goal has been very clear here on what section 5 is all about. As I have mentioned in regards to the whole issue of the negotiating structure in this sector, there has not been success. I've put in a section here under section 5 — a process of how we think we can go about achieving it. This government will not be supporting the amendment that the member has

proposed. I believe that what we have before us in section 5 will do the job that we're attempting to do.

J. Kwan: I'd like to now move another amendment by adding a section to the bill, to section 5(2). I would like to move an amendment to section 5(2) to add the following subsection:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I ask the Clerk to please give a copy to the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: With respect, I don't believe this amendment is required. As I've mentioned, we've been very clear in what we're attempting to do under section 5. The government will be voting against this amendment.

J. Kwan: Actually, the amendment has been tabled simply to ensure that the practice and procedure of the collective bargaining process between the employer and the BCTF would be one that this government would encourage as a free bargaining process, one that the chosen representatives of the teachers and associated professionals would freely engage in. As the minister identified, it's not contrary to his bill, and this simply makes it clear with respect to this issue. I think it goes to add the assurance, again, that many of the sections in this legislation that we have already identified are lacking clarity. It simply puts the assurance in place for the comfort of all the parties.

J. Kwan: Section 6 is the application of the Labour Relations Code. The intent of this section is that if the Labour Relations Code conflicts or is inconsistent with this act, this act shall prevail. Is that correct?

J. Kwan: What aspects of the Labour Relations Code does the minister anticipate would conflict with this act?

Hon. G. Bruce: This section is a common clause found in situations like this. It's for purposes of clarity; that's why it's there.

J. Kwan: Can I take it that from the minister's point of view, in cases where the Labour Relations Code conflicts in a free collective bargaining process, where this shall prevail, that this act will override the free collective bargaining process?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, to be clear, what we're doing here is that section 6 just makes provision…. As in other situations like this, which I know the members opposite have also found themselves in, this type of section is found so that there's clarity as to which act prevails.

J. Kwan: This section here — section 1 of the schedule — article A.1, "Term, Continuation and Renegotiation…." I actually have an amendment for paragraph 1. I would like to move an amendment to schedule paragraph 1, that schedule paragraph 1 is amended by deleting "2004" and replacing it with "2003," to read:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I would ask the Clerk to please give a copy to the Minister of Labour.

Hon. G. Bruce: Point of order. Under section 2(1)(i), would we not have already dealt with this schedule?

Hon. G. Bruce: Could the Chair just check, for my guidance, please? Under section 2(1)(i), which we've already passed, would we not have already dealt with the schedule? For clarity, please, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Our understanding is that section 2(1)(i) deletes one schedule, and now you're adding a new schedule.

Hon. G. Bruce: I certainly take your guidance. I just thought that by the provision of section 2(1)(i) and having passed that, this in effect would already happen. I take your direction.

J. Kwan: It is a simple amendment. It simply changes the date to advance it one year, from 2004 to 2003, to allow for a shorter term in the period that it applies to now. It is a simple amendment.

We have to keep in mind that the legislation we're faced with today is being imposed on the teachers and on the employers. My suggestion is that we shorten that period by one year by changing the date, therefore allowing for the free collective bargaining process to resume at an earlier stage.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, thank you very much. As I understand it, the suggestion of this would be to reduce the collective agreement by one year. That is not the purpose of what this act is all about, so we will not accept the amendment.

J. Kwan: I'd like to move an amendment for paragraph 2 of the schedule, that the schedule, paragraph 2, is amended by deleting "2004" and replacing it with "2003," to read:

A copy of this amendment is tabled to the Clerk, and I ask the Clerk to please give a copy to the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: Further to the previous amendment, this amendment will not be supported by the government. We would be opposed to this.

J. Kwan: On paragraph 5, I'd like to table an amendment. The amendment is by adding the following subsections:

A copy of this amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I ask that a copy please be given to the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: In respect to the members opposite for their amendment under consideration, the government will not be supporting this amendment.

This amendment, I think, speaks to certainty and stability once again. If the parties do not come to an agreement on a matter that is important on the question of timing for implementation, then simply refer the dispute to an independent arbitrator that both sides agree to. The matter then could be resolved in an amicable way, in a cooperative kind of way, with an independent arbitrator looking at the issue, so as not to further poison the environment that has already been poisoned by this government with the imposition of Bill 27; so that you can start to foster an environment that speaks to cooperation as opposed to confrontation; so that you can foster the approach where both the teachers and the employers will feel there is a level of independence to the disputes for resolution; and so that they do not always think the intent of the government is simply to bring down the gauntlet, the big hammer, and to just hammer the employers or the teachers — especially the teachers.

It's not an unreasonable request — and not an unreasonable amendment — that if the parties don't come to an agreement, it go to another source of independence, the director of the collective agreement arbitration bureau, for them to appoint an arbitrator so that there is no tainting of the process by bias by government or anybody else. That is the intent of this amendment. The intent is, hopefully, to begin to foster a process and an environment that would be positive for the learners and the educators in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 27, Education Services Collective Agreement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

	YEAS — 73
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Weisbeck	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: I move the House stand recessed until 4:20 p.m. When we come back we will begin committee stage on Bill 28.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I heard the House Leader say we had to proceed. It seems incredible, given the enormity of this action and the fact that we're under unusual circumstances, that the House Leader is ramming this legislation through, but nevertheless he is.

J. MacPhail: Of course, he continues to bully as he does it. My gosh, the arrogance of the House Leader, threatening to take away our mealtime. Well, you know what? Education and teachers' rights are far more important than this House Leader will….

Hon. G. Collins: We're trying to move the legislation through the House, trying to accommodate the members of the opposition — something they never did when they were in government. Hopefully, we can proceed with the sections of the bill and have a debate on the legislation and not on how the member opposite is feeling today.

J. MacPhail: In the entire ten years that we were in government, we never had as many emergency sessions as this government has had in eight months, so don't in any way try to compare the draconian emergency autocracy of this government with any previous government.

The Chair: Please be seated, member. The fact of the matter is that we had a break until 4:20 p.m., and the bells went. You have ample warning. Now, please proceed.

Could the Minister of Labour please tell why the inclusion of "institution" as defined is here and what consultation went into the inclusion of such a definition?

Hon. G. Bruce: "Institution" is defined as meaning the public colleges, university colleges and provincial institutes as they are established under the College and Institute Act, the Open Learning Agency and the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand; I can read as well. I'm asking what consultation went on in order to arrive at the inclusion of that list under the definition of institution. The application of the bill flows from that definition. I'm just curious to know, in an open and accountable government, what consultation went on to include those institutions in the definition of institution.

Hon. G. Bruce: The thrust of this government — let's be clear from the start — has, of course, been to put students first. Through the course of the seven and

a half months, we've been working away at an attempt to do just that: put students first. In this particular instance here, as it applies to this act, the changes we are looking at are trying to find a way that there can be greater flexibility and choice for the students so that those institutions can be run in a manner that can facilitate that type of choice and flexibility for students. That's what this does.

J. MacPhail: You know, it may have been that, more than I needed a break, because these are legitimate questions. We don't need to just have the rhetoric repeated. There are thousands of people out there shocked that their institutions and the place at which they work are covered in this legislation — shocked. All they're asking for are answers. That's why I've started here.

This debate, contrary to what the Government House Leader wishes to do to ram through, may add peace out there, may actually bring some stability. Please try to give some answers that will bring stability out there.

What led to the conclusion, what consultation occurred, to include people covered by the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act and the Open Learning Agency in this legislation? Where did those discussions occur? When did those discussions occur? Among whom did those discussions occur?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think that if we truly want calm and we truly are trying to make things better, we should try and keep the tone to that effect. I'll do my best. I know that both of you in opposition will do as well.

Our view is that we need to make some changes. We are working and have worked for quite some time through a core review process. We've been working at how government will be delivered differently in this province now. Part of all of that has revolved around this.

Most importantly, as we were dealing with education — in this instance, post-secondary education — we were looking at ways to be able to offer greater flexibility and choice for the students. That, in fact, is what this does. The institutions we're talking about in this instance are found and covered by different agreements that preclude that from occurring. What we're doing here is making the changes so that flexibility can occur and, by doing so, allowing greater choice and flexibility for the students. That's what we're talking about here.

J. MacPhail: It helps when answers are given to bring about calm and stability. The minister has not answered my question. If the minister can't answer the question, that's legitimate too. That might be a better face-saver for the government, and I mean that seriously.

Who knew that you were going to include their institutions in this wide-ranging legislation that changes the terms and conditions of people who educate students? Who knew? Who did you talk to, when did you talk to them, and about what did you talk to them?

Hon. G. Bruce: This has been done to facilitate the changes necessary to allow for the flexibility within the institutions, so they can provide greater choice, greater operational opportunity for students to be able to take advantage of different times during the course of the year to be able to gain the college courses they need. As we've worked through government, part of our core review process is that we are making and coming through with those recommendations that are necessary.

This is a government initiative. We're undertaking this. We believe this needs to be done so that we can make our institutions more flexible for student choice, more accessible for students. There's nothing untoward in it. That's what we're doing. It's a government initiative.

J. Kwan: These questions are general questions, which is why I'm asking them under the definition part, particularly as they relate to "institution." Can the minister explain, in general, what problems the college and institute labour adjustment section is addressing?

Hon. G. Bruce: Specifically, what are you referring to there? I missed that first part. I apologize.

J. Kwan: I am asking these questions, which are just general questions that I'll be asking, on the definition part of it. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had led off with these questions. They centre around the notion of why "institution," which is defined to mean college, university college, provincial institute or other institute established under the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act or the Open Learning Agency Act…. Under the institution's definition it includes the many, many agencies in the post-secondary education sector. I would like the minister to explain to this House, in general, what problems the college and institute labour adjustment section is addressing.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's almost a discussion of second reading, but I'll be clear on this. What we're attempting to do is allow greater flexibility and choice for students throughout the province at those institutes and colleges that are run very well. We're trying to allow them the opportunity to run their institutions in such a manner that can allow for the greatest accessibility by the students here in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The questions I'm asking are not second reading questions. The question I'm asking the minister goes to explain why institutions are being defined in this legislation. Why are the institutions of college, university college, provincial institute and other institutes established under the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act and the Open Learning

Hon. G. Bruce: As was mentioned, these institutions and colleges, as they're listed here, are where we are trying to provide greater flexibility and more choice for our students in British Columbia. That's what this portion of the act deals with. That's what this definition is about, and that's why it's included.

J. Kwan: What organizations has the minister consulted with in identifying problems? It appears to me that no problems have been identified to the minister, but in his own head it seems he's identified problems. What organizations did the minister consult with in coming up with this legislation, in identifying that there is a need to address changes for the college, university college, provincial institute or other institute?

Hon. G. Bruce: We said that we would make education a number one priority of this government and that we would do the very best we could to make sure that there was accessibility and choice for as many students in as many different areas of the province as we possibly could. What we're doing here, as part of that promise that we put through during the election, is fulfilling that by providing that flexibility and choice. It's nothing untoward; it's very clear. We have good institutions around the province, and we want to make them as accessible as we can so that we can put the students in this province first and give them the opportunity to get through a post-secondary educational institution.

J. Kwan: The question to the minister is: what organizations did the minister consult with? Did he consult with any organizations with respect to the problems that exist, that the minister has identified in his own head, that have not been identified by any of the institutions and only exist in the minister's head? What organizations did the minister consult with, if any?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a government initiative. I've said that. This is clearly a government initiative. We believe, contrary to what others may — and that's fine; that's how the whole process works — that there should be as much choice and flexibility for the students in this province to be able to receive a post-secondary education. We have a number of institutions — good institutions — from one end of this province to another, and we have students looking to get into those institutions. Common sense would dictate that you want to have as much flexibility and choice as you can so that those students can get into those institutions.

This is that initiative. We're bringing this through. We talked about it; we've been talking about it for a great length of time. We've had this before, through the core review process, as part of the ministry — the changes we're making to government. There's nothing hidden here; this is straightforward. We said there would be changes; we're bringing forward these changes. They're necessary for the flexibility and for the choice of students in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The minister clearly misses the point of the question. Maybe he doesn't understand the notion of consultation, what consultation means. Maybe he doesn't understand — in his New Era document that talks about an open and accountable government — that they would actually consult.

My question to the minister is actually quite simple. Did he consult with any organizations? Yes? No? If so, which ones?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll try it again. This is a government initiative that we're bringing forward. You have institutions in this province. We as a government said very clearly that we were going to put the students of this province first. We're going to give them as much opportunity and flexibility to get an education as we can. Everybody in this province speaks about the need for more class accessibility, for greater flexibility, and that's in fact what we're doing here, from one end of the province to the other, as it applies to the institutions and the colleges that we've mentioned here by definition. This will allow students much greater choice.

What, I wonder, could be so confusing, and what could be so alarming to the member of the opposition about simply finding ways to be able to take the institutions that we have — good institutions — and make them more available to the students that we have, knowing that we have students that want to get into those institutions?

J. Kwan: It is clear that the minister did not actually consult anybody, did not consult any organization with respect to these problems that exist in his head in relation to this legislation.

It is clear that this government, in their New Era document where they talk about openness, accountability and consultation, doesn't even know the meaning of consultation, because they did none of it — none of it. They went to include institutions in this act, in this legislation, in a very expansive way. The legislation will make major structural changes to the various colleges, university colleges, provincial institutes or other institutes that are established under the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act or the Open Learning Agency Act. That is the new-era definition with respect to consultation: zero consultation. That is how this Liberal government defines accountability and openness.

It's clear from this minister's answer to a simple question on what organizations the minister has consulted with in identifying these problems, which exist in his head only, that the answer is none — no consultation whatsoever.

Did the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Advanced Education contact any of the unions covered by the proposed legislation regarding the issues and prob-

lems that exist in the minister's head and that the minister is trying to address through this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think therein lies the problem. I appreciate that your question is: "Did we consult the unions?" We are talking about putting education as a high priority. We are talking about putting students first. We are talking about giving them the greatest opportunity and flexibility that they may have to get a college degree or to have access to educational facilities from one end of the province to the other. You know, you don't go and consult the unions about that.

The fact of the matter is that it's very clear we have good institutions from one end of this province to the other, and we want to allow for the flexibility that we can have for our students to be able to go to school, to be able to get a degree. This isn't anything that's confusing or untoward. Facilities — good facilities…. I'm sure the members opposite would agree that we have good institutions. What we want in this respect, in our colleges and the like, is to be able to grant the greatest opportunity for our students to be able to get into those colleges and those institutions. That's what this government initiative is all about.

It's not a question that, when you're developing this, you would go to the unions to ask — whether or not they agree with this. Heavens to goodness, that's not what this is all about. This isn't running the colleges and the institutions on the basis of the unions. I mean, I don't know whether that's how things were run in the past; perhaps it was. I don't know. It would seem that it may have been, but quite frankly, this government's not going down that road. We believe it's important that we represent all of the people all of the time, to the best of our ability — not one sector.

We said as a party becoming government that we would put students first, that we would make sure our educational facilities were there and open as best they could be to create the greatest amount of flexibility and choice for our students. Now, the member mentions did we stand up and go. Did we consult with the unions first about this? Heavens to goodness, as we said, this is an initiative to put students first and to give them the opportunity to go to college and university and the institutions here throughout the province where they can, with the greatest of ease and quickness, be able to get that degree, to keep the cost down for them as well.

There's nothing untoward here. It's very clear what we're talking about, where we wish to go, what we want to do. We've pointed that out. We've had that policy discussion. We had the second reading debate, and now we are here at third reading. That's where we're going in this respect.

J. Kwan: The minister exercises selective listening — and selective memory, too, I may add. My question earlier to the minister was: who did he consult? Any organizations? Any of the institutes? Any of the colleges or university colleges that are impacted by this legislation? Then I asked the question: if he didn't consult with any of those organizations, did he consult with any of the unions?

The fact of the matter is that in this government, neither the Minister of Advanced Education nor the Minister of Labour did any consultation whatsoever — zero consultation with the people who would be affected by this legislation. For a government that campaigned on openness, on accountability, on consultation, they bring in major changes impacting our post-secondary education system, and they don't bother to go and talk to anybody. They don't. They don't bother going out to talk to the organizations, the unions, the students or anybody — nobody. This is how they define openness. That's how they define accountability.

I ask this question because I'm trying to identify how the minister had arrived at these problems. Was it pointed out to him by a college, by a university college, by a student? Of course, he didn't consult with anybody. He didn't ask anybody, so I can only assume that these problems exist only in the minister's imagination, because he didn't bother to go and talk to anybody.

Why wouldn't he? Certainly, if you really wanted to address our institutions in the post-secondary education sector to try and find out what problems exist there, you would actually take the effort and the time to go and consult with organizations, with the students, with the unions. But no, not this minister, not this government. They don't need to consult, because that's how they define consultation and openness in the new government: don't talk to anybody except themselves. That's how they define it.

Does the minister know what workload variations employers proposed in the spring of 2001 for that round of bargaining for Capilano College, Malaspina University College, Selkirk College, University College of the Cariboo, College of New Caledonia, College of the Rockies, Douglas College, Kwantlen University College, Camosun College, Langara College, North Island College and Vancouver Community College?

Hon. G. Bruce: Surely the members opposite would think it would be good that we would try and get our facilities open and allow for as much choice and flexibility for the students in this province to be able to go to post-secondary education. Surely, as a point of principle, you would stand and say: "Well, that's good." It would seem to me that you would think that's a good idea.

That's in fact what we're doing here. I hope I'm not taking from your questions — although it sounds that way — that you don't think it's a good idea. I mean, that's what we're doing: we're allowing for our institutions, our colleges, our post-secondary institutions, as we've mentioned here, to be able to offer courses during the course of the year — greater flexibility, choice for the students, opportunity for more students to get through those systems, to get degrees, to go to college. Surely you don't think that's a bad idea.

J. Kwan: I asked the question around workload variations for the employers proposed in the spring

2001 round of bargaining, because I want to know if the minister actually knows whether or not there are variations and, if so, what variations. If he's asserting that there's a question around access and flexibility and choice and all of those things, what kinds of problems were identified? Is workload variation part of the problem? That's why I asked the question.

Can he just simply get up and answer the question? Let's just begin with one college — the workload variations employers proposed in the spring 2001 round of bargaining for Capilano.

The Chair: We are still on section 1, and I just remind the member to stay relative to the section.

J. Kwan: It is relevant to section 1, under the definition of institution. Under the definition of institution, it includes: college, university college, a provincial institute or other institute established under the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act and the Open Learning Agency Act. It includes all of these agencies.

I am asking the question: in this definition, how come all of these agencies are involved and included? What process did the minister go through in including them in this legislation — not only just around the process on consultation but information, knowledge, that he might have received somewhere, I hope, that indicated to him that there were potentially some issues, some problems? I'm asking the question around workload variations on the employers' side, if there were any discussions around that — any of the issues.

It's a simple question, and it goes to the minister's notion of choice and accessibility. It goes right to that. In fact, one of the best ways to improve student access is to make sure that there are enough facilities to provide programs and services for the students. I'm wondering if the minister can explain why his government has chosen to force students into distance education and larger classes or to be taught by a less qualified support person instead of building the new facilities that are now just frozen. In fact, in Prince Rupert, the hole in the ground that's supposed to be a post-secondary education institution is now just a hole in the ground.

Hon. G. Bruce: The situation is that we wish to provide greater flexibility and more choice for students to be able to go to college, to go to the public institutions throughout the province. We want to be able to provide that in a year-round way. We'd like to be able to provide that so if the institution or the college needs to run from a Monday to a Saturday, it can. If it wishes to run a 12-month, full semester-type program and it's useful for the students, it can. That is, in fact, what this whole bill is about. That's what we're talking about.

If we want to move pass past section 1 and get to other points, that's fine. What we're looking for is more choice for the students and more opportunity for those students to be able to get a degree, to get an education in post-secondary in and around the communities where they live, perhaps — to make it a little easier for them. We want to make sure those institutions and facilities are running in the fullest way possible and that we're not denying accessibility to students.

The changes we are making in this particular bill will do that. It will allow those institutions to run that way so that we can put students first and allow the greatest amount of choice and flexibility.

J. MacPhail: The minister is constantly, I think, seeking information from us about why these questions are being raised, particularly now.

Just to back up a moment. We asked what consultation had been done. We asked why the definition included institutions on such a broad basis. The minister has replied: "It's about choice and flexibility."

The line of questioning now, just so the minister is clear, is to try to pursue the logic within government. Consultation hasn't occurred outside government, so we're trying to pursue the logic within government that reached the conclusion that institutions such as are defined here needed to have flexibility imposed on them by breaking contracts. The line of questioning is appropriate, because it goes to the heart of the bill. The surprise that these institutions were included…. The line of questioning is merely to find out the logic within government. We now have it clear that you didn't do any consultation outside of government.

Did you have this information available to you when you made the decision to impose this legislation on institutions? Just to clarify for the minister, that's why the detailed information is being sought from the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: I didn't quite hear you, and I think the member was meaning a different agency.

J. Kwan: I think I said CSSEA earlier. My apologies. I mean CIEA. It is my understanding that CIEA has done a survey of the bargainers and found that none of the colleges, in terms of Capilano College, Malaspina University College, Selkirk College, University College of the Cariboo, College of New Caledonia, College of the Rockies, Douglas College, Kwantlen University College, Camosun College, Langara College, North Island College, Vancouver Community College — which, of course, is not an exhaustive list…. In none of the colleges and university colleges that I've listed did the employers table language to change class size or student numbers at all — ever. I wonder why, in this definition of institution later on in section 2, around the

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a public policy initiative by the government. We are doing this because we said we would put students first. That's what we are doing. We are putting students first. These institutions have been listed because we believe that through these changes we're bringing in…. The changes this act brings forward will allow greater flexibility and greater choice for our students throughout the province of British Columbia.

We said as a government that we would put the students of British Columbia first, and we are following through with that commitment with some of the changes we're making here today.

J. Kwan: In this new era under the Liberal government, the government actually knows better than the employers in terms of what their needs are. They know better than the employers who are actually out in the field doing their work. They know better than what the employers know. They can decide they don't need to talk to the employers about what problems, if any, exist, how to overcome these problems, and what solutions should be in place. The Liberal government knows in the new era — without consultation, without openness, without accountability — that they can just go out and determine with their own arrogance that they know what is best. Is that the approach this government adopts?

Hon. G. Bruce: This isn't arrogant. This isn't about the employers. This isn't about the unions. This is about students.

Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's about students. It's a situation where we have some very fine institutions throughout this province that have been built over the course of years. We have students who would like to go to these institutions. What we said right through the election campaign, which was met with lots of interest and support, was that we would put students first, and they want students first. The students want to be able to have as much flexibility as possible. This is a public policy initiative by government.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm saying that. It's a public policy initiative by government that we want to make our institutions available with the greatest flexibility we can, to allow as much choice and as much accessibility to the students of this province. There are students in our province who would like to get degrees, who would like to go through to the post-secondary school system, and we want to open it up so they can do that. We want to make sure they have that opportunity.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that this government did not bother to go out and consult with the employers who were out in the field. They did not bother talking to the educators who were out in the field. This government did not bother to go and talk to the students out in the field. They determined in their own minds, with zero consultation, that they have identified problems they wish to address through this legislation. There was no information, it appears, that the minister had received to indicate that there were issues around class size or student numbers, but this minister knows best.

I fail to understand how the issue of workload can be so pressing that the government has to break contracts to fix it, then expedite that process through extensive debate in one weekend, without inviting the public to look at the legislation that's being tabled and invite their feedback. It doesn't make any sense.

The definition is so expansive and includes so many institutions, colleges, university colleges, etc., that it forces one to wonder why the government did this, when the employer didn't say there was a problem. Nobody said there was a problem. It's just simply been created in the minister's own head that there are problems somehow.

Perhaps the problem that has been created in the minister's own head is not one to do with education and is actually one to do with the education budget freeze that has been imposed by the Liberal government. I fail to see how the education budget freeze would actually help students get access to post-secondary education, not just on the operating side but also on the capital side — the freeze on the capital side, where at a number of colleges, university colleges and institutions, planned capital work has been cancelled. I'll go through some of those when we get to section 2, when we talk about class size issues.

On the question around definitions, I just want to make sure, in the definition of "class," which this act states means a set of students to whom a faculty member delivers a course or unit of curriculum or instruction, that when we move to the K-to-12 area around special needs and class size and so on as it relates to the K-to-12 system, I would have an opportunity to canvass freely the issues that come up under class size — or else I can do it now, under the definition. I can wait until we go to section 2, when we talk about class size and do it then.

The Chair: Member, I believe we're dealing with colleges and institutes, so if you could keep your comments to that, the colleges and institutes, rather than K-to-12….

J. Kwan: I just want to make sure — in section 2 it talks about class size, as well, and the definition of class — that I could actually wait until we deal with section 2 to talk about issues related to class. Some of it may tie into the definition of class, and I want to make sure I don't miss that opportunity.

J. Kwan: Section 2 touches on a number of things: class size, the number of students who may be enrolled or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, term or academic year. Then there are different sections that talk about the assigned faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning, the hours of operation, the number and duration of terms or semesters, etc. I have a number of questions in this area, and then I also have some amendments.

First, the question around class size, which I think goes to the quality of education for the student and to the question of access as well. As I mentioned earlier, one of the best ways to improve student access is to make sure there are enough facilities to provide for the programs, spaces for the students and services for the students. Why has the minister chosen to increase class size as opposed to building more facilities to provide for access for the students, especially when you factor in the notion of quality, the quality of education for the students?

Hon. G. Bruce: We have a number of very good facilities through the province of British Columbia. Those facilities have cost taxpayers a substantial amount of money, and I thinks it's incumbent upon us to make sure we're getting the best use of those facilities. By also allowing for that best use of those facilities, where we've said we want to put students first, we create more flexibility and more choice. We allow for a longer year and more flexibility for the students to be able to achieve their degree or the class they were looking to get through the course of the year. That is, in fact, what we're doing here.

J. Kwan: By the minister's own admission, the issue around quality education and access to education for students is not determined by this government on the premise of what is best for the students but rather by the bottom line. Education in British Columbia under the new-era government is now going to be determined by the bottom line.

It doesn't matter whether or not Kwantlen University College, a technical campus for Cloverdale, was iced. That campus was to house 4,500 students in the very types of programs, trades and technical, that already faced skills shortages. Can the minister tell me what cost-benefit analysis has been done to demonstrate that Bill 28 is a better approach than building the new Cloverdale campus?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm going to try this again. We have good institutions around the province, and the member opposite has named them. We have a number of students that would like to get into those institutions. By a matter of public policy, government has said we're going to look at those institutions and see how it is that we can improve the situation for greater flexibility and more choice for students.

That's what this government is about. That's what this section talks about. It's to allow for greater choice, more flexibility and more accessibility for the students of British Columbia to receive an education.

J. Kwan: Under the previous administration, I think there were 5,200 new spaces added to the colleges, university colleges and institutions in British Columbia to enhance class size, because it was a priority. It was a priority for government to make sure that students would actually get the facilities in their own communities across British Columbia so that more students could get access to post-secondary education.

It was a priority that the previous government had established, actually, for catching up for the number of years of the administration before, which had lapsed in making sure that students in British Columbia would have the advantage of access to post-secondary education.

At Douglas College, a planned expansion to accommodate 330 more student spaces was cancelled. The college is currently at full capacity, with waiting lists for many university transfer courses. Bigger class sizes are not the option. University College of the Cariboo had planned a Williams Lake campus replacement. That, too, was cancelled.

University College of the Fraser Valley had a planned Chilliwack classroom replacement cancelled. Northern Lights College in Dawson Creek had a planned classroom building. That, too, was cancelled. Prince Rupert, where we have the famous hole in the ground, as I mentioned earlier, saw the cancellation of construction on a new campus of Northwest Community College — cancelled.

I fail to see how, in the name of facilitating access and choice and keeping in mind the notion of quality education for students, the cancellation of these capital projects advances the learning outcomes for students. In the meantime, class sizes for students are increased, so the quality of education for students is just being compromised.

All of that is driven, I would argue, not by the intent of making sure that it is in the best interests of the students but rather that it is in the best interests of the big corporations, the wealthiest British Columbians. They got the biggest tax breaks. Their big tax breaks are being paid for by the students through increased class sizes, instead of making sure that new facilities and services are brought to the table and built in their own communities so that students can access these services. Class size, the number of students, is critical to the quality of education for students. The minister seems to have lost sight of that in this new era under the Liberals.

Can the minister explain how part 1, section (2)(b), which allows institutions to "assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning," fits with

the research and recommendations of the joint employer-union committee known as the joint education technology committee that was established under the 1998 common agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just a small comment here. I listen to the member opposite talk about a number of these different projects that have been deferred. They have been deferred; it's a matter of public record. Of course, I know you hate to hear this: they've been deferred by the mess you left this province in — $500 million.

J. MacPhail: No one out there believes you on that one. Did you call Prince Rupert to see whether they believe you on that one? Did you talk to the people in Prince Rupert yesterday who were rallying against you?

Hon. G. Bruce: Five hundred million dollars was blown on fast ferries, and $70 million was blown on a convention centre that you had no business plan for and no idea how to get here. You put this province into wrack and ruin, and you have — with respect — the audacity to stand here and question why some of these things have been deferred. You can list them all you like. Carry on listing them, if you will, because they've been deferred because of the financial mess, the recklessness of you as a government in how you left this province. That's why.

We've been faced with some difficult, difficult decisions to make in how we move ahead. We made a commitment that we would put the students of the province first, and that's what we're doing. We're taking the institutions that are there, that are run well — all of them. You ask about the width and the breadth and how come there are so many listed here. The reason they're all listed here is because they're good educational facilities, and we want them to be open and accessible to the students of British Columbia.

There's nothing untoward. No, we didn't go out there and say: "Is this okay with you, employer? Is this okay with you, union?" This simply is a question of a government initiative. It's public policy. It's what we're about in putting students first: to be able to give them the flexibility and choice so that they can get an education.

The audacity, for you to raise and talk about these other issues, when you took this province single-handedly and blew it right out of the docks(. We're going to turn it around, piece by piece, and this is one piece. We're going to make sure that our students get a first-class education in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Making sure there is access is to make sure that facilities are built in those communities and the services needed by those students are provided, with the additional spaces — not with a hole in the ground where construction had already started and then was cancelled so that students wouldn't be able to go to the new college. If they went to it, they would just see one big puddle. I guess it would be a frozen puddle now, because it's pretty cold over there.

That would be the approach to increasing access — not freezing the capital projects, but actually going ahead with them and then keeping your promise, by the way, that you were going to keep education as your number one priority. You were going to protect it.

