Hansard -- Tuesday, October 4, 2005 a.m. -- Vol. 1, No. 17 (HTML)

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


Second Reading of Bills		377
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. Horgan

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		394
	Estimates: Ministry of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics (continued)
	Hon. C. Hansen
	M. Farnworth
	G. Robertson

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call second reading of Bill 12 and in Committee A, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development.

The first thing that comes to mind on an occasion such as this — I think it bears repeating, and hopefully, members would have denoted this in the brief comments of yesterday when the bill was introduced — is that certainly I and…. Hopefully, no members of this chamber take any pleasure or derive any sense of satisfaction from the need to introduce a bill like Bill 12.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is a failure not unknown to this province, to this chamber or to these negotiating parties, but it is a failure, nonetheless, in the collective bargaining process. It is disappointing, as I said yesterday in the chamber, and that's perhaps an understatement. It is not….

Hon. M. de Jong: It is not, sadly, that surprising. I suspect in the course of the debate that will follow that we'll hear a great deal about the last number of weeks and months, maybe even the last three or four years. I don't expect that we'll hear a great deal in the chamber, particularly from the opposition side, about the last decade and a half. That is a chronicle of repeated failures in the collective bargaining process between the teachers union and the employers in British Columbia.

Unlike most of the members in this chamber, in fact virtually all of the members in this chamber, I sat here through most of those exchanges — the early '90s, '96 and '98. Those were not B.C. Liberal governments. They were NDP governments.

Hon. M. de Jong: And I was here in 2002. At each stage along the way we heard similar comments. We heard about impasse. We heard about the inability of a group of employees, represented by their union, incapable of negotiating an agreement with their employers. That is not from a distance to assign blame to either party. There was failure.

So it's not a happy history, and it is why there seems to have been a sense of inevitability in many people's minds. Yet we cling to the hope that each time somehow it'll be different, that somehow the parties will be able to sit down, as other parties across the province have — over 130 agreements, and during the time that these parties have been incapable of negotiating a contract, thousands of agreements. It is not a notion unknown to us in British Columbia that employees and employers can actually sit down and, after difficult negotiations, hammer out an agreement. It is seemingly impossible for these parties to find that ability.

In a dispute that has dragged on for over a year and a half — members, I think, know that the last contract expired in June of 2004 — there have been meetings, and there has been a sense of predictability about how that dispute will unfold, about the escalation that will take place, the threats and counterthreats and the duelling press releases, the blame. "It's their fault; it's their fault." All the while, people watch and say: "What's the end-game?" They have a sense, because they've seen this movie before.

We get to a point where it's beginning to hit a crescendo, and the government says, "Well, all right. Let's get an unbiased report on where the parties really are," because many of the members in this House will know that often what you read in the media doesn't always accurately reflect what might be taking place behind the scenes in this type of negotiation. So let's get a report.

The parties came in. We had a meeting, and we talked about having Deputy Minister Mr. Connolly step in and conduct a fact-finder review: where exactly are the parties, and most importantly of all, what are the prospects for a settlement? What are the prospects for these parties actually getting beyond the differences that have plagued them at the bargaining table and hammering out an agreement?

Mr. Connolly prepared a report, and I think most members in the chamber have seen that report. There's a great deal in it that is worth dwelling upon. There is obviously the history — more so the history of this particular negotiation, the agreement that expired in 2004, as opposed to the sad history of the last decade, decade and a half.

The differences that have existed at the table — obviously, differences around a mandate for wage increases…. The government had set a mandate, concluded a series of agreements with other parties on the basis of that mandate, and I dare say that makes for a much more difficult negotiation when the employer is saying zero-and-zero. I don't think anyone should deny that. It made for difficult negotiations at other tables,

yet negotiations that ultimately were fruitful and ended in a successful result. That was one of the differences.

In fact, there were other cost items. In his report Mr. Connolly chronicles the fiscal differences. It's worth pointing out that while the employer quantifies those differences at just under a billion dollars, $938 million, the union itself acknowledges that by its estimation, it's almost a $700 million difference. So these are not trivial or minimal figures we're talking about. It's a big difference there.

We can pretend, as perhaps some members would like to, that it doesn't exist, but it is a reality. It is a reality that undoubtedly impacted on the discussion that took place at the table, but I will tell this House, as I have said over the past few days, the part of the report that made the biggest impression on me. I recognize that in a discussion and negotiation like this, there are difficult issues; there are the big hills. But I, for the life of me, do not understand…. No one has disputed this: not the employer, not the union…. I do not understand how parties can meet on 35 separate occasions over the course of a year and a half and not agree on a single thing.

Hon. M. de Jong: Not agree on a single thing. I hear members talking about "money, money." These are not all money issues, and if that is what some people believe, then they are sadly misinformed about the nature of the negotiation. There is something wrong with a negotiation that over a year and a half has 35 meetings and people can't agree on a single thing.

So when Mr. Connolly…. We can stand here…. I suspect that what we're going to hear over the next period of time is an attempt by some in this chamber to assign blame for that. I could do that. I could try to do that. I prefer to acknowledge what is, hopefully, beyond argument. It is that, over the course of more than a decade, this bargaining structure has failed time and time and time again. Members opposite may want to deny that fact, but they cannot deny the history. They cannot deny the history of what has taken place.

So, Mr. Connolly brings a report to the government that says at the end: "Because of the positions of the parties on the two major issues, it is my opinion that there is no prospect for a voluntary resolution at the bargaining table" — no prospect for a negotiated settlement. Well, I don't like getting a report like that; and I hope no one in this chamber likes getting a report like that, but I can't make it go away. I can't just wish it weren't so and pretend it weren't so. That is the assessment that flowed from the investigation that Mr. Connolly undertook.

Now we have a choice. Now we have a choice about how to respond. There are certainly a couple of choices, a variety of approaches that one can take. You can pretend the report doesn't exist. You can let the matter proceed in an all-too-predictable manner. We can continue to drift into escalating job action.

The union was actually pretty forthright, publicly, about what its plans were. To their credit, they said: "We have a plan for escalating job action. Here's what it is; here are the dates; here's what we intend to do." They saw that as the fulfilment of their role as the bargaining agent for their members — and all along the way steadily increasing impacts on students.

I hope that as we have this discussion and debate in this chamber, people will be forthright about what it is that guides them in their deliberations in their consideration of this issue. I'm going to be, as I always try to be in the chamber. Here on this side of the House, the government…. We actually have a pretty fundamental principle that does guide us.

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually would have thought that the import of this issue would have precluded the kind of comments that I am beginning to hear from the other side. I really do, because I actually respect the fact that, while we may differ, members opposite have an opinion on this. They demean that opinion by the kind of comments I'm beginning to hear.

What is that principle? What is that overriding principle that I hope all members know guides the government in its deliberations?

It is this, Mr. Speaker. It is first and foremost and primarily this: that students deserve to be in the classroom. Not only do they deserve to be in the classroom, it is a fundamental right for them to be in the classroom receiving an education. Yes, lest there be any doubt, it is the view of the government that that right trumps all others.

Now, members opposite may disagree with that, and that is fine. In fact, my recollection of the debate that took place during the election campaign is that they disagree fundamentally with that.

That's fine, but understand that it is at the heart of what drives the government in taking action that we wish we did not have to take. We will not allow students in the province to be held hostage to a labour dispute that, in my view, derives largely from a fundamentally broken negotiating system. If there are people who believe that is irresponsible, then I guess they will believe that, but it is the principle that guides us in these deliberations and in tabling this legislation.

I talked earlier about the history in this chamber — much of it a history that I witnessed firsthand — and some of the legislative interventions that have taken place in the past. It's interesting when you read through some of the names…. I can use the names now, because they're no longer in the chamber. People like Mr. Ramsey and Ms. Cull and Mr. Sihota — all people who have, at one time or another, found themselves in the position of introducing legislation.

Ironically, some of the furthest-reaching, most intrusive legislation came not from a B.C. Liberal gov-

ernment, but from an NDP government. I recall, for example, in 1996 the person sitting in your chair actually had to rule a piece of legislation from the NDP out of order because it was deemed too intrusive, too far-reaching pursuant to the rules of this House. Before members choose to become too sanctimonious, they may want to check their own history.

But we're here to deal with what's taking place today. Let's deal with the legislation. Let's talk for a moment about what's in it, because it's pretty straightforward. In fact, it is about the least intrusive form of interventionist contract legislation that I have seen or can think of — four sections, I think, five with the proclamation section. It says the following: the terms and conditions that existed at the expiration of the last contract in June 2004 will remain in effect until June 2006 — next spring.

I have heard, and have heard again this morning in some of the side commentary, about allegations of how this legislation is taking away rights. It does no such thing.

I'll tell you what it doesn't do: it doesn't provide for a wage increase. We'd better be upfront about that. There's no salary increase for teachers, and you know what? If I were a teacher, I wouldn't be very happy about that. The other people that took zero-zero-and-zero weren't very happy about that. I don't know how you look people in the eye who have made that sacrifice, negotiated those agreements. In 2002-2004 the teachers' union obtained an increase of 7.5 percent for its members. Then, through that process, others were taking zero — negotiating contracts on the basis of that mandate.

What do you say to people who have done that? Do you say to them: "Well, if you just hold out long enough, you won't be asked to contribute in the same way"?