How does this protect education, when class sizes are being increased, the number of students enrolled in the class is going to increase, and the planned facilities that had been budgeted for — even a facility that's under construction — are not going to proceed? It's just going to be one big hole in Prince Rupert so that the students who need the services and the programs won't actually have a classroom to go to but will just look into the puddle in the ground and feel somehow that this new-era government is providing access and choice. I guess that choice and access, in the new government's definition, does not include the quality of education for students in relation to class size.

I asked the minister the question to explain how part 1(2)(b), which allows institutions to assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning, fits with the research and recommendations of the joint employer-union committee known as the joint education technology committee that was established under the 1998 common agreement.

Hon. G. Bruce: We're allowing the decision in respect to distance learning with the institution. Again, it's a situation there where we're trying to allow for the greatest flexibility and the best choice for the students in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know what the recommendations of the joint employer-union committee are?

J. Kwan: I didn't get an answer from the minister. I asked a simple question about the recommendations that were tabled by the joint education technology committee that was established under the 1998 common agreement. Does the minister know what those recommendations are?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just to be clear: we're allowing for greater flexibility and more choice for the students. It's a hard thing to grasp. We didn't go ask the unions whether they thought it was a good idea or whether it was okay with them. We didn't run off to every single employer group and ask them whether they thought it was a good idea. It's a matter of public policy.

Hon. G. Bruce: You betcha. They said they wanted to have a good public education system in British Columbia. You know, it would be strange in the extreme if people in this province didn't want us to use our facilities in the most efficient possible way so that we could give the most choice and the greatest flexibility to the students in this province. It is amazing that you wouldn't be able to comprehend that idea. Let us have the greatest flexibility and choice for our students so they can receive a good education in British Columbia. That's what this does; that's what we're doing.

J. Kwan: Boy, I hope, in many ways, that people are actually not watching this debate. Of course, unfortunately, they are.

How this new government, the Liberal government, is defining access is by stuffing more students into a classroom, cancelling capital developments that would build more classes and institutions in the respective communities so that the access would actually be enabling the students to get into a classroom that is not crowded — by not jamming more students into it. That's how the new-era government, the Liberal government, describes access — not by way of new facilities, more facilities and more spaces but by way of crowdedness and less instructional time per student. That's how the minister defines access in the new era for education. How sad.

The minister also feels that he doesn't need to consult with anybody. He doesn't. This is the level of arrogance they display. They don't need to talk to anyone. They don't need to consult with anyone, because they have all the answers already — not the employers, the people who are out in the field, not the unions. I know already that this government has a disdain for unions, but one would have thought that for recommendations that had been jointly put together by the different parties, the minister would actually even take the time to look at them. Just consider them; that's all. I'm not necessarily saying that those are the recommendations you want to adopt. Consider them. But even then the minister couldn't be bothered to look at what those recommendations are.

Can the minister identify the most common reasons for faculty members not wanting to be assigned to distributed learning courses?

Hon. G. Bruce: Coming back to the fact of the projects that were deferred and that the member, of course, brought up again, they were deferred because we're getting our fiscal house in order because of the mess you left it in. We've got to be clear on that. You can't spend $500 million on three ferries, find that they don't work, find that you have to tie them up — you can't use them — find that you can't sell them, still faced with a transportation problem yet to be resolved, an absolute boondoggle…. What that $500 million would have done for this province…. You were told as a government not to do it. You had advisers that told you not to do it. As a government you continued to do that. You continued to take the public's money and just blow it away.

Hon. G. Bruce: You just squandered the money. That in itself is bad enough. What's worse about it is what that $500 million could have gone for. That $500 million could have built a whole host of colleges and institutes throughout the province of British Columbia. That $500 million could have built roads, hospitals and other types of facilities throughout British Columbia. It could have employed more people in different facilities in British Columbia. That $500 million that your government, you as a member of that government, squandered has overreaching, long-lasting, negative impacts on the province. We have to work our way out of that $500 million.

Now, if it were only $500 million, then the people of this province might sort of figure, "Okay, let's live our way through," but we know it's not just $500 million.

So we come back to a situation that you created by squandering the public purse. We're left with making some difficult choices. We said we were going to put education first, and we are. We said we were going to give choice and flexibility to our students so that they could get a good university or college degree or good education here in British Columbia. That's what we're doing through this. What we're doing is making sure there aren't restrictions in the way of institutions or colleges being able to deliver that education to the students of the province of British Columbia.

If you think you have to go out and wander around the province and ask people in this province whether, in this situation that we find ourselves in, that would be a good idea, then away you go. Get on your horse, and go ask everybody in the province of British Columbia. We are saying to you — and we have said through our process here, through the campaign, through the process of what we've been working on for the last seven and a half months — that as a public policy initiative, we're going to put those students first, and we're going to give them the opportunity within the institutions that we already have, while we continue to rebuild this province after you virtually destroyed it in the last ten years.

J. Kwan: That is absolute nonsense, and the minister knows it. Didn't he actually notice that today…? It was just today that it was reported that B.C.'s economy, when the last government left, in terms of the rate of

growth was actually at 3.9 percent. Didn't the minister know and talk to the auditor general during the break to get the books to make sure he's clear on what was left in the books? It was actually a surplus, not a deficit.

Perhaps where the money went, as it relates to the class size issue in terms of enhancing choice and access to education…. Wouldn't the raise that cabinet members gave themselves, not in an open cabinet meeting but quietly, through the OIC — of changing the workplace of government, for executive members from Victoria, to their own ridings so that they could actually collect $150 more tax-free money when they do business here in Victoria, when they overnight, and $50 when they don't overnight(? How about putting that money into class size, access and education for British Columbia? Why don't the ministers do that?

The question to the minister was a simple one, and he's unable to answer the question. I simply ask if the minister can identify some of the most common reasons for faculty members not wanting to be assigned to distributed learning courses. Does he know what they are?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to set the record straight in regards to one issue that comes up, which also affects the member opposite: MLAs and cabinet ministers in this Legislature did not receive an increase. Okay, I'll just say that again: MLAs and cabinet ministers in this B.C. Legislature did not receive an increase. There is some confusion in the minds of people, because it was actually in the federal government that there was an increase. This House did not receive an increase.

Secondly, I'm sure the member opposite is interested to know that cabinet ministers are in a situation where they're on virtual performance clauses. Cabinet ministers' paycheques are held back by 20 percent. They have two service plan levels that they have to achieve. If they achieve their targets in their own ministries, then they will receive 10 percent back. And if as a group they are able to achieve what the government is trying to set out….

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm just going to come back to this, because I think it's very important. A cabinet minister's pay is reduced by 20 percent. Ten percent of that pay will be returned, given that the cabinet minister is able to achieve the targets of their ministry, and the other 10 percent comes back if as a government they are able to achieve, as a whole, the targets that were set.

First of all, no MLAs in the province of British Columbia received an increase. No cabinet ministers received an increase. And, in fact, cabinet ministers, if they do not perform individually and then collectively as a cabinet, will also see a reduction.

Now, I know in all of that, somewhere along the line on all of this, there was a question about public policy relative to education and relative to whether students, through what we're doing here, will get a good education. What we're trying to do is to allow for the greatest flexibility possible for students to be able to receive that education, be it through distance learning or in the classroom.

J. Kwan: Actually, you know, the minister wants to deny that, but it's there for all to see in the OIC that came around in, I think, September.

The Chair: Member, please remain relevant to the section. What you're speaking of now has nothing to do with the section. Would you please stay relevant.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I take your guidance. But the minister actually raised the issue.

The Chair: No, member, you did. Now will you proceed, please, with section 2.

J. Kwan: Boy, we're anxious to get through. We have lots of questions — lots of questions — because the act that is before us has huge ramifications for students across British Columbia in a very, very significant way. I'm going to ask these questions one by one — one by one.

I'm going to ask the minister again, then, because he failed to answer the question. Maybe the Chair would direct the minister to answer these questions.

The Chair: Member, I remind you that it is not the direction of the Chair to tell the minister what to answer. It's your responsibility to ask the question. It's not the Chair's responsibility to demand that the minister answer it. So if you'll proceed with your questioning…. Carry on.

J. Kwan: I am just simply making sure, through you, that the minister will answer these questions. I've asked this question two times now. The minister has failed to answer the question, so I'm going to ask it again. Can the minister identify the most common reasons for faculty members not wanting to be assigned to distributed learning courses?

Hon. G. Bruce: I did answer the question, but I'll answer it again. It's a question of public policy. This isn't a question of whether they want to be assigned to distance learning or not. This is a public policy initiative where we said that we're going to create as much flexibility and accessibility for the students of this province to be able to get a degree, to go to university, to go to college, to go to our college institutions. That's

what we're doing here. You've asked the question, and I've given you the answer.

J. Kwan: I didn't ask the question of the minister on whether they want to or they don't want to. I just asked him whether or not he knows what the reasons are. That's the question. Does he? Obviously not. He doesn't know what the reasons are, because he didn't bother talking to anybody. He didn't even bother to ask his staff for the information so that he's informed when he's making these decisions.

That's the point: the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Advanced Education have not bothered to talk to their stakeholders just to get the information — not necessarily to even adopt the information, but just to be informed. The ministers had not bothered to do that, because they don't feel it's important. They don't think it's necessary to get the information.

Maybe the minister can answer this question. Can the minister describe the processes that employers and the unions have agreed to around the use of on-line education?

Hon. G. Bruce: To read this correctly, what we're doing is giving the institutions the ability to manage in what's best for the students. They don't have to go this way, and they don't have to go that way. What we're trying to do is give them as much flexibility as they possibly can have so we can create as much accessibility and choice for the students in this province. What we've done here is allow that to occur. That's what's happening, so they can go back to that institution, they can work these things out, and if there's one way that's better for one institution that's different from another, they've got the opportunity and the flexibility to do that if it best serves the needs of the students.

J. Kwan: It's clear that the minister has not, once again, talked to anybody, looked for the information, asked his staff for the information with respect to the processes the employers and the unions have agreed to around the use of on-line education, because he can't be bothered, in this new, open, accountable government. He can't be bothered to get the information, to review it — if nothing else, just for a backgrounder. The Minister of Labour couldn't be bothered. The Minister of Advanced Education couldn't be bothered.

It's absolutely shocking. I find it very shocking that the minister just thinks he doesn't need to talk to anybody, that he doesn't need to review the work that's been done — the information that already is on file. He couldn't be bothered, because there is no accountability.

Can the minister identify specifically where there have been problems in the duration of terms or semesters and the precise nature of the problems?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, I'm going to try and get this across to the member opposite. This is a situation where we want, as a government initiative, to provide the greatest flexibility and choice. I am repeating myself, but I'm having a hard time getting this understanding through. We want to give that flexibility and choice for our students, and we want to give that flexibility to our institutions and our colleges so they can provide that choice. Some may have some problems; some may not have some problems. Some may have restrictions in their collective agreements that stop them from doing different things like that; others may not.

What we're attempting to do is that where there are things that could have the potential of inhibiting the opportunity for choice and flexibility within our post-secondary educational system, we're taking that away. We're providing — so that our institutions can work to provide — the greatest accessibility and flexibility for the students in British Columbia. It's as simple as that.

J. Kwan: The minister says some may have problems. Well, specifically: who has problems? Where?

Hon. G. Bruce: We've really canvassed this, and I'm happy to go around and around if the member obviously wants to.

Again, I'll just be really clear on this thing. This is a situation where we have institutions, and we are allowing them the flexibility to be able to deliver greater accessibility and more choice to the students of British Columbia. If you'd like to move on to the things that are within this bill(. Mr. Chairman, we're on section 2, and if we'd like to move on through, perhaps there are other questions the member may have.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question. I asked for a sample or a specific problem and where. The minister didn't answer the question; he waxed eloquent about his own ideologies, but he didn't talk about what identified problems there are, specifically, and where they are — not at all.

I suspect that I know why he didn't talk about that: he doesn't have that information. He didn't bother talking to anybody to get that information. Neither did the Minister of Advanced Education. They didn't bother to try and seek those answers. One would have thought that when they're changing the act and they're important pieces in terms of changes, they would have actually taken the time to do that — to identify specifically, just even give one example where those problems may exist and what those problems are.

The minister is unable to do that, because he hasn't done his homework. That's why. This whole exercise is not driven by what's best for students but driven by the bottom line. Never mind the quality of education, how it impacts the students, because that's not the priority of this government.

Can the minister identify specifically where and how allocation of professional development and vacation time has hindered the organization of instruction?

Hon. G. Bruce: I would say that the member there is asking in respect to 2(d). The philosophy behind this — the initiative that we're trying to provide for — is for greater operational time of our facilities. What this particular section, 2(d), does is allow for that.

The member has asked, and I understand, I believe — now that you're on this section here, section 2, and starting to come through it — that there are restrictive class sizes. Sixteen of 22 of our colleges have class size and students-per-instructor restrictions. We are removing that and allowing greater flexibility in that respect, too. That's where we're at in respect to section 2 and section 2(d), as the question was asked.

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell us when exactly the provisions restricting student numbers were bargained at, I guess, any number of the colleges or university colleges? Let's just use Douglas College for this question.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is not about bargaining. I appreciate where the member is coming from. We are removing those restrictions where they inhibit the institutions from being able to provide the greatest flexibility and choice for students in British Columbia. That's what we're doing.

J. Kwan: Of course, it's not about bargaining. The legislation is not about bargaining, because these issues weren't identified at the bargaining table. They weren't identified by the employer or the employees.

Of course it's not a bargaining issue, but the minister has chosen that they would break contracts by imposing this legislation, by breaking the contracts even when the issues didn't exist in the bargaining process for either the employee or the employer. Of course it's not a bargaining issue.

Can the minister tell us how many semesters there are now at Douglas College and what steps the employer has taken to change this — in particular, steps that have been blocked by the union contract?

Hon. G. Bruce: What we're doing by this act is saying that collective agreements will not restrict the operation of our schools, of our colleges, of our college universities in a semester process, a 12-month period or in the accessibility of how the days or hours of the week go. We're not hiding that. It's right up front. We said that.

J. Kwan: I didn't hear the minister say how many semesters there are now at Douglas College.

Hon. G. Bruce: You didn't hear the minister say that, because it isn't relevant to this section. What I'm trying to say to you is that that is not on the table anymore in respect of the aspects of a collective agreement. We are putting students first. That will be the first premise of everything we do here. We are putting students first. We want them to have the greatest accessibility to our institutions. There will not be restrictions in the way to hold them from getting a college or institutional degree here in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Actually, it is relevant to this section, because section 2(c) talks about the determination in the hours of operation and the number and duration of the terms or semesters in which instruction is offered to students. How many semesters are now in place for Douglas College, Capilano College, Kwantlen College, Langara College, Vancouver Community College, etc.? It is relevant. Does the minister even know what impact they would have on what is the existing system now?

J. Kwan: So the minister doesn't know right now, in the current system, what the impacts would be. He doesn't know what the current system is.

J. Kwan: It is speaking to the bill, because section 2(c) actually talks about the semesters during which the instruction is offered. It does. For the members who don't understand the relevance, I'll make it clear for them. The minister doesn't know, because the minister hasn't bothered to look at the current system and how it works and then look, perhaps, at where there are problems or talk with people who could identify where those problems may exist and what the solutions might be. Under the new era with this government, they already know the answers. They don't need to talk to anyone. That's the level of arrogance displayed by this government.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to section 2, so that section 2 is amended to read as follows:

A copy of the amendment is here, Mr. Chair. I will table that with you, and I would ask that a copy be given to the minister.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I was under the impression that the Clerk's office actually had duplicate copies, but clearly he doesn't.

J. Kwan: He's gone down to our office to get the extra copies for the minister. The copy that's been given to the minister does not have the piece that has been struck out. The original wording from the legislation itself is the new wording. That is being amended. I'll let the House Leader take a moment to read that as well.

Hon. G. Collins: The amendment that's proposed by the member opposite actually deletes the entire section 2 as it is and puts in another section 2. The way to delete a section under the standing orders is to vote against that section. If the member wants to add another section to the bill, then she can do that at the appropriate time, but this amendment is out of order.

The Chair: Member, do you wish to make any further submissions to this amendment?

The Chair: We haven't decided that, member, but debate can proceed. You can proceed, member.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are going to decide whether or not the amendment is out of order, so we'll continue on with debate while you decide that.

The amendment speaks to making changes, and the key component of the change is to ensure that it allows for renegotiation of the areas around class size, around the assignment of faculty members to distributed learning and the number and duration of semesters issue, etc. It simply ensures that there is the opportunity for renegotiation. I think that is the appropriate approach to take on these matters, especially in light of the fact that no consultation had taken place with the organizations, the unions or anybody, for that matter, that no problems were identified by the organizations or the employer in these areas and that the minister hadn't bothered to look for information from his staff — both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Advanced Education — so that they were informed on the background information and the different opinions and recommendations that people have worked on that exist right now.

That's the purpose of the amendment: to ensure that there's the opportunity for renegotiation.

We've looked at this, and we feel that the amendment is out of order. It actually changes the intent of the bill, so the amendment is not in order.

J. Kwan: I'd just like to ask this question. I'm seeking advice from you, Mr. Chair, because when the amendment was drafted, we sought the advice of the Clerk's office, and we weren't advised that this was out of order. Is it the case, then, that if this section of the bill, section 2, is defeated, I could then table the amendment as a new section?

The Chair: Member, I've said that the amendment you have supplied is not in order. It changes the intent of the bill. The amendment is out of order.

J. Kwan: I'm not going to support this section of the bill. I think it fundamentally violates the principle of access to quality education for students in British Columbia. I don't think the approach to access to education is by increasing class size — by jamming in more students, sort of like sardines into a can, so that they could supposedly get the education — and that this is supposedly the way to facilitate access and flexibility. I don't think that's the right approach.

I think the right approach is to make sure there is a variety of facilities throughout British Columbia, additional spaces throughout British Columbia, so that students could indeed access education not as though they were sardines in a can but as though they were human beings in a classroom.

I'm not going to support this section of the bill, and I'm going to vote against it.

	YEAS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Bray

The Chair: Before we move on to section 3, we'll just give some time for the members to go about their business. A few moments, please.

J. Kwan: Section 3 talks about the dispute resolution piece. I notice that under section 3(1) and 3(2) the dispute resolution procedures that are being adopted here would go through the grievance and arbitration procedure under the collective agreement, whereby the parties would actually be involved and whereby the parties would have an opportunity to jointly agree to the arbitrator to come in for a dispute.

I know this is different from the previous bill that we dealt with, Bill 27. In my own view, this is the right approach. I wonder if the minister can explain why he chose to utilize this approach in this dispute resolution for Bill 28, as opposed to the other approach, which was, in my view, the wrong approach — that is, just for the minister to adopt an arbitrator without going through the grievance and arbitration procedure under the collective agreement for Bill 27.

Hon. G. Bruce: In one instance, you are implementing a settlement, which is that you're imposing a settlement, as was the case in the other bill. In this one, there's a collective agreement process there, and the grievance process works in that flow.

J. Kwan: The process here is such that the government is introducing legislation to break contracts — breaking contracts for the college, university college, institute sector. In any event, I'm pleased that the government has adopted the right approach, and that is using the grievance and arbitration procedures under the collective agreement. I will support section 3.

J. Kwan: Section 4 in this legislation talks about the application. Particularly, I have an amendment to make for section 4(2), which I'm tabling. I think the Clerk's office has a copy already.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I have asked that the Clerk please give a copy of the amendment to the minister. He's got it — great. Thank you.

The amendment is a simple one that makes a slight change by adding the words "previously negotiated" so that a provision in a collective agreement that has been entered into, previously negotiated, before the coming into force of this section of this new act "…that is inconsistent with or that limits, restricts or interferes with an institution's exercise of its rights established in this Part is void."

I hope the minister will accept this amendment. As I say, it's not a big amendment, but it's an important one.

Hon. G. Bruce: With respect, the government will not be supporting this amendment. The amendment would allow for these very items that we're talking about taking off the collective bargaining process. This amendment that's being proposed would allow for them to be renegotiated at a later date. That is not the purpose or intent of what we're trying to go through here.

	YEAS — 69
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Bray

J. Kwan: I have lots of questions on section 6, Mr. Chair. Maybe you want to give a moment for the members to leave the chamber.

J. Kwan: Section 6 of the act adds a new section of the School Act. The new section is 18.1(1) and 18.1(2), which refers to providing a prescribed class of students with special needs. This is a definition of class, in part 1 of Bill 28, a definition that is said to pertain only to that section relating to college and institute labour adjustment. There is no definition of class in the School Act. What is the definition of class that pertains to section 18.1(1)? The definition of part 1 of this bill seems to allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to set up a class of students with special needs. This definition would give government, I worry, the power to segregate special needs students. I'd like to ask the minister to clarify the definition of class that pertains to this section.

I see that new staff have entered the chamber, and perhaps the minister would take a moment to introduce them.

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, I'd be happy to do that. We have two officials joining us today in the chamber. This is their first time being a part of this process in our legislative chamber. They're Dr. Emery Dosdall, who is the Deputy Minister of Education, and Stewart Ladyman, who's the superintendent, field services, for the department.

Hon. G. Bruce: The definition here of class applies to an autistic child or a hearing impaired child. It's not a class in size.

J. Kwan: Then the minister is meaning for the word "class" to mean categories. Am I right?

Hon. G. Bruce: I thought I defined it. It means a student that is autistic or one with hearing impairments. That's the definition of class meant with respect to this section.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. The minister used an example of autistic children. That's one category of special needs children. There are other children with different special needs. It could be children with dyslexia perhaps. I just want to be sure. The application of the word class could have different meanings, and with those different meanings, it changes entirely the entire section here. It is important for that to be clear.

Once again I ask the minister: in using the word class, he really means categories of special needs. Am I right?

Hon. G. Bruce: You can use "category"; you can use "class." The word that's here is class. I think you mentioned dyslexic. You mentioned autistic; you mentioned hearing impaired. That's what we're talking about.

J. Kwan: It is important to make this clear, because in the School Act the word class is not defined. I have a copy of the School Act here for the minister's information. There's a distinctive difference between the words "class" or "category." In the School Act, class is not defined, and I think it is important to make sure we define our words and choose our words carefully so that it's clear in this new bill in terms of what the changes are and what the meanings of the changes would be.

I gather from the minister that class is actually not the word the minister wants to use, but rather it's the word category for the School Act. This, then, would be a case, quite frankly, of poor draftsmanship, really, that has arisen from an irresponsible government making wholesale changes on the turn of a dime without any thought or analysis. I would suggest that we need to make sure this word is actually changed from "class" to "category" so that under the School Act, where the word "class" is not defined, we don't confuse matters by introducing a new word into it.

Hon. G. Bruce: I've been clear in the definition, and you now understand the definition. We canvassed this a couple of times. We've been very clear on it.

J. Kwan: Well, once again we're into a situation where it is the word of the minister as to what it says, as opposed to what it says in black and white in the legislation. I've just pointed out to the minister the oversight on the issue around class and category. In the School Act there is no definition of class. It doesn't exist. This section of the act introduces a new section into the School Act, section 18.1. The word the minister uses, "class," can have differential meanings. The real word the minister wants to use is actually "category."

A copy of the amendment has been tabled to the Clerk. I ask that a copy be given to the minister. I trust that the minister would not have a problem with this amendment. It is an amendment for clarification so that there is no confusion with respect to the application of this act. It is introducing a new section into the School Act which has no definition for class. I want to make sure that it is clear by the amendment.

Hon. G. Bruce: I appreciate the member's amendment, but really, you're just changing one word for another. The government doesn't see that the distinction is any different. We've been clear in our definition. Respectfully, the government will not be supporting your amendment.

J. MacPhail: Despite rushing this piece of legislation through and despite being here for the last almost 72 hours, we have had a chance to discuss this matter with people outside of this chamber, so this advice and amendment are being offered in a friendly way that perhaps will not throw us back into the 1950s in terms of how we talk about our children. That came from parents.

Secondly, the word "class" is mentioned elsewhere here in the legislation and has a completely different meaning. Therefore, it isn't just substituting one word for another.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I am informed that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct and asks everyone to please remain in their seats.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; H. Long in the chair.

J. Kwan: We were on the question around the definition of class and the amendment that was tabled around replacing the word "class" with the word "category." This is a significant piece, because even as we speak — now and just prior to the break — parents were phoning into our office wanting to make sure that this definition is clear and that it's clear in this legislation what the intent of the government is.

The word class could be used to define a class of students with special needs, and that could lead to segregation of students into a classroom of special needs. They're terrified that we would revert back in time to the old days, where children with special needs were segregated into a class on their own. They're terrified of that. As I said, even in the minutes when we were downstairs, parents were phoning on this question, wanting it to be clear with the government so that there is no confusion.

The word "category," on the other hand, describes the categories of disabilities amongst the children. It could be children with dyslexia. It could be children with pathology challenges. It could be children with behavioral challenges — a variety of different challenges. Those categories of students and children with special needs would not be put into a class on their own in segregation.

The word "class" is not defined in the School Act, so it is a very important term. It's not just a technicality around what word is used. It has significant meaning in the real lives of the students and the children and for the parents in the classroom. That's why the amendment was made, and I want to reiterate the importance of that.

Maybe the minister can clarify for me what his intention is on the word "class." Why wouldn't he accept the amendment to replace it with the word "category" so that it is completely clear for the parents who are watching at home right now?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a common drafting word — nothing untoward in this instance. We feel comfortable with it here in this bill. I understand you've moved an amendment, and I've made it clear that the government will not be supporting the amendment. Sorry.

J. MacPhail: Well, we have to have a little bit more discussion about this, because it's not beyond the realm for parents of students with special needs to pursue legal recourse in defence of their children — and rightfully so. We've made great headway over the course of the last two decades, in integrating children, starting under the Social Credit government of then Premier Bennett. That has continued throughout the eighties and nineties, and we hope into the years 2000-2001.

That was to undo the educational policy of previous days when there were classes of special needs students. I was telling my junior baby colleague here that that was the case when I was in school. There were literally physical classes of everybody who wasn't considered "normal." If a parent or a group of parents were to go to court for a definition of "class," they couldn't go to the School Act to figure out what that means, but they could go to the front of this legislation, where class actually is defined. It's to have restricted application, but it is the only definition of class, and that definition is the physical classroom.

That's what it is, so a judge — and this is not out of the realm of possibility, believe you me — would look to some guidance not in the School Act but in this legislation. Even though the definition is theoretically to apply only to part 1, a judge, in the absence of any other definition, would go to "class." It means "a set of students to which a faculty member delivers a course or unit of curriculum or instruction." It sounds to me like one could interpret putting all of special needs in that school in one classroom.

That's all we're trying to do: we're trying not to go back to the fifties, sixties and seventies but to continue on in supporting the progress of students with special needs with full integration. That's all.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, this has got nothing to do with segregating students. It's not going in that direction. This is about the assignment of this section of the special ed aides. Legislative counsel recommends this word.

Hon. G. Bruce: Perhaps they're calling because you're raising the alarm bells of something that's not there. I appreciate that you want to ask a question. We've answered the question. You've proposed an amendment. We've said that we do not believe the amendment is necessary. We're not going to put children at risk by this. This is not what we're talking about here in regard to this particular act.

Mr. Chairman, the government's position is that we will not be voting with this amendment.

J. Kwan: In the amendments I have to make for this section, there's a second amendment I'd like to make. It actually refers to the same issue we were dealing with, because subsection (3) of section 6 refers once again to different classes of students as opposed to categories of students with special needs. I'm going to table an amendment, which I think you already have a copy of, Mr. Clerk, and if you would pass a copy to the minister.

The amendment to section 6 is as follows: by deleting the word classes and replacing it with "categories," so that section 6(3) would read:

J. Kwan: Once again, I'm going to give the minister a second opportunity to address this issue. I want to emphasize to the minister that by no means is this amendment — or the last one, for that matter — one to be trivialized. It has great meaning in the real-life situation for children and their parents, and they're very concerned about it.

They're very, very concerned about it because the word "class" has several different meanings. You could say that, on the one hand, it is a classroom space, as one class. On the other hand, it could mean a class of students.

Because the School Act does not define the word class, it is vital that in this legislation the intent of the government is clear so that there is no fear generated in the hearts of the parents who are out there, so they don't have to worry that their children may face a situation where they are being segregated into a class of students of special needs in one class by themselves

and so that there is no opportunity for that to happen. By a simple change…. It really is a very simple but important change to simply say that the different categories of special needs children will be addressed in the appropriate way here and to ensure that special needs children are not going to be segregated and that Bill 28 would not create segregation for the special needs children.

I'm going to have one more attempt at this. I hope the minister will set aside his arrogance for just one moment…

J. Kwan: …in the name of the students, Mr. Chair, and contemplate the fear that is felt by the parents around this issue. They have phoned us around this issue, and they're very concerned about it. I am tabling this recommendation with sincerity, in the hope that the minister would actually adopt this amendment so that there is clarity for the parents who are in fear for their children.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is right. This is an issue that doesn't deserve to be trivialized, and it certainly isn't an issue that deserves to be used as a political football in partisan bickering in the House.

The issues of special needs children, the issues they face every day, are incredibly important, and the fights that parents of special needs children have had on their behalf have been hard-won battles. To use legal drafting language, which is appropriate legal drafting language, to call into question somehow this government's commitment to the integration of children who have special needs in our schools is really beyond the pale.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to offer this comment for the House and this clarification.

This government remains firmly committed to the integration of children with special needs. We remain committed to that principle, because children who have special needs benefit from being integrated, and typical children in school benefit from integration as well. It's a principle that this government remains committed to, and I hope anyone watching, anyone who reads Hansard and anyone who refers to these debates won't for one second believe the fearmongering on the other side of the House. This issue is much, much too important for that.

J. MacPhail: The gall that that government has, to stand up and somehow say that we're fearmongering, when all we're trying to do about a poorly drafted bill that changes the way children are taught — upside down, inside out — is somehow fearmongering….

The people who are calling us are parents of autistic children who don't trust the Liberal government on their commitment to anything.

J. Kwan: I wonder if either minister — the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Education — has seen the School Act and the Special Needs Services: A Manual of Policies, Procedures and Guidelines, "Special Considerations for Individual Planning." I wonder if they've seen that, because it doesn't define the word class in the School Act. And here, by adding a new section — section 18.1 — to the School Act through this legislation, it introduces a new word that is not defined and has vital, vital significance for children with special needs.

If the intent of government is to maintain integration in the classroom for children with special needs, and if the intent is not to segregate, then there ought not to be any difficulties in making sure that this piece of legislation, Bill 28, clearly outlines that. It's simple to do that. All you have to do is accept the amendment by inserting the word category — or "categories" as the case may be, where it applies — to replace "class" and "classes" respectively.