Now, in fact, some astute people have already observed that teachers aren't taking zero-zero-and-zero. They're taking zero-and-zero: zero for a year that has long since past, and zero in a year that is almost half over. Next year when these parties come back to the negotiating table, I am certain that their union will do everything within its power to negotiate a fair and reasonable wage increase for their members. I would expect that. That's their job.

What we want to do is ensure…. And by the way, not only do I expect it, but I want that to happen, because we didn't do in this legislation what there was wide speculation would be done — legislate a third-year settlement. These parties are coming back to the negotiating table in a few months, and they're going to have to hammer out an agreement. I wonder, sometimes, if some kind of a culture hasn't developed around this where, in their own way, both parties actually derive some comfort from the notion of government stepping in — because God knows governments of all stripes have had to do it.

If we're looking to assign blame, you know, maybe we should spread that blame around a little bit, because — in a way — it's a bit easier, isn't it? Not very easy, if you're bargaining on behalf of some hard-working men and women, to have to come back and say: "Well, it's zero."

It wasn't easy for the unions that had to do that. They had to go back to their members and say: "We didn't get you a wage increase this year. Zero." Sometimes it's actually easier, if you think about it, to go back and say: "We didn't negotiate it. The government did it to you."

Next spring these parties are going to have to come back. They're going to have to sit down with one another, and they're going to have to hammer out a negotiated agreement. And there will be a difference. There will be a difference because there will be a new bargaining structure in place — God knows the one that we've had hasn't worked — with some clearly delineated rules, some time lines and a process that both parties can rely upon. That goes to the heart of why we'll appoint the industrial inquiry commission this week to finalize the process of implementing that new structure.

It will be a difficult job, and I hope it will engage the participation of stakeholders — certainly the union — so that when they do sit down next year, as they will be required to do in a few months, the rules of the game will be clear to all. There will be a process that they can rely upon to do something that has never happened — never ever happened — under this bargaining structure, and that is to negotiate an agreement absent the intrusion and involvement of government, or legislated involvement, in any event.

Now, that's a lofty goal in light of what has taken place over the last decade and a half, but I believe it can happen. I believe that with a proper structure in place…. It doesn't mean the negotiation will be any easier, but it may stand some more reasonable prospect of succeeding, and that is something that has been sadly missing from this equation over the last number of years — over a decade, in fact.

I wanted to take a moment, because I was listening to the comments of the opposition critic for, I think, Education, earlier this morning. I saw his comments. He was talking to a reporter, and hopefully these are transcribed accurately for the member. If they're not, I'm sure he will correct me. He said to the reporter: "I've got to go into the House and talk for two hours. I'm a rookie MLA, and I've got to go talk on a bill of major import."

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry? Only an hour and a half. Well, I understand. It is important.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is encouraging me to use more of his time, but he has as much time as he needs.

He's right. It is an important piece of legislation, and it is nerve-racking as a member of this chamber when you realize the gravity and the significance of the words. I'm sure he will acquit himself very well.

But there was something else he said that troubled me, and I think the question he was asked related to what his reaction to the legislation was. His observation was: "Well, I don't want to talk about that now, but we'll wait and see what the executive and the teachers decide, and we'll deal with it at that time."

Just for the benefit of the member…. I was just observing that the portion of his comments that troubled me a little bit — maybe more than a little bit — was where he observed that before he could offer an opinion, he had to see what the executive of the union and the teachers were going to do. "We'll wait and see what the executive and the teachers decide, and we'll deal with it at that time."

Hon. M. de Jong: In fairness, the member is saying I'm lifting things out of context. I'm happy to stand corrected, but those are the comments that I heard.

I'm troubled because the gravity of this is such that we actually get elected to this place certainly to be cognizant of what our constituents have to say and what their feelings on certain matters are, but it is not, I dare say, to be driven to positions by one or another of those constituents. It troubles me that the critic — or the government, and he may be reflecting, and perhaps he'll correct me in my interpretation of the remarks — seemed to be suggesting that his response was going to be guided solely by what one group says.

It is important that all of us in this chamber be cognizant of what members of the union and the teaching profession have to say, but I would suggest that we also need to be cognizant of what others impacted by the dispute, the lingering dispute, have to say as well. I thought that I captured a glimpse of the thought process. Needless to say, that thought process troubles me, if I have interpreted his remarks…. But I'm sure I'll hear more about that in the course of his discussions during this debate.

What I'd like to offer to the House is not that dissimilar from where I ended yesterday with the first-reading remarks. To all hon. members: I don't think anyone set out — never mind that it was an NDP government or a Social Credit government or a Liberal government — to develop a bargaining structure that was broken. I think, technically, for something to be broken, it has to have worked at one time. This one has never worked. I don't think anyone purposely set out to design a flawed negotiating structure, and yet that's what we have.

If it were just me offering that observation to the chamber, I suppose it would be possible to challenge the veracity of that statement fairly effectively. But in this case I seek support for the submission from history itself and the fact that this negotiation has never been fruitful. We need to get on with fixing that.

To those who would suggest we should have waited, to those who would suggest we should have clung to some apparently false hope that magically this time would be different, that after 35 meetings of not agreeing on a single thing, something would magically take place in the next few days, I say you must measure that against the dislocation, against the cost to students, against the disruption. We have to measure it, and we do on this side of the House, against a paramount principle that says students deserve to be in a classroom getting an education.

If all of that is unconvincing — I hope it isn't, but for some it may be — you have to measure it also against the fact that it's time to get on with fixing what I am convinced is the main root of the problem, which is a bargaining structure that just doesn't work. Putting that off another two weeks, another three weeks, another four weeks, another three months was going to do nothing but cause further pain, dislocation and disruption.

I suspect that we are going to hear a very different synopsis, and that's fine. That's what this chamber is all about. But let there be no doubt about this. If criticism is to be derived or if criticism is to be directed at the government and the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education, let it be founded on the basis that we do have a principle that says children should be in the classroom. And we will not allow labour disruptions, a flawed negotiating process or the petty differences that sometimes characterize governments, oppositions, employers and employees to disrupt what we view as a fundamental right for students — the right to be in the classroom getting an education. I'm going to listen with interest to the further comments.

J. Horgan: I want to just start by correcting some of the comments from the Minister of Labour. I do know he suggested that he saw a glimpse of my thought process, and that must be a frightening thing for him. I know many of my friends have been questioning that for a number of years.

We are guided on this side by ensuring that student outcomes are as good as they can possibly be. That is our objective from the beginning, that is our objective in the middle, and that is our objective at the end. What I hear from the opposite side is: "Children should be in classrooms." Fair enough, but what are they going to do when they're in that classroom? What are they going to do there with a demoralized educator, with 32 or 33 other students beside them, some of them special needs, some of them with English as a second language? What are the outcomes going to be in that situation? That's the question we have on this side of the House, that's the question the Teachers Federation has, and that's the question parents have.

I want to correct at the outset the comments I made on radio this morning. I said nothing of the kind — waiting for the BCTF to give direction to me or to my

colleagues. The context of that comment was with respect to the interviewer asking me what I would do if there were strike action by the B.C. Teachers Federation. That's a hypothetical, and I've heard the minister say a number of times that hypotheticals aren't the business we're in. I'll just leave it at that.

It's with profound regret that I stand here today to address this bill, Bill 12. It's with some irony, the day before World Teachers Day, that we are here in this chamber legislating teachers back to work against their will, imposing a contract that was imposed in 2002, which stripped significant issues like class size and class composition from that agreement — imposed and extended by this bill.

The explanatory note says this bill settles the dispute, and I would argue it does nothing of the kind. What this does is inflame the situation. It exacerbates a problem that, as the minister says, is potentially historic. It's been going on for some time.

I do want to spend a minute or two just taking a look at that history. He's suggested the system hasn't worked for a number of years. In 1996, prior to the provincial election, an agreement was brokered between the parties — the BCPSEA and the B.C. Teachers Federation. It involved the government directly inserting itself into the negotiation. An outcome was reached. Legislation was required. Students were in the classroom. Teachers were in the classroom. Life went on.

Again in 1998, in lieu of wages, the B.C. Teachers Federation negotiated improvements in class size and class composition — workplace issues that had a direct correlation to positive student outcomes. In 2002 this government stripped those out. We involved ourselves to add to the system; you involved yourself to subtract from the system. That's the difference between that side and this side.

How did we get to where we are today? I want to speak briefly on the fact-finder's report, because I've been making some comment on that. I suspect that the minister is wondering where this glimmer of hope is that I keep referring to, and it's on page 2 of the report. The fact-finder says, "The B.C. Teachers Federation also expressed to me an interest in exploring options for entering into dialogue with government directly to discuss the public policy issues related to learning conditions, in particular class size through to grade 12" — a profound public policy issue that up until 2002 was in a collective agreement. Teachers had some comfort. Parents had some comfort that there was going to be a cap on the size of classrooms, where students could get the best outcomes possible.

This government stripped that from the contract in 2002. The Teachers Federation appealed, through the fact-finder, to the government to sit down at a separate table away from the bargaining process to discuss those important issues. The government rejected that by introducing this bill yesterday.

Why is class size and class composition so important? Again, I hear the government say that they want to keep kids in the classroom. I want to keep kids in the classroom, but I want to have kids in a classroom with an educator who is enthusiastic and passionate about their work, not demoralized, not abused, not rejected by the employer, as is the case today and will be the case once this legislation passes.