The only thing, it appears to me, that is stopping this government from doing that, quite frankly, is their own arrogance.

J. Kwan: Or a hidden agenda. The government has a choice to either decide that they will make their intention clear, in black and white, in this legislation…. They could easily do that by simply adopting the amendment that has been tabled.

Hon. G. Bruce: Further to the words of the Minister of Education and the concern that we know is there with people, we just wanted to make sure, and we've done a double-check so the members can be assured of this. We've checked with legislative counsel, who happen to be a very professional group of people who've drafted this legislation. They've rechecked in regards to the phraseology and the correct words. This is the correct word.

In respect to law, "category" would have a different meaning and would not be applicable in this situation. This, they believe, although sounding awkward, in a sense, to how the lay ears of all of us may hear it…. Their advice is that this is the correct word and that we should not raise the fears of people, albeit there are questions being raised. This word that is here is the correct word.

J. Kwan: On section 6, the issue that I'd like to talk about now is school year continuity and the assignment of special needs assistants.

Section 18.1(2), (a) to (e), discusses what the government is doing here. That is, the government's trying to decide what special needs children in the system

must require the same special education assistant on a regular basis for the entire school year. They're going to create two categories — class or classes — of students that special education assistants will work under.

They're generally called low- or high-incidence students. The high-incidence student generally requires one-on-one care because of a number of severe disabilities or medical needs. They're going to assess the students annually to make sure that they require one-on-one care and if the special education assistant has to continue to give continuity of care.

There are reasons for some of this, but in some or perhaps in most districts this issue has been worked out on the ground, and this is where it needs to be dealt with. There are some children, such as children with autism, for whom, because of the nature of the disability, having the same person working with them helps them behave and learn better.

Many districts have reorganized this. In 1999 the union and the employer in Surrey negotiated a provision that allows for full one-year assignments of special education assistants for a variety of categories of children. There was a provision negotiated in the K-to-12 accords in 2000 with CUPE and funding flows. The government and the employers agreed that workers in the sector would not be laid off between September 30 — when the final class sizes are reported to government — and the end of the school year. The reason for this is that the school district continues to receive the funding based on these figures. The union agreed, too, to forgo bumping rights during the school year when a layoff occurred. All bumping occurs during the summer so that there are no disruptions on the issue around continuity impacting special needs children.

The government has been heavy-handed in the writing of this legislation. It has been promoted by the president of the BCCPAC, who is now being called a member of the Liberal caucus, I suspect, because she's continually meeting with the government on the legislation.

The union has not held a gun to the heads of the employers in districts across the province. Employers have freely negotiated these provisions — some of them in the last few years. Those were negotiated by the districts.

Special education assistants know and care for the students they work for and work with. They understand the need for good quality care. They do. There's no question about that. I've met many of them. I've spoken with many of them. But the system is structured in a way where certified special education assistants do not get full-time hours.

In Surrey, for instance, out of the 600 special education assistants, only 12 have full-time hours. Many work 20 hours a week. These are special education assistants who go through a two-year college program to be certified. Workers would not stay in the field if they could not gain enough hours to make it worthwhile. Many could make better money working at minimum wage. The union has been trying to gain more hours for special education assistants, because workers cannot live on the low wages and because children do not benefit by the lack of support.

Bumping occurs because workers are trying to preserve as many hours as they can according to their seniority. If they are laid off and cannot retain as many hours as they can, they'll leave the system. Highly skilled, certified special education assistants will leave the system. There goes the quality of the education system.

School boards understand this, but neither the government nor the BCCPAC nor even principals do. They're only concerned about the complaints received from parents when a special education assistant leaves or goes to another school or to another assignment. You have to go beneath that to find out why it is that they leave.

The solution to these problems needs to be worked out at the local level and not by regulation by the provincial government. School districts across the province have different service delivery models. Some are now team-based, even with the children that require continuity of care. The partner groups that work in the system need to sit down at the local level and work them out.

The result of this legislation could be that there are a larger number of grievances arbitrated to clarify the legislation. It would be prudent if the legislation clarified the roles of the union, the partner groups and the school districts. The unions should be able to meet with the employer on a regular basis to fix problems with the implementation of the legislation and the regulations. A district-based committee is the best way to make this happen.

On section 6, in relation to section 18(2), (a) to (e), I have a series of amendments — six in total in this area. It speaks to all of the things I have just mentioned. I'm going to begin by tabling the first amendment, which I understand the Clerk has a copy of, if the Clerk will give a copy to the minister. The amendment is as follows:

I'll just take a moment to let the Clerk find that amendment and give that to the minister.

J. Kwan: As I said earlier, the amendment allows the school districts to meet with the partner groups in

the education system to develop a category of students with special needs to ensure that the continuity of care they require is in place, based on the current system of evaluating special needs students in the ministry special education manual, section E, "Special Considerations for Individual Planning."

The whole notion is to foster cooperation, to recognize that in the system there are a number of people who have valuable contributions to make in terms of that determination and to ensure that the partnership takes place. I trust that this is an amendment that the minister will accept.

Hon. C. Clark: The member raised a number of points, and I want to try to do a few of them, if I can.

First, the intent of this section is to protect special needs children. It's to protect special needs children in cases where their learning assistants are bumped in the middle of the year because of seniority provisions in a union contract. It's the government's view, very much, that that is not good for these children.

Many children who have special needs require continuity in their relationships in order to learn well. That's key to their school success. We're putting students first, but we are particularly concerned about making sure that students with special needs have a fair shake as well. We want to make sure that in districts where seniority or union contracts allow that continuity of a relationship to be broken, we can do something to fix it. That's the intent of this piece of legislation.

The member has pointed out that there are a number of districts, quite a few districts out there, where they have language that allows this kind of bumping, allows that continuity in a school year to be broken — which is certainly no good for those children — where the union and the employer have found a way around the problem. What we're attempting to do with this section is to ensure that all districts find a way around that problem, because we know it isn't good for kids. We know it's not good for kids, because parents of special needs children tell us that. Parents of typical kids tell us that.

You know, I'm not going to apologize for one second for meeting with the parents association of British Columbia. Heck, they're a key partner. They are one of the most important ingredients. They are the single most important ingredient in a child's learning success. Every single piece of evidence demonstrates that the more a parent is involved in his or her child's education, the better that child will do.

We want to encourage parents to be involved in our education system — absolutely we do. As minister, I've made a point of meeting with parents as much as I can and talking to them about the issues that are important to them.

The other thing that I would add is that this section speaks to one of the concerns that was raised in the special ed review that the member's previous government — that she was a part of — commissioned. The special ed review of course reported to her government as well. That special ed review they commissioned said that the government should look at doing something about this.

Yes, we want to protect the interests of special needs children. Yes, we recognize that there are unions and employers out there who found a way around the problem. Yes, we want to ensure that all of them try and find a way around that problem. Yes, we want to make sure that parents and students are put first on the agenda, and yes, we want to respond to the concerns that were identified by the special ed review that was commissioned by the previous government.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that through this legislation that's being tabled, when it passes, all of those agreements that have been worked out between the districts and the unions in resolving the issue around continuity are void. They no longer exist.

To suggest that bringing forward this legislation would actually assist special needs children in the different districts throughout British Columbia is wrong. The Kimberley collective agreement contains the clause that reads as follows: "Trained assistants shall be provided for assisting special needs students who require help with toileting, changing of clothing, eating, mobility, administering medication or providing other medical procedures. Teachers shall not be required to carry out the aforementioned procedures on a regular or predictable basis."

That clause is in the Kimberley collective agreement, but as a result of the amalgamation through the act under Bill 27 that was passed earlier on this evening, that clause is now gone. That agreement is gone, because it has been subsumed by another agreement. It has been lost.

How does that provide for and ensure that special needs children in Kimberley will get the assistance they need through amalgamation? This clause in the Kimberley collective agreement is now gone. It doesn't exist anymore, and that does not help the children with special needs in Kimberley.

Hon. C. Clark: I think it's important to point out for the member that the bill actually provides the minister with reg-making power, so the intent of this is to go out and speak to the parties and see how it's worked in districts where it has worked. We know that there are districts, as I've said, where the union and the employer have found ways to ensure that that continuity of a relationship is maintained. We want to go out and talk and consult and find a way to make it work.

J. MacPhail: Well, good. Another "trust us" clause, but the minister is not addressing the issue that we're addressing here. The Kimberley agreement, 45 minutes ago, was blown up by the government by amalgamation. It's gone — blown up, gone. Another agreement has taken over that doesn't have this provision in it for training for special needs students.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm going to be much relieved, then. The Kimberley agreement still exists. How long will it still exist, with this protection?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is referring to the previous act, and the previous act didn't amalgamate the CUPE agreements.

J. Kwan: The fact is that with Bill 27, through the amalgamation process of Bill 27, the Kimberley collective agreement has been subsumed through the amalgamation into another district, and they have lost the provision to ensure that there would be trained assistants for children with special needs in the classroom. Now, with the amalgamation process, that protection for the children in Kimberley is gone.

The minister asserts that this bill is to provide continuity, to provide flexibility. I want to make sure that in those words, especially the word flexibility, which the minister is so fond of, it doesn't mean that it's so flexible that the special needs assistance that the children get is flexed out of the window so that they don't even get any of it. That's what the minister has done under Bill 27, and in this section of the act, it goes right to the core of making sure continuity and protection of special needs children's services are in place.

Hon. C. Clark: I do want to clarify for the member. I don't think she's reading the legislation quite clearly, so I will clarify for her. The intent of this section is not to refer to the teachers collective agreement. It refers to support staff collective agreements. In the example of Kimberley, where the agreements have been amalgamated, those were teachers agreements that were amalgamated, and we're not talking about teachers agreements here.

J. MacPhail: I just want, for the record, for those members who somehow think that this debate is silly…. Our office is being flooded with calls from parents of special needs, who are extremely concerned about this debate — flooded with calls. Somehow, the members here say that we're fearmongering.

This particular collective agreement goes to the point where you are suggesting that these provisions for special needs students and continuity are somehow what this whole bill is all about. Yet what you purport to give with one hand you are taking away with another — the government is. What this government is taking away, on another hand, is the provision under a teachers collective agreement that is now blown up, gone, as of 45 minutes ago, that provides assistance for special needs students in the educators, the teachers, collective agreement.

All we are pointing out to all of the parents who have special needs students is: don't be fooled by this clause that we're discussing right now as if it's a protection for special needs. Elsewhere, the government has blown up, voided and buried whole collective agreements that have protection for assistance for special needs students and replaced those collective agreements with others that don't have protection.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think anyone in British Columbia, particularly parents of special needs children and especially not special needs children themselves, are well served by the tone of this debate. Clearly, the member opposite misunderstands this legislation. It does not apply to the teachers agreement. It does not wipe out protections that are there. This section is there to enhance protections for special needs children, because this government believes that special needs children and their learning needs should come before the requirements of collective agreements.

We believe that special needs children should be treated as unique individuals. We believe that special needs children have a right to have continuity in their relationships in their schools. We believe that those things should take precedence over mathematical formulas in collective agreements. We do not believe that the right of someone in a union to have seniority should take precedence over the rights of children with special needs to have continuity in their relationships, which is so essential to their learning success. That is what this section is about, and the members opposite fundamentally misunderstand the intent of the bill, and they are misrepresenting — unintentionally, I'm sure — what's happening here.

This bill will not address the teachers agreements that have been amalgamated. This bill refers to special needs teaching assistants who are members of support staff unions. In most cases, not in every case, those will be CUPE agreements and Teamsters agreements. Again, and I want to stress this, this is a regulation-making power. It gives the minister the opportunity to go out and consult with the parties and try to find a solution. There are many examples in British Columbia of unions and employers that have found solutions because they know that the needs of special needs children should come first. We want to go out and talk to the parties. We want to find out how they made it work, and we want to make those changes work for every special needs child who has a teaching assistant. That is the right thing to do.

Again, I don't think special needs children and the parents of special needs children are being well served by a debate where some members in this House would imply that this will put special needs children at risk. It will not. It will not. This section of the legislation has been created in order to protect those special needs children, to protect them for the first time in a way that no government has ever moved to do before.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the Kimberley collective agreement that contains the clause that protects special needs children has been amalgamated through Bill 27, and that clause is now lost. The clause

that guarantees special needs children's support is there in the classroom has been eliminated by this imposed contract and the guarantee is lost.

It worries me. It worries me greatly. It causes me great concern, because I have many special needs children in my community. I know how important the special needs assistant's support is for each of the children, for the parents and for the other children, as well, because it puts the other children at risk.

By the stroke of a pen, through imposed legislation, the minister is putting these special needs children at risk. If the minister doesn't actually know that, she ought to go and get the collective agreements so that she can go through them and make sure that she goes through that information and make sure that the children's interests are addressed first and foremost.

	YEAS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan
	NAYS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

The Chair: We will return to section 6. We'll give it a few moments, just to clear the House. Thank you.

J. Kwan: I have another amendment to make. This one is to deal with section 6 again. The amendment is that section 6 be amended by adding the following subsection 18.1(2)(b.2):

A copy of the amendment has been tabled with the Clerk. I would ask that the Clerk please give the minister a copy of the amendment.

J. Kwan: The amendment is a simple one but an important one. I know that in talking with parents, particularly when they have a special needs child in the school system, they inform me how important it is that they get a group of people who could advise them on how best to improve the education or the opportunities of learning for their children. This amendment speaks to ensuring that there will be a committee of the employer and the union.

When I say "the union," they're essentially people who provide for the services in the school system to the children. Especially in light of the notion that continuity is important and knowing the child's interests is important, it follows that the people who provide for those services, the service providers — in this instance, the teachers, the special needs assistants, the people who are part of the union — be involved in this process when they implement section 18.1(2)(b), which prescribes one or more classes of students with special needs, in trying to determine the issues arising for the classes of students with special needs.

Hon. G. Bruce: The issue here before us is a public policy issue that we have. This amendment doesn't follow to where we as government wish to go. The government will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Kwan: I was hoping the minister would actually stop for a moment, steer away from their public policy mantra and perhaps just think for a moment of the students in this instance, particularly the special needs students in the classroom. In my area, I tell you, Mr. Chair, I have a lot of special needs kids, and I've met with a lot of the PACs and the parents. They are very concerned about their children and their learning opportunities, the learning environment of their children.

All this asks is for a committee to be set up that includes everybody who has an interest in the special needs children's learning outcomes. That's all. There's no hidden agenda about it. It's just to involve the people who are the care providers in the system to make sure they're at the table with the interests of the special needs children at heart. I hope the minister will reconsider in support of this amendment.

J. Kwan: On section 6, I have another amendment to table. This one is to amend section 6 by adding the following subsection, section 18.1(2)(f):

A copy of the amendment has been tabled to the Clerk, and I ask that the Clerk please give a copy to the minister.

J. Kwan: Speaking to the amendment. Again, this is not an earth-shattering change by way of an amendment. It simply spells out that for the special education assistants that are not captured by the categories determined under section 18.1(2)(b), their rights under the collective agreement would not be affected by this legislation.

If it is the intent of government not to impact or change those rights in any event, it simply spells it out clearly. There are no issues around that. It's a simple amendment, I think. Again, it goes to creating a level of comfort, a level of clarity in this legislation, particularly in this instance for the people who are not affected, so that they know they're not affected and that their rights are indeed protected under the existing collective agreement.

Hon. G. Bruce: With the greatest of respect, we believe that the issue is already canvassed and covered by subsection (4), and the government will not be supporting this amendment.

J. Kwan: On section 6, I have another amendment. This amendment is to amend section 6 by adding the following section, 18.1(2)(c.1):

A copy of the amendment has been given to the Clerk, and I ask that a copy be given to the minister.

J. Kwan: The amendment, again, just makes it clear that there is a requirement for the boards to assess a child, a student, who's been referred to the board by a teacher in the classroom who might suspect that the child may have a particular special need and to ensure that that assessment takes place to determine whether or not that child falls under the prescribed category of students with special needs in this act.

This is particularly important for the assurances of the children — once again, with the children's interests at heart. I worried, you see, that sometimes the assessment process may not take place for a student, especially when the teacher might have identified that. If it doesn't take place, it could be because of pressures like funding pressures, that could exist in a district. If those funding pressures, exist and no assessment is done, then the child misses the opportunity for the evaluation and the determination whether or not special assistance needs to be provided to further the learning opportunities for that child.

This amendment is made with the children's interests at heart. I hope the minister will consider the needs of the children — the potential special needs children — that have been identified by the teacher in the classroom and referred to the board so that, at least at minimum, an assessment takes place.

Hon. C. Clark: The government won't be supporting the amendment. As I said, this section is a regulation-making section. It will give the minister the ability to go out and consult with the parties about the best way to find solutions for those special needs children that have been left unaddressed for a long time — at least a decade.

I do want to make just two points for the record. The first one is with respect to the member's comments earlier that this would mean that for districts which had amalgamated their teachers' contracts, suddenly the protections for special needs children, where they had been able to work them out in the bumping procedures, would somehow cease to exist.

Just for the member's clarity here — because I think she sat down still not believing me — this amends section 18 of the School Act. Section 18 of the School Act says: "A board may employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in carrying out their responsibilities and duties under this Act and the regulations. Persons employed under subsection (1) must work under the general supervision of a teacher or administrative officer." It is very clear that we are not referring to the BCTF contracts in this piece of legislation, so I want to make that clear for her, and I hope that helps.

The second thing I want to add is this: both members have raised some concerns about the use of the word class as a drafting word. I really don't want to leave the suggestion on the floor of this House that somehow this government is not committed to special needs children and their particular learning needs by the language that we've used.

I would point the member to other acts that have governed this province for years that also use the word class as drafting language. I would point her to the Civil Rights Protection Act, which also uses that word. One would think that if that was a word intended to be anything other than one used for clarity in drafting and one that's used to talk about people in a non-pejorative sense, it would certainly be in the Civil Rights Protection Act. I hope that can put the member's mind at rest about both questions she's raised.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's redo the entire piece of legislation. We've got all evening.

The minister still doesn't get it. Civil rights protection dealing with classes doesn't also describe, in other sections, a physical classroom. That's the issue that parents are calling us on as we speak.

It is unbelievable that the minister, in her clarification, exhibits her lack of understanding of what parents are concerned about. Does the Civil Rights Protection Act talk about a class as a physical structure as well? No, but this legislation does.

Oh, I feel so badly for these parents, who cannot get this government to understand what their concern and fear is about. A class in this legislation refers to a physical entity as well as a category of students. What the parents who are calling over and over again are afraid of is that this government, in its cost-cutting ravaging of the education system, is going to put students with special needs in a class — a physical class.

Hon. C. Clark: At this stage in the debate and at this late hour, it would be very, very easy for those of us on the government side of the House to begin to engage in the partisan bickering that we've seen from the opposition benches tonight. I am not going to engage in that level of partisan bickering this evening. The reason I am not going to do that is because this issue is far, far too important to be reduced to a political football, to be used for political ends by people in this Legislature.

This is drafting language that is common in the province of British Columbia. The fears that the member opposite is trying to create — trying deliberately to create — are completely unfounded. It is totally, totally irresponsible for members of this House to engage in these kinds of issues and treat them as though they were political footballs, merely there for us to make political points.

This section of this act is being created to protect special needs children — to protect them and ensure that the continuity in their education is protected from the consequences of collective agreements when seniority provisions kick in. That's what we're attempting to do here today.

I know the members opposite have some difficulty in putting aside their partisan differences on some things. I recognize that is certainly their right, but I would ask that we lower the temperature in the House tonight and recognize how important this issue is, that we elevate the level of discussion a little bit, talk factually about the issues before us and start treating this issue with the importance that special needs children deserve and that parents of children with special needs also deserve.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the minister has just demonstrated her clear lack of understanding on the issue relating to the word class as it is applied in the context of the School Act. In civil action elsewhere, they actually don't talk about the context of a classroom as a structure. If the minister's claims that she's talked to many parents are indeed true, then she would have talked to parents — at least some of them, I would have assumed — who had concerns around this definition and how it could be applied and how it could impact on their children. This issue was brought to our attention by parents who phoned our office…

J. Kwan:…and continue to, because they're very concerned about the impact of it.

The minister surely must acknowledge how the word class could be defined differently, but she refuses to see that. Then she goes about bringing examples that are completely irrelevant to the classroom and somehow acts as though she knows the definition of class and knows that for the protection of the children, the different terminology of "class" and "category" — and those two words in their distinction — could have a tremendous impact on children. But she couldn't care less about that. She couldn't care less. It's absolutely a shame, minister. It's a shame.

It's the parents who are concerned, who are worried and expressing their concerns through this chamber to ensure that their concerns are heard. You know what? Clearly the minister is going to do this: see no evil, hear no evil. Those concerns don't exist for her. She fails to acknowledge that these two words are significant and that they are distinct in the context of the School Act.

Segregation versus integration. Class by way of categories of special needs. I asked the minister the question, with respect to the amendment 18.1(2)(c.1), which requires the boards to assess a student referred to a board by a teacher to determine whether or not a student falls into a prescribed category of students with special needs. I asked the minister that question, and she failed to address this question. She somehow reverted back to the issue of class and demonstrated once again that she didn't understand the real issues that concern parents.

I'll ask the minister this once again, on the establishment of the board required to assess a child, or student, if you will, who falls into the category of students with special needs, to make sure that that requirement is in place.

J. Kwan: "Don't worry" — from the Minister of Human Resources, who's just cut seniors' bus passes.

J. Kwan: Indeed, the level of maturity that's displayed in this House, my goodness.

On section 6, the series of amendments that I've made relating to 18.1(2), (a) to (e), address a variety of things. All of them put together simply ensure that when children need an assessment by the school district, by the boards, to determine whether or not they have a special need and, if so, what category, and that's been identified by the teacher in the classroom, we require that to happen to make sure that those children don't slip through the cracks.

The amendment ensures that the students, the educators and the employers all come together to form a special education committee to address these issues together, collectively, to advance the learning environment for students. The amendment ensures that partner groups are involved in the process.

All of this speaks to process, one could argue. But the process of inclusion would be important in a broader sense — inclusion involving teachers, parents, special needs educators, employers, everybody — so that all of the best thoughts and considerations are taken together to formulate an approach to deal with children with special needs.

That's what the amendments put together address — all of them. All of them have been rejected by this government. They refuse to acknowledge that teachers in the classroom dealing with special needs would actually have something to contribute. Even when a teacher points out that he or she may believe that a particular student needs to be assessed, even then that advice is going to be cast aside. That doesn't help the children. It doesn't give comfort to the parents who have the special needs children in the classroom — not at all.

It is really a shame that the minister and the government refuse to step out of their prescribed box and open it up to allow and invite these valued individuals, professionals, caring people into the picture. Not only would they, I think, provide valuable information, but they would also allow for the beginning of fostering a cooperative environment by showing people that they respect each other and each other's contribution, and then they would put their heads together for solutions.

With respect to section 18.1 that's been tabled, which is section 6 of this act, I'm going to be voting against this act.

	YEAS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee stand recessed until 8:30 p.m.

J. Kwan: Section 7 speaks to the school meals program. I'd like to ask the minister a question. In terms of the school meals program, are there any districts in British Columbia where there's a problem with the school meals program, and where does the application of this section of the act apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: What this section deals with, of course, is the school meals program that we have in a number of schools throughout British Columbia. What we want is to be able to provide it so that where there is an ability to put in place a school meals program, as many children as possible are able to be served.

J. Kwan: The question is: to what school district does this section of the legislation apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is enabling legislation. It applies to all of the 60 school districts in our area. Some may take advantage of it, and some may not take advantage of it.

J. Kwan: Which school districts will have their terms changed as a result of this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: This would apply only to those school districts — or a school district — that have a school meals program right now. If you're talking about the change, it would only affect those school districts that currently have a school meals program. If the school district wished to contract it out, then that would be the change. Any school district that currently doesn't have a meals program or a contract is not affected by this. They can contract it out or do it in any other way they want. Only those that currently have a school meals program, that decided that they wished to effect a different process through the contracting out of it…. That would be the effect that I believe you're asking.

J. Kwan: Is the minister aware of any one particular school district that wishes to contract out their school meals program?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is enabling legislation. It's a flexibility issue we're driving at. We want to make sure that if there's a way to deliver school meals to as many different students throughout British Columbia as possible, the tools are there for them to do that.

J. Kwan: In all of the school districts in British Columbia that provide for a school meals program, have there been any school districts that has brought the matter to the minister's attention as an issue, whereby they want to contract out their meals program?

Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that I have my glasses, I'll be able to hear better. Sorry, just a little levity here at 25 to nine, but that's fine.

There are 350 schools that operate a school meals program. We're hopeful that by this enabling legislation, there will be other districts, as well, that might want to take advantage of it. Of those 350 school districts, there are some that have a situation where they may wish to contract out, or they may not wish to contract out. This enabling legislation allows for the greatest flexibility so that we can serve the interests of the students.

J. Kwan: Isn't it the case that there's only one school district that wants to contract out the school meals program?

Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you for the question. That may very well be the case. There may be more than one. I don't think you want to focus simply on one. There are 350 schools that currently have a school meals program. There may be others. There may be a number of those that wish to take advantage of it. This is enabling legislation. The principle behind this is that we want to make sure that, where children need a school meal, there is a system in place that can allow for that.

J. MacPhail: There is only one school district that's affected by this, the Surrey school district. We are just curious as to why a provincial government has to legislate against a situation that exists in only one school district. Was there some request, and by whom was it, that you impose this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: All of this legislation that we brought forward has been on two principles: putting patients first and putting students first. In this instance here, what we're talking about is making sure that students that need meals can get meals by giving the school districts the greatest flexibility necessary to be able to deliver those meals. This isn't based on one particular school district. This is based on the guiding principle of putting students first.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry to disagree. Yes, it is based on only one school district, because the situation this collective agreement addresses exists in only one school district. It was the parent advisory council of that one school district. The representative of that is now the provincial representative, the president of the provincial parent advisory council.

There's only one school district that is impacted at all, and there is no issue in any other school district that is either requested or affected by this legislation. With whom did the minister consult in Surrey to introduce this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear, we said we were going to put students first. This is a part of the program. The whole emphasis on what we're doing here is putting students first. In this instance, it has to do with the school meals program. There are 350 schools that have school meals programs. There may be more that wish to be part of that. This is enabling legislation that allows those that find themselves in a collective agreement situation to find a more flexible way of delivering that meals program to the children beneficial and provide for a greater variety of flexibility in being able to do that.

J. MacPhail: I asked the minister whether there was someone — other than in the Surrey district with the then parent advisory council, now the person who is the president of the provincial organization, other than that person — that asked for this change.

Hon. G. Bruce: This government has made it clear that we're going to put students first. We are putting students first. We're giving the school districts the tools they need to be able to follow through in putting students first.

In this particular instance, relative to school meals, consistent with the direction that we're taking in this sector, we didn't want anything inhibiting the school district from being able to deliver a school meals program. That's what this is. It's enabling legislation that allows that flexibility.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that there is only one school district that had a conflict with respect to the delivery of the school meals program. That is the school district of Surrey. That is a fact. In all of the other school districts that deliver the school meals program, the issues with CUPE and the school district of delivering the program have been resolved. There are no issues that exist elsewhere in the province, with the exception of Surrey. The union and the employer actually sat down and came to signed agreements that would address the school meals program. It's not an issue anywhere in the province, with the exception of Surrey. In all of the other school districts, the issues surrounding the delivery of the school meals program have been resolved at the local level.

The previous legislation has had no impact on the education system across the province, because CUPE and the other unions have had good relations at the district level and have always, always been able to work it out. This piece of legislation, this section of the legislation, really applies to only one school district, and that is the school district of Surrey. That's it. If the minister does not know this information, then he ought to consult his staff to get the information and ask his staff to confirm the facts that I have just laid out in this House.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, to come back to what we're doing here, this is enabling legislation. We're allowing the flexibility. If a district chooses to take advantage of it, they can do so, so that they can put the school meals program in such a way that enables them to serve more students. If they're able to work things out as they are, as you're mentioning, then obviously that school district won't take advantage of this particular piece of legislation. It's enabling legislation.

J. Kwan: In the only instance where this would apply, in the school district of Surrey, where contracting out takes place, will there be a requirement for criminal-record checks for volunteers or for the workers from the private company that's delivering the meal program?

Hon. G. Bruce: The school meals program, as it's laid out here…. As I've mentioned, this is the enabling legislation. The people that work in our schools and administer our school programs, whether as trustees or as principals and vice-principals, are all very qualified people. They're concerned and aware of anybody that is working within our schools, be it as volunteers, as coaching teams or with delivering the meals program. Let's not raise the spectre of a bogeyman and all of that sort of thing that you're going to try and raise again. This is quite simple — quite simple. This is enabling legislation.

We have said, as a government, that we're going to put students first. We think it's also important that where schools wish to have the opportunity to put in a school meals program, they have that opportunity to do so. We think it's also appropriate that if they need some flexibility in dealing with issues to make sure they can provide the most to their students in the best way possible, the most cost-effective way possible, then they should be given those tools to do so, because what we're actually talking about here is feeding students.

J. Kwan: I take it from the answer from the minister that there won't be criminal-record checks when the school meals program is contracted out by the school district to a private company. The government is actually putting children at risk by putting this legislation in place.

A copy of the amendment has been tabled with the Clerk's office. I ask the Clerk to please give a copy to the minister.

The Chair: I've had an opportunity to look at the amendment. It would appear that it is a direct negative. The amendment is out of order.

	YEAS — 71
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. Kwan: I have a lot of questions on section 8. This section speaks to the issue of class size, and it allows school boards the right to establish class size maximums and class composition. It removes from the agreement any reference to class size maximums or class composition. It gives all authority to the district to determine the assignment of students to classes, to determine the ratios of non-enrolling district staff and school-based staffing, to determine the caseload for specialist teachers or regular teachers. I have grave concerns around the changes that are being proposed in this legislation.

First, a question to the minister: why does this government feel it is necessary to tear up provisions that were freely negotiated at both the local and the provincial levels, provisions that go to the heart of the learning conditions for students and the working conditions for teachers and that have existed for 12 years or longer?

Hon. C. Clark: The government knows that the place to protect class size for children is in legislation, not in collective agreements. The reason the government knows that is because we know that if class size protections are just a chip at the bargaining table, they can be traded away. We also know that if class size protections are only something that can be discussed at the bargaining table, there are whole partners of our education community who do not have a say in those issues. It locks out parents. It locks outs principals and vice-principals. And for the most part, because of the way we negotiate collective agreements in British Columbia, it locks out school trustees — locally elected school trustees.