I have kids in the system. They go to Belmont high school. They're in a school built for 1,200, and there are currently over 1,700 kids in that school. According to the Minister of Labour, he wants kids in classrooms. He wants kids in classrooms at Belmont high school — 1,700 kids in a school built for 1,200. I asked the minister how that is going to improve an education outcome for my kids. Class size, class composition are absolutely vital to outcomes.

Composition. What does that mean? For those who are paying attention at home…. I'd suggest to the minister that there are one or two people — certainly, a lot of educators and parents — wanting to know how we, as legislators elected to solve problems, are going to deal with this issue. We on this side have said for months that the appropriate course of action is for the Minister of Education to sit down with teachers and discuss policy issues that will have a direct effect on student outcomes. Government rejected that.

The Premier, after the election, said: "I'm going to sit down with teachers. We're going to build a new way." One of the golden goals is the most literate and most educated jurisdiction in North America. I asked the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education: "How do you do that by pushing down teachers? How do you do that with a culture of division starting in this place, leading into the classroom?"

What are kids going to say? What are my kids saying to me when I go home at night? They're saying: "Dad, what's going on? I'm in a room full of other kids. I don't get any time with my teacher. My teacher looks stressed. They say: 'I can't talk to you right now; I'll talk to you tomorrow or the next day or the day after that.'" How does that help student outcomes?

The people on that side of the House say they want the best-educated and most literate society in North America, yet they do not demonstrate that. What they do instead is say to educators: "Eat your porridge. Get back into the classroom. We don't care what your issues are. We don't care about those important issues. Those policy questions can be addressed, as the fact-finder said, separately and distinct from the bargaining process." The government says: "No, I don't want to do that."

We on this side of the House say it's our job. It's our responsibility. The public expects us to involve ourselves. We're not here just passing paper around. We're here trying to solve problems. People on that side are creating them. The culture of division has to stop. I thought you got the message on May 17. That's why there are so many of us on this side of the House. That's why we're going to hold you to task on this legislation and every other piece that comes before that one.

I want to read a media release from the Vancouver school board. The Vancouver school board represents over 10 percent of the students in British Columbia, over 4,000 teachers. It goes as follows:

This is from the Vancouver school board, the second-largest school district in the province. The leadership in that community, who wants autonomy, who wants to be able to make decisions on behalf of students, on behalf of teachers and administrators in their community says: "This is wrongheaded. You're going down the wrong track."

Thank you very much. I'll continue, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour wants to hear more from the Vancouver school board.

"The board had earlier called on the provincial government to find a settlement through respectful and productive labour relations." I'll repeat that again: "respectful and productive."

J. Horgan: That's the challenge that I believe has been put down for the government, and they've just dismissed it out of hand. Respect. What we on this side of the House have been saying since May 17 is that we need more respect in this chamber and that we need more respect out of this chamber. The politics of division, the politics of pitting them against us, which this government has undertaken for the past four years, has to stop.

This was the golden opportunity. This was the chance for this government to say: "We heard what the public had to say. They didn't want us to push people down. They wanted us to bring people up." We talk about golden goals. We talk about objectives and visions for a better British Columbia. How do you do that by saying to 42,000 educators in this province: "Sorry, we don't want to talk to you. You don't know what you're talking about. We know best. Class size and class composition are not important to student outcomes. We're going to legislate you back to work without any opportunity to talk about those important issues"? It's shameful, absolutely shameful.

J. Horgan: We need some prompting, Mr. Speaker, because of the new decorum here. We're trying to get through this without too much noise.

I want to continue on with the comments from the Vancouver school board, if I can. Mr. Wong says: "We worked hard to re-establish the relationships that were damaged by the past imposed settlements. The morale of those working directly with and for our students — our teachers — has suffered significantly." That's the end of his quote.

So if you've got an elected body — and I know the Premier is very keen on ensuring, as is the Minister of Education, a former trustee herself, on some local autonomy…. Would they not have consulted with the Vancouver school board? Would they not have made a phone call and said: "Hey, what do you think? We're going to order teachers back to work. We're not going to discuss class size. We're not going to discuss class composition. We're just going to leave that out in the air, and we're going to force teachers back to the workplace against their will. We're going to demonstrate yet again that we have little or no respect for their profession. We're going to keep them down and assume that despite all of that, at the end of the golden decade, we're going to have the most educated and most literate population on this continent"? How do you do that? That is a complete disconnect.

People I talk to say: "Well, what do you guys do there, anyway? What is this all about?" One guy stands up and says: "This is what we're going to do. We're going to champion this; we're going to champion that." Then the next week — after we have the Lieutenant-Governor come into this place and speak of the lofty goals, the important goals that we all have for this province and the people in this province — we have Bill 12, an imposed contract, an extension of a previously imposed contract, telling teachers that the issues that are important to you, front-line workers dealing with kids every single day, are not important. "What's important is for us to get this through the Legislature. We want to pass this legislation. We want to say to our friends in other parts of the province: 'Don't worry about it. We'll keep the kids in the classroom. The day care system will be maintained, but no, we're not going to get good outcomes. We're not terribly concerned about that anyway.'"

That's the message. That's the contradiction from that side of the House — golden decade, positive outcomes; disrespect, no support.

With respect to the deteriorating learning conditions in our system…. I said earlier that I have kids in the system, and I'm a product of the public system. I went to Lake Hill Elementary School in the 1960s. My goodness.

J. Horgan: It wasn't the '30s. It was the 1960s. This isn't my first elected office. I need to tell this House that in grade one on Valentine's Day I was elected the king of hearts. It was a lofty office, and I followed that one in the 1970s by being president of the student council at Reynolds high school here in Victoria. I have to say that the easier job was the king of hearts, but I got to

wear a crepe paper crown, and I was the first to go through the traffic stop at Nicholson Street on my way home — a very proud moment for me and for my family. It was the end of the monarchy at Lake Hill Elementary. I may well have been the last.

My teacher in grade one was Mrs. Foster, and I was in love with Mrs. Foster, as I'm sure many of you were in grade one. Everyone liked Mrs. Foster. But I start with grade one because as I went through the system here, I had some successes. I don't see any of the young Pages here today. When I left Lake Hill in grade seven, I had a fairly high GPA. I didn't call it that at that time. I got many excellents and many very goods, and I know the educators among us will know that was the highest level achievable in grade seven in the 1960s.

I can remember being called to the principal's office in the first week of grade eight. There was an announcement. I was in this great huge school. There were grade 12s there, and I was this lowly little grade eight — 6 foot 2, but I was a little grade eight. They called my name over the PA, and I didn't go to the office. I assumed I was in trouble. Well, it turned out they were calling people to be Pages here in this place. Because I didn't show up, I didn't get to come. I'm saddened that there are no Pages to hear that. When you get your name called over the PA, you should go to the office right away.

After grade eight I ran into the wrong crowd, I think it's fair to say. I started smoking cigarettes and got into a little bit of trouble. At the end of grade nine I failed math, I failed science, I failed French, and I failed typing. I've met with the typing teacher I had at the time, and she said: "You've got a master's degree, and you're a Member of the Legislative Assembly. I thought you'd be dead by now." This is an important story, because I could have been dead. But it was educators that were interested and concerned. They said: "There's a kid with some potential that's falling between the cracks."

A guy named Jack Lusk — if Jack is listening out there — was my phys ed teacher. I think he was more interested in the fact that I could dunk a basketball, but regardless of that, he said: "This kid has potential. I'm not going to let him fall through the cracks. I'm going to grab him by the scruff of the neck, and I'm going to pull him out of the morass." He did that, and I thank him for that. I'm sure there are countless stories in this Legislature about teachers who said: "No, I'm not going to let that kid go. I'm going to grab on to him."

The challenge we have today is that when Jack Lusk did that for me, I was in a class of 20, and now there are classes of 30, 32, 34, loaded with special needs kids. It's not as easy to do. Kids are falling through the cracks. This government is responsible for that, and it's shameful.

The problem with the folks on that side of the House with respect to this issue and with respect to educators is they have a profound disrespect for the profession. I don't know how you can sit here, how you can absolutely sit here and say: "You know what? Their views on these important matters about what goes on inside the classroom day after day are irrelevant." But that's what you're doing. That's what you did in 2002, and you're prolonging that with this bill today.

The fact-finder said that teachers are prepared to sit down with government. They're anxious. They're imploring government to sit down with them and talk about these issues. What was the response of the Minister of Education? Her response was: "Well, parents told us" — this is a quote — "that they want a meaningful role in determining class sizes." Well, teachers told you that too. They wanted to sit down and talk to you about it. What did you say? "Sorry. Maybe another time. Bring your grandparents, bring your aunts and your uncles, and bring everybody in. We'll have a great huge meeting, and we'll talk about these issues."

Teachers are front-line workers. The minister should know that. As a former trustee, she should know that you can't have a classroom without a teacher at the front of it. The minister says: "We want to keep kids in the classroom." Well, that is a laudable goal, but it's only one-half of the equation. The other half is having a well-prepared, well-trained and enthusiastic teacher at the front of that classroom. Without it, you've just got a room full of kids.