This government knows that the way to protect children is not necessarily to lock everything up in a collective agreement that's bargained at a bargaining table by two parties in a back room. The way to protect class size is to put it in legislation, which this government is doing for the first time in British Columbia's history.

We are saying that class size protections are so important that they should be a matter of public policy. They should not be left to be a bargaining chip at the bargaining table, where so few parties have a say in how class protections will look. They should be a matter of public policy. We should allow the voices of parents, school trustees, administrators and, of course, teachers into determining what is best for the children in our classes and in our schools. They need to make those decisions not based on formulas that are contained in collective agreements. They need to make those decisions based on the students themselves. They need to look at each individual student and say, "What does this child need?" because that's what providing a good education is all about. It's about taking each child — each child, one by one, in his or her uniqueness — and saying: "How do we create an environment for this child to learn?"

The only way we can do that is if we take things like class size protection, put them in legislation, allow a whole school community to have a voice in how we manage our schools, how they're composed and how they're organized. This is about putting students first. It's about saying that a school should be a learning place first and a workplace second. It's about making sure that students — every unique, individual student — is at the centre of every decision that we make in education.

J. Kwan: The minister speaks to the issue of flexibility in terms of determining class size. The fact of the matter is that flexibility already exists in the collective agreement right now. It already exists, to ensure that there is that flexibility.

The minister pretends that somehow lifting the class size will actually enhance the learning environment for students and the teaching environment for teachers, when, in fact, she's jeopardizing the minimum guarantees of maximum class size that impact the learning outcomes for students. We know that smaller class size is advantageous to children's learning. We know that; that's been established. Research upon research has already established that.

Will the minister guarantee that school districts will have sufficient resources provided by the ministry to meet the needs of all the students with special needs?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member would have the House believe that somehow this government doesn't recognize that class size limits are important in kindergarten to grade 3. That's something her government recognized, and it's something this government continues to recognize. This legislation entrenches that in statute for the very first time.

Previous governments, who also recognized that limits for kindergarten to grade 3 were important, decided that the place to put those was in collective agreements where they could be traded away like bargaining chips on a bargaining table. I differ with that view. I think that strict class size limits from kindergarten to grade 3 are important. In fact, I think they are so important that the place for them is not in collective agreements; it's in legislation.

J. Kwan: The question to the minister is: will the minister guarantee that the school districts will have sufficient resources provided by the ministry to meet the needs of all the students with special needs?

I have already said earlier that class size and the flexibility that the minister speaks of is already in place. In fact, to the contrary, what this legislation does is actually create less flexibility in the classroom in terms of the class size issue.

You know, I want an assurance from the minister that there would be sufficient resources provided to

classrooms for special needs children in British Columbia. Will she rise up today and give that assurance, give that guarantee that there would be sufficient resources in place for the children of British Columbia in the area of special needs in their classrooms?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said, this government is making a big change in the way we run our education system. We are saying that for the first time in quite a while, students are going to be at the centre of our decision-making. Part of that is giving school districts the ability to be able to take each child in his or her own uniqueness and say: "What does this child require?"

I would submit that the previous government's approach of locking the treatment of children into collective agreement language did exactly the opposite: it treated every single child like he or she was the same. It was a cookie-cutter approach that ignored the fact that every child is different and unique. It ignored the fact that special needs children in particular require a careful look and a careful decision about how we will provide supports for them. Those children deserve better than to have these kinds of things locked up in collective agreements. They deserve better than a one-size-fits-all approach. They deserve better than a cookie-cutter approach.

What we are offering in this legislation is an approach that says: "We recognize that every child is unique. We recognize that special needs children deserve to be treated as unique." That is exactly what this legislation allows.

J. Kwan: The question on the issue of resource is paramount. By taking away the basic guarantee that there would be limits on class size, that there would be special needs assistants in the classroom and that those resources would be there, the minister ignores the importance of those issues as they relate to the issue of resources.

A district could actually not have sufficient resources to provide for those services. They could have that situation, no matter what flexibility you give them. The fact of the matter is that they would have insufficient resources to do their job, to make sure that every single child has that protection.

The minister is unable, unwilling, to provide that guarantee to all the children in British Columbia who need special needs — that they would be able to get access to special needs in the classroom. How can larger class sizes and fewer numbers of specialists and support teachers improve the learning environment?

Hon. C. Clark: The purpose of this bill is to allow school districts and school communities to focus on children and their uniqueness. It's to say: "We think that children's unique needs are what we should be focusing on, not just adult working conditions." That's the reason the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils supports this change. That's the reason the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association supports this change. That's the reason the B.C. school trustees, locally elected people, support this change. That's the reason that people like Cathy Abraham, who is the co-chair of the North Vancouver parent advisory council, who is indeed a mother of a special needs child herself, support this legislation. They know that special needs children particularly need to be treated as unique. We need to recognize that they may need a whole wide, different number of solutions to the challenges they face in school. That is what this legislation is intending to do.

J. Kwan: The legislation lifts the ratio of non-enrolling district staff and school-based staffing. It lifts the ratio for specialist teachers or regular teachers in the classroom, in the district. Taking away that basic guarantee, the minimum of specialists that need to be in the classroom, does not help or give comfort to parents who have children who need that special assistant or the specialist's support.

How will the minister guarantee that the level of services of the non-enrolling and specialist teachers will not be reduced or eliminated now that they are not protected by the collective agreement?

Hon. C. Clark: The issue with the non-classroom teachers is this: in 1998 the previous government set down some ratios in collective agreements for the mix of non-classroom teachers that a district absolutely had to have in order to meet their collective agreement obligations. That mix that they required school districts to have didn't necessarily reflect the needs of the school districts at the time it was brought in, much less now. I would argue — and I think the member would probably agree — that population shifts and the needs of school districts certainly change.

If it didn't meet the needs then, I think it's probably pretty fair to argue that it doesn't meet the needs now. School districts, by being forced into strict ratios about the numbers of non-classroom teachers and the kinds of non-classroom teachers that they have, really have their ability to be able to meet students needs put at a huge disadvantage.

I want to give the member just a very quick example. The previous government decided that the Vernon school district needed to have an ESL ratio — that's English as a second language — of 13½ teachers for every single student. Vernon has a small number of ESL students. They live in a highly integrated community, and most of them use English in settings other than school. They may use it home, and they certainly use it out in the community.

Vancouver, on the other hand, in the previous government's deal, had a ratio of 57½ to 1. The member opposite has spoken repeatedly about her experience as an English-as-a-second-language student and how she's benefited from it — I think, growing up in Vancouver. She will know that Vancouver is a community where often some of those children are less integrated into the larger community. They may spend more time in their linguistic community. For many of them, their

Of course, it's a much, much larger population, so in a case like that, where Vernon has a ratio of 13½ to 1 and Vancouver has a ratio of 57½ to 1, I think it's pretty easy to make the case that those ratios were not set in place in a way that would allow school districts to meet the needs of the children in their schools. What we are saying in this legislation today is that we want to give school districts back the ability to decide the mix and the number of non-classroom teachers they have in their schools because they are the people who know best the needs of the children in their schools.

Locking it up in a collective agreement just means that we have mathematical formulas driving our decisions about children as opposed to the needs of those children. Not only that, locking up ratios in a collective agreement makes it impossible to adjust those mixes as our population shifts. I think that is a pretty reasonable, commonsense approach to this problem.

J. Kwan: The minister's wrong to say that the trustees know best in terms of what the needs are in the classroom. The trustees don't spend the time in the classroom. They don't deal with the children in the classroom and know what the needs are in the classroom and the classroom mix. You would've thought that one would argue that the people who know best about what's going on in an environment are the people who spend their time day in and day out — not just staff time but also their volunteer time — in the classroom and outside of the classroom. They are the people who actually know best.

You know, in the minister's approach, in the minister's ideology, in the minister's biased opinion, she's willing to cast out the people who spend their time in the classrooms day in and day out and who can actually make an assessment of what goes on in the classroom. They want to eliminate that expertise, devalue that expertise and not acknowledge that there's any level of expertise at all.

I have met with many teachers and many parents and children with special needs, and they all say to me that when they're talking about their child's issues, they go to the teacher to learn about what's going on with their child. The parents can go to the teachers, go to the special needs assistants. They talk to them. They don't go running to the school trustee and say: "Hey, how's my daughter doing in that special needs class?" Chances are, that trustee doesn't even know who that child may be. That is the real reality in the real world out there in the classrooms.

I have many, many children in my community who have special needs. I have many, many children in my community who are ESL. I have many, many children in my community who are faced with extraordinary challenges. I have to say that I sometimes wonder how these little young people manage to shoulder so many problems and the challenges they face. They manage it somehow. You know, they do. They show up at school, and the teachers are eager to be there to assist them. The assistants and all of them are eager to be there to help them.

I want to know from the minister: by lifting the ratio — especially for the areas where that ratio would be maxed out in terms of demands in all of the categories, whether they be ESL, special needs or any other special category — all of it would be maxed out. How will the minister guarantee that the level of services of the non-enrolling and specialist teachers would not be reduced in those districts?

Hon. C. Clark: I do want to clarify something the member implied. Perhaps she misunderstood my comments.

When I suggest that school districts are better able to make decisions about how to assign resources in classrooms, the people I mean…. They're better at doing it than are politicians in Victoria. That's how non-enrolling ratios got set into collective agreements. Politicians in Victoria decided what the ratios would be for the various districts across the province. I think it would be difficult to argue that politicians in Victoria would be in a good position to judge the needs of every individual school district, to be able to judge based on the mix of the students in that school district, better than school trustees.

Of course teachers should have a say in how non-enrolling teachers are deployed. So should vice-principals and principals. So should parents. But let's remember that the way the current deal is structured, it locks out all of those groups, including individual teachers. Those ratios are set in stone in a collective agreement years before an agreement finally gets renegotiated, and those teachers who work in those schools aren't able to change those mixes, even if they know that the mix that was set in a deal with politicians in Victoria no longer meets the needs of the students in their classroom. They're locked out of decisions just as much as parents, school trustees and administrators are locked out.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the negotiations that took place, which established the ratio both at the local level and at the provincial level, were freely negotiated. In fact, those working conditions for the teachers and the students have existed for 12 years or longer. They weren't imposed by anybody. They were freely negotiated at the local level. That is the truth. Those are the facts. To suggest that somehow there were some sweet side deals in all of that that created these ratios that are irrelevant in the classroom is complete nonsense.

If you actually look at the history of that, you'll know very clearly that the negotiations took place at the local level and that it was agreed to some 12 years ago. The ratios are important, particularly in the areas where there's so much demand in every single category for the specialist teachers in the community, for the non-enrolling teachers and the special needs assistants for the classrooms. Do you know why? It's because it guarantees a basic minimum.

I worry very much. I do. I worry very much, because before the holidays and during the holidays I met with many parents around the special needs issue. They've written to this minister, who didn't even bother to respond and just referred the letter to her staff for response and said: "Hey, this is not my problem. Go and talk to your school district."

Do you know what? Students found themselves having lost their special needs assistant in the new year when they moved from grade 2 to grade 3. Half of it is just gone — boom, gone. No discussion with the parents. This is coming from a minister who says she wants to ensure that parents are talked to. The school district made this decision with no discussion with the parents involved, no discussion with the teachers involved, no discussion with the special needs assistants involved. They just took away that resource.

I want the minister to guarantee that there are protections in place for resources for these children so that they, too, have an opportunity for learning, an opportunity to maximize their potential and an opportunity to realize their dreams.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member is misinformed if she believes that the 1998 collective agreement was freely negotiated with school districts. It was not.

The agreement was made, we know, pretty much out of the Premier's Office. The non-enrolling ratios that were forced into that agreement were not the subject of any kind of free negotiation in that discussion. The proof of that is the fact that when the deal went for a vote by school districts — who are the employer, who would be the people who would be freely negotiating these things — 86 percent of them voted against the deal. Now, that doesn't sound like a free collective bargaining process to me.

J. Kwan: The minister is wrong. The provisions relating to the ratios for special needs teachers, the non-enrolling teachers, the specialist teachers in the school were negotiated through the local level. They existed for some 12 years or longer, not just for the last couple of years. Those existed for much longer, and they were negotiated locally. The minister is dead wrong on that score.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm happy to correct the member. She's mistaken. The provincial collective agreement that brought in non-enrolling ratios on a provincial level was brought in in 1998, over the objections of school districts.

She may be referring to the fact that there were two school districts out of 60 which did have non-enrolling ratios. The fact remains that the 58 districts that did not have non-enrolling ratios, which I think she would agree is the vast majority, had this deal forced on them by the government of the day over their objections. The truth of it is that 86 percent of districts were so unhappy with the deal that was forced on them that 86 percent of them voted against it.

Hon. G. Bruce: Just to clear this up, the Minister of Education is correct. I have Bill 39, the Public Education Collective Agreement Act, in my possession.

Section 1: "Agreement in Committee, means (a) the Agreement in Committee signed on behalf of the government and the BCTF on April 17, 1998."

Here's the document; it's quite clear. We could move on to something that's relevant. You've missed it.

J. Kwan: The members think this is funny. They think it's funny, that somehow lifting the classroom size, lifting the ratio that guarantees a minimum — minimum — support for special needs children in the classroom, is somehow a joke. They think it's somehow humorous to acknowledge the students' needs at the forefront, that it's somehow funny.

You know, I invite the members in this House to come down to my riding and talk to the parents. I invite them to just read some of the letters that have been sent to them from the parents and educators around their concern about the lack of resources in the area of special needs and the huge fear they have of losing the minimum ratio that exists right now as a minimum guarantee for the children to make sure they access the service.

I'm sure the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development would be worried about that too. You would think the Minister for Early Childhood Development would want to make sure that those minimum guarantees are in place in the classrooms for the children who are in need. We'll see whether or not she speaks up for those children.

It's not just the issues for the children. It isn't. It's also for the people who provide their service. When you lose the service in the classroom, it not only makes it hard for the children with the special needs to get the education, it also makes it hard for the rest of the children who don't have special needs to gain attention and one-on-one direction, assistance and instruction from the teacher because of the lack of support.

If the classroom size increases, there's a double whammy because the teachers are now going to be dealing with a bigger classroom, more children and less individualized time for each of the students, coupled with the absence of special needs assistants, non-enrolling teachers who would provide support to the teacher in the classroom and who would provide the specialist support and education to the kids in the classroom. There's a double whammy because all of the children actually suffer. All of the children lose out.

Worse than that, what else will we lose? We lose specialists in the field whose heart and soul is to assist the children who are their dedication, their commitment, their career, their life. That's why they chose to become specialists in the classroom. You'll lose those, as well, because they would not be able to do their job properly, and they would see that the children are not getting the support they need. It would break their hearts. They will leave the system. It would escalate the shortage problem that we already face now and over the next ten years, where we're going to be running into a

situation where some 13,000 educators would be needed to fill our classrooms throughout British Columbia.

I'd like to read a letter into the record that goes right to the issue around class size and non-enrolling specialists. It goes right to that issue. It's dated January 25, 2002. It just came in.

The letter is lengthy, so I'm not going to read the whole letter. I've taken parts of it. It reads:

This just came in. The person who signed it is a Ms. Arlene Stern from Port Moody, the minister's riding. She works in Surrey, so the letter is directed to Surrey.

This legislation that the minister goes on to talk about, how it would benefit the children who have special needs…. I wonder what the minister's response is to Ms. Stern, a speech-language pathologist who has just resigned as a result of this minister's action.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is reading into the record a complaint from a teacher about the status quo, the status quo…

Hon. C. Clark: The teacher in her letter complains that she has an enormous caseload today under the current arrangement, which the previous government imposed on school trustees and on communities. What we are proposing today is to give school districts the ability to adjust the mix of the non-classroom teachers in their districts if they see a greater need.

At the moment, because of the way the previous government structured the ratios, because it was based on mathematical formulas instead of being based on the mix of the student population in their communities, it would mean that if they had a greater need in one area, it would necessarily go unmet.

What we are doing in this legislation is giving school districts the ability to adjust the mix of the non-classroom teachers in their districts, so if there is a great need in a particular area — like, for example, support for special needs children — they can enhance that support. They won't be locked in to artificial ratios that were bargained in Victoria between a Premier's Office and some union negotiators and forced on communities over their objections.

J. Kwan: I want to make sure the minister hears this correctly, so I'm just going to repeat a small piece of the letter around the concerns that have been raised by this individual, who is a speech-language pathologist. It says:

The letter is clear in saying that this speech pathologist is worried about the looming caseload that would increase in addition to what she's already faced with now, because of — what are we debating today in this Legislature? — the doing away with ratios for non-enrolling teachers and specialists.

To limit and take away those basic guarantees…. You come to the Vancouver school district and tell me that in the inner-city school district of Vancouver — Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, Vancouver East — we do not have more needs for resources for non-enrolling teachers and specialists and speech pathologists and for children who are dealing with autism. You come and tell me that….

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I am getting upset, because I've seen so many children who have such great needs in our community. This legislation threatens the very

well-being of those children — the children who are most vulnerable, who have hopes and dreams just like you and me.

For this minister to sit here and just laugh and brush it off and act as though it's not an issue…. I challenge this minister right now to get up and give me a guarantee that in all of the districts, with this legislation, the children will indeed be protected; that those children who need the assistance in the classroom, the teachers who need the assistance from the specialists in the classrooms for their children will be provided for; that the school districts will guarantee that that would actually take place. Then I will be happy to be silent. I challenge the minister to give me that guarantee right now in this House.

Hon. C. Clark: The point I'm making to the House today is that the current regime, the regime that the previous government put in place, does not provide those guarantees, I think, as the member quite passionately believes. The guarantees in her community have not been there, despite the fact that her government brought in non-enrolling ratios for teachers across the province.

The point I am making — and I can make it again; I'm happy to do that — is that the ratios don't reflect what's going on in local communities. What we are doing today is allowing school communities to decide what the mix should be of non-classroom teachers in their schools, based on the needs of the children in those schools. If there's a school that has a particular need for more special needs support, they will now be free to be able to do that.

That was a freedom that the previous government took away from school districts. That's why 86 percent of school districts voted against it. That's why groups like parents and school trustees and principals and vice-principals and superintendents don't support what the previous government did. They know it doesn't work. It never, ever works to try and apply a mathematical formula to a child, to say, "We have a mathematical formula here; we're going to apply it across the province for every child in every school, and we know it's going to meet the needs of those children," because it can't.

Every child is unique. Every school is different. Every community has its own peculiarities. We need to recognize that. That's what we are trying to do in this legislation: give school districts, school communities, the ability to resource their schools based on their needs. That is going to be an enormous, positive change from the approach that the previous government took.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to try and spend a few moments here going through what actually did take place over the last years. Many people in this room will be familiar with what actually did happen around this, but I'm just going to put it on the record about what the history has been around class size and then have a discussion about what a funding freeze means and what this legislation means.

…the government and the union. The school employers were not part of it, so the school employers didn't support it. There's no question about that. That time 86 percent did vote against it.

What happened was that the school employers, trustees and members of the BCTF, along with the ministry — some of whom are sitting in this room right now — came together and, in a very concerted way, worked out the differences and applied those differences. People sitting in this room today know that occurred, and that continued.

Then the memorandum was close to expiry. The school employers association and the union representing the teachers sat down — not with the government, but the government did say: "If you can agree, we'll fund." Oh, and by the way, the reduction in class sizes by the previous government was fully funded.

So the employers association and the union sat down and renegotiated a memorandum that was overwhelmingly ratified by the employers association and the union — overwhelmingly ratified, because you know what? The differences were worked out. A lot of people put a lot of time into working out the differences and still protecting the public policy — the good education principle — of reduction in class sizes. Last year it was ratified. Freely negotiated. The Minister of Labour likes to say that the parties have never been able to freely negotiate anything. I don't know why. I'm always shocked that the school trustees don't rise up and say: "Mr. Minister, you've got it wrong. We did freely negotiate this, and we ratified it." I don't know why the school trustees don't say that.

In the meantime, prior to their freely negotiating that, there was a letter signed by the parties that provided an incredible additional amount of flexibility in how the class size reduction would be applied. That was what was done. The rigidity was taken out of the original agreement. That was further modified by the agreement that was signed in 2001 by the two parties and was applied.

When I said in second reading yesterday that this legislation returns the rigidity to the system, that is exactly what I mean, and that is exactly what's going to happen. All of the flexibility, the huge range of flexibility that school boards and teachers were working to implement, is now gone. God forbid that the five-year-old on my block is the twenty-third child in a classroom, because she'll be schlepped somewhere else. God forbid that the seven-year-old is the twenty-fifth child, because he'll be schlepped somewhere else. We're back to the rigid system that this minister has the gall to stand up and say was a disaster. If it's such a disaster, why is it that we're back to there?

Let me just put to the lie another assertion by the minister that somehow removing the protections that

— you're right — weren't enough to deal with all the special needs…. There certainly wasn't enough there. As my colleague and I are from the city of Vancouver, every year, three or four times a year, we would meet with parents and teachers about the lack of money for special needs. The class size reductions and the non-enrolling guarantees were a way to deal with that. All of a sudden, not only are those guarantees gone for the parents and the students, but there's a funding freeze as well.

This minister has the gall to stand up and say, "Oh, we have taken away the guarantees for the children, and we've got a funding freeze, but don't you worry. The resources are going to be there for you" — no extra money. A funding freeze for three years, with new children coming into the system and all of the guarantees just stripped from the collective agreement…. It was just awful before, and it's a better new world.

Well, I know, and I will predict here, that special needs students will have fewer resources in every jurisdiction in this province, because you cannot take away guarantees and put in a funding freeze for three years and somehow suggest that special needs students will be better off. Go check your history.

Hon. G. Bruce: There's apparently history, and then there's history. It would be good to kind of move along through this, but I appreciate that you'd like to deal with the issue of how this thing all came to be. We have the contract, the collective agreement, and in that collective agreement, just going back, Bill 39, 1998…. You're aware of it and the agreement-in-committee signed on behalf of the government and the BCTF on April 17, 1998.

Also included in that was the agreement for the K-to-3 primary class, signed on behalf of the government, the BCTF, and that was appended to the agreement-in-committee. It did a number of things. It included a staffing formula, non-enrolling English-as-a-second-language teachers, appendix 8, article D.1, a staffing formula table, the K-to-3 primary class. I believe it was actually announced…. The employer found out about this deal, this particular agreement — I'm talking about Bill 39, 1998, this contract here that you're just talking about — at the time that the then Premier Glen Clark and Kit Krieger, who was the president of the BCTF, announced it.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, you see, that again is where we actually ought to go. Through the negotiation process that took place and the bringing together of the parties to try and come up with some sort of agreement, the parties were pretty much faced with a process where they had a gun to their head — about $45 million, I think, was how it was. The government money was an offer, and if agreement had not been reached in that instance, in the K-to-3 formula, they would not have been able to get that $45 million.

Hon. G. Bruce: They obviously very much wanted the $45 million, and that's why they agreed with the government at that time.

Hon. G. Bruce: Absolutely. They ratified it because they were told that if they didn't, they wouldn't get the $45 million, which of course they needed.

Hon. G. Plant: Here's your collective bargaining process working efficiently.

Hon. G. Bruce: Working efficiently. Here we have a situation where we are putting students first. The Minister of Education has very clearly explained what this section is about, what we are attempting to do here: provide the flexibility, open the situation so that all the participants can be part of this discussion so that we can protect those students and give them the very best education.

We can go back over history with the two of you. I know sometimes that you get annoyed with me, and I can appreciate that. People have said that in times past they've gotten annoyed with me. I know you get annoyed with me when I go over the past ten years, so I'm trying not to go over the past ten years.

I'd like to move on and so would the rest of British Columbia like to move on from the past ten years. You want to go back over the past ten years and these contractual arrangements that were made and the deals that were done. That's fine. There's the history. You have your view of history. Then there's the real word of history, of how it all transpired there and was documented. That's that part.

We have a bill before us that will actually improve the educational system in the province of British Columbia. What it does, in fact, is put students first. What it does is based on the premise of putting students first. We've gone through the educational things that need to be adjusted and have done that so that our students will get the very best education.

The Minister of Education has done a tremendous amount of work in bringing through a new program — a tremendous amount of consultation. As the Minister of Education continues to mention and list — and will list again for you, if you need — all of the parties that like what's being proposed here, that see the value in what we're doing here…. The value of what we're doing here is for the students. She has spent a great deal of time putting this together.

We have this bill here. We've got the act. We've been talking about it all. You've had your recount of the history — how you see it. I know you don't like how history is rolling out relative to how the rest of the provinces see it and what people see here in British Columbia. Unfortunately, that's what took place in the last ten years. As unfortunate as it is for you, it's even more unfortunate for the rest of the people in the province of British Columbia. Now we have to move ahead.

J. MacPhail: Well, it is a surprising statement that the Minister of Labour would say that school boards had a gun put to their head to take $43 million and that it was because they were being offered $43 million to go straight into the student classroom that they felt they had no choice but to ratify it.

Mr. Chair, we will be here in a couple of weeks, where school boards will not only never be offered $43 million, but will be offered zero, zero and zero, and we'll see who has the right view on history. I know the chair of the school board in our district, in Vancouver, thinks that what the government's doing is just fine. She thinks getting zero is just fine, but I know the parents don't feel that way, and I know other districts feel much differently. We will just see how a funding freeze with all of the guarantees stripped from students with special needs helps students.

J. Kwan: Because the minister was not able to give me a guarantee that as a result of this legislation, the basic minimum guarantee of support would be there for them in the schools, I'd like to put on record the stacks…. These are just some of them that I brought over from my constituency office in Vancouver. I didn't bring all of them.

J. Kwan: No, actually. No. They didn't come from the Hemlock Room. This one came from Mount Pleasant Elementary School. They were sent to me at my constituency office, from parents throughout the riding. They touch on the various different schools in my community, in east Vancouver — Mount Pleasant School, Florence Nightingale, Tyee, Strathcona, MacDonald, Queen Alexandra, Hastings, Tillicum, etc.

These parents have written to the school board and asked the school board for additional support in special needs. In September of this year, when the children went to school, they discovered that their special needs support had been halved, eliminated, taken away altogether. The children were unable to get access. They wrote to the school board. They wrote to the minister. The minister didn't even bother to reply. The minister just asked her staff to reply on her behalf. I'm not even sure if the minister actually looked at the letter.

I want the minister to respond to the children and parents in these schools who don't have access for special needs, non-enrolling specialists' support in their school rooms, in their classes. The elimination of the ratio is going to further jeopardize these children in terms of their access to special needs. With the three-year funding freeze, there's virtually no hope.

I hope I'm wrong, though. I hope I am dead wrong about the lack of resources and the inability of the parents and children to get additional support in their schools. I hope I'm dead wrong, but I really don't think so. I know that this legislation is going to hurt these children even more.

If the minister had the gumption to get up, if she's so confident that her bill will ensure that these children would be protected, if she were so confident that they will actually get the resources they need to help them learn, grow and fully develop, then she would get up right now in this House to give that guarantee. She's failed to do so.

I'm going to move away from the special needs issue for a moment, because there are a lot of issues here that I want to canvass. I want to talk about another issue relating to staff aides for students. Earlier we talked about the issue around amalgamation in Kimberley. The teachers collective agreement for Kimberley contains the provision to ensure the following:"Trained assistants shall be provided for assisting special needs students who require help with toileting, changing of clothing, eating, mobility, administering medication or providing other medical procedures. Teachers shall not be required to carry out the aforementioned procedures on a regular or predictable basis."

The teachers collective agreement for the area of Kimberley contains this clause, but this clause, which benefits and provides for support to special needs students, is lost as a result of the amalgamation. There are other examples of this. Another example is actually the North Van teachers agreement. The provision in the North Van teachers agreement is as follows: "A special education aide shall be provided for each low-incidence student with special needs as follows."

Hon. G. Bruce: With the greatest of respect…. I know you have a lot on your plate there. These are complicated pieces of legislation. I'm listening to you, and I'm trying to pick up the relevance. I'm trying to pick up what you're presenting that's relevant to this section. We're on section 8 of this bill. I'm truly trying to follow you.

The Chair: Member, could you assist the Chair, please, and refer to the section you're dealing with.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will indeed be very specific. The section I'm referring to is section 8(g),

which reads: "restricting or regulating a board's power to determine staffing levels or ratios or the number of teachers or other staff employed by the board." That is the section I'm speaking to right now, because section 8(g) impacts the issue around staffing ratios and levels.

In the area of Kimberley and in the area of North Van, the teachers agreement clearly stipulates that:

Then it goes on to say, with more language…. Skipping over it, because I'm not going to read all of it into the record, the fourth item says:

This stipulation under the North Van teachers agreement outlines — clearly outlines — that the requirement for special education aid will now be gone. It will now be gone as a result of the amalgamation process. It will now be gone — the same thing with Kimberley and the same thing with another area in Vancouver.

I could read all of this into the record, because there are lots of examples. I'm not going to read all of the examples into the record, but section 8(g) speaks to this particular issue. The minister earlier swore up and down in this House and said there was absolutely no way that they would do away with those provisions, that they weren't relevant, that they weren't teachers agreements. They are teachers agreements.

Yes, this legislation, through this section 8(g), will eliminate the special education aid that is provided for in the collective agreement right now.

Hon. G. Bruce: Coming back to section 8(g), what this provision does is take it out of collective agreements. It won't be negotiated in the collective agreements. This will allow for these types of decisions to be made at the local level where it's best. It's very clear; it's very concise. That's what this section talks about.

J. Kwan: These teachers agreements have provisions requiring other staff, aides for students with special needs. This act wipes out these guarantees — wipes them out. In Kimberley, in North Van, in Vancouver, it wipes them out.

That is the issue that we're debating in section 8(g). The language in section 8(g) clearly says it would be "restricting or regulating a board's power to determine staffing levels or ratios or the number of teachers or other staff employed by the board." That is the reality of this act.

I have an amendment to make with respect to section 8. The amendment that I have to make speaks to section 8(d).

Here's a signed copy of the amendment. I know the Clerk already has a copy of it, and I would ask that a copy be given to the minister.

The Chair: We've had a look at this amendment, and it's actually contrary to the rest of the section. The proper course would be to vote against the section as a whole, so as a result this amendment is out of order.

	YEAS — 71
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
[ Page 1002 ]
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. Kwan: Section 9 speaks to the transitional appointment of an arbitrator. This requires the appointment of an arbitrator to determine the impact of Bills 27 and 28 on the existing collective agreement.

Under the existing collective agreement, the impact of any legislation on the collective agreement is first discussed by the parties, and only in areas of disagreement is there the last resort of going to an arbitrator. This section, together with the proposed amendment to section 27 of the act found in section 8 of this act, forces the parties to arbitration without the benefit of local examination.

Why would the minister force the parties to a procedure that would consume time, energy and resources that could be better spent?

Hon. G. Bruce: What this does is allow for a quick review of section 27, and only section 27, to review and take out that which would be contrary, in the contracts, to section 27 of this act. You can see as you read the rest of the act that this is not to be a prolonged process, but as you well know from the discussion you've just had on the issues that have gone back and forth, it's important that it be done expeditiously and in a manner like this. That will happen.

J. Kwan: Why should the local parties bear the cost of a forced arbitration on these matters when it is this government that is ripping up the collective agreement in 60 school districts of this province? Why is this government not picking up the tab?

Hon. G. Bruce: I was going to say that we are going to pay for the arbitrator, but more correctly, the taxpayer is paying for the arbitrator.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that this government is forcing an arbitration process to be in place. They're ripping up the collective agreement that is in place, and the parties that are affected are being asked to pay for it. The government ought to ensure that those expenses are absorbed, if that is the view of the government in terms of taxpayers' money. Quite frankly, taxpayers' money in relation to the school district is just taxpayers' money at a different level. The provincial government has a larger coffer. They should pick up the tab.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear here. What this act does in its entirety, of course, is put the students first, and that, in fact, is what we are doing. In this particular clause that we are dealing with here, section 9, "Transitional — appointment of an arbitrator," under 27.1, applies to section 27, to those issues that may be in contravention relative to the agreements that are in place. It takes them out and corrects the situation. We're looking for it to be done in an expeditious manner, and that's in fact what 27.1 will allow to occur.

J. Kwan: I actually think that what's being established right now to date in the House is that this act does not consider students first. We belaboured that issue in the last section, particularly as it relates to special needs children — the ratio, and all of that — and I won't go into that again, but it's already been made clear to me that it isn't in the best interests of the students when the government considered this act and they wrote up this act. What determines this act in the first consideration for the government is the funding freeze they have imposed. That is the truth.

I'd like to move an amendment to section 9 by adding the words "acceptable to the parties" so that 27.1(1) would read:

I have a signed copy of the amendment for the Clerk. I understand the Clerk has already received a copy, and I ask that the copy be given to the minister.

The Chair: Member, to speed up the process, if you would like to speak to this amendment at this point, while the minister is having an opportunity to look at it.

J. Kwan: The rationale behind this amendment is to give the teachers a voice in naming the arbitrator, whose sole mandate is to identify and remove collective agreement provisions that they have bargained with school boards and for which they have forgone salary and other benefits. The amendment also gives teachers a voice in naming their arbitrator, whose fees and expenses they'll be obliged to bear by section 90 of the Labour Code.

The amendment further ensures that the minister will not rush the arbitrator to a decision in violation of the well-established principles of fairness and natural justice. Such a decision would be vulnerable to a judicial review and a stay pending review, because section 27.1(6) removes the power of the Labour Relations Board to review the arbitration award.

This is a reasonable amendment. It includes all of the parties involved, mutually agreed to, in appointing the arbitrator. It ensures that a fair process would be in place and optimizes a successful outcome of the process, one that would begin to rebuild the damage that this government has foisted into the education environment by imposing this legislation. It is actually not impossible for the government to do but rather very reasonable for the government to do. I would urge that the minister accept this amendment to show his goodwill in trying to address issues with respect to the education system.

Hon. G. Bruce: I appreciate your comments and your concern and can understand that, but as I read this and as I would intend as Minister of Labour, I would consult with both parties in the aspect of appointing an arbitrator in this instance. As we mentioned earlier on in this process, we want to expedite so we can get these areas cleaned up before the next school year starts. You'll notice in the section, mentioned in subsection 2, that we would like this complete by May 11, 2002. Time is short. It will require that someone get right on to it. As sometimes can be the case, parties can have a very difficult time agreeing on who it is to be.

I will be quite prepared to take advice from both parties where it's reasonable that I can find someone that both agree with, and that would be the person that I would use. I'm not prepared to have that enshrined in the legislation, because I want the job done. With all due respect to the comments that were made by my colleague across the way, the government will not be voting in favour of this amendment.

J. Kwan: I have an amendment for the section we're dealing with under section 10. The amendment is for section 27.2 to read: "The arbitrator appointed…."

The Chair: Member, section 9 has been passed. The section you're referring to is in section 9. That section has already been passed. We are now dealing with section 10.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I was referring to the wrong amendment sheet. My apologies.

I have a signed copy of this amendment, which I am going to table to the Clerk. I know the Clerk has a copy of the amendment already, and I ask that a copy please be given to the minister.

The Chair: Member, this amendment is contrary to the principle of the act so I will be ruling it out of order.

J. Kwan: The current section is one I do not agree with. I believe that the existing School Act properly requires express provisions in the act or regulations before negotiated collective agreements are overwritten. The bill would remove that requirement and introduce unnecessary uncertainty and conflicts in the administration of the collective agreement. I don't think that's the right approach to take with respect to that. It would not help to enhance the educational environment for the students or the teaching environment for the teachers. I will not support this section.

J. Kwan: Section 12 goes to talk about class size. This section removes the limits of the current agreement in favour of district averages. It increases the limits for kindergarten, from 20 to 22. It increases the limits for grades 1 to 3, to 24 from 22. How does the minister hope to create the best public education system in the world, when the government is increasing the size of primary classes and removing any upper limits on the size of classes in grades 4 to 12?

Hon. C. Clark: As I pointed out already in debate, this is the very first time in British Columbia that we will have class size protection in statute. That is a very, very important change. The government knows that the place to protect class size is in legislation, not in collective agreement, because class size provisions are too important to be left just to the bargaining table. They are so important that more people than just bargainers in a union-employer environment should have a say in how schools are structured.

We have structured this piece of legislation to speak to two things — first, the fact that research does support the fact that fixed class size limits for kindergarten to grade 3 do result in better educational outcomes. What we heard from school districts and from parents is that they supported fixed class size limits. They wanted, though, to have a little bit more flexibility because of the horror stories we've seen where children, like the children in the Shuswap district, were bused for an hour and a half every single day because they couldn't be accommodated at their local neighbourhood school, and they couldn't be accommodated at the school next to the local neighbourhood school. Those children were five years old. That's not right. We all recognize that's not right.

We've put some strict class size limits in for kindergarten-to-grade 3. We are also, for the very first time, putting in class size limits that are averages for grades 4 to 12. That means that no district will be able to exceed those sizes, on average, for any grade. These are great protections for children. We recognize that class size is important. We also recognize that flexibility is important. The way the previous government decided to structure class size meant that decisions about children's best interests were made at the bargaining table. They were made by people who had no knowledge of the individual child whose future is at stake.

What we're saying with this legislation is that that's not the right way to do it. The right way to do it is to look at a child, assess what that child needs and then make decisions about the resources that will be assigned to that child, that will be there to support that child based on that child's unique needs.

J. Kwan: The flexibility that the minister speaks of already exists in the collective agreements. They already exist. Negotiations can take place, discussions can take place with the school districts for those one, two or three students who don't have a class or who need to be fit into a particular class. That flexibility already is in place. It's nonsense for the minister to suggest that it doesn't exist right now. It's absolute nonsense, and the minister knows it.

The upper-limits class size is important, because we know that increasing class sizes in primary grades, when the research points in precisely the opposite direction….

What will the minister say to parents and students in secondary classes of 35 or higher? Will it comfort them to know that class sizes elsewhere are much smaller, because what we're dealing with is averages? That's what were dealing with. What will the minister say to those parents?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't want the member to be able to leave the impression somehow that this legislation will mean chaos. I suspect that may be where she's going in her questioning.

This legislation is going to allow school districts and parents and individual teachers and superintendents and principals and vice-principals to decide how classes should be configured based on the needs of the students. That shouldn't be a revolutionary idea; it's pretty common sense.

I think when the member suggests that the only way to protect class size for children is to put it in a collective agreement, she's implying that those other people, who are equal stakeholders in the system, somehow care less about protecting students. I fundamentally reject that notion. I firmly believe that parents care just as much about the learning environment for their children as the union does. I believe very much that administrators — principals and vice-principals — care just as much about the learning conditions for children in their schools as the union does. I also believe that school trustees care very much about the learning conditions of the children in their schools, and I believe the same is true for superintendents.

I do not accept the proposition that somehow there is just one group out there that has a monopoly on virtue and that there is just one group out there that cares about protecting children, because it's simply not true. The evidence that some of those groups support what this government is doing was here on Friday, when we introduced the legislation — principals and vice-principals, school superintendents, school trustees and most importantly, in my view, parents.

J. Kwan: The minister would have you believe that teachers don't care. The minister would have you believe that somehow the teachers want to work contrary to the objectives of parents or students. In fact, that is not the case at all — not at all. The minister would have you believe that the opposition caucus, my colleague and I, don't care about class size as it impacts the children, as it impacts the parents. That is simply not true. The collective agreement….

J. Kwan: Actually, if the member for Vancouver-Kingsway cares so much, maybe he'll respond to his constituents who phone him for assistance. When he doesn't, they start to phone me and my leader.

J. Kwan: Give me a break. It's single moms who are needing help looking for housing.

The issue around class size is an important one, because class size for children and making sure that the classrooms stay small for children to optimize their learning environment is essential. The fact is that this legislation takes away the provision — no protection whatsoever for students in grades 4 to 12, from excessively large classes in any year or, in fact, every year. From grades 4 to 12: that is the reality.

The issue around flexibility and agreement is found in article D.2.9., which reads as follows:

Does the minister agree that the above flexibility is in fact more flexible than the flexibility supposedly contained within this bill?

Hon. C. Clark: What I am suggesting to the Legislature tonight is that the way the previous government decided to deal with class size spoke, I think, to their view that schools were more about workers than they were about children. That is not the government's view. We are changing the way we manage class size. We are changing it from a world where it was just entrenched in collective agreements, where it was bargained away at the bargaining table by people who had in most cases, I'm sure — well, certainly, in every case — no knowledge of every child that it would affect, to a world where it's contained in legislation.

This section of the act very specifically speaks to the government's view that schools are about children, first and foremost. They're about students, above all. Yes, they are also workplaces — that's true — and teachers' working conditions are absolutely important, but the thing we must remember is that we must make decisions about our education system based on the needs of the children in it.

The minute our decisions start to be based on other considerations, we are headed down the wrong road. I would submit that the previous government's approach to class size, which entrenched it in collective agreements rather than in public policy, would suggest that the previous government felt that schools were much more working places than they were learning places.

J. Kwan: I guess the minister has not read the flexibility language regarding class size limits in the current agreement. If she had, she would know the kind of accommodations that both parties agree to should become part of the collective where special circumstances exist. That flexibility language is already there. The accommodations are already there. The parties that the minister speaks of who need to be involved are already there. They compel family issues, attendance at the same school, the age of the affected student, the distance to be travelled, the availability of transportation, the safety of the student, the physical capability of the student, the accessibility to special programs and services, anticipated attrition and time of year. Many, many of the factors are already taken into consideration. That is the flexibility of the language that already exists. But I guess the minister has not bothered to read it, because she doesn't need to actually find the facts.

The fact of the matter is that this legislation will cause a situation where the twenty-fifth student in a grade 3 setting who wishes to enrol in a class will not be able to do so. In fact, the minister is creating inflexibility through this act.

Presently a kindergarten and grade 1 split class cannot exceed 20. What is the new limit? Is it 22 or 24?

Hon. C. Clark: The member, I think, might help enlighten the House a little bit if she would speak to the principle of this bill, speak to the principle of this section. She was talking about how the current collective agreement provides flexibility. I hope that in her comments tonight she can inform the House of where she stands philosophically on the issue of taking class size and locking it up in collective agreements versus putting it in public policy where everyone has access to making changes to the provisions that are there. When it's in public policy, it means that everyone's voice can be heard. It means that school districts, parents, administrators, trustees and teachers can all have a say in ensuring that the resource allocations in their schools meet the needs of the children who are in those schools.

That's very, very different from where we are currently, which is locking it up in collective agreements, where only the parties at the table really have any say about those allocation decisions. I hope that later in the discussion the member will enlighten us as to her view about that philosophical debate.

J. Kwan: On the question around flexibility with class size the information is already clear with the collective agreements that already exist. The minister knows that. Oh, no. Pardon me. The minister doesn't know that. I don't think she has actually bothered to look at the language that already exists. The minister goes around talking about how she wants to create flexibility when in fact what she's bringing forward in this act is limiting flexibility. For a class where the maximum has been reached, for that one extra student who needs to get into the class, there is no room for negotiations or discussions. That flexibility is actually gone.

The previous collective agreement allowed for the flexibility to address that issue. The minister refuses to look at that. The minister refuses to look at this legislation, as though somehow increasing class size is a good thing for students, when we all know that all of the research shows that it isn't. It is not to the benefit of the students. And the minister laughs. She thinks it's funny. She thinks that all these issues are funny. They impact fundamentally on the learning environment of the children. This is the attitude that she takes. It's such a shame.

J. Kwan: Don't worry, my position will be clear. I'll be voting on this section.

J. Kwan: Don't worry. All throughout this legislation I've been voting on it almost clause by clause to be on record in terms of where I stand, so do not fear that my position would not be on record, because it will be. Do not fear.

A signed copy of the amendment is on the table with the Clerk, and I ask that the Clerk give a copy to the minister.

This amendment is one that addresses the issue of more than one primary grade in any class with primary students — that the class size maximum for the lower grade shall apply.

The rationale behind this amendment is that the bill does not provide class sizes for classes which combine students in kindergarten and grades 1 to 3. This amendment would fill the gap by specifying that split kindergarten and grades 1 to 3 classes would be capped at 22 students. The actual language of the amendment was negotiated and ratified by the parties only last year, 2001.

This amendment would also respect the principle contained in section 2(1)(b) of Bill 27 by including in the collective agreement the provisions that have been negotiated and agreed to between the parties during collective bargaining.

Hon. C. Clark: As minister, I will be taking a draft regulation out to the school communities to talk to them about how we will calculate class size. That's going to be a very, very important part of this legislation, to speak to the spirit of it. Certainly the government's intent in that discussion is to ensure that kindergarten students, if they're in a mixed class, have the lower standard applied to them. I'll certainly make that point.

I did notice, though, in the member's comments that she didn't respond to my question, which was my invitation to tell us where she stands on the philosophical issue of how we should protect class size. The government clearly believes that the collective agreement is not the place to do that because it locks out too many voices.

If she isn't prepared to speak to that and let us know where she stands on that principle, I would also be interested to know from the member, perhaps in her comments throughout the evening, how it is she squares her criticism of the kindergarten to grade 3 class size limits as being too inflexible with her criticism of the grades 4 to 12 class size limits as being too flexible.

J. Kwan: The minister doesn't have to worry about where I stand on this entire bill. She doesn't have to worry because every section of this act is actually voted on. It is on record. Not just on a yea or nay vote but actually provided for in the act on division, or a division is called so that the names of each of the members in the chamber are recorded in terms of where they stand. Don't worry, because I will be voting on this section, and it will be clear in terms of where I stand on this entire bill, not just on one section of this bill.

J. Kwan: Sorry. I wanted to tie the two, actually, because these two amendments go together. Yes, you're right.

The Chair: We must deal with the first amendment first, and then you can carry on. On the amendment.

J. Kwan: We need to get through the first amendment, and that is on the question around the primary class and any class with the combined grades, kindergarten and 1 to 3.

This is an important amendment, because if the minister says that she will support the higher standard — the lower numbers — of class size, then she will simply just accept the amendment. She can actually just accept it and put her word to it into this legislation. She could choose to do that.

I suspect that the minister will choose not to do that, just like the Minister of Labour earlier, who said to the public, "Take my word for it. Your salary won't be reduced," when in fact it will be, through the amalgamation scheme. When he says, "Don't worry about it; everybody gets a 7½ percent increase over three years," when 6,000 teachers in British Columbia will get zero percent over three years….

J. Kwan: I have trouble accepting the minister's word, you see, because the pattern has been set. It worries me, so I'm going, of course, to be voting in favour of the amendment.

J. Kwan: I'd like to move another amendment on section 12, and that is that section 12 is amended by adding "and (2)" to read:

J. Kwan: I want to make sure that a signed copy of the amendment is provided to the Clerk and that a copy is given to the minister.

The rationale behind this amendment is that it would require boards to report to the minister on plan-

ning for and consulting with parents on meetings, not only the averages required by section 76.1 but also the fixed limits required by section 76.2, which also require careful planning and which are also of great, great concern to parents.

Hon. C. Clark: Again, to the member, the government has prepared a draft regulation, and we certainly intend to go out and consult with parties about what will work best. Part of the government's plan at the moment — and certainly, we will consult on the details of this…. Certainly the fact that we intend to have school boards report publicly on the allocation of their resources is something that we are very, very firm about. We intend to do that; we will consult on it. That draft regulation is already in the hands of many of our stakeholders, so the discussion will begin.

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, of course. I'm reminded that the draft regulation is public already. The fact that boards will be reporting on it publicly, probably for many of them in school board meetings, will be in fact the first time we have required this of school boards.

Now, many people might say at first blush: "Boy, will this ever add to the paper burden for school districts — having to report how they allocate their resources, how they take care of special needs children, how they ensure that their needs are met."

I would remind the House, though, that school districts do much of this reporting already, but to the union. The change that we want to make as government is to ensure that rather than having school districts report just to the union, they make those reports public, because surely there are more people than just the union who have an interest in ensuring that school resources are allocated appropriately. Surely parents also have an interest in that. School communities — everybody has an interest in that in our local communities, and they have a right to know how well their schools are doing.

Yes, certainly teachers have an interest in this; yes, certainly the union has an interest in this, but I'm saying: "Let's crack it open." Let's let the entire community have a look at how well school districts have decided to allocate their resources. Let's let all those voices into the debate.

	YEAS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. C. Clark: I do just want to make a clarification before we carry on with this. The bill is correct. It says: "A board may not adopt a school calendar under subsection (3) unless, in accordance with the regulations, parents of the students enrolled in the school and representatives of employees of the board assigned to the school have been consulted." The explanatory notes attached to the bill are a little bit confusing on that point. They are not correct. That is an error in drafting. The intent of the bill is quite clearly described in section 14 as the bill stands.

J. Kwan: On section 14, the minister is right. As was pointed out yesterday by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings in the second reading stage, the explanatory note on section 14 is wrong relative to the actual act itself on section 14. I'm glad the minister paid attention to the member from Hastings, who pointed that issue out in terms of identifying the difference in the language.

I have a question for the minister. The current legislation requires the approval of parents and school employees before a local school calendar can be adopted by a board. Why has the minister reduced the level of input for both parents and employees in these decisions?

Hon. C. Clark: The act is very clear that both parties should be consulted, as they should be. We want to build in more flexibility for children in their schools. We would like students to be able to access different kinds of educational programs in their communities. I know that's not something that the member finds par-

ticularly attractive. I know that her party's been on record as opposing some of the choice initiatives that the government is pursuing. But, certainly, we as a government believe that choice is a very, very important part of providing a top-quality education system.

There are people who take their kids into the independent school system because they cannot access the choices that they need in the public school system. I should say this: I think that independent schools do a marvellous job with the children that they enrol, and I think they play an important role in our school system in British Columbia. One in ten children attends an independent school. But having said that, I want the public school system to be able to compete on an equal footing with independent schools. I want to build different kinds of choices into our public school system, to make that available for families so that their children can go to schools that meet those children's needs. We can no longer have a system where we make the assumption that every single school has to look exactly the same. If we do that, we assume that every single child is exactly the same, and that's just simply not the case. That's why we want to provide choices for people. Children have different needs. Each one of them is unique. Each one of them deserves to be recognized as such.

J. Kwan: The fact is that the current regulation requires the approval of parents and employees. This legislation actually takes away their voice, because all it requires right now is consultation. The current regulation requires the approval of parents and employees in the school before a local school calendar can be adopted by a board. The minister has actually taken away the voice of parents. She's so fond of expressing that she really wants to ensure that the voice of parents is there, and in effect she has just brought in a piece of legislation that takes away that voice. That is what's happening.

I remember when I was in school. I actually went to a different school from that of my brothers and sisters. There were six of us. We all went to different schools. It's just the nature of what was in place at the time. We all went to different schools, and we all got home at different times. That already exists in terms of choice. Parents, though, need to have input into that — more than an input, because the existing regulations ensure that their voice is counted, that their voice is more than just consultation and is counted by way of approval.

When you switch the calendar year it could upset a lot of things for parents, whether it be their schedules, their work time with respect to after-school care or vacations — any number of things. All of those things impact the entire family. And yes, parents ought to have a say in the calendar year — absolutely. Not just have a say, but they need to be participants in the approval procedures. The minister has taken away that right.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member opposite has been arguing all night against creating an education system where parents can have a say. All night she has been voting against provisions that will fundamentally change our education system so that all of the people who are interested in education can start having a voice in how we organize our schools and our classes for their children. I understand that she states her firm commitment to parents having a voice, but I would respectfully suggest that she is coming a little bit late to that debate and that principle. However, now that she's….

Hon. C. Clark: One of the situations that has frequently arisen is where parents have wanted to have a different kind of calendar in their schools. Often, collective agreements have been structured in such a way that they aren't able to change the calendar. Those are things like requiring a common lunch hour for every teacher in the school, for example. I'm not sure that stopping an extended day or stopping choice programs was the intent of the people who drafted those collective agreements, but certainly that is one of the consequences. What we're attempting to do with this bill is ensure that those things in collective agreements that make it impossible for communities to organize their schools in a way that matches the needs of the children in those communities will no longer stand in the way.

J. Kwan: The minister's comment about the opposition members not supporting the voices of teachers and parents is just nonsense. It's just complete nonsense.

You know, on the issue around choice with class time, that choice already exists. When I went to school, I took early morning classes at 7:30. I remember those early morning 7:30 classes well. I went to school bright and early. I got up at six and biked my way to school. Then I would get off school early on a Wednesday afternoon where that block fell. That was my choice. That choice already existed in the school.

So to pretend that the minister is interested in introducing choice is just complete nonsense. To suggest that she values the parents' voices…. By taking away that direct voice, which is impacted by having been able to approve the regulation, by taking that away from them, she somehow thinks that gives them a voice. Maybe the minister needs a lesson on what a voice is and how that voice can be heard. I'm sure there are activists who will be coming to the Legislature on Monday who could tell her what voices sound like in reality.

J. Kwan: Taking sections (c) and (d) together, will teachers who work in a school that operates on a local school calendar be asked to work split shifts — that is,

provide instruction in both the first and last hours of operation of that school?

Hon. C. Clark: The member may know that there is no explicit protection today for teachers to not work split shifts. However, the reason that I would expect school districts don't ask that, although they can, is because it doesn't help them attract and retain the employees they need. The member, I think, implies and has been implying throughout the debate this evening that somehow school districts don't support the teachers who work in their communities.

My experience has been the exact opposite. I believe that school districts do respect the commitment of teachers in their communities. I believe that parents respect that commitment, and I also believe that the school community — whether they be principals, vice-principals, school superintendents — also respects the commitment that teachers have to their communities.

J. Kwan: The minister says that right now, there are no provisions impacting teachers in terms of split shifts on shifts for hours of operation of the school, because right now there are no split shifts. Right now they don't exist. That's why. It's almost humorous, actually. This part, out of all the debate that's taking place, is indeed humorous.

When a situation doesn't exist, doesn't call for such a need, the minister says: "But they could do it anyway. Why don't they just come and do split shifts throughout the course of the day and the hours of operation? Come in the morning, and come back at 6 o'clock at night even though there is no class to teach." Come back anyway, just because if they want to, they could do it. It's absolutely humorous, so I'll be voting against this section of the bill.

Hon. C. Clark: I do want to reiterate. This government is committed to providing choice in public schooling for parents and for students. The reason we have that firm commitment is because we recognize that every child is unique, and if every child is unique, schools should be unique. We need to start making our education decisions again in British Columbia based on the needs of those individual students.

We need to stop driving those decisions based on mathematical formulas and contractual provisions that are negotiated at a bargaining table. That is the wrong place to be making those decisions. Students are far, far too important for that. This government supports choice. This government supports flexibility. This government supports allowing the entire school community to have a say in how our schools and our school districts are run.

That's what we're attempting to do here today. I know that the members opposite don't share those principles. However, the government remains committed to bringing choice and flexibility to our schools in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Just a point of clarification, in the explanatory notes, as pointed out yesterday by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings. There is inconsistency in the sections, particularly section 14(b) of the explanatory note, and in the last pages of the bill, it lists the list of explanatory notes that have been included in the bill.

I would assume that corrections would be made in this part of the bill to make sure there is no confusion in the public and so that clarity is there. I don't know if I need to make an amendment to that fact, but I want to make sure that that is taken care of.

The Chair: The explanatory note has been noted and will be duly rectified. Thank you.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 28, Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

	YEAS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Weisbeck	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Lekstrom

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 29; H. Long in the chair.

J. MacPhail: What definition in this section requires such urgent attention that the government is introducing committee stage of this debate at 11:30 on a Sunday evening in an emergency session, when this government said that they were going to have regular sittings for legislation? Could the minister first, under the definitions section, suggest to the people who are affected by this bill what the urgency is, why this bill is being rammed through now?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is all about putting patients first and getting on with fixing the health care system in the province of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: What's the urgency here? What makes putting patients first so urgent that we're here at 11:30 at night on a Sunday in an emergency session? What is the emergency?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll just repeat it again: we are putting patients first with this act. We are fixing the health care system. We are here, the bill has been called, and it needs to be done.

J. MacPhail: The minister may want to actually think about that as we proceed through the bill, because I'll be asking that question frequently just to bring to attention, for the record, the circumstances under which this bill is being rammed through.

Under the definitions in section 3, the definition of worksite includes an agency or program as constituting a single worksite. The Minister of Labour may not be completely up to speed, but the government has recently reorganized the delivery of health care into six super-regions. This definition changes what a worksite could mean, given the new region. It means that the various geographical locations of a single multilocation agency or program can constitute a single worksite, both for this act and the regulations.

We now have an agency with operations in both Prince Rupert and Prince George, because that's the way the government has restructured health care. With this definition, the worker is now deprived. When a worker is being transferred from the Prince George location to the Prince Rupert location of an agency, all of her bumping rights are gone under section 2.2 of the draft regulation. The minister or someone in the government handed out the draft regulation so the two must be read together. Is that the intention of the bill?

Hon. G. Bruce: With respect to that example, if the employee did not want to make that transfer out of the 50-kilometre area and was to stay in the 50-kilometre area, those bumping rights would be there.

J. MacPhail: Okay, we're going to have to walk through this slowly. The definition of worksite in the bill includes a program or agency. A program or agency can cover many geographical locations — and even more so, given the new regional health authorities. You could have a program or agency being delivered in Prince Rupert and Prince George. With this definition, that's now considered a worksite. If you go to the regulation, it says that if an employee declines a transfer to a worksite, then that person is denied her rights to layoff notice.

One would normally say that a transfer to another worksite would be somewhere that you could drive to in a workday. Let's say even that. But given this definition, a person who lives in Prince Rupert could be transferred to a program in Prince George, and that's considered the same worksite. If she declines that, she loses her bumping rights, as I read it.

Hon. G. Bruce: If the employee declines to take the move outside of the geographical region, outside the 50 kilometres, wishes to stay in that area, under this section the employee is entitled to layoff notice and to bump, consistent with section 9 of the act.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the minister may not know this. I've actually got quite a bit of experience in this area, and I didn't understand a thing the minister just said.

Let me give another example here. In the interior health authority, the definition of "worksite" now appears to include a regional program in Bella Coola, and that program can also be delivered in Cranbrook. That's how big the region is now. You can have a program delivered in both of those areas. With your definition, that's called a worksite. Then, when people have bumping rights — or not — and decline a transfer to a worksite, a person in Bella Coola either has to go to her worksite in Cranbrook or lose her bumping rights. Or am I missing something?

Hon. G. Bruce: No, that's not the intent at all. The fact of the matter, again, is that there is the worksite, but then within the regulation there is the 50-kilometre radius of area. If the person declined by consent to go to that extended area, they stay within their own area and they would bump within their own area, if that was what the final result was to be — within that 50-kilometre area.

J. MacPhail: That makes sense if we're dealing with an area that doesn't cover 500 miles. Unfortunately,

because of the reorganization of the health regions, we have agencies or programs that are delivering services over two different places that are 500 miles apart. The 50-kilometre radius is meaningless when you're talking agency and program. Maybe the 50-kilometre radius geographic location makes sense for the others under worksite: a facility, a centre, an organization or a location. They're a single entity. But for an agency and program it doesn't. Believe you me, Mr. Chair, these are real examples. These are real examples that have occurred because of the super-regions that the government has now imposed.

I table an amendment in my name such that if the intent is that the definition of geographic location supersedes worksite, then it makes sense to amend the definition of worksite to accommodate the employer's definition. This amendment deletes parts of the worksite definition, so worksite will now mean a facility, a centre, an organization or a location at or from which an employee is assigned to work.

J. MacPhail: I know that the government wishes to take away a lot of current contractual rights of employees, but it does seem to me, given the draft regulation, that there is some intent to still allow bumping rights — some intent. But if this definition stays on the books, you'll be denying hundreds of employees the right to bump, as I think you may have intended. You'll be taking away a heck of a lot of other employees' right to bump — some of them intended.

What this definition does is clarify that that's not what you intended — that a person would have to transfer from Bella Coola to Cranbrook. If they don't, they have no bumping rights. The common understanding of a worksite is a geographic location, but the minister has included program and agency, and this government is intending to create regional programs. We've got the letters to health authority chairs, saying that there will be regional efficiencies by creating regional programs. So a regional alcohol and drug program operating in certain communities across the interior region will be in Bella Coola and Cranbrook, because they're both in the interior region. That means that a drug and alcohol counsellor who works in Bella Coola will have to go to Cranbrook or else be fired. That's what the legislation now says. The amendment takes care of that.

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear, what we're doing here is allowing as much flexibility and opportunity to deliver the best health care system we possibly can by putting patients first. That's what this intends. With respect to your amendment, that's not the intent of what we're trying to do here. We've provided you with draft regulations. They're draft regulations. We understand your concern. We do not believe we're taking away anybody's bumping rights if they stay within that 50-kilometre area and if they decide they don't wish to make that move.

I appreciate your comments, but I don't see the need to accept this amendment. I appreciate that you've presented it and the concerns you have, but we believe we can get it covered with what we've got before us.

J. MacPhail: Again, here we are ramming through legislation. I expect that this will become law — like, within hours — because I gather that's why we're sitting here. I have no idea what the urgency of this is. Tomorrow morning, after this legislation has been rammed through, people in Bella Coola will be forced to transfer to Cranbrook without any recourse. There's no timing on draft regulations. Tomorrow morning, when health care workers wake up, what are their rights?