The minister said that the parties met 35 times and didn't agree on a single point. The government gave a mandate to the BCPSEA. It said: "Don't give them any money, and don't talk about working conditions." I've been involved in labour negotiations in the past. I know that the member from Peace River has been involved in labour negotiations in the past. If you can't talk about wages and working conditions, what are you talking about? What are we doing? What's the point?

Despite that mandate, the teachers reached out. They said to the government, they said to the Minister of Education, they urged the Premier, who had said after the election that he'd be delighted to sit down with teachers…. After maligning them during the campaign….

I thought he recognized that the result of having 33 on this side and a massively reduced number on the other side was that the public had sent him a clear and concise message: we want you to have a balanced approach. We want you to respect the people in this province, whether they be working people, entrepreneurs, large corporations. There seems to be lots of respect for large corporations and very little respect for working people in this province.

With the changes to the School Act in 2002, they imposed a contract that nobody wanted. The government created this impasse. They created this problem, and now they're saying in the explanatory note that they've settled it by this bill. They've done nothing of the kind. They've inflamed the situation. They've exacerbated the problem. This will not solve a thing.

The government knows that, but yet they're forging ahead. Is it because the public affairs bureau has got a poll that says if you bash teachers, you're going to go

up a couple points? Is that the reason? It's unfathomable to me and to most people that I talk to — to parents, to educators and to my kids — that you can have a group of individuals, professionals that are working hard to lift up this province…. They appeal to the government. They say: "You're duly elected by our neighbours, by fellow citizens, to solve problems." What these guys did created more problems — absolutely counter to what the public wants, what the public needs and what the public is demanding.

I want to go back to that grade nine year. It's a bit of a haze for me, and I know if my sister is watching, she'll agree that it was quite something that I managed to get through that and beyond belief that I would be able to get to this place today and have the opportunity to talk about education with the passion I feel for the subject.

I have two sons. One is quite extraordinary. In his grade nine year — he's in the band — we went to Dunsmuir Middle School in Colwood, and it was awards day. They phoned and said: "Your son's getting an award." We weren't surprised by that. He has the high 90s in virtually every subject. So we went, proud parents that we are.

He went up for the first award, the science award, and there was a woman behind me who goes to the same church that we do, and she said: "There goes Nate. You must be proud." I was proud. Then he went up for the social studies award and then the math award and every other single award for single classifications and studies that he could get. I kept thinking back to my grade nine year, which I could barely remember from the abuse I had brought upon myself at that time.

It got better as the evening wore on. They came to what was the Spirit of Dunsmuir award, which was awarded based on a vote by fellow students in the school. They called Nate Horgan once again. Nate's a quiet, unassuming fellow, and being in a rock band, his hair's getting a little bit long. He went up. I have to say that the only relationship between my grade-nine year and his grade-nine year is that he's wearing the same clothes that I used to, and his hair is a little longer than mine was. He went up and got the Spirit of Dunsmuir award, and I have to confess that my buttons were absolutely bursting. The woman beside me kept patting me on the back: "There goes Nate again."

The last award of the night was the teachers award, which was decided by the faculty at Dunsmuir, and again, it went to Nate. There were four major awards, and he got two of them. We said that he got half of the grand slam on that particular evening. The juxtaposition between where I was at that age and where he is at his age is a direct result of our involvement in his life and the direct result of teachers recognizing talent, pulling that talent to the best possible outcomes and following it through.

It was a very proud moment for me, but it was pressing and important to this debate. There are kids out there that have the ability that my son has that are falling a little bit behind because the teachers can't keep up. They can't give the extra little bit to get the best out of the best students, and heaven forbid, those that were like me in grade nine are falling through the cracks — without any doubt at all. That is a direct result of this government's inability to understand that these are professionals in the classroom. These are people that are compassionate and committed to their task, and they're disrespected and abused and underrepresented on that side of the House. That's why we over here…. I see virtually all of my colleagues here for this debate. I see very few on the other side.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much for reminding me. You might want to tell me again. That will take a minute or two.

Education is very important to me. It got me to where I am today, and I'm sure many others in this House feel the same way. It was educators that did that. It wasn't just showing up to the classroom. I did that in grade nine. I just showed up.

As the Minister of Labour suggests, let's keep the kids in the classroom. That was as good as it got for me at that time. That's not good enough for the kids of today. If we want the most educated and literate society on this continent, we can't just tell the kids to show up. We can't say to parents: "It's okay. Everything's fine. We've passed legislation so that your kids will be in class on Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday." You're not saying the rest of the story, which is that they're going to be in a classroom with teachers who are demoralized, undervalued and overworked.

Class size and class composition: two fundamental issues. The Teachers Federation appealed to the government, through the fact-finder: "Sit down with us. We implore you. Sit down with us. Let's talk about these issues." Let's get back to where we were in 1998, where we have some confidence and some certainty about what the class is going to look like in September so that we can do our work through to June. That's the challenge.

There are a few other comments I'd like to make at this time with respect to this culture of division that we've seen on that side of the House. During the early part of the government's mandate they took delight, I'm sure, in starting with health care workers. They looked at the contracts that were negotiated — freely negotiated by the two parties — and they said: "No, we don't like this. We're going to rip these up. We're going to rip the guts out of the contract. We're going to reduce wages. We're going to reduce employment levels." All for what purpose, Mr. Speaker? So that we can

That was the direction. That was the thrust. That was certainly the message on the street on May 17, 2005, when the electorate had their opportunity to say: "Is that the approach we want? No, it's not." They listened to my leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition, who talked about balance, who talked about listening to all parties, who talked about respect. And that's what they voted for in massive numbers.

King of hearts in grade one. Mrs. Foster. I wore a red cardigan. I wore a cardigan just the other day, and one of our staff members said: "You look like a teacher." I said: "Well, I'm not a teacher." I would like to have been a teacher.

I'm going to tell a bit of a story, and I'm hopeful that those who were involved aren't too offended. I'm going to change the name of the school, just in the interest of protecting those people, because I haven't talked to them about this.

When I was working in government in the 1990s, I thought, well, I don't have a teaching certificate, but I do know that I could perhaps get a job at a private school teaching history, which is a passion of mine. So I approached a school in my community, and they were enthusiastic. They looked at my credentials, my background, and they said: "Yes, we'd like to talk to you a little more about this." I carried on through the process. I met with the dean of the faculty of arts at this particular private institution, and we had a good, long talk. It went very well. I went to see the assistant headmaster. He was impressed as well. I had the sort of qualifications they needed for the position that was available.

This process went on over the course of a couple of weeks. I had two or three interviews, and it culminated with a visit to the headmaster and tea on a very lovely set of china and some biscuits. I was sent in, and the headmaster was going to close the deal. He was going to make the offer, and I was going to sign up and be teaching history at a school in my constituency.

The headmaster said, as I was lifting my teacup to my mouth: "The starting salary is $35,000." I have to say that if I were just out of university with no family obligations, that may well have been a reasonable salary. But for a person in the position that I was in at that time, it was laughable. In fact, that's what I did. I regretted it because it was an embarrassment to me, and I certainly didn't mean any disrespect to the headmaster. He thought that he was making me a generous offer based on his ability to pay and based on the scale for a new teacher with no experience, but it was $35,000. I have two kids. I have a spouse. I have a mortgage, like many, many other people in this chamber. I could not pull it off on $35,000 a year.

That's what this government is saying to teachers today. They're saying: "Well, we like having teachers around. We need to have them in the classroom to take care of all those kids that the Minister of Labour wants to ensure are going to be in that classroom, but we don't want to pay you the same scale that they're paying in Alberta. We don't want to pay you the same scale that they're paying in Ontario or other jurisdictions in Canada."

As teachers in B.C. have been falling behind these other jurisdictions, this government has decided, well, not only are we not going to pay you the same wages that are being paid in other jurisdictions in the country, but we're going to say to you that the issues that are important to you and important to student outcomes are very low on our list of priorities. We have issues that we want to deal with. We have tax breaks for large corporations that we need to get through in our budget. We have other important issues that we need to discuss with respect to ensuring that we're streamlining regulations so that environmental damage can take place without too much oversight on behalf of government. But with respect to your important issues, well, they're secondary to us. In fact, they're so secondary that we're not going to bother sitting down and talking to you. We're going to impose a contract on you. We're going to ensure that you stay in the classroom, regardless of the fact that you're underpaid, undervalued and underrespected.

That's where this government wants to go. We on this side of the House reject that categorically, and it's incumbent upon that side to recognize they've made a crucial error here. They've misjudged the public.

Now, I know that the public affairs bureau spinners are over there dissecting every word that I say. I hope they're not going to go back to my grade nine year. They can spin that all they want. It's not going to have any impact on me whatsoever.

The challenge they have is that they're going to have to look at their polling. They might be doing overnight polling based on: what kind of success did we have bashing teachers this time? They got a bit of a bump in 2002. Well, that bump turned into a landslide on this side of the House. The bump that they got after the 2002 imposition was 33 New Democrats sitting on this side of the House keeping their feet to the fire.

I mentioned my red cardigan. I'm colour-blind, so that didn't really mean a lot to me, but my mom told me that it was a beautiful red cardigan and that I looked just wonderful when I went to Valentine's Day on that auspicious occasion in the 1960s to be elected by my peers to be the king of hearts.

I know the member for Surrey-Whalley is impressed by that. If he and I weren't as large as we are, we might be able to squeeze into that cardigan today.

It's that sort of activity in the classroom, the interaction with educators, that's so important. I mentioned my son Nate. When he was in grade one, he had a teacher whose name was Richard Shields. This was at Happy Valley Elementary.

I know that may sound, for those of you who are not from Victoria, like I'm making this up, but I live in Happy Valley, and I'm quite pleased about that. Sadly, Happy Valley Elementary burned down a couple of years ago, but they are going to build a school again on

the same site. There will be many other students going to Happy Valley in the future.

The beauty of Richard Shields was…. He retired, I guess, about five years ago at age 55. When I was going to school and when many others here were going to school, most primary school teachers were women. Richard had been a primary school teacher all of his life. He was entertaining. He was exciting. The kids were just so enthusiastic to hang out with Richard. It was like "Uncle Richard." He played his guitar at the front of the room. They sang funny songs. They did funny things.

One of his tools with respect to math was to have the kids look at hockey scores. What more Canadian pursuit could that be? He would say to the kids at the start…. He'd pull out the newspaper and say: "Chicago beat Montreal 4 to 2. How many goals were scored?" The kids would shoot out their hands: "Six goals were scored, Mr. Shields." "How many goals difference were there between Chicago and Montreal?" They would do their math based on hockey statistics. Now, I'm a sports buff, so I thought that was an outstanding tool.

When my younger son got into Mr. Shields's class — this is my younger son Evan; he's a bit of a hockey star — he wore his goalie gear to school one day, because he was so excited about being the goalie on the team. Richard seized upon that opportunity. He went to the gym, got some hockey sticks, and everybody got to take ten shots at Evan. They worked out percentages based on how many goals they scored on him during that period.

Now, that's a teacher in the classroom looking at: what can I do with what comes in the door every morning? This was a guy that was passionate about his craft and committed to the best possible outcomes for students. I am grateful and so thankful that Richard had both my kids in grade one at Happy Valley.

Richard, if you're listening, I know that you're retired, and you're probably watching the legislative channel with most of your spare time. I want to thank you. I think if my colleagues…. Thank you to Richard Shields.

I know you're thinking, Mr. Speaker, that I've just barely got out of grade one for myself and for my kids. I'd like to talk a little bit about Mrs. West in grade three, as well, at Lake Hill. I want to do that because we had a split class that year. It was a grade two-three class. I know that my colleague from Kensington and my colleague from North Coast, educators themselves, understand the challenges of split classes. That's a challenge for administrators; it's a challenge for districts. How do you balance, particularly in rural communities…?

I met with the president of the School Trustees Association. She reminded me — and I thanked her very much for this — that what happens in Telegraph Creek does not necessarily translate to what happens in Vancouver. Similarly, what happens in North Coast is different from what happens in Victoria.

The fundamental principles remain the same. If you can reduce class size, if you can ensure that there are adequate resources for special needs kids, if you've got counsellors in place, if you've got learning assistants in place, if you've teacher-librarians in place, outcomes are going to be improved. These are fundamental principles.

When I was in grade three at Lake Hill Elementary School with Mrs. West, we had grade twos in the class. It seemed odd, because we knew, as kids, that something was going on here. We got the really smart kids in grade two, with kind of the middle kids in grade three. So there was a bit of classism going on even then.

I know people on the other side are delighted by this classism. In fact, I believe that's the genesis of this thrust — this drive — to increase tuition fees to ensure that only those able to afford it are able to get a higher education; to increase class sizes so only those who have access to extra tutoring or extra services at home or in the community are going to succeed in the public system. That, it seems to me, is the motivation of these people on the other side. It's absolutely wrong.

The public education system should be there for all of us — for all of our kids, regardless of their income and family standing. My mom was a widow at an early age. When I came home from school I would turn on the TV, and Gilligan's Island was what kept me going. I know we're all sad to hear of the passing of Bob Denver. I think this is probably the first time anyone's had the opportunity to say that. For those of you who remember Bob Denver and Gilligan, just take a moment. Can we take a moment?

J. Horgan: The Minister of Labour, I think, agrees with me. My little buddy has passed away, and I think we should just pause and recognize that. I'll take a drink of water, if that's okay, Madam Speaker.

The Minister of Labour commented on my discussions on radio earlier in the day. I should say I was on the Rafe Mair show. Many of us here are aware of Rafe Mair, a former member of this place. I did say that I had to go, that I had a speech to give in the Legislature. Rafe reminded me that there was an individual at Gettysburg who made a two-hour address, and no one could remember his name. But President Lincoln spoke for six minutes, and we're still repeating those comments and those quotes. I'm hopeful that as time goes by, people will remember that I acknowledged the passing of Bob Denver on this day when we were discussing Bill 12.

I've got to get rid of the glibness, Madam Speaker. But that again is part of the thought process that the minister got a glimpse of earlier on. It's a character flaw, I suppose. I can't help it. Every now and again I just happen to say what's on my mind.

I wish that the people on the other side would say what's on their minds. I see the member for Langley,

who has an opportunity to heckle me free of charge because I misspoke myself when she was speaking earlier in the day. As a former school trustee, she must know and she has to know that class size and class composition has a direct impact on student outcomes.

J. Horgan: Oh, banning books. That may well be, but the fact of the matter is that she's part of the system. She understands the system. She should know.…

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I just remind members that if they wish to heckle, please do so from your own seats.

I do know that the member for Langley has been involved in the education process for many years. She has to understand that too many kids in a class, too many kids who can't speak English as their first language, is going to have a negative impact on outcomes — not a positive one.

Why won't the government sit down with educators and talk about those important issues? Why is it so difficult for the Premier, for the Minister of Education, for the Minister of Labour to acknowledge that the key element in the education equation is the educator? What could be more simple than that?

I don't know a soul in the universe, except for the people that sit on that side of this Legislature, who doesn't understand that. Educators equal outcomes. Students in a classroom are just kids in a room. If you don't have an educator trained, enthusiastic and excited about their profession, challenged by the opportunity to lift up kids — as I was lifted up in grade nine at Reynolds high school — then all you've got is kids in a classroom.

The challenge we have as legislators is to abandon the historic positions of confrontation and disrespect that have been in this place for decades. The Minister of Labour talked about the 1990s, and we've heard many in this House talk about the 1990s — all well and good. I'm a student of history. I have a master's degree in history. What I know for certain, beyond a doubt, is that I can do nothing about yesterday. Not a darned thing. What I know is that I was elected to do something about tomorrow.

My challenge — our challenge — is to say to our community at the end of each day that we did our best to make it a better place. This bill goes so far in the other direction that I just can't believe it. That's why I'm standing here today opposing this bill, and my colleagues are with me on that.

Who are the parties in this dispute? That's a question that I hear from teachers and I hear from parents in my community — school district 62. I also have the honour and privilege to represent communities in school district 79 here on the Island. They say: "Well, isn't government the employer? Who provides school boards with the funding to proceed with the education year starting in September?"

It's the government of British Columbia. It's this Legislature. We're going to be debating estimates in the next number of days in the Ministry of Education, and that is where it all starts. It starts right here. So if you're the employer — Minister of Labour, government of British Columbia — why wouldn't you sit down and involve yourselves in a negotiation to achieve a positive outcome? What we had instead is the BCPSEA directed by the government to not talk about wages, to not talk about working conditions. Meet with the teachers all you want, but by all means do not discuss these important issues. That's what's happened. That's what brought us to this impasse.

I said earlier that the fact-finder — a very capable man, and I know that the Minister of Labour has confidence in him — said there was an opportunity to discuss these issues. The government's response to that is legislation, imposing the contract that was imposed in 2002 and extending it for two more years — the wrong approach, the wrong time.

What the government could have done, and should have done, is said to educators and parents: "Student outcomes are our highest priority, not just students in the classroom." That's half the battle. You've got to get the kids there. But once they're there, what are you going to do? What Richard Shields did for my kids was engage them. He took what he had, he lifted them up, and he got the best possible outcomes from those kids. He was a professional, an outstanding individual, and there are many, many more like him right across this province — thousands and thousands of teachers who don't want to strike. They don't want conflict. They want to be in the classroom teaching kids. That's what they trained to do. That's what many of them have wanted to do their entire lives.

I took the opportunity last night to look at my old high school yearbook. I just went through looking at faces, wondering what people were doing. I can't tell you how many people said: "I want to be a teacher." Why did they say that? Because of the positive experiences they had as students.

I take myself back to Reynolds high school. My typing teacher in grade nine, who failed me, as many others did that year…. Her name was Thelma Plecas, and the name Plecas might be familiar to some of you. Thelma ended up marrying Bob Plecas, who is a name that is certainly familiar to those on the other side, particularly the member for Kamloops, who would know Bob very well. Thelma said to me, when I met her many years later: "I'm confused, John. Why is it that you're still drawing breath? We never thought you'd be doing that."

That was Thelma's view then. Thelma and I happen to be very close friends now. She's delighted that there were teachers at Reynolds…. She left the next year, so she wasn't part of the reclamation project that was John Horgan in the 1970s.

It was the teachers at Lake Hill. I mentioned Jack Lusk. I'd like to mention the principal at that time, a fellow named Bill Garner, who went on to be the superintendent of schools here in Victoria. My colleague from Beacon Hill also had Mr. Garner when she was at Central. There was a guy who would have no time whatsoever for people who weren't on the same page he was. That was the image of Bill Garner — gruff, tough as nails. But he, like Jack Lusk, said: "Well, this Horgan guy…. There's got to be something there. He keeps showing up. That's a good thing."