Hon. G. Bruce: First of all, there won't be anything happening tomorrow. Secondly, they have the right….

Hon. G. Bruce: Because we are going to get it done so that we can fix the health care system in the province and give the people operating our health facilities as much flexibility and as much opportunity to put the health care system back together. We can put our patients first and give them the very best care and attention, which both you and I and everybody in the rest of this House here today wants to make sure happens.

I understand the detail of following through on this. The bumping concerns you are expressing are looked after. The regulation, as it is drafted, is a draft regulation. We are concerned about making sure that absolutely everything is done properly. That's why it was put out at this point as a draft: to hear what concerns there may be expressed. We don't believe it's necessary to do it by way of an amendment.

J. MacPhail: The combination of the minister standing up at ten to 12 at night, ramming through legislation and saying, "Don't worry; all we're trying to do is give greater flexibility to deliver patient care," won't give any comfort to the workers who will be even more poorly treated with their bumping rights than the rest of the legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: At one point we hear from people that they want to get on with it. We've talked about service plans and things like that. We see that this is important to achieve and to get on with being able to fix the health care system. That's what we're attempting to do here this evening.

J. MacPhail: Section 4 — even though somehow in the last section we said, "Oh, don't worry; we're not going to do anything," — actually says you're going to reorganize service delivery. Oops. It says that a number of health care functions that are vital to patient care can be removed from one community and transferred to another. That's what this says. We were told before: "Don't worry, employees, we're not going to do any of that which would cause you…." But here's some legislation that says that's exactly what you're going to do.

Let's look at an example: Kootenay Lake District Hospital. The MLA for the Kootenay Lake District Hospital…. I know others are looking for him; I don't know whether he's here or not. Yes, he is. The member should be listening to this example. The Kootenay Lake Hospital has a food service department that prepares meals for patients. That includes a very high degree of purchasing local supplies. They pride themselves on that. All of the local small business people support that in the hospital. It actually stimulates a particular part of the local economy in Nelson and in nearby Kootenay communities. Of course, as an aside, the food service workers are also employed in that department, and they use their incomes to purchase goods in the local community from those businesses close to home.

Now it is possible — as an example — that that food service department could be reorganized, taken away from the Kootenay Lake Hospital, and within the interior health authority those jobs and that economic stimulus could go to, I guess, where the head office is in Kelowna. The Kelowna head office says the food service department at the Kootenay Lake Hospital in Nelson is going to be transferred to Kelowna, where the meals will be centrally prepared. That's, of course, an American model that exists right now.

J. MacPhail: I note that the Minister of Finance is laughing, but that is exactly the model that exists in America, where services are contracted out — exactly. Food is often prepared, in the words of America, 200 miles away from where it's actually used. That's clearly what the government is intending to do with all of these.

This isn't just about staff losing their jobs in Nelson. It's also about the whole local economy losing those jobs. Nelson is an example because they pride themselves on this particularly.

I'm wondering. The minister says that there's no urgency to rush this through, except that we need to give greater flexibility in patient care. Has the government actually given careful thought and review to the implications that flow from removing not only those jobs but the local economic stimulus when those programs can be transferred? I would ask him to particularly address the economic impact that he's examined in section 4.

Hon. G. Bruce: The intent of this bill is to put our patient care and patient needs first. That's the intent of it. It's not an economic driver. We are looking very much at what's required to put our patient care right at the top. We are very concerned about the economic situation in British Columbia and are working hard to get that to turn around with a number of other initiatives.

I understand what the member is saying in respect to the impacts of one service to another in different areas. But the intent of this bill and the steps we are taking are very clearly to put patient care first and the needs of patients first.

J. MacPhail: I'm not going to debate that with the minister. I've got the mantra. I'm asking for details on what flows from putting patient care first. That's what I'm asking here. I'm asking about the economic impact of section 4, because this is about an economic impact. It's about transferring services from one region to another. That's all this section is about. It's giving the unfettered right of a health authority to transfer services, and then later on it's made even easier.

This isn't a made-up question. In Prince Rupert yesterday there were hundreds of people who were rallying around this very issue — this very issue. There were a lot of disgruntled community people who were very concerned about this in Prince Rupert. There were card burnings going on there. The minister may have been too busy to watch that, but there were membership card burnings going on, because they were so concerned about this particular section. It's because of the economic impact.

This government that prides itself on being business-friendly repealed the Regulatory Impact Statement Act and said: "Don't worry. Every single decision we make" — and I remember it as if it were yesterday — "takes into account the economic impact."

What economic assessment have you done, community by community, on what this will mean?

Hon. G. Bruce: Very clearly and very seriously, what this bill does is give us and the Minister of Health and his team and the authorities throughout the province the tools they need to deliver the most efficient service and the best possible patient care that we can deliver here in British Columbia. It's not driven from the prospect of an economic development initiative. There may be, as a result of changes, economic initiatives that come from that, but very clearly, this bill — Bill 29 — is about improving health care in the province, and it's about putting patient care first.

J. MacPhail: Okay. All right. You know what? I'm actually going to put it on record. I accept the minister's sincerity around delivering patient care being first, but there are other documents out there in the real world that the minister needs to take into account.

This is the letter of health authority expectations from the Health minister. It says the name; I know I can't read it into the record. It's from the Health minister to Mr. Harry Gairns, who is the chair of the northern health authority. On page 5 it says to the chair: "Rationalizing service delivery." Oh, these are, you know, his marching orders. It says: "I recognize that as you develop operating plans assuming a continuance of a current-based funding allocation for your region, you will need to make changes to the delivery of programs and services. I expect you to review current programs and services and identify where changes can be made that will result in more effective service delivery." Then we go to the legislation, which says: "Right to reorganize service delivery."

You know, a lot of people are reading a lot of these documents together, especially since the government only has a chair. It's humorous, actually. It says that Mr. Gairns is a chair, but there ain't no board. He's a single entity.

Mr. Gairns is responsible for Prince Rupert, and he's responsible for Prince George, but there's no community input into the regional health authority. The people in Prince Rupert read what Mr. Gairns is supposed to do about reorganizing or making more efficient service delivery, and then they read the clause that says "right to reorganize service delivery."

The questions around this issue have come substantially from the smaller communities that are being particularly hard hit by the resource sector layoffs and now by the public service cutbacks. They are concerned, putting those two documents together again, that they will be losing even more economic stimulus. They're not talking about the jobs; they're talking about local purchasing.

The concerns here are that we know we have a health care system that's virtually in crisis. I think the member across would say, too, that the status quo is not an option. Keeping things as they were is not how we're going to be able fix the situation. It is a very, very large problem, and it's going to take some very tough and difficult decisions to turn the health care system around and get it back up off its knees so that it can be there for the people of the province of British Columbia.

I hear the member opposite in her comments relative to economic development in this province. This government is very much aware and working to achieve economic stimulus so that all of our people throughout this province can live in healthy and vibrant communities. It's going to take a while for that to happen. There is no silver bullet.

We have to get the health care system turned around. We have to do things differently than what we have. There is no effort here to hide what we're doing. We've been more than transparent in all of this. We had the service delivery plans. We had the announcement back in December of the new regions that needed to be put into place. We are laying out a program of how we think it best to achieve the improvements to our health care system so that it will be sustainable and able to provide good health care service to the patients in British Columbia.

It is not easy. It's very difficult times for all of us, whether we are here in this House having to make decisions that are deep and touching to many of us or whether you're living in the small communities in rural areas of British Columbia — virtually all of British Columbia — and seeing changes that need to be taken into account and dealt with. It's not an easy time.

J. MacPhail: Well, actually, we are here at this hour because it's committee stage, and this is where communities get answers about what the intention of the bill is. I would actually appreciate some answers to the questions that I'm asking because this is the only opportunity that communities will have any ability to understand what this government's intent is.

For instance, this reorganization of services can be about services being consolidated in Kamloops, and those services can be transferred from a wide range of smaller communities to Kamloops or Vancouver Island. The member from Port Alberni or Campbell River should be extremely concerned because reorganization of services within a health authority, now that we've got these jumbo-size health authorities, means that Campbell River can lose a service to Victoria. That's what it means.

I have tabled an amendment, section 4(3). Given the fact that there is a lack of answers here and that certainly it's not as if people will be able to have input by observation — most people are asleep….

J. MacPhail: The intent of this is because there are no regional health authorities. There are six czars. That's all there are. The person who's responsible for Prince George has no community input from Fort St. John, Prince Rupert, Smithers or Burns Lake. He has the ability to reorganize services without any community input.

All this does for the most open, transparent and accountable government — so say they — is say: "You've got to consult."

Hon. G. Bruce: To the member opposite: I understand the amendment, how you've presented it and your concern for your communities. We, too, right through the entire membership of this House, have great concern for each and every one of our communities.

We're also extremely concerned that we get the health system turned around and back on its feet. It is in a very difficult state; it's virtually in a crisis state. There will be, through the whole process here, a number of changes — difficult changes — that have to take place.

What you're proposing here is not acceptable to the government, because we need to get on with undertaking the changes so that we can sustain the health care system, get it turned around and get it operating so that it's serving the needs of the patients.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sure communities will be very concerned about this section and the denial of any input into what it means for them economically.

Can the minister assure British Columbians that the transfer of functions will not include transfers to private or public-private agencies that are now delivered by public organizations or community organizations?

Let me just give you some examples. Registered nurses now provide community services, immunization or prenatal services. They're public health nurses working in the community. Will the minister assure British Columbians — and, indeed, the communities, which he doesn't want to consult — that in the transfer of services, these functions will stay in the public domain?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're happy to talk about this. I believe it would be more appropriate under section 6. I know it's a long bill, and I know it's complicated. I mean that with the greatest respect; I don't mean that in any other way. But I do believe that would be better dealt with in section 6.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that's the advice that the minister received from the House Leader. However, section 6 deals with contracting out. There's a difference between privatization and contracting out, so it doesn't come under section 6, even though this government may not understand the difference between the two.

Hon. G. Bruce: This bill doesn't speak to privatization. This bill is not dealing with privatization.

J. MacPhail: Exactly. That's why I'm asking the question. It speaks to contracting out in section 6, and it is silent on the issue of privatization.

All I'm asking the minister is: in the reorganization, can the minister assure us that these services will stay in the public domain as they're transferred? There are services such as home care services and palliative care services, which are delivered by registered nurses in the community, in the public domain. Will those services continue to be delivered in the public domain?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is nothing in section 4 that would give health authorities or the ministry the power to transfer employees from the public sector to the private sector. This is simply giving power to transfer employees between different worksites.

Under part 2, section 4(3), where the function is transferred to another health sector employer or within or to a worksite, it says that the employee who performs that function or service may be transferred to that employer or within or to that worksite in accordance with the regulation. Whoa! Can the minister assure me that the nurse or the health care professional who is being transferred — that there would be opportunities to apply for vacancies within her own worksite first?

This goes back to the definition of "worksite," which I brought to the government's attention and which we didn't change. Under this situation — let's just use a nurse for an example — the definition of a worksite is, as we've already discussed, hundreds of miles apart. It says here that the health sector employer has the right to reorganize and then transfer those workers. Is there any opportunity or any right for a nurse or any health care worker to have access to vacancies at the geographic location where she worked previously, given the definition of worksite now?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as the Labour minister was explaining earlier when we were talking about the definition of "worksite," there's no intention to involuntarily transfer any employee beyond the 50-kilometre radius. In those circumstances they would clearly have the bumping rights of somebody that would be transferred outside of that 50-kilometre radius. There's certainly no intent. The regulations that are before you are draft regulations. We will certainly ensure that our legal counsel takes a second look at the draft regulations to make sure that there are no conditions under which employees could be involuntarily transferred outside of that 50-kilometre radius.

J. MacPhail: Well, I would urge the government to clarify the regulation as quickly as is possible, because these questions are going to be arising amongst hundreds of workers very quickly, and calm would be best to prevail.

Under part 2, section 4, there is a regulation that qualifies this section. Is it the effect of the regulation on this section that any health care worker who doesn't wish to work elsewhere is, within 30 days, deemed to have resigned?

Hon. G. Bruce: If they don't transfer within the region, within that 50-kilometre area, they're deemed to have resigned.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and of course, you see, that's why it's so important that you have to read the regulation with the act. Yes, the government did table the regulation at the same time. It does get rather complex. I'm just curious, when we're facing health care worker

shortages in many professional areas, as to why this government, who knows that they have retention and recruitment pressure in so many areas, would say that the way to solve the chronic health-care-professional shortage is to arbitrarily transfer a program by legislation and then say that the health care workers in that program or service have to go or they're fired.

Hon. G. Bruce: The intent here — again, to be very clear — is to rebuild our health care system. It is in crisis. I've mentioned that, and I believe that everybody in the province understands that. What we're trying to do is provide a way to give the health authorities as much flexibility as possible, for the interests of patients' needs and the care for patients in our hospital facilities, and not have their hands tied behind their backs because of restrictions or regulations that keep them from being able to make the best choice and the best decision for those patient needs. That's what we're attempting to do here.

At the same time as rebuilding this whole process, we obviously are concerned about health care professionals and making sure that we have good opportunities here for our health care professionals in the province. But the primary focus of all this is making sure that the system is rebuilt to satisfy the needs of our patients, the issues of the patients, and that they're properly looked after. That's what we're trying to achieve.

J. MacPhail: I think people are looking for a more detailed explanation of what's going on here. I think nurses who are deciding whether to stay in this province or not need more information than that explanation.

Yesterday in second reading I said to the House that there were whole recruitment agencies from the United States saying: "Come and work for us, because we don't break contracts." They hadn't even seen this legislation. I expect those recruitment agencies will be waving the legislation and the regulation from their recruiting booths and saying: "Oh, my God, when we hire you for a hospital, you'll be working in that hospital. Don't you worry. You're not going to have to agree to a transfer or be fired."

I bet you there are some people here who are saying: "Oh, 50 kilometres. What the heck — 50 kilometres to drive." Well, I also know that this government refuses to pay nurses for travel to their workplace. That was a big issue in the last round of bargaining, where the collective agreement was imposed on the nurses. If someone is working in Kelowna, for instance, the Penticton Hospital is within 50 kilometres of that hospital. Penticton and Kelowna are within 50 kilometres — or Summerland, let's say. If I'm getting that wrong…. I do believe I've travelled that road a lot.

J. MacPhail: I actually am in the twenty-first century; I'm dealing in kilometres.

Is that nurse, then, required to have a car and travel? Is that the obligation, or are there any provisions for compensation for travel through forced relocation?

Hon. C. Hansen: These changes will actually allow us to accommodate our valued professionals better under this. Under the arrangement as it's been up to now, if there is a change in a workplace, the only option open to the health employer is to actually lay off that nurse and then rehire the nurse in a new worksite. This actually allows — if there is, for example, a consolidation of services — for an orderly transfer at the time that…. The administrators can actually go and announce that there's going to be a change in where services are provided, can go to the nurses and be right up front and say: "We've taken care of your needs. We've accommodated for your transfer to that new facility."

That can't happen under the existing arrangements because of the complicated layoff procedure. It goes into HLAA. The position then has to be posted. We've got examples of that happening in the past. We know we have a challenge when it comes to ensuring that we have an adequate number of nurses in British Columbia. I think every health administrator around British Columbia bends over backwards to try to accommodate nurses and other valued health professionals that are in short supply. This actually gives them the tools to do that.

J. MacPhail: I don't know where nurses are being laid off in this province. There's 1,500 nursing shortages….

J. MacPhail: Yeah, as a result of this government freezing health care spending, reorganizing, downsizing, closing hospitals, nurses will now be laid off.

Don't somehow say that the previous situation, where HLAA had a good record of relocating and retraining, was a terrible situation and that now the reorganization, downsizing, closing of hospitals and adding the threat of firing is a better situation for nurses. I doubt that there's one health care professional who will buy that argument.

Hon. C. Hansen: I know there wasn't a question there, but I don't want the member to get excited about what this is. I will give her an example. She said that nurses don't get laid off. They do get laid off in British Columbia today because of the inflexibility that's currently there. One example happened a few years ago in Children's Hospital in Vancouver, where they had four wards and were trying to consolidate into three wards because of the fact that there were only enough nurses to staff for three wards.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member's saying that she was minister at the time. I will tell the minister how that was resolved. The nurses in the one ward were actually displaced. Those positions then became open. There was no continuity. There was no ability of the hospital administration to be able to go to the nurses in that one ward and say: "This is an orderly transfer that's going to take place." This will allow for that kind of an orderly transfer to take place.

J. MacPhail: Sometimes silence is golden. I didn't ask a question, so silence in this case would have been golden.

That particular example, which this government uses to explain away everything — one example this government uses, in the terrible tragedy of the intransigence of the collective agreement — was resolved.

Don't talk to me about continuity. This government has casual nurses all over the place whom they give no continuity to whatsoever. It's not about continuity. Frankly, that was a transfer within a hospital. We're talking about transfers 50 kilometres away. Let me ask this: what if there is a situation where a nurse or any health care worker has to be transferred, there's no public transit, and she doesn't have a vehicle?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I was saying earlier, I think every health administrator in British Columbia recognizes that we have a challenge when it comes to ensuring an adequate number of nurses. In fact, we now have about 800 nurse vacancies in British Columbia, which is a reduction. We're actually making some progress on that front.

I think every health administrator recognizes the importance of ensuring that nurses are accommodated. They're good managers. They want to retain the nurses. This gives them the flexibility to actually make those kinds of accommodations. I think this would actually make it easier to accommodate in the case that the member talks about, where a nurse may not have access to a vehicle to travel the 49 kilometres.

	YEAS — 69
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Brice
Sultan	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. MacPhail: This is a section, again, where we have to read the legislation with the draft regulation. On multi-worksite assignment rights, this section talks about a health sector employer having the right to reassign an employee and under what conditions that reassignment could take place. That is qualified by section 3 of the draft regulation — yes.

If you read the two together, and I've actually done this upside, inside, outside — and yes, people have advised me on it, and I thought I was doing that for the member from West Vancouver, who's…. Anyway, yes, we now all agree that when you read the two together, a worker, an employee, can be involuntarily moved from Nelson to Port Hardy for 30 days every four months.

I actually am almost 50, and these kinds of work conditions, where a worker can be involuntarily transferred thousands of miles for 30 days every four months, haven't existed in my work life. How is it that this is bringing good patient care or stability or is encouraging recruitment and retention? Secondly…. Well, maybe I'll ask that question first.

Hon. C. Hansen: Clearly, good health administrators — and we do have good health administrators around this province — have to put patients first, but I think they also have to put their workers first. When people are asked to take on assignments that may be outside of their own workplace and even outside of their geographic area, this is not a tool that would be exercised unreasonably.

Clearly, there are times when it is advantageous, to meet patient needs, that the employers have the ability to move employees. Too often what we see is patients that get shunted from place to place. What we're saying is: let's give the administrators the tools to actually, on a temporary basis, assign a worker to a place where they may be needed. They've got to be treated fairly. That's set out partly in the regulations, but it's also set out through a good employment practice.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually glad that the Minister of Health Services is engaging in debate, because, first of

all, he's a reasonable man, he's calm and he answers the questions. I appreciate that. However, I don't agree with him. That'll come as a surprise to him, I know.

Employers, particularly health care workers, have already had collective agreements imposed on them by this government. Then they've had those collective agreements changed by legislation, again, by this government. There are health care workers all around this province who are scratching their heads about a comment that the Minister of Health Services made — which apparently is all throughout the media now, I think — that their wages are under threat as well for being rolled back. I'm not exactly sure; that'll probably break tomorrow, out of the mouth of the Minister of Health Services. I'm not sure that employees have the same warm and fuzzy feeling about their relationship with the employer that the Minister of Health Services has about health care workers.

Of course, the minister says that it shouldn't be unreasonably exercised. That's actually a term that's absolutely legitimately included in collective agreements all the time, but this legislation is blowing up collective agreements. It would be reasonable to have that included. That's not unreasonably applied in a draft regulation, but it isn't included.

Given the minister's comments, I've prepared an amendment tabled in my name. It's amending section 5(a). It says:Section 5(a) is amended by adding words highlighted by underline.

This really just carries along with the very reasonable rationale of the Minister of Health Services.

We can all agree that there's probably a fair amount of tension and mistrust at this point between health care workers and their employers. I think we can agree to that because, you know, one imposed collective agreement that now is ripped up and replaced with legislation…. All this is saying is that the employee has to consent.

The Chair: Thanks, member. We have to rule on this particular amendment. It's contrary to the principle, so it is out of order.

J. MacPhail: I certainly appreciate the Chair's…. It's very interesting how the parliamentary process works, and I actually find it very helpful. When you actually add words that support the debate out of the mouth of the Minister of Health Services and then they're ruled as being contrary to the intent, it really does put another lens on the legislation, doesn't it? When one merely adds the words to a section that will arbitrarily transfer, involuntarily, workers….

J. MacPhail: I'm absolutely back on. When you actually put in context that an employee should have a say in that, it's against the content, spirit and intent of the legislation. We've had that happen several times today. Who knew that kind of lens would be so glaring?

Here's what it means. Arbitrarily, an LPN can be transferred for 30 days to a job far away from her home situation. You know what? Given those circumstances, I'd have to quit, because for a large portion of my life I was the only person looking after a child. Okay, half the time. So I'd have to quit. Is that the intent of this legislation?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as we discussed earlier, the intent of this legislation is to allow employers to make the best use of health care professionals and other workers in the health care system, to make sure that we can meet primary patient needs. I think it's quite straightforward. As I mentioned earlier, I think employers are not unreasonable, but there are certainly times when patient need requires that workers be deployed at different worksites. That's what this allows for.

J. MacPhail: Let's just use the hypothetical single mom in a workforce that's so predominantly…. I won't go there.

What comfort does the minister have for a single parent that he or she won't lose their job because he or she can't go because of parental responsibilities? Where does it say that in either the regulation or the legislation? What comfort does the minister have for these workers?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a provision that provides for not just travel expenses but related expenses. Presumably, something like child care could be considered a related expense if a transfer such as that became necessary. Again, I think that health care administrators are expected to be good employers, and they're expected to take into consideration the interests and the needs of their employees. I think this gives them the ability to balance those needs against the needs of meeting patient care in critical situations. I think we have to ensure that this balance is met, but we also have a proviso in here for related expenses, and certainly child care expenses could be considered under that provision.

J. MacPhail: Are they legitimate expenses or not? Could the minister not qualify it with a "could"? Are child care expenses legitimate expenses or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: We do allow for related expenses and child care expenses could be considered a related expense.

J. MacPhail: Again, I'm not sure that gives much comfort to a single parent who is being forced to go — that maybe he or she will get child care expenses. Again, in my particular circumstances I wouldn't be able to find child care for 30 days. I don't have family who live here. I wouldn't be able to find that.

I just say thank God, given my circumstances, that I am not covered by this legislation, because I would have to quit. I don't know of many people who could find child care for 30 days who aren't relying on grandmas or granddads. Maybe that is the direction of this government.

Can the minister describe other jurisdictions that have this authority, other provinces that have this unilateral right to treat their health care professionals this way? From whence did this come?

Hon. G. Bruce: This isn't from other jurisdictions. This is a government initiative here in British Columbia dealing with a situation that is in crisis. There's no two ways about it. We're not hiding it; we're not trying to sugar-coat it or anything else. We have got to fix the system. We need to take extraordinary steps to do that, and that's what we're doing. It's not a pattern from somebody else. There's nothing untoward in all that. We have got to fix the health care system here in British Columbia. We're taking strong steps to do that, and through that our guiding principle is how best to do it that puts the patient first. That's the test we've been applying in these things that we're bringing through in this bill.

J. MacPhail: It is an interesting method by which one resolves a crisis: by putting in the most draconian work conditions for the very people who provide patient care, when there's a shortage. You're right. This doesn't exist in any other province. No other province would dare say to a health care professional or a health care worker: "You're out of here for 30 days, hundreds of miles away, and if you don't go, you're fired." No other province has that anywhere in Canada, because it isn't the way you retain health care professionals. It's a very interesting made–in–B.C., made-in-a-new-era approach to bring in draconian work conditions to apply to an area that is, by the minister's admission, in crisis, and where we have a labour shortage.

	YEAS — 71
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. MacPhail: We're going to spend some time on this, because as the minister probably fully understands, this is controversial. I want to spend a few moments exploring the thoughtful consideration given this section. This will be a major change in our health care system in British Columbia, so in order for people to fully understand why, I want to explore the logic behind this government moving toward contracting out services.

Of course, we do have quite a substantial area of health services now that will be subject to contracting out. As I understand it…. Well, in fact it says right here that if a patient is admitted to a bed in an in-patient unit in an acute care hospital, the services applied directly to the patient in that bed are clinical services. If you step away a foot or two from that bed, everything's up for contracting out. Of course, if it's direct patient care but the person isn't in the bed in an acute care hospital, then it's subject to contracting out too.

That's a really wide range of services that are going to be contracted out. The minister, I know, kept on trying to explain it as if it was going to be housekeeping, laundry, food services and all that, but, of course, there is a huge amount of patient care services that will be directly available for contracting out. I'll list some of those in a moment.

I was just wondering about the logic behind the government's intention to do this, because this contracting out has been controversial for ages. In the United States contracted services are on the decline. Is the minister aware of that, and if so, why is British Columbia bucking that trend?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have no intention of trying to emulate the health care delivery system that we find in

the United States. What we're looking for are some made–in–B.C. solutions to some very serious problems.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm sure that's the case, except the model for contracted services exists in the United States. Maybe it exists somewhere else in Canada. Maybe there is a model that the government is following. I sure as hell hope there's something you're basing this on.

I'm just curious as to the model which the government is using in order to bring in this massive contracting out. In the United States, where they've had a lot of experience with contracted services, the most recent survey in 1999 of 340 health care executives — not union people, but health care executives — found that the hospital executives were dissatisfied with the contracting out of services and they have actually been reversing that trend of contracting out services. That's the U.S. study.

What study does the government have to suggest that contracting out is the way to go?

Hon. C. Hansen: We're not trying to emulate any model from the United States. What we're doing is simply giving flexibility to our health care managers and administrators around the province in order to get the most cost-effective services for every single health dollar that we have to put into the system.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, if we're not doing a U.S. example, let's go to a Canadian example, then. There aren't many in Canada, I might add, because until very recently almost every provincial government has thought that the principles of the Canada Health Act meant a publicly funded, publicly delivered health care system.

There is an example, so we will look at a Canadian example, and that's the Toronto Hospital. That's part of the university hospital network, which is now Canada's largest health care facility. Is the minister familiar with that study? He's smiling. I don't know; I can stop if he is familiar with it.

Anyway, they embarked on the same sort of rhetorical flight about there being a crisis in patient care and putting patient care first, and they embarked on an ambitious contracting-out program in the early nineties. It was supposed to be about savings.

Food services were contracted out, and the administrators of the day claimed that there would be $2.5 million a year savings in contracting out just the food services. Now, mind you, it's a huge hospital. When you're talking about Toronto, you have to triple and quadruple everything, if not just for their ego. They also contracted out stores functions — the supplier functions — and they had some cost-savings for that as well.

Then the patient satisfaction surveys started rolling in, and those patient satisfaction surveys declared a decline in service quality. The hospital investigated, and the reason why the patients weren't satisfied was because the private contractor was cutting corners in order to meet his own bottom line.

They couldn't meet the special dietary needs for a hospital. I know some people like to say that a hospital kitchen is the same as a hotel kitchen, so why the big salary difference? But wow! I mean, when you're in a hospital, dietary needs and dietary restrictions are part of the health care given. Anyway, this contractor couldn't meet the special dietary needs. They eliminated water delivery from the patients, for instance, and production schedules went awry. This is all from the report, and I'd be happy to give it to the minister. Sometimes the hospital literally ran out of food. It literally ran out of food.

What happened there? I hope the minister is aware of this, because if he's not looking to an American model, he should be looking to a Canadian study. The Toronto Hospital has actually contracted those services back in. Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. C. Hansen: I appreciate the member raising that example. There are certainly other examples of health facilities that have used contracted services, and I think we can learn from all those experiences. I would look forward to receiving a copy of that report, as the member has offered.

J. MacPhail: Well, I've given you two examples of wide-ranging studies where they haven't worked. Perhaps the minister could give me the examples, or maybe the economic impact studies, of where this makes sense and where it has worked.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Well, I'm asking for studies. It's studies I'm asking for.

Hon. C. Hansen: The provisions that are in this legislation are tools we are giving to our health administrators. We have our six CEOs of the health regions around British Columbia, and they have to look at what opportunities there are for getting the best value for every health dollar that's spent. It is our impression that there are some considerable savings that could be realized, savings that could be redirected into patient care.

We're looking to our health administrators. Each of them has good experience when it comes to ensuring that support services are provided in the health care sector. They will certainly be looking at these studies, these examples and these opportunities and making their decisions as to how we can meet patient needs in the most cost-effective way.

J. MacPhail: Let me give you an even more recent example. I was expecting that we could actually engage in a discussion about the reasoning behind this rather substantial change in the way health care is delivered, but anyway, I'll just keep giving my studies. The most

recent study is out of McMaster University, where they looked at the contracting out of re-engineering. It was by Crystal Woodward et al, and I'll quote from that study.

This is very recent: "Hospitals in both the U.S. and Canada have embarked on re-engineering strategies in the absence of any empirical evidence that it is effective or safe for patients." That's actually the study that says most of these initiatives are taken without any study. I hope and pray that the new era of British Columbia isn't about a lack of studies and embarking on a huge change without empirical studies.

Hon. C. Hansen: We are giving the CEOs of the health authorities a mandate to deliver good patient care within a fixed budget envelope. There are obviously going to be some challenges. We're going to give them the tools to deliver patient care as cost-effectively as possible. We'll also be holding them accountable for patient outcomes and for issues around patient safety. Certainly all of those things will be considered.

We're relying on the professionalism of those administrators to make sure that all of these issues the member has brought up are taken into consideration before any decisions are made around contracting out.

J. MacPhail: Well, then, let's just go to the wording of the legislation. If there are no studies about the intent behind it, then all we have is the wording of the legislation. Let's look at how it will apply, given that there's no sort of overarching reason or proof for why this is necessary.

Let's go to the definition of acute care hospital. I just want to be clear. It says the services that are protected and not contracted out are of a person in a bed in an in-patient unit in an acute care hospital. But then, if you actually look at acute care hospital definition, it really isn't a hospital. It could be part of a hospital designated by the regulation.