That's part of the battle, as my friend from North Coast will tell you. If the kids keep coming to school, you've got a chance to save them. But if you've got a classroom of 35 kids and two aren't there for a couple of days, I think you're probably saying: "At least I've only got 33 today, instead of 35." So those two that aren't there on Monday and Tuesday and then again the next two weeks…. You send a letter home. You maybe make a phone call if you've got the time, with the prep time shrinking as it is. You do what you can to find out what's going on in the home.

It's not just the 35 kids you've got in that classroom at that particular hour. You've got another class the next hour and another class the hour after that. When we talk about the size, the number of kids that teachers are interacting with in a day and in a week, it's not just that one class. It's 100, 150 or 175. Those are a lot of individuals, a lot of people potentially falling through the cracks.

I had the good fortune of having Jack Lusk and Bill Garner and a woman named Gloria Metzger, who was a counsellor at that time at Reynolds. It was Bill Garner who said, "You know, you should run for student council," and I did. I ran on a platform of more dances. What could beat that?

I was in Frances Kelsey School in school district 79 in my constituency during the election campaign. My son is in a rock band, and one of the individuals in the band goes to Kelsey. I got a huge applause by mentioning his name and a larger applause by saying that I know it's not a provincial issue, but if it were up to me, there would be more dances at Frances Kelsey. I got a huge applause. In fact, they had a vote at the school, and I managed to clear 50 percent. I'm confident, as I was in high school, that it was the "more dances" platform that put me over the top — not the red cardigan, as I said to the member from Whalley.

I keep looking at the clock, Madam Speaker, because it's important to me to recognize that the time is 11:20. I have much more to say, and I know the Minister of Labour is anxious to hear every word of it.

This issue, again, comes back to respect, dignity and faith in the system. The Minister of Labour said at the start of his remarks: "Well, the system is broken. It doesn't work. It's never worked. And you know what? We're just going to follow through with historic positions and say: 'Yeah, it's broken. We're not going to make any effort today to resolve issues today. We're going to impose a contract for the next two years and look forward to some time in the future when we can make an effort to solve the problem.'"

I mentioned that I'm a historian, and I recognize that the past is the past. But we're here every day afresh. I had the good fortune growing up…. It was during that grade nine period that I came to know a man named Bruce Hutchison. This place will know Bruce Hutchison — a fine Canadian, an outstanding journalist. He became my mentor, helped finance my education and gave me a job chopping wood at his compound at Shawnigan Lake when I was an undergraduate.

I would hurry up the Malahat to Shawnigan Lake to meet Bruce at nine o'clock to start chopping wood, and he would show me where the pile was. Each day he had little sections of the property where he would have his wood. He didn't want to keep all the wood in one place because…. Well, you just never know. You like to have your piles spread around. I would swing an axe for ten or 15 minutes, and then he would come out and say: "Horgan, you're working too hard. Come in and have a beer." And I would say: "Well, maybe a coffee, Bruce." He'd have a beer and I'd have a coffee, and we would talk about history.

He was a man who sat in this place, in this press gallery, for decades, observing events here. We talked about Premiers past, and we talked about issues of importance. He instilled in me something that I've carried to this day and that I hope I've instilled in my kids. We have to look at each day with awe, as if we have never seen it before. He said to me: "As a columnist, I have the privilege to comment on public events each and every day. But if I am cynical and say, 'Oh, I've seen it before, done it before….'"

I've read some of the comments by members of the gallery with respect to this bill, and they've said: "Oh, it's inevitable. It had to happen. No surprise here; no news — Liberal governments, teachers union, inevitable conflict."

What Bruce Hutchison told me, and what I carry to this day, is that each day is fresh. Each day is a new day and a new opportunity to make the world a better place. What this government has done is said: "Today is the same as yesterday and the same as the day after that. What we're here to do is put teachers in their place, to hold them down, get them out of the way and carry on with our message that it's essential that we keep kids in school."

Well, you know, they talk about essential services. It's interesting, because Rod Mickelburgh wrote an article on the essential services discussion before the Labour Relations Board. It's in my papers somewhere. There it is right there. He made some interesting comments with respect to what is an essential service based on the union and the BCPSEA going to the Labour Relations Board to determine just what that is prior to strike notice being given.

What Mickelburgh goes on to say is that there are some examples of things that are not essential. He says:

That's what this government stakes its reputation on. We said that fundamental human rights — fundamental charter freedoms in this country — dictate that free, fair collective bargaining should and ought to take place. They say no, that's not the case. They say that it's fundamental, it's essential, that someone take this attendance down to the principal's office, based on the Labour Relations Board. That's essential services of this government.

What we say is to let teachers sit down with government and negotiate hard. Do your best to protect the treasury. I know that the Minister of Finance would want to do that, but let's sit down and have a discussion. You can't have a freely bargained agreement if one side has a mandate to do nothing, and that's the case with the BCPSEA in this situation. The BCPSEA was told: "No wage increase. Don't talk about working conditions."

In our minds, that's unreasonable. In the minds of certainly the Teachers Federation, it appears quite unreasonable as well — and also in the minds of parents. When I talk to parents, I say to them: "What do you think the outcome should be?" They say: "I think teachers should be treated fairly. I want to make sure that my kids are in school. I want to make sure that their outcomes are at the highest level possible." But that's not going to happen if one side of the equation says: "No, I'm sorry. I'm not going to talk to you about the two fundamental issues in any collective agreement — working conditions and wages."

That's where the government was. They said: "We can't carry on. The system is broken, because one side wants to talk about working conditions and wages." A fundamental impasse, says the Minister of Labour. No room to move ahead here because our side says: "We don't want to talk about these collective agreement issues." The other said says: "But isn't that what we're here for?" So they disagreed 35 times — big surprise.

Let's talk a little more about the Labour Relations Board. It's not essential to do student assessments. I ask the Minister of Labour: how is it that student assessments are not essential, but education is an essential service in this province? They trumpet that from the highest mountains. That's what we're all about — essential services. By golly, we're going to have kids in those classrooms. We'll have demoralized teachers, we'll have undervalued teachers, but we'll have the kids in the classroom.

The Labour Relations Board says that while they're there, there need not be any assessment done. Seems absurd to me. What are we doing this for? Student outcomes. The Minister of Education is quite proud to say that test results are up. That means everything is working just fine. Test results are up because teachers are forced to teach to the test. They're not developing the critical thinking skills that we are going to need in the next decade to solve the problems of our age. Our children are our salvation. We all know that; we all acknowledge that. But if we're not teaching them how to think for themselves, which is the fundamental outcome that we want from our kids, what are we doing?

So my kid can go and write a test and do well because the teacher taught them the 60 questions that are going to be on the test. Does that lead to better outcomes? It does if you're measuring performance, which is something that the Premier loves to do. Let's measure that performance.

Life is not about that. Life is about thinking for yourself. Life is about developing the skills that will get you out of jams in the future. That's what I got in my education in the public system, that's what my colleagues got from their education in the public system, and that's what parents expect for their kids in the public education system.

I want to spend a minute with the Wright report, because I know the government is going to be pushing that in the days ahead. I know Don Wright. He's a very capable man. He's a very bright man. He was a deputy minister in the 1990s. I know that was a decade of doom and despair, but he was working here and doing a very good job at that time. He put forward 12 recommendations that were virtually all put forward by the Trustees Association and the government, and none by the Teachers Federation — again a disconnect. You send forward an inquirer to see where we can find common ground. He says there is none, and he puts forward the 12 recommendations that were put to him by one side.

The most telling comments in Mr. Wright's report are as follows. I believe this is the nub of the issue, and if the government seized the opportunity to do something about it today on this new day — the day that we're going to make the world a better place — they would follow through with this.

Mr. Wright says as follows: "Even if fully implemented, these recommendations will not significantly improve the state of bargaining unless there is an attitudinal and behavioral change on both sides." Attitudinal and behavioral change — I don't see that on that side of the House. I see historic positions of confrontation. No attitudinal change, no behavioral change — historic positions of confrontation. "We're B.C. Liberals.

We bash teachers. That's what we're here for. That's what this bill's all about."

Mr. Wright goes on to say: "This will require a real dialogue, a genuine attempt to arrive at mutual understandings between teachers and the employer group. The sooner we start on that, the better." I couldn't agree with Mr. Wright more. These words were written one year ago, and I'll remind the Minister of Labour: the sooner we start on that, the better.

Twelve months have gone by since Mr. Wright wrote those words, and not a step of progress has been made. The government has had every opportunity since prior to May 17 to sit down with educators, to sit down with other individuals in the system and find common ground, find solutions. How tough is that? People say to me: "Well, Horgan, you seem so reasonable about this." Because it's a reasonable position to take. Why wouldn't you sit down with educators and say: "How does the system work?"

I know for a fact that there are people in this House that haven't been in a classroom since grade 12 — haven't given it a second's thought. Yet they're sitting in this place, passing judgment on how teachers do their job. That seems profoundly wrong to me, and it seems profoundly wrong to the people that I talk to. They say to me: "Horgan, you're so reasonable." And I know that the Minister of Labour has had a glimpse into my psyche, and he knows that I'm a reasonable individual. Why wouldn't you do that? Why wouldn't you say: "You're an educator. You're a teacher. You've been in a classroom for 30 years"?

We've got stacks and stacks and stacks of testimonials, from teachers and administrators right across this province, that have said to us, "What we do is important. What we do is important to us as individuals, as teachers and as members of our community" — right across this province. In Nelson, in Surrey, in Prince Rupert, in Prince George teachers are working to lift up this province every single day.

Why wouldn't we support them as legislators, as leaders in our community? Why wouldn't we say: what can we do to help? How can we lift up the kids in our community? I would say by helping teachers. Isn't that common sense? Doesn't that make sense to you? I know that it does to the people that live in my community. "Horgan, you're so reasonable."

Deputy Speaker: Member, just another reminder. Personal names, including your own, are not to be used.

J. Horgan: I had no idea. I've been saying "Horgan" because quite often that's how I'm referred to. People rarely know what my first name is, Madam Speaker. I won't do it again.

People say: "Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, why are you so reasonable?" I say to them: "Because that's what my mom taught me." My mom taught me to listen to what people have to say, respect their views, tolerate indifferences and move ahead.

I and those on this side of the House appeal to the people on the other side: listen; listen to what people are saying in your community. Yes, there are people….

I was at the Union of B.C. Municipalities luncheon the other day. I was at a table with some local politicians, and it was evenly mixed on the teacher question — the teacher issue, as it's referred to. To those that thought, yeah, well, bash them on the head and get them back in the classroom as quickly as you can, I said: "Well, do you really believe that?" Then they went on about how overpaid teachers are and how they get all these holidays and they're doing professional development. What could be worse than professional development? My goodness.

I know that the Minister of Labour and other ministers on the other side have legions of public servants that are going off on professional development all the time. That's a good thing. It's a positive thing. We have to be learning every day. That's the essence of human advancement. You can't just say: "Okay, here's your book. Read your book. You're done. Go off, and finish your life." Learning is something that happens every single day. Why would that be different for educators?

It seems to me that cutting-edge practices are being evolved every single day. If I got my teaching degree in 1970, why wouldn't I want to learn what's happened between then and now? That's common sense. It's good employee-employer relations, and again, it leads to positive outcomes for kids. That's what we're all about on this side of the House — positive outcomes for kids. You don't do that by saying: "Teacher, stop thinking. Just get in the class and eat your porridge." That's what they say time and time again on the other side of the House. It's not that I don't like porridge, Madam Speaker, but I don't like it jammed down my throat, and neither do teachers.

This appears — and I know that those in the media, if anyone's paying any attention at all…. I go back to my friend Bruce Hutchison. If he were here today, he'd say: "Well, listen to that. That fellow from Malahat–Juan de Fuca is talking some sense in there. What's that all about? What's the deal with that?" Common sense. Respecting other people, sitting down with them, hearing their views and trying to accommodate them — that's what civilized people do. Not on that side of the House. They say: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You've got all this talk about class size and class composition. Just get on with it. Eat your porridge."

Now, that Malahat–Juan de Fuca — he's talking sense. What's going on? Something's happening in the Legislature. I'm surprised that the benches aren't filling up. Common sense is being spoken from the corner. Talk to people. Listen to them — not just for a minute, not just for an election period — all the time, every day.

Now, I know that the ratings on channel 79 are now going through the roof. I know that Rafe Mair is now broadcasting: "My goodness. Something is happening in the Legislature. It's common sense from Malahat–Juan de Fuca." Listen to people. Respect them. That's what this debate is all about. That's why we're here.

We put ourselves forward as candidates in the last election because we found a disconnect in our communities. We found that a government of 70-plus pounding away on the member from Mount Pleasant and my good friend Joy MacPhail — who I can, I believe, mention now, thank you — day after day after day…. There was something wrong with that. All of us, and those on the other side, took their positions, and we went into an election campaign.

We knocked on doors. We met people who went to public meetings. We stated our positions at all-candidates meetings — proudly, in my case. I was very proud to stand as a New Democrat candidate and talk about issues that were important in my community. I'm assuming, Madam Speaker — and maybe, again, it's just more sanity, more reason from this corner — that all of the rest of us did the same thing. We talked to our neighbours. We debated issues. We had disagreements, but we respected the right of each of us to have those disagreements.

Ultimately, our objectives, whether we'd be on that side of the House or this side of the House, were to make the world a better place. We didn't do it for any other reason that I can tell. I didn't get into this to spend every day of the week thinking and working and trying to improve my constituents' lives…. I didn't do that for any other reason than because it's the right thing to do.

I appeal, again, to the Minister of Labour. The right thing to do is to say: "You know, you're right. Why don't we sit down and talk?" You can make a phone call. Call up Jinny Sims and say: "Jinny, you've got some issues, I hear. I sent my fact-finder. He sent me a note. The fact-finder says that you want to sit down at a separate table and talk about policy issues, class size, class composition. So do I because it's important. It's the right thing to do. It's common sense." Will the minister make that phone call? Apparently not.

Instead, we have Bill 12. The fact-finder reported on Friday. Over the weekend the government did some polling. The public affairs bureau spinner said: "Bash him on the head, minister. Bash him on the head. You're doing a great job." That's what they do over there at public affairs. They say: "Oh, New Democrats are talking crazy, talking common sense. Don't do any of that. Bash them on the head, minister." That's what they do. They bash them on the head.

That's not the approach on this side of the House. What we've talked about during the campaign and what we've talked about every day since that is balance and respect. That's what my neighbours asked me to do. They said that to me. They said: "John, we'll support you." I live on a little cul-de-sac near Luxton in the district of Langford. Every single house in that neighbourhood had a John Horgan sign on it. It was kind of embarrassing, actually, driving home at night, Mr. Speaker, I have to say — seeing my name on everybody's lawn.

There were past elections where there were no NDP signs except mine. The people that I talked to on my road said: "Well, you know, we don't usually vote NDP, but you seem to talk sense. You want to solve problems; you don't want to create problems." That's, in fact, what I want to do. That's why I came here: to solve problems, not to create them.

Bill 12 says in the explanatory note…. As I said earlier, this bill settles the dispute between the B.C. Teachers Federation and the British Columbia Public School Employers Association. It does nothing of the kind. It prolongs the dispute. It creates more animosity. It creates more tension.

The right course of action for the Minister of Labour and for the Premier was to get on the phone. Talk to teachers. We've got meeting rooms all over this building. I've been in them. I've been in most of them. In fact, I've probably been in every single room in this building, having meetings with people. When we were in government, we met with labour, and we met with business time and time again. I met with Jerry Lampert, and I met with Jock Finlayson. I met with all of the people that you guys meet with on a regular basis. I also met with working people, and I met with ordinary people. I met with people from my community and from communities across this province. We said then and we say now: how can we help? How can we fix the problems that have been created?

There's still time to do that. This government can hoist this bill, get it off the floor. Let's call up the teachers. Let's call up the B.C. School Trustees Association. Let's sit down, and let's get a true solution to this problem, a real solution to this problem.

I mentioned earlier that I met with Penny Tees of the trustees association — a wonderful woman. I'm very, very happy to have made her acquaintance. She's thoughtful, she's committed, and she's passionate about education. She reminded me, as I said, that every community has different issues.

How do we solve those issues by Bill 12? We don't. What the government has done with Bill 12 is they've said: "I don't want to listen to this anymore. I don't want these so-called threats." The B.C. Teachers Federation laid out their plan. They said: "Here are several weeks of opportunity to sit down and talk to solve this problem." The government said: "Well, I don't think so." The public affairs bureau said: "Bash them on the head, minister." That's what the government did, rather than take the opportunity that we've appealed to them to do, that the teachers have appealed to them to do, that parents have appealed to them to do and that the Vancouver school board, as I read earlier, has appealed to them to do. Sit down, and solve the problem.

We talked earlier about class size as a condition of employment, and we can just ask the B.C. Court of Appeal. In 2002 with the enactment of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act and the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, the question of class sizes was removed from the collective bargaining pro-

By carrying out this unilateral gutting of the public education bargaining process, the government has essentially said to teachers that class size is no longer a condition of employment. Clearly, if government thought that class size was a condition of employment, they would allow teachers to negotiate that. Makes sense to me — again, this guy in Malahat making sense. I feel like a talking head over here. Maybe that's just what I am. They went on to say that class size is important at the bargaining table, and the government disagreed with that. The government made its position clear that by removing class size, it's off the table. It's not a working condition. It's not any of your concern, educator in the classroom.

Recently the B.C. Court of Appeal made its position quite clear on this. The highest court in this province has stated that class size is "a condition that affects the employment relationship." In February 2005 the decision by the Hon. Justice Lambert said:

That's the B.C. Court of Appeal. It's Justice Lambert. It's not the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. That's the highest court on this issue saying quite clearly that class size is a working condition. This government doesn't seem to get that. They don't like judgments that go counter to their point of view. Here's an arbitration. We don't like that. Throw it out. Here's a freely negotiated collective agreement.

I mentioned the Hospital Employees Union earlier on. I was on a radio talk show during the campaign with a candidate from the other side — who was unsuccessful, thank goodness — not in my community, but in an adjoining riding. We were talking about the HEU issue, and he said: "It was one of the toughest things that we ever did." Of course, he didn't have anything to do with it. He wasn't in this place at that time. But he said that it was one of the toughest things ever. I said: "Then why did you do it?" He said: "Because it was a bad contract" — a bad contract, freely negotiated by two sides, signed, agreed to by both parties? That was a bad contract, according to those people, because they didn't negotiate it.

That told me it was kind of the divine right to rule. "Bad contract. We didn't do it. If it was our contract, it would have been fine, but the NDP was somehow involved in it. Therefore, it's a bad contract." So they ripped it up.

I looked at this candidate. I was absolutely dumbfounded. I said: "How can you have two parties, regardless of who they are…?" In our system of laws and government two groups sit down and freely negotiate an agreement, but in the eyes of that side it's not a contract. "Why is that?" I asked this candidate for the Liberal Party. "Because we didn't negotiate it." Absolutely appalling. The divine-right-to-rule party over there has to recognize that the world we live in, the community that I come from, is diverse and vast, and if a contract is a contract for them, it's a contract for us.

"Even if fully implemented, these recommendations will not significantly improve the state of bargaining unless there is an attitudinal and behavioural change" — Don Wright's words. I've mentioned them once. I'll mention them again, because it's so important: "attitudinal and behavioural change." I'm very pleased to see the member from Peace River is still here and listening intently.

We need to change the way we see the world. We're all here — many of us new, many of us for the first time. I said to Rafe Mair this morning, "Maybe I'm new, but I thought we were here to fix things, not to break them or not to maintain that they're broken and then just ignore it," which is what the Minister of Labour, in essence, said this morning when he spoke on this bill.

He said it doesn't work — "It doesn't work; it has never worked before" — although I think I've pointed out, based on the real history of the time, that in 1996 and again in 1998 there were brokered arrangements negotiated by both sides, signed by both sides and implemented and codified in this place with the support of all parties, with the exception, I think, of '98. The trustees weren't keen. In fact, there was a reverse imposition at that time. One could argue that it was imposed on the trustees rather than imposed on the teachers. Nonetheless, it involved all parties, and it involved the government, because this Legislature is where we approve moneys. We approve funds in this place so that our system can operate.

Oh, I'm pleased to see that the member for Burquitlam is going to join the debate. I look forward to that. Thanks for coming in. You've put me right off my track.

J. Horgan: Embarrassed — that's where I was. I was embarrassed. If only I had my red cardigan on, it would be the same colour as my face.

The challenge that we have — and I've said it a couple of times to this point — is to take the world as we find it and somehow make it a little bit better. That's what my neighbours have asked me to do, and that's why I stood for election. I think the people, certainly, in Malahat–Juan de Fuca liked the message, because they came in large numbers to support me.

The notion that a contract signed by people on that side has validity and a contract signed by people on this side has not is a big problem for me. I'm sure it's a big problem for some of the people on that side. It must make them feel quite uncomfortable that someone who stood for office on their banner actually believed that and said it publicly. It staggered me. I was disappointed that that individual wasn't running in my constituency, because I would have pounded him relentlessly from that point on. I didn't get the opportunity. I only had a brief time on the radio to do that, but I did enjoy it a great deal. I think he regretted it very much after it came out of his mouth, but he said it sincerely, and I believe he held those views honestly, much to my surprise.

"A contract is a contract." I heard the Premiers say that in 2000, and then, much to my disappointment, I heard him say: "This contract, though, is not a contract, because it involves health care workers. If it were a contract between MacMillan Bloedel and Weldwood, that would be okay. If it was Slocan and some other company, that would be okay. But no, these are working people, and it wasn't really a contract, because the NDP signed it. It was the NDP that negotiated it."

Freely bargained, two sides, signed, ratified: that's a contract to me. I don't know what else you'd call it. But certainly the member who ran for the Liberal Party from Esquimalt and who I was debating at that time didn't see it that way.

I'd like to read, if I could, a note that was passed to me from a teacher with respect to essential services. I spoke about that earlier — a column in the Globe and Mail by Rod Mickelburgh. I've got the essential services language here, and it says as follows: "72(1) If a dispute arises after collective bargaining has commenced, the chair may, on the chair's own motion or on application by either of the parties to the dispute…" do the following. It says: "…investigate whether or not the dispute poses a threat to…the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia." That's the essential services designation in the act.

I don't see how refusing to oversee children at lunchtime, as the B.C. Teachers Federation has suggested they would do, poses a risk to the health, safety or the welfare of residents of British Columbia. I don't see that as a problem, and I don't think the parents in my community see that as a problem. I think administrators might see that as a problem, because that means they have to take time out of their busy schedule, and it is a busy schedule. I know that administrators are working just as hard as teachers in the system. They have the same problems, the same challenges. They have to manage these excessively large classes with an imbalance of special needs kids.

I don't want to leave in the minds of those opposite, or of anyone who is paying any attention at all, that administrators have a minor role to play. It's a significant role, and I respect and value that, as I'm hopeful that those on the other side do. But it's a minor inconvenience, rather than a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia. I don't think that's a big problem. Does anyone…? Can I have a hallelujah on that from the other side? I don't see it as a problem.

What the problem is, is that we're not getting away from our historic positions of confrontation. Those on that side say: "No, we've got to keep bashing them on the head because the public affairs bureau has done a poll, and it says that that's good for us. It works in the valley; it works in the Okanagan. We've got to bash them on the head." It doesn't work there. It doesn't work anywhere in British Columbia. Respect.

I think a better course of action for the folks at public affairs is to get a new pollster, because they're getting bad advice. They're certainly not resonating with the people in Malahat–Juan de Fuca. The people in my community are saying: "Fix the problem, for goodness' sake. What are we paying you people for, anyway? Passing notes back and forth? Going to junkets?"

I know members are disappointed that that's the way the world views us in this place. It's wrong. I know that, and they know that. But how do you change that perception of what we do if we defy common sense and say we're going to solve a problem by making it worse? We're going to say to teachers: "Eat your porridge." And again, to the porridge manufacturers: please don't send me letters; I like porridge. It's the ramming down the throat that I don't like.

Why would people have a different view of us in this place if what we do is just do what we did yesterday? Let's be tricky. Let's be innovative. Let's do tomorrow what we've never done before. Let's agree to sit down with teachers, to sit down with trustees and make the system as good as it can be. Let's do what you've said in your golden goal. I support that goal 100 percent. I want this to be the most educated and most literate jurisdiction in Canada. We all do; we all want that. How do you do that by imposing a collective agreement? How do you do that?

The people in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, the people in every constituency in this House, want us to solve problems. We will quibble on the edges, I firmly believe. There are profoundly differences in how we see the world. That's fair enough. But on this issue…. I've talked about the importance of the system to me personally and how I was lifted up by educators when I could have just fallen away. There are many, many other people like John Horgan in the system today that are not going to have the successes I had because their teachers are overburdened, undervalued and disrespected.

I call on the other side: take this bill off the table. I call on the Minister of Labour: look at the fact-finder's report once again and see the optimism that I saw. Look at it with different glasses on. Look at it with a view to making the situation better, not worse. Look at it as if it were a new day. Look at it as if we can make the world a better place by lifting everyone up, not pushing them down.

That's the problem we have today. Let's not have that problem tomorrow. Let's all get together — that side, this side; north, south, east, west; rural, urban — and really do what we were elected to do. I know that's how you feel in your hearts on that side. I know that's how we feel in our hearts on this side.

Teachers need respect. Do they have a political agenda? As the public affairs bureau says through their polling, maybe they do. Let's just forget about that. I have a political agenda. I ran for a political party. So did the people on the other side. But the core of our personal values is to make this a better place.

We can't do that by holding one group down. We can't do that by highlighting an individual in a classroom and saying: "You're not worth it. We've got all the kids in the room now; we don't need you." We do need educators. We need inspired educators. We need poets. We need engineers. We need the whole gamut that makes up our society. Where do they come from? They come from little kids wearing red cardigans in grade one. They go through the system, and they're inspired. They find a teacher that just….

J. Horgan: Some wear blue; I wore red. But I'm colour-blind, as I've said. It could have been blue, and someone told me it was red, and I've just believed it all these years. The point, though, Mr. Speaker…. See, this heckling thing — I gotta get used to that. It just throws you right off. The point I was making, and it was a simple one…. A colour — imagine that. This is a glimpse into my psyche for the Minister of Labour. Throw a colour at me, and I go sideways. I do have a cold, and my throat is coming to its end. And I see the time, and I would perhaps just conclude my remarks, before we break for lunch, by going back to my earlier anecdote about my career in the public school system.

I am just one of the hundreds of thousands of kids that have come through in my generation, and there are generations to follow. It was a teacher, a collection of teachers, who said: "There's some potential. Let's not let this fall away. Let's see if we can tease this out a little bit."

It was to my benefit, it's to the benefit of my children, and it will be to the benefit of your children and your grandchildren if we start today to make this world a better place. Let's lift this bill. Let's get it out of here. I appeal to the Premier and to the Minister of Labour: talk to teachers. Hear what they have to say. Hear with both ears. Listen with your heart, and let's find solutions.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASIA-PACIFIC
INITIATIVE AND THE OLYMPICS
(continued)

Hon. C. Hansen: Last night when we were talking about the provincial nominee program, I undertook to get some of the stats on the program to date. I think one of the things that we had endeavoured to do was to get a breakdown of the number of PNP nominees year by year. What I have discovered