Here we have institutions with some acute care, or we have them with extended care. We have people who could be in another wing of an acute care hospital, and somehow this is now saying: "Oh, no. Acute care hospital could be just part of an acute care hospital." That could expand even further the contracted-out services.

Of course, the reason why this is significant is because historically these various parts of the hospital share services. The extended care wing shares with the acute care wing. I don't know why this government is singling out that they want to be able to designate a part of a hospital that's protected. What is the logic behind that?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is recognizing that around British Columbia we have many hospitals that have both acute care and other components to them. We're not trying to pretend that just because a hospital has an acute care component to it, it is in its entirety an acute care hospital. It's just simply recognizing that reality.

In hospitals where you do have a mix of uses, nothing in this legislation compels contracting-out. Contracting-out is simply a tool that allows for the most cost-effective way of obtaining non-clinical care.

If there is a mixed use between, say, long-term care or extended care and an acute care function within a hospital, then we expect the administrators to make the best decisions around how services should be delivered. Clearly, they could make a choice that the most cost-effective way of doing that is to retain an entirely in-house provision of services if that's what is most cost-effective for them. This is simply about giving them some flexibility in terms of how best to meet patient needs.

J. MacPhail: By this language in the collective agreement, a patient could be admitted to an emergency ward in a bed but not part of an in-patient ward. Therefore, that emergency ward can be a contracted service. By this legislation, emergency ward delivery of patient care can be contracted out. Is that the minister's understanding as well?

Hon. C. Hansen: The intent of this legislation — and the examples the member is using — is simply to give flexibility in terms of how to best meet patient needs in communities throughout British Columbia. We have singled out non-clinical services as a way of identifying the in-patient services that are protected from contracting-out.

It's simply around flexibility and getting options that will allow us to meet patient needs in the most cost-effective way. That's the best explanation I can give.

J. MacPhail: Oh, now I'm disappointed, because the Minister of Health Services is sounding like the Minister of Labour with just that mantra.

I was looking for some answers. Can an emergency ward be contracted out under this legislation — yes or no?

What about pre-admission procedures? You know; that's where nurses greet patients at the front entrance and do the lab services or provide for the lab services, etc. Sometimes it even gives you radiological services, etc. Is that able to be contracted out under this legislation?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member will be aware, we are looking at a reform around primary care. It is an initiative that is really across Canada and certainly British Columbia. We'll be trying to play a leadership role in that.

There clearly are opportunities for some new models that will actually do a better job of meeting patient needs in communities around British Columbia. Today we have a lot of pre-admission assessments done by

physician's offices, which are private operations. They are private sector operations. There are some opportunities in terms of primary care reform which could make better utilization of some of those services in a way that's actually more accessible to more British Columbians in communities throughout the province.

J. MacPhail: I take it from that that the answer is yes, and they could be contracted out to doctor's offices.

Mr. Chair, I've tabled an amendment in my name to section 6(1). There are actually two amendments. They're dealt with separately, because they're quite separate issues, but I'll pass them one at a time. You could give them to the government. I think you have copies, do you, of the two?

J. MacPhail: Okay. The first one is an amendment to the acute care hospital definition that says:

It deletes "or part of a hospital." I think the dialogue we've been having that clarifies this legislation says pre-admission procedures can be contracted out and even emergency ward services can be contracted out — or all of the services that are shared between an extended care ward and an acute care ward. They're eligible for contracting out. I don't think British Columbians have had a full chance to understand the implications of that. I certainly don't think that British Columbians would understand an acute care hospital to exclude their emergency ward or their pre-admission services that are part of their hospital.

All this does is reflect what British Columbians think of as an acute care hospital.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member, from her time as Health minister, should be very aware of the mixed use of facilities around British Columbia. We have many facilities that have a combination of acute care and long-term care under the same roof. This is simply acknowledging that reality. Just because a hospital has an acute care component, that does not make the entire facility, including the long term care portion of that, an acute care hospital.

The original wording is in fact, I think, the more appropriate way. Therefore, I would have to vote against the member's amendment.

J. MacPhail: Well, we're starting from the premise of an acute care hospital. We're not starting from a premise of a mixed facility. We're starting from the premise of an acute care hospital. By the minister's own words, this leads to the ability to contract out emergency services.

I appreciate the emergence of multi-use facilities, but this starts with the premise of acute care hospital.

J. MacPhail: My next amendment to section 6(1) deals with this issue of non-clinical services.

J. MacPhail: There's this phrase at the end of the definition that says: "…and includes any other services designated by regulation." This amendment deletes that. The reason for that is this. The government is already intruding hugely into eroding the collective agreements of working people in this province — hugely. The government is also suggesting that it wants to bring stability and certainty to the system. This is after kind of taking a meat axe to the collective agreements and, I would say, initially a meat axe to the way services are delivered in this province.

On top of that, then, we have another element of uncertainty, which is that by regulation the government can declare anything a non-clinical service. I just don't think that by regulation, any government should be allowed to continue the uncertainty — that they may abrogate existing collective agreement rights.

I actually don't know how it would work. How does one bargain collectively for delivery of these services if at a stroke of a pen, by regulation — not even debate in this House…. And you know, let's admit it, debate in this House has revealed a lot of stuff about the legislation that is coming as a surprise even to government members here. By regulation, all of a sudden, non-clinical services are added, collective agreements abrogated, workers thrown out of jobs. That isn't stability; that isn't certainty. All this amendment does is remove that potential for instability and uncertainty.

Hon. C. Hansen: I know the member knows how rapidly technology is changing and how opportunities for new ways of delivering health services are changing. The original wording of this particular section simply gives government the ability to make the changes as we see changes in technologies and changes in the way services are delivered. This is flexibility that we believe is important. Therefore I must vote against the amendment.

J. MacPhail: I have another amendment that I want to table, an amendment to section 6(2). It's at the table, if the government could have a copy of it. It is saying:

Mr. Chair, the reason for this is that the government made such a commitment to working people prior to the election, and it was on that basis that they proceeded so that working people understand what the government would do. This amendment merely reflects that commitment.

The Chair: Member, I find this amendment out of order. It's contrary to the principles of the bill.

J. MacPhail: Under section 6(3), the legislation provides a greater ability for the government to contract services. Again, the Premier of this province made a commitment that he had, really, a very sincere belief that front-line workers are a valuable source of information on how to make our system better. Now 6(3) kind of undermines that completely. I'm wondering what made the Premier change his mind about actually consulting with front-line workers before change is made.

J. MacPhail: Section 6(3) says that a person who actually works in the hospital has to be a really integrated part of the operation before that person is declared to be an employee, as I read it. So 6(3) is really limiting who's declared as an employee. Am I misreading that section?

J. MacPhail: The Premier made a commitment that he would integrate and talk and seek the advice of as many front-line workers as he possibly could in getting advice from the system, and 6(3) tends to very narrowly define employees within the system. That's all. What is the intent of 6(3), then?

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 6(3) is the intent of a true employer. We don't have a conflict in that particular instance.

J. MacPhail: Oh, gosh. I know we're all getting tired. I confess I'm getting tired too. I'm really trying to get some help in understanding what the intent of this legislation is. It does go to the point about why we are here ramming this through.

Let me try to get from the minister a couple of other examples under section 6 — the intent, then. As I understand it, under 6(4) any requirement of an employer to consult with its employees is declared void. Why would that be? Why would you legislate against an employer merely asking its front-line workers about its intent to change the way service is delivered?

Hon. G. Bruce: Under 6(4) this doesn't preclude consultation and discussion. We're just not having it in a contract. They can go through the process in dealing with the people on the front lines. That's a certainty of the consultation process, but it's not going to be enshrined in the contract to tie the hands of the employer from being able to get the job done properly. Again, it comes back to expeditiously being able to return services as best we can and as quickly as we can to the patients.

J. MacPhail: Actually, Mr. Chair, it does say that the employer won't consult with employees. It's just an innocuous little section in a collective agreement saying that there shall be consultation, and you've brought down the heavy hand of legislation, the hammer of legislation, to say: "That can't be." What kind of message does that send to employers? "Not only are you not going to be required to consult, but you're not allowed to have in a collective agreement any obligation to consult." Is that the kind of message you're sending to workers that there will be consultation? You're not only saying, "Forget it in a collective agreement," but you've prohibited it. It's illegal. It's a crime to have it in a collective agreement.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the member could join the debate and tell me where I'm wrong.

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to respond. There has been a considerable problem caused in the health care sector around enhanced consultation. Instead of a con-

sultation process that's actually allowed for some facilitation of change in the health care sector to make better use of health dollars, the enhanced consultation has actually been used as a tool to obstruct change.

We cherish consultation. The meetings that we've had with health care workers throughout British Columbia have been very constructive. Some of the language in the collective agreement around enhanced consultation and the requirement to consult has been used as a tool to obstruct change and to obstruct any kind of innovation in the system. That's what this particular section is trying to address.

J. MacPhail: What is it about this government that would make a worker think they cherish consultation, when the example the minister gives is that the people who are being consulted have abused the consultation? What the government does, instead of actually managing properly and not allowing that abuse, is to actually remove any obligation to consult whatsoever with front-line workers when the system is going to be thrown into chaos. They say it's illegal to consult, to have that in your collective agreement. That's what it says. It's illegal to require consultation. You can't put that into a collective agreement.

How would a worker know, then, that this government cherishes consultation? Let me see. How would the public know that this government cherishes consultation, when they put this bill in that came as a shock to the workers affected by it?

Hon. C. Hansen: What this provision does in here is take the provisions out of the collective agreement that require consultation. Obviously, there's still room for consultation. Consultation's not illegal, as the member tried to state. It simply allows for the removal of the requirements for consultation that in many cases have become impediments to consultation and have become impediments to change in the past. We don't believe those kinds of encumbrances should belong in a collective agreement. We want to get on with change. We want to get on with meeting some of the challenges in the health care system.

Hon. C. Hansen: Consultation as a right embedded in a collective agreement will not exist after the passage of this section. Will consultation continue? Yes. Will there be consultation with workers? Yes. Will we get good ideas from front-line workers as to how to modernize the health care system and actually meet patient needs? Yes.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sure that people who read an interview between the now Premier and working people in the health care sector, who…. He said he would always make sure that front-line workers were consulted. I'm sure they'll be dismayed to see that taken out of their collective agreement.

Is it the intent of subsection (5) that successorship rights are removed completely?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. In regards to contracting out, it's very clear in this case.

J. MacPhail: What other collective agreements in the province, whether it be private sector or public sector, deny workers the right to the Labour Relations Code, section 35?

Hon. G. Bruce: There aren't any others. We're very clear. We're dealing here with the health care sector, and we're dealing with the situation that's before us to try to get the best possible tools to the hospital authorities to be able to do the job on behalf of patients so we can put patients first.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's cherishing consultation. Oh my goodness, somehow that puts the lie to the Minister of Health Services, who "cherishes" consultation.

Now we have a situation where it's "consultation, yes," but then we have a bill that we're debating at 1:30 in the morning — legislation by exhaustion. Legislation by slip of the tongue. Now we find there's a section in this legislation that for the first time denies a group of workers access to a provision that applies to virtually every other unionized worker in this province. Tell me how working people covered by this legislation should feel reassured by that. Why is that in here?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's in here — and to be very clear — because we have a crisis in the health care situation, and we need to be able to give the tools to the health authorities to run the system in the best interests of the patients. That's why it's here. That's why you see it here right now.

J. MacPhail: Is that health system one that doesn't have a union in it? Is that why this piece of legislation is in here, so that you can deunionize the health care sector? Is that why this unprecedented, first-time-only, never-ever-existing-anywhere-else piece of legislation exists now?

Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's not. We'll have unions within our health care sector, and we'll have unions in our private sector. We are in a crisis situation with our health care sector, and it's very clear that our health authorities need to be given the opportunity to manage in the most effective way possible.

I hear what the member's saying. The fact of the matter is that we've got a very difficult task ahead of ourselves with the situation that's been left before us, and we're going to deal with it, and we are dealing with it.

	YEAS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Bray

J. MacPhail: On section 7, I need to have the minister clarify a comment he made over and over — well, he made it with great force — yesterday, where he said that after one day of work, a person could receive, or has received, 56.4 weeks of severance. The minister said that yesterday.

Please advise us how many health care workers covered by the provisions of the employment security agreement that this section is now eliminating have, after one day of work, received 56.4 weeks of severance.

Hon. C. Hansen: In my remarks yesterday I was very careful to say "one day of regular employment." That's not counting a probationary period.

Hon. C. Hansen: No, that is what regular employment is. One day of regular employment would actually entitle them to 56.4 weeks of notice and layoff provisions and employment security. There certainly have been cases in British Columbia where employees with only four months on the job have been entitled to 56.4 weeks of layoff and notice provision, and that's before any severance would even kick in. I stand by the remarks I made yesterday.

J. MacPhail: I guess the minister was prepared because he knows how inflammatory, how controversial and how misleading they were.

J. MacPhail: I will tell you, Mr. Chair, there isn't a person in this province who has worked one day and received 56.4 weeks of severance, and that's the justification for why this section is needed. That's the justification. You blow it up. You have people in a form of hysteria on misinformation.

I guess the public is supposed to know that the minister meant regular employment is after the probation period and that they've worked one day. I guess British Columbians were supposed to know that, and they were supposed to go: "Oh, I knew that was what the minister was talking about." Or did the public think that maybe the minister was meaning that a person shows up for one day of work, gets laid off after that being their only day of work there and gets 56.4 weeks of severance?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the point is that there have been real cases in British Columbia where individuals who have been on the job for a four-month period have been entitled to 56.4 weeks. I know that when I've had conversations with people and have explained that to them, they've been absolutely flabbergasted, especially when you compare that to what regular public service employees in the BCGEU are entitled to, when you compare that to what IWA workers are entitled to in British Columbia.

I'm not sure, really, where the member is coming from. Is there a big difference between somebody that's worked one day of regular employment or four months, or whether it's one day of employment? The fact of the matter is that the notice and layoff provisions are onerous, and they are a drain of scarce health dollars that have to be diverted from patient care in order to cover some of these very unreasonable notice, layoff and severance provisions.

J. MacPhail: Here's why this issue is important. It's because that's the example that the government gives for eradicating — erasing with the stroke of a pen — collective agreement provisions for thousands of working people. The minister now qualifies his remarks so that maybe the public can understand, but I can tell you that the Premier never qualifies his remarks. Over and over again, the Premier has said: "One day of employment, 56.4 weeks of layoff." Over and over again the Premier has said that. Maybe the minister was properly advised about how he should mislead or confuse the issue.

Hon. G. Collins: That's about the third time in the last half-hour, I think, that the member opposite has accused ministers of this House of misleading. She knows the rules as well as anybody. She's been here ten years. I'd ask her to withdraw that comment and refrain from doing it again.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'll withdraw that he misled. What the minister did was to deliberately obfuscate the issue.

Hon. G. Collins: There is absolutely no difference between what the member said a moment ago and what she just said now. She is deliberately intending to get that message across. It is against the rules of the House. It is not parliamentary. She knows that after ten years. She can certainly choose her words more carefully and do what she needs to do.

What the minister did was to withhold information that would give the accurate picture to the public about what this clause means. That's what the minister did. The Premier didn't do that. The Premier just said: "One day." No qualifications whatsoever.

Now the minister stands up and says: "Yes, there have certainly been examples where people have worked for four months." There's one example. There's one example of workers who worked for four months. The matter went to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled in favour of the workers. The employer improperly applied the collective agreement.

We have a process of arbitration. The government doesn't like the outcome, so they legislate against it. So far, we have a government, with thousands of workers, first of all not revealing all of the information. Surely, the Premier has done that over and over again — deliberately withheld information about the true circumstances. Then we have the minister standing up today and saying what the real circumstances are and justifying it by saying: "Well, certainly there have been examples where people have worked for four months." There's one example. It went to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled in favour of the workers.

They're losing the employment security agreement 100 percent. The government has imposed legislation that denies these workers — only these workers…. No other worker in the province is subject to this denying of rights under the B.C. Labour Relations Code. Now the heavy hand of legislation is coming down because they don't like one arbitration decision. Is that right?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are no other workers in British Columbia that have layoff and notice provisions that are as onerous as what is contained in here. There are no other workers in British Columbia that have layoff and notice entitlement with salary continuance of 56.4 weeks, whether it's after one day of regular employment or four months of employment, or in fact whether it's after a year of employment. There is no other group of workers in British Columbia that has anywhere near that. I'll tell you, everybody that I've talked to about those provisions is staggered by it, especially when they realize that scarce health dollars are going to fund that kind of unreasonable provision.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm sure they're staggered by it when they have it presented to them as the Premier presents it to them. That isn't the way it is. I'm sure if they have it presented where they have to understand what a regular employee is….

All right. If it's excessive, why has there only been one example of where anything even close to what the minister suggests has gone to arbitration and the workers have won?

Hon. C. Hansen: The reason why this provision is in this legislation is not because of the one day of regular employment. It's not because of the four months of regular employment. It's basically that the onerous provisions are there, and they have applied to every single worker that has gone through the HLAA process in the number of years since the HLAA was first set up and the employment security and labour force agreement was first put in place. This is an onerous provision that's there, and we think it's unreasonable. That's why it's in here — to ensure that health dollars can be properly spent meeting patient needs and not funding provisions that are clearly out of line with every other industry, sector and group of workers in this province.

J. MacPhail: Yet the examples the government uses in its backgrounder are exactly the example of the one arbitration and the one day. That's exactly what the government uses in its backgrounder. Oh, there's an open, honest and transparent government — right.

I hope, Mr. Chair, the Premier will stop saying that after one day of work people get 56.4. Surely the Premier should stop saying that over and over and over again. Maybe, even, the Premier would like to apologize for his obfuscation of the issue.

This is the reason why we're getting rid of the entire employment security and labour force adjustment agreement. This is the basis for it, the absolute basis for it.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, you know, I'm happy to have people engage in the debate — two versus 77. Come on in. Have it. Please join in. I'm sure the public would like to know why, at ten to two, there's dozens and dozens….

J. MacPhail: Surely the public is interested in why we're here and why the government is completely eradicating this employment security and labour force adjustment agreement. Mr. Vince Ready, an arbitrator that even this government can agree is completely honoured and honourable and expert, had this to say about the employment security and labour force agreement. He said it was "a very important way to ensure the contribution of health care workers to the provision of quality care in our province. Through the labour adjustment agency, as work shifts from one area to the other, health care workers move with their work, but they do so with dignity and by choice. They have a chance to participate with colleagues and managers in finding solutions to workplace problems, which are often solved with the assistance of the health adjustment agency."

After the complete ripping out of this section from the collective agreements, what mechanism now exists in this legislation that will help with achieving what Mr. Ready says is absolutely necessary?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're not touching the severance provisions, and of course, for anyone that is in the process, there is a transition for that to occur.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry; did the minister say: "We're not touching the severance provisions"? Could you expand on that, please?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're not touching the severance provisions. We are not touching the severance provisions.

J. MacPhail: Okay. The question was related to what Mr. Ready said, which was adjusting workers so that they stay in the system and move with their work and do so with dignity and by choice. It's not about severance; it's about staying within the system.

I wasn't talking about severance. I was talking about adjustment in the system. The government seems to think that all of this is absolutely excessive, and I'm wondering how these provisions, in terms of costs to the health care system, are excessive compared to what John Tegenfeldt received after three months of work. Perhaps we could do a comparison of those two.

Hon. C. Hansen: What this legislation is about is trying to bring our costs and provisions in the health care system in line with what other provinces and jurisdictions are facing across Canada. Challenges. Everyone's got challenges in health care, but we're all trying to meet those challenges. Certainly, the provisions we're trying to make sure are in place are consistent with what other provinces are facing.

I think that in terms of provisions that are in place for deputy ministers across Canada, those have a certain consistency to them as well. What we're trying to do is to bring our costs in line with the rest of Canada, so that we can actually meet the challenge of delivering patient care in this province in a cost-effective way.

J. MacPhail: This government brought in this change to affect working people. I'm just asking a question about why this is excessive when this government had a person work for three months. Perhaps the minister could tell us what the person made for three months of work. Sorry. The person I'm referring to is John Tegenfeldt.

J. MacPhail: The House Leader keeps shouting that it's irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant, because this government seems to have several standards. Actually, they have two standards. They have one standard for when they want to achieve something, and they have another standard for workers who have had benefits for years and years and years. As long as they do it to solve their problems, it's okay. That's how it's relevant.

The government stands up and says: "Excessive, excessive." That's all I hear. Oh, it's not about those little examples you gave to the public that turn out to be needing way more shaping of information. It's not about that. It's that the whole thing is excessive. How is it that the money paid to John Tegenfeldt for three months of work isn't excessive? I'd like to know the distinction. There's the relevance.

Hon. G. Bruce: Just in respect to the issue around Mr. Ready. You were dealing with that. I think it was on May 8, 1996. The IIC, which was Mr. Ready…. His recommendations that were issued included recommendations to alter the expired accords and employment security provisions and incorporate them into the collective agreement under the SLA.

Then on June 7, 1996, the employers rejected the IIC recommendations, which I'm sure the member across will recall. Those again were Vince Ready's recommendations. But on June 8, 1996, the government, through an order-in-council and a regulation made under Bill 21, imposed Vince Ready's IIC recommendations.

J. MacPhail: Oh my God. Here we have a situation where we have a third party making a decision, and gee, that's terrible compared to what this government is doing, which is that without any consultation, without any third party, you're ripping up collective agreements and imposing them. Oh, I see how it's the same. Yeah, I see.

My question to the Minister of Health Services is how much did John Tegenfeldt get for three months of work? He has not answered the question.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member has been in this House long enough to know that there is an estimates process where that kind of question would be

appropriate. The number is a public record. We're discussing section 7 of Bill 29, and I would recommend to her that she keep her questions pertaining to that section.

J. Kwan: This question goes right to the heart of the issue by way of a comparison of what is excessive and what is not. All the members around the House are screaming. It has been "excessive, excessive, excessive." For only four months of work that happened in his entire history, in terms of the severance payment made that went to arbitration, that only happened once — with the former deputy minister of Health Planning, where the ministry should probably simply be dissolved and save taxpayers another $300,000 or so and those moneys contributed toward the health care system…

For the deputy who left the ministry, for the three months of work, I think the severance that was paid averages out to $25,000 per week. For three months' work, that comes to about $300,000. Is that not excessive?

Hon. G. Bruce: What's excessive and speaks to the issue of what's on the table, and that's what we ought to be dealing with, are the security and layoff provisions. That's what we're dealing with. They're right here. We mentioned them before in regard to what they are. We ran through those numbers for a five-year employee. That's what we've used as an example. B.C. employment standards was 1.2 months, 35 days; IWA was 45 days, 1.5 months; BCGEU was 237 days, 7.9 months — almost eight; HEU was 575 days, 19.2 months — almost 20. That's what we're dealing with here, and we should focus on that. That is what's excessive.

J. MacPhail: This is a situation where the employer always likes to say, "The private sector is suffering," or "This happens in the private sector, so the public sector should…." You know what? An IWA worker never has to worry about waking up one morning and knowing that his employer can go in with 76 trained seals and unilaterally rip up his collective agreement. That's what an IWA worker knows.

That's the difference between the sanctity of a collective agreement for an IWA worker…. Sure, an IWA worker has a provision that's different than a health care worker, but now, because of the legislative hammer brought down, health care workers have no certainty and no protection whatsoever.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I want to explain something to the House, to Hansard and to people who may watch this. We are completely exhausted, and so when we put on record "on division," it is merely to indicate that there are people who object to this and that those two people are MacPhail and Kwan. We will not — only in specific cases — be calling division, because we are completely exhausted. Completely. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why we're here. If, indeed, any of the other Liberal MLAs want to register their opposition…

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I believe we're on section 8. I don't know how any of that little rant related to section 8. Perhaps the member would like to stick to these sections and we can get out of here a lot sooner.

J. MacPhail: My comments were for the information of the Chair, that's all, and putting on record for those that may not understand what "on division" means.

Hon. G. Collins: On the point of order, the member is still out of order and still abusing the House. She knows what the rules are. She's not able to get up and just make a speech about how she feels about the evening or how voting works in the Legislature. We are on section 8, and she should keep her comments to section 8. Then we'll get out of here sooner.

On section 8, the Health Labour Adjustment Agency. Is the minister aware that the government auditor audited the HLAA, and does he have a copy of that audit?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're dealing with section 8. If you'd like to share the relevance of that, please.

J. MacPhail: This section does away with the Health Labour Adjustment Agency. Am I correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct. If the member would like to pose questions, we'd be pleased to try to give the answers that she's looking for.

J. MacPhail: The relevance is that the government auditor did an audit of the HLAA. Is the minister aware of that audit?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to clarify, it was the comptroller general who undertook this review. I haven't read it, but I'm aware of it and some of the things in it.

J. MacPhail: So this is the agency that the government is eradicating, and the government did an audit. The comptroller general did an audit. That's part of the government; that's right.

The title of this is: "The Government Auditor Applauds HLAA Performance." Am I to understand that the minister was not aware or had not read that audit before he destroyed the HLAA?

Hon. C. Hansen: This provision that's here before us in section 8 is in no way a reflection on the performance of the HLAA or the people that have worked there. I had the opportunity in the past to meet with the executive director and review the operations. I've certainly looked at some of the content of their annual report.

This initiative is in here because of the restructuring of the health authorities in British Columbia. There is no longer a need to have an organization such as the HLAA to manage labour force readjustment. That is a responsibility that is now going to be vested with the health authorities. We believe that's where the accountability should be and that's where the human resource management should be located. Therefore, the HLAA is no longer relevant and no longer a required organization.

J. MacPhail: Just so the public knows: in December 2000 the office of the comptroller general authorized a performance-managed review of the Health Labour Adjustment Agency. On September 19, 2001, which would be under the current government's regime, the overwhelmingly positive final report prepared by the KPMG consulting firm was submitted to the provincial government. KPMG concluded that the HLAA is an effectively managed organization with a clearly defined mandate and that appropriate financial and performance measurement systems are in place to support the assessment of operations against that mandate.

The overall conclusion is testimony to the hard work of the staff and the cooperative spirit that has developed among employers and union representatives at the provincial, regional and local levels.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I said before, our decision to remove the HLAA is no way a reflection on the staff that have worked there. I have no difficulty in accepting the report that commends them on the work that they have done up till now.

What does replace it is the work of the health authorities. We think that in an organization with a budget of $9.5 billion in British Columbia and health authorities that have budgets ranging from $300 million to $1.3 billion, those organizations should be responsible for managing their human resource issues. They should be ensuring that there is training in place. They should know that they are doing proper forecasting for what kind of professions are needed in the future and what kind of training has to happen to meet those requirements.

That is going to be a responsibility that's not going to be spread among a whole bunch of different organizations. We want that clear responsibility and accountability vested with the health authorities in British Columbia, and that's where it will be from here forward.

J. MacPhail: What will the guidelines be for training for the health authorities?

Hon. C. Hansen: We will be requiring the health authorities to put in place a proper human resource management system, just like any other organization of that magnitude.

J. MacPhail: Let me just give the public some examples of the achievements of the HLAA.

There was a shortage of OR nurses in Trail, and the HLAA resolved that problem through a training program. There is an example of resident care aides becoming LPNs through the training assistance of the HLAA. There is also an example of a community nurse in Lillooet being able to fill a vacancy in the Lillooet District Hospital through the HLAA. There is training program after training program after training program.

In fact, the HLAA was set up to deal with downsizing in the health care system, and now the HLAA is dealing with upsizing in the health care system across the province. What mechanism is in place to replace the HLAA so that there is a mechanism for training, relocation and upsizing across the province among all of the regions?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting that the examples the member used were all from communities that previously had community health councils. I think one of the problems with the health authority structure that was in place is that community health councils were so small that they didn't have the capacity to do their own training programs. They didn't have the capacity to properly manage human resource issues.

With the new health authorities as we've structured them, they do have that capacity, and we expect them to provide those kinds of training programs to make sure their future needs are met.

J. MacPhail: Why is the government legislating that the ESLA, and the HLAA that operates under its auspices, are gone now? Why are they not in place until the expiry of the collective agreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: With the transfer of these responsibilities to the health authorities, the HLAA becomes redundant.

J. MacPhail: But this is a negotiated right that working people paid for through lower wages. What replaces it in terms of opportunities for training that workers can rely on?

Hon. C. Hansen: The health authorities will be clearly accountable for ensuring that there are proper human resource strategies put in place and that those needs are met.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'll put to you an amendment in my name to section 8(4). You have it. Perhaps the minister could have a copy of it. This amendment says:

J. MacPhail: What this says is that at the very least, the government can ensure that workers have access to training. I mean, it's not like it's anything other than a benefit for better patient care that workers are trained and retrained and upgraded. That's what part of the collective agreement provides: certainty and stability.

If this isn't in here, there is absolutely no certainty, no stability and no guarantee that training will take place — unless the minister has some form of guarantee. That's what I was asking for in terms of what guidelines replace it and where those exist. There's no evidence of that. This is to say that while the minister is getting that in place, the provisions of the HLAA and the ESLA continue until the expiry of the collective agreement.

Hon. C. Hansen: What we have provided for in this is an orderly wrapping up of the affairs of the HLAA. Clearly, they have training programs that are underway now. We don't want to compromise them. For those individuals who are benefiting from programs administered by the HLAA currently, we want to see those followed through. We have provided for that orderly wind-down of their activities.

On the other hand, I quite frankly think it would be irresponsible for us to continue to put scarce health dollars into a service that would in fact be a duplication of the kinds of obligations that are being transferred to the health authorities. The whole purpose behind this exercise is to ensure that every health dollar is used to its optimal advantage. If we accepted the member's amendment, we would not be doing that.

J. MacPhail: How can the minister assure the health care system of consistency across the regions in terms of training, or will regions be competing with each other for scarce professional, trained workers? How will the minister avoid that?

Hon. C. Hansen: We've never pretended that one size fits all in British Columbia. The training needs in the north are going to be different from the training needs in the Vancouver coastal health authority. Clearly, there are different models that would be used. We will give the health authorities the flexibility to put in place the training programs and the human resource management programs that best meet the needs of those communities.

J. MacPhail: Who will make the guidelines for training? Will the health authorities establish them themselves? Or will the Minister of Health Services provide those guidelines?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning are working on a regular basis with training providers in British Columbia. We work closely with the Minister of Advanced Education on these issues. Clearly, we'll be working with the health authorities to make sure that we can ensure that the best training programs are put in place. We can share ideas between health authorities, and we can make sure that community needs get met.

J. MacPhail: Section 9 deals with layoff and bumping. There are no explanatory notes. I'm sorry; there's one explanatory note in all of this. Perhaps the minister could edify how layoff and bumping now occurs, given this clause.

Hon. G. Bruce: With respect to the HEU in this instance, there would be a two-bump maximum, and the layoff notice would be up to 60 days.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm not sure. Am I missing the point about two-bump maximum in section 9? Where does it say that in section 9?

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 9 of this act in conjunction with section 5 of the regulation. What this means is that someone over five years would bump into someone under the five-year category. Someone that was under five years would bump into somebody junior.

J. MacPhail: What happens if a hospital is closed? How does this work if a hospital is closed? Can the minister walk me through it, please?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think I've explained the concept relative to the bumping provision and what there is in regards to the two-bump maximum, the layoff notice of up to 60 days, how that process would work relative to where someone fit — whether you're over five years or under five years — and where you would bump to. If you take section 9 and then the time limits with respect to bumping under the draft regulations of section 5, you would see that there are still bumping provisions that would be available.

J. MacPhail: Am I to understand that if a hospital is going to be closed, all the notice that's required under this section is 60 days?

Hon. G. Bruce: The maximum layoff notice period is 60 days. That's what this speaks to here. Then there's the two-bump maximum.

J. MacPhail: Let me try to figure how it works. Continuing, then. The layoff section 9(c), "Layoff and bumping," says: "(c) requires a health sector employer to provide more than 60 days' notice of layoff to an employee directly or indirectly affected and to the trade union representing the employee." That's where if a collective agreement has more than 60 days' notice for an employee, it's void. What would be an employee indirectly affected? Who would that be?

Hon. G. Bruce: Indirect people are people who could potentially be bumped through that whole bumping process.

J. MacPhail: They're people who aren't going to be laid off but are in the system and of a certain level of seniority. Why are they covered here at all, if they're not going to be laid off?

J. MacPhail: This whole thing is covered by a premise that this stays in effect until December 31, 2005. Why was that date selected?

Hon. G. Bruce: From our standpoint, this allows us the time to do the restructuring that's necessary.

J. MacPhail: The health care agreements, across the board, expire in 2004, so does this effectively prevent…? I mean, you've ripped up the collective agreement. Now, because of this, does this legislation mean that even on expiry of their collective agreement, workers can't negotiate any sort of application of seniority rights in the next round of bargaining?

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear, we're trying to get the health care system restructured and operating properly. What happens here in this instance is that these provisions apply until December 31, 2005. If they wish to renegotiate other items during their contractual arrangements, they can, but they won't take effect until after December 31, 2005.

J. MacPhail: Let me just get this clear. You're ripping up a collective agreement. The government is ripping up a collective agreement that exists now. There is an opportunity in 2004 for working people to try to sit down with their employers and renegotiate provisions, but this legislation prevents that. Why is that heavy hand necessary? I asked earlier whether this was just to deunionize — no right to successorship, just having layoff provisions destroyed, having the inability now to even renegotiate terms for a full year after the expiry of the current collective agreement. What is good about patient care under those circumstances? Tell me how you link the two.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is not about deunionization. This is about putting patients first. This is about getting the restructuring done that's necessary so we can run our hospitals in the proper way. It's about getting the management tools we need to do that restructuring.

What this provides us is the period of time that we think is necessary to be able to do the restructuring. December 31, 2005, is when these provisions end.

They may come back to the table. If they are able to negotiate other arrangements together, they would take effect after December 31, 2005.

J. MacPhail: I've tabled an amendment to section 9 dealing with this specific situation. Section 9 is amended by adding the following subsection:

J. MacPhail: What this does is try to remove the unbelievably draconian consequences of this legislation. The words coming out of the ministers are: "Oh, no, no, that's not what it's about." But not once are they willing to modify the legislation to clarify that that's not their intent. Amendment after amendment is tabled to merely put substance to the words that come out of the minister's mouth.

Hon. G. Bruce: I would accept your judgment, of course. I believe this is against the intent of what we're trying to do here.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, what this does is fill in a gap of a collective bargaining regime that the government hasn't outlawed yet. The collective agreement

expires in 2004. This legislation keeps the hammer on people until 2005. The minister says: "It's not about deunionizing. It's not about taking away collective bargaining rights." All this does is clarify that. It says that collective bargaining still prevails. That's all it says, to fill in the gap.

We have a situation here where we have workers who have had so much damage done to the trust relationship between them and their employers. And you know what? Every single time this government stands up and says: "This is about better patient care."

Who delivers that patient care? Is it a machine? Is it some sort of little assembly line that doesn't have any people attached to it? Or is it real people, real human beings, who deliver that patient care, which this government wants to make better? Is it all the MRI machines? Is it CAT scans? No. Eighty percent of our health care system costs is because we're paying the human beings who deliver that patient care.

Hour after hour, this government has said: "Oops, sorry. That's a right that's gone. It's unprecedented, but that's a right that's gone. Oops, that's torn up. Oops, there's a gap of a year where you have no rights whatsoever." All this amendment does is say that this government is not taking away collective bargaining rights for a full year.

Hon. G. Bruce: This model that we're working on here is similar to that in the BCGEU. We're not deunionizing. Again, I'll explain that we believe we need the time to restructure. It won't be a snap of the fingers to bring back our health care system. It's got a lot of work that needs to be done. We need to have the tools to be able to do it. That's why we've chosen December 31, 2005: to give us that time. The parties still may go through their negotiating process, come up with another process that they would like to have embodied in their collective agreement, but that won't take effect until after December 31, 2005.

You're absolutely correct and very clear on it: this is dealing with this sector of our society, the health care sector, which is in a desperate situation at this point. This is what we're attempting to correct.

J. MacPhail: What happens to the terms and conditions of working people with regard to layoff and bumping, from the expiry of the agreement in 2004 until December 31, 2005? What rules apply?

J. MacPhail: In bringing consistency and stability to the system, the government is going to rely on this regulation for tens of thousands of health care workers, for their rights in terms of application of seniority. Is that right?

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. All right. The silence from the government, absolute silence…. If one wants chaos in a health care system in terms of labour adjustment, just rely on this for more than a full year. I predict, because of the incompetence of this government in getting legislation right — even if it is draconian, even getting it right — and ramming it through, our health care system will be thrown into such chaos that it will be unprecedented in Canada. That's what I predict.

	YEAS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Bray

	YEAS — 71
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
[ Page 1032 ]
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

J. MacPhail: We're into a different section of application of this legislation in terms of the workers affected by it. The social services sector comprises workers who deliver services to the most vulnerable. At a quarter to three in the morning we are going to be determining the fate of people who are day care workers, who look after the mentally ill, who look after the developmentally disabled, who look after seniors, who look after people in group homes. That's what we're doing at a quarter to three. We are going to fundamentally alter the wages, working conditions and benefits of people who deliver for those who are the sickest, the weakest and the most vulnerable. That's what we're doing right now.

K. Krueger: What's wrong with the night shift? What's wrong with a quarter to three? You did it all the time.

J. MacPhail: The Whip is really going to have to stop saying things that simply aren't true. Never before has a debate occurred at this hour since I have been in the Legislature. Never before. Unbelievable.

This government thinks people will think that they introduced legislation 48 hours ago that no one had ever seen before or expected. They're saying it was done before. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's what I'm saying. At a quarter to three in the morning we are debating conditions that are going to alter the wages and working conditions of people who look after our most vulnerable, and this government thinks that's just fine — just fine. I can hardly wait for them to go to their constituencies tomorrow and face not only the people whose wages and working conditions…but the clients that they serve. I can hardly wait to have them offer the explanation that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson just offered.

We are dealing with a completely different group of working people now. A completely different group. They are often the lowest-paid in society, but not in this province. In this province over the course of the last decade, these workers made huge gains, and you know what? We had well-trained, properly paid, good, solid professionals looking after our most vulnerable — until quarter to three on a Monday morning. You can rest assured that that won't be the case in the future.

Section 12 is beautiful in its simplicity: "A party to an accord is not required to carry out a term of the accord." That language is repeated in sections 14(2), 14(3) and 16. Does that mean that an employer has the right to recognize those contractual rights or obligations under these sections if they choose to do so?

Hon. G. Bruce: This does not stop an employer from voluntarily recognizing those concerns.

J. MacPhail: So tomorrow morning we can have various working people across the province sit down with their employers and negotiate terms and conditions that were previously in an accord.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is about choice. What we're saying is that the employer does not have to mandatorily do them. A party to an accord is not required to carry out a term of the accord.

J. MacPhail: Section 13 voids any provision of a collective agreement that is based on or derived from an accord. What has happened in some situations is that the accords were the complete basis for contractual rights. The relationship between the employer and the worker, the man or woman, was established in the accord and then put into the collective agreement. This section voids a collective agreement that has a provision that flowed from an accord. It will be very interesting to figure out how the government follows that. It will be very interesting how the government determines what flowed from an accord and when it flowed. Was it an accord made under the Social Credit government earlier on, or was it just these accords? It'll be very interesting to explain how parts of a collective agreement are voided. This section does that.

What could happen is that when this section comes into effect, there will be collective agreements that just, even given the minimum standards, have no provision for rights that virtually every other collective agreement has — for instance, severance entitlements or bumping provisions.

I have a question for the minister. In Bill 28, which we finished yesterday — again, legislation rammed through — the government said that the continuity of services and care were key factors in justifying their actions. Over and over and over the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour stood up and said that. They were talking about that under the context of Bill 28 and dealing with children in schools with disabilities and that it was very important. That's what it was about. We heard over and over again, particularly from the Minister of Education, that there was a critical importance in ensuring that the same learning assistant or teacher's aide was available for those with disability.

Can the government now explain why, if you're in the social services sector, delivering those same kinds of services — perhaps to those same individuals but not in a classroom — those workers deserve less? I'm sorry; I said: "Why do those workers deserve less?" I meant: "Why do the clients who are receiving the services from those workers deserve less?" My apologies.

Hon. G. Bruce: A couple of points. First of all, section 13, as it's written here, doesn't apply to severance. There's no severance provision losses here and no bumping provision losses here. In respect of the clients you're speaking about, all we're doing is affording those people the choice to be with the people that they feel can best give them the care they need.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry; is the minister suggesting that the accords they're eradicating don't cover any provisions anywhere for bumping or severance?

Hon. G. Bruce: That's clear. We do not touch the bumping provisions; we do not touch the severance provisions. We're talking about the successorship accord, the parity agreement and the joint benefits trust.

J. MacPhail: The public sector accord to establish a successorship policy for contracted social service agencies is also covered.

J. MacPhail: What sections of collective agreements are you voiding, then? Perhaps you could put it in the positive about what is affected.

Hon. G. Bruce: We're dealing with those issues that are pertinent to the successorship accord, the parity agreement and the joint benefit trust.

J. MacPhail: So it's the minister's understanding that no worker covered in the social services sector will have any diminished bumping or severance provisions — none whatsoever.

Hon. G. Bruce: In section 13 as it applies to the accords, no. When we come to section 14 and employment security provisions, there will be discussion there.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, you're just asking me, and I'm trying to be very clear. Yeah, I understand there's lots there.

J. MacPhail: You can be completely forthright with me. I don't have the ability or the energy right now to follow a long line, so you can just be frank with me about what's eliminated. You don't have to restrict it just to the particular clause we're dealing with.

In terms of continuity for working people covered under the social services sector, is the voiding of that continuity in terms of them being able to stay on the job with their clients covered under section 14? I'm just asking, Mr. Chair, so I know which way to vote on this.

Hon. G. Bruce: Under section 13, what we're dealing with here is the successorship, the parity and the joint benefit trust. That's what this applies to under section 13.

J. MacPhail: It will be very interesting to see, for those who are going to rely on this debate to figure out what is void and what isn't, what jewels of intelligence they glean from this debate.

The successorship accord that's being eradicated by section 13 provides a dispute resolution process that's designed to address the issues related to successorship. Specifically, what the government is doing here is saying that successorship doesn't apply. Employees who have organized a workplace that comes under the auspices of the services that all of these people in such a dedicated way deliver would come under the terms and conditions of the accord.

But understanding that there may be some transitional issues, some adjustments or some very unintended consequences to that, the accord actually has built into it a dispute resolution process designed to address those issues. Can the minister advise of any instances where an employer or a government has used the process to address the problems referenced by successorship?

This whole area is being eradicated because this interferes with employers being able to carry out their services in an efficient, productive way. What evidence does the government have of that, given that there's a mechanism in the agreement to address exactly those situations?

Hon. G. Bruce: Okay. Now, going back, the employer never did sign successorship accords. That was forced upon them. I want to just keep the tone down. I just want you to understand where we're coming from.

We're eliminating those provisions dealing with the successorship. We're eliminating under section 13 those provisions dealing with parity, and we're eliminating under section 13 those provisions that deal with the joint benefits. That's what we're doing here. It's very specific. That's what section 13 is all about.

What we're doing is giving ourselves the opportunity for the employer group and for, actually, the cli-

ents, the ones you spoke about as the most vulnerable in our society, to have the ability to make the choice that's best for them, best for their care.

J. MacPhail: Oh, in this case the most vulnerable clients have a range of choices. When it came to Bill 28, there had to be legislated consistency. Well, the reason why this issue is important….

Even though the minister likes to stand up and say the employers had the accord forced on them, the employers in that context, while we were still government and the accord applied, had a mechanism to raise their issues of concern and, in fact, to have that mechanism apply so that maybe the successorship didn't apply to them. The dispute resolution process allowed employers to take those concerns to dispute resolution and have their concerns resolved. You know what? Their concerns may have meant that they weren't covered by the collective agreement. It could have meant that. That's exactly right.

Given those circumstances, and given the fact that now, by fiat, this government is eradicating all of those hard-won gains — after 11 weeks of strike — somehow a secret deal…. Yeah, that 11-week strike was a real secret deal. That was a backroom sidebar deal that no one knew about — the 11-week strike. Now those workers are having all of that taken away from them because of the infringement on the employer's ability to do its work, I guess.

I'm just wondering what evidence…. Given that the employer had an out to have those points made, how many times did any employer go to have their concerns raised through the dispute resolution mechanism? Is the answer none? Is the answer zero?

Hon. G. Bruce: Immaterial. We are eliminating these provisions. That's what we're saying here. We are taking out what was a truly offensive situation. We're eliminating the successorship accord, the parity accord and the joint benefits under section 13. What we are doing that's very positive is giving choice and the best care that we can to the people who are the most vulnerable in our society. I know that's not something that the member wishes to hear, but that's in fact what we are doing.

J. MacPhail: Maybe it's late — 3 o'clock in the morning. Maybe the minister doesn't understand the question. I said: given that this was so offensive, yet was the law of the land — given…. Yes, it was the law of the land. I admit to the fact that after an 11-week strike, our government gave benefits and rights to these 10,000 people. I admit that. Given that it was the law of the land and in that law of the land there was a dispute resolution mechanism to deal with the offensive parts, why is it that not one single employer saw the need to access that dispute resolution mechanism?

Hon. G. Bruce: Those people employed in this sector will still be receiving their 34.6 percent increase that had been awarded. What has been eliminated — and we're clear on this — has been that final 28 percent lift at the end of the contract. You know, after they'd negotiated a contract, here was just another 28 percent. Then when we marry them all together, that comes back up through the system and provides for government — this government now — to deal with the $415 million unfunded liability, when you take it across both sectors, that we're talking about here.

To be clear, one more time: this eliminates the provisions in regard to successorship, parity and joint trust.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sure all those workers will be very happy to know that the government is cutting their hard-earned wages that they went on strike for 11 weeks for and that every single member on that side gave them succour during the strike. Every single Liberal member met that was elected at the time. I agree, sir, because I can fully expect what your response would be.

Every single elected Liberal MLA from '96 to 2001 met with these workers and said: "Oh. That government is so bad. You're right. You deserve everything you're asking for." You know what? Those workers remember that. Those workers remember, members from Richmond, that you met with them and you said: "Absolutely." Now they'll remember that what you said then was balderdash, and what you're now doing is cutting their wages.

The minister likes to stand up and say 34 percent and 28 percent. Well, do you know what they're actually earning now? Looking after our most vulnerable — the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled that this government says have been so neglected by the previous government, and we love them. They're earning about $16 an hour, and you're going to cut their wages.

I'm sure they'll try hard to remember whether, when they came to the members of the Liberal Party when they were on strike, the Liberal Party members said: "Oh, $16 is too much for you." I'm sure that that's what they'll remember. Is it, or is it not?

Again, the complete withholding of information from the public by saying 28 percent and 34 percent. Where is the Minister of State for Mental Health on this issue — the man who says he champions the matters of the mentally ill? In fact, he now says he's the advocate, because he fired the real advocate. Where is he now when the people looking after those who have a mental illness are going to have their wages cut? How is that good for our mental health system?

I just want to read a letter about one of these workers. It's a letter from a woman who works in the community social services sector reflecting on this government's recent action. I believe it was originally sent to the Minister of Human Resources. He also happens to be the MLA for the writer's constituency. She addresses him as Mr. Coell.

The Chair: Pardon me, member. You're not supposed to use names here. You can't quote names.

J. MacPhail: All right. Then the speaker refers to the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

That's a letter from exactly the worker that I described. And you know what? There were ten thousand of them. They met with each and every one of you who was elected in 1996 — each and every one of you, and each and every one of the members….

J. MacPhail: Yes. Each and every one of the members of the government who were elected gave exactly that comfort to those workers — exactly.

But today's a different day, isn't it? Yeah, the tax cuts for the rich have to be paid by these very workers. It's a nice transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Gosh, that's good news for British Columbians.

Hundreds of these letters are coming — hundreds. I can hardly wait to see what the answers will be from the government members now. I can hardly wait to see the Minister of Labour stand up and say to a person who's making $14.78 an hour: "You have a pay cut." I can hardly wait. I can hardly wait to see how it will affect the clients that they serve so honourably.

Given the fact that they're going to have their wages cut, I'm tabling an amendment to section 13 in my name. If the Table could give a copy to the minister.

J. MacPhail: This is giving substance to the fact that some of these workers who went on strike for 11 weeks are now having their collective agreements changed. It merely says that where there are now no alternative collective agreement rights existing, the rights that they went on strike for — for 11 weeks — will be reinstated.

I'm sure that every single member who met with one of these workers and made the promises will surely support this amendment.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, have you seen the amendment there? Our position would be that this would impose a cost to the Crown, and I believe this then would be out of order.

The Chair: Members, this would constitute a cost to the Crown. Therefore, it is invalid.

J. MacPhail: The fact that the Minister of Labour admits that what they're doing is about reducing costs on the backs of the working people is unbelievable, but at least he has come clean. At least he has come clean now that this isn't about choice or flexibility. It's about taking money out of the pockets of working people to

give for the failed economic policies of that tax cut that they could hardly wait to give to the richest in this province.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, just to be clear on this and what we're talking about: we're talking about a situation where we need to make some changes so that we can provide the very best care for the most vulnerable in our society. That's what these changes are allowing us to do.

That 34 percent increase that this sector received, they will receive. The member opposite continues to talk about wage cuts relative to that contract period. That's not what's happening. What is not going to be allowed to happen is this final balloon payment.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's a balloon payment. It comes at the end of the contract as a balloon payment — a very large payment.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's $275 million — a lot. I respect very much those who are working in this field. It's a very difficult field.

I'd also like to point out that relative to other wages across Canada, this sector, with what they're receiving — even after this parity balloon payment does not go into effect — will still be close to the highest-paid in Canada. I believe there's one, maybe two, areas where they would be higher. I think it's only one. The fact of the matter is that they will be getting that 34 percent increase that was in their contract.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I guess the 1990s were spent recognizing that those who look after our most vulnerable, people looking after children, were paid less than what people who look after animals were paid. Yeah, I guess we did recognize that was valuable work and should be paid properly. I wouldn't necessarily say $14.78 an hour is being paid properly and adequately for the full value of people looking after people with mental illness.

The government established a whole minister of state to be the advocate for people with mental illness. No longer do they have to live in institutions; now they live in group homes. The people who look after them — the professional care that they get — are earning $14.78 an hour. Yeah, you bet your boots that this province was close to one of the highest jurisdictions recognizing that. We were the first jurisdiction in the 1990s to recognize how important that work was and how valuable people with disabilities were and that they needed to be treated the same way as everyone else in society.

Where's the Minister of Education now, when she talks about how precious our children with special needs and developmental disabilities are? Where's the Minister of Education now, as she participates amongst a government that's cutting the wages — ballooning wages — while you're shutting down the group homes? The government's going to be shutting down the group homes, cutting the wages of the people who look after our most vulnerable. What possible quality of life can those members of our society expect under the new era? What possible quality of life?

I have a question on section 13. The member for Surrey–White Rock, the current Minister of Children and Family Development, said yesterday in the debate that the reason why they had to erode the successorship agreement was because concerns by first nations had been raised because it prohibited their opportunities to provide services in this sector. The successorship accord has a specific section recognizing first nations interests and a process to address transition matters. Can the Minister of Labour advise if this section has been activated to address first nations concerns — ever?

Hon. G. Hogg: I'd like to introduce the Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development, Chris Haynes, who's here with us this evening.

We have no recollection or knowledge of any use of that. It may well be that there was lack of confidence in that, as there has been in many provisions which were in existence, but we have no recollection or no evidence of any use of that section.

J. MacPhail: How does the minister know about the concerns of the first nations? Was it a secret discussion?

Hon. G. Hogg: The letter was written to me very recently, and should this bill pass, then the matter will be resolved.

J. MacPhail: So the successorship accord has been in place for over two years, and the minister received one letter very recently. I'm sure we'll be able to get a copy of that letter. Are the FOI laws going to be changed?

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Competition suggests that he doubts that I would get that letter. I guess we can anticipate that the freedom of information laws will be changed, then. Gosh. Glad we're still here informing the public of what's going on with this government.

So it's on the basis of that that the minister participates in the destruction of the successorship accord?

Hon. G. Bruce: The successorship accord was really a process of forced unionization. You had a situation there where not only would those that were in a situa-

tion where they may not be unionized as caregivers…. If there was work that they could bid on that had been performed by a caregiver who had been previously unionized, there were strong possibilities that by accepting that work, as the successorship accord was written, they would be instantly unionized. Then, on top of that, an agreement would be forced upon them. The agreement would be in place just instantly.

That's the offensive provision of the successorship, and of course, the greater offensiveness of the whole successorship accord is the fact that the very people that you are trying to help and look after had the potential of becoming almost unionized themselves, the way you had written this thing. A parent couldn't actually move the child or young adult — or whatever the age was — to another facility without the prospect that if that person was coming from a unionized facility they could very well end up having to be treated or looked after by the same people.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, unfortunately it is. We wouldn't be dealing with it otherwise. Unfortunately, it is, and how we continue to rewrite history is great, but we are going to put the patient first in this province. We are going to put the most vulnerable first, and that's what we're doing. That's what this is all about. That's what's before you right now.

J. MacPhail: You know, Mr. Chair, tomorrow morning the Liberal members are going to have to wake up and explain and justify their fearmongering.

Earlier in the day, we were actually quoting from parents who were calling in to us. We're the only vessel available to British Columbians who disagree with this government, who have concerns or even who just want questions raised. The members here don't raise the questions of the constituents. They don't raise the questions of their constituents at all. Earlier in the day, when the people were calling us because they couldn't get the answers from their MLAs and when we were raising those questions about children with autism and special needs and class sizes, we were accused of fearmongering.

That minister stands up and fearmongers with a nonexistent example of the clients themselves becoming unionized and not being able to move. Well, I'll tell you, they won't be able to move now, because there won't be anywhere for them to move to. That's certainly a situation now. There's no need. With your 77-member majority and your inability to represent your constituents, you don't also have to add examples that exist only in the mind.

J. MacPhail: Section 14 deals with some options for people in this sector who are about to be laid off. The collective agreement has been ripped asunder, and this is what replaces it. It's important that we have some answers of clarification to this.

Under section 14(2), this is, again, a section that says a member of the Community Social Services Employers Association "…that is a party to a collective agreement that includes employment security provisions is not required to carry out the employment security provisions." Given the member's previous answer in this area, I assume that this enables employers to continue to recognize employment security.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I was referring to section 14(2). So the minister was wrong in his previous answer, where the same language said that an employer could continue with an accord and that it wasn't a mandatory prohibition. Somehow we're to read this clause differently, then.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I see. This is mandatory. Really, what this means is that this voids the employment security provisions. Why was it written this way, then? Why was it written in the negative when it allows the employer to exercise a positive?

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear, this takes this out. The further provisions of this section replace it with those that you'll find, I believe, in subsection (5).

J. MacPhail: Why didn't you write it, then, as "…is required not to carry out"? Why wasn't it written that way, then, to make it absolutely clear? This can be written easily as "…is not required to carry out the employment security provisions, but it could, if it so wished," which was the answer the minister gave to this exact interpretation previously.

Hon. G. Bruce: If an employer wants to give more, that's fine. We're taking this out.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's what I was asking. I was asking: can the employer keep employment security provisions if it so wishes?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. Just to be clear: if an employer wanted to give the 12 months' layoff notice and provision, they could do that. What we've done is make provisions where it's gone, and we've put in replacement provisions below, in subsection (5).

J. MacPhail: Under section 14(4) it talks about workers who have more than ten years of regular ser-

vice seniority. How many workers in this sector have ten or more years of seniority, and what severance entitlements exist for those with less than ten years?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's up to 60 days' notice under ten years. If they have no provisions in their collective agreement, then it would be the employment standards.

J. MacPhail: This section is where the benefits trust…. The government is now allowing for an employer to not enrol or withdraw from the health benefits trust. What effect, if any, does this have on the benefits available to the workers now covered by the health benefits trust?

Hon. G. Bruce: The employees are covered. What this provides is choice for the employer. If they'd like to come out of the health benefits trust, they can do so. They have to be able to prove they can cover their liabilities. This is giving choice to the employers.

J. MacPhail: Given that the government admitted earlier that this was about saving money on the backs of these workers, does the employer have to prove that they can get a better, more cost-effective deal elsewhere before they can withdraw?

Hon. G. Bruce: The employer has to prove that they can cover the liabilities under the employment benefits trust and that they can get a similar program with the same benefits.

Hon. G. Bruce: If the employer felt that was the prudent thing to do, as long as they've met the two caveats here in being able to withdraw, they could do so.

Hon. G. Bruce: This section protects the government from any actions, damages or compensation before the courts in this respect.

Hon. G. Bruce: On the advice of legal counsel in preparation of this bill and the actions that are being taken, it was thought that it would be prudent to have it in.

J. MacPhail: I'm just curious. When this was discussed at cabinet, did anyone absent themselves under a conflict of interest or anything that the minister is aware of that has to be registered by minute?

J. MacPhail: We can FOI, and that'll take 30 days unless the law has changed, as the Minister of Competition hints. Is the minister aware of any cabinet member absenting him- or herself when this particular section of legislation was discussed?

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't understand the relevance of that at this point, but that information is FOIable. If the member opposite believes that there is something she ought to pursue in this regard, she can choose to do so.

J. MacPhail: I believe that at some time I heard the government refer that they were just doing what previous governments had done. Do you recall that statement being made?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this section. This is section 18 — the particular clause that we're dealing with here.

J. MacPhail: There would be a lot of people who would say: "Gosh, nobody else privy to a contract has the right to hold themselves completely free and unfettered and not responsible for signing that contract." I'm actually trying to be fair here. Does this exist anywhere else?

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't have any examples that I can give to you. If you felt that there could be action taken…. We're trying to effect a change here. We are definitely trying to effect a change — no two ways about it. We're trying to put patients and the most vulnerable first in our society. It is a very big change. We understand that, and we understand the responsibility of what's being undertaken here.

J. MacPhail: I believe that in a previous life — perhaps even a current life — the minister was a very successful businessman and well respected as a businessperson. In fact, I know this. I believe he operated a business where, probably, contracts would have to be signed. Would the minister ever, as a private business person, have that section foisted upon him in a contractual arrangement?

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, this is a very difficult act. I appreciate that. I made my final comments in regards to the second reading as we concluded. Nobody's suggesting it's anything other than that. It is a very difficult act. But these are difficult times, and tough decisions have to be made. We have said, as a government, that we are going to put patients first, and

we are doing that. We've said that we're going to protect and put first the most vulnerable in our society. We are doing that through this in regards to the social service accords that we're dealing with. That's what section 18 allows — for us to be able to move ahead and make those very necessary changes.

J. MacPhail: Section 18 reads: "No action for damages or compensation may be brought against the government or any person because of this Act." Yeah, you bet it's difficult. Collective agreements have been ripped up. Rights have been taken away. Workers have been denied for a full year or more even the ability to negotiate rights by virtue of this legislation. Wages have been cut. And lo and behold, not only is that not enough for these workers, but they don't have access to the courts. They don't have access to the courts to see how the courts would view this.

The reason why I asked those questions — both the personal experience of the Minister of Labour and whether he could cite any other examples — is because this is supposed to be a business-friendly government. This is the government that's supposed to create a climate where people want to flock here to work and invest and stimulate the economy. Well, my gosh, who would want to flock here to invest if they have a government that can impose this kind of legislation, to say that under no circumstances can the government be sued for bringing in draconian legislation?

You know, it is like salt that's rubbed in the wound. I don't even know why the government feels it has to do it. Do they think that their legislation won't stand up in court? Why is it that they have to use this authority for which parliament was never intended — this kind of massive majority, authoritarian, arrogant majority? This is arrogant. It is an arrogant imposition of a majority of 76 members who weren't elected to do this, who weren't elected to use and abuse their kind of authority to invoke this clause.

I expect, Mr. Chair, that the business community — even though they've been very good, loyal supporters of this government…. Even when the government broke contracts, the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Winter, changed his position and said, "Oh, well, maybe breaking a contract under certain circumstances is what the government has to do," even though he said something entirely different in December. Maybe even the business community's loyalty to this government will be severely tested by this clause.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm sorry, but this clause severely tests everybody — no doubt about it.

You have mentioned the aspects of the business community and all the like. Yes, this government would like to get the economy turned around. Yes, this government would like to see investment coming back into this province so that we can have jobs and have a prosperous province one more time.

This government also said that it would put patients first and the most vulnerable first. This is a test for us, because we've had to go a long way in this instance so that we can do that. We are taking these steps through this bill so that we can put patients first and deal with the critical crisis we've been finding ourselves in, in regard to the health side and the social service sector.

That's what this bill does. That bill will be able to put patients first and put those people that need the care, with the care, throughout the province of British Columbia.

	YEAS — 70
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Brice	Sultan	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 29, Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

	YEAS — 71
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Lekstrom

Hon. G. Collins: I move the House stand recessed at your call to await the arrival of the Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The House will recess for a short time, and I will ring the bells when Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I'm informed that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, so I'd ask all members to please take their seats. Thank you.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And that in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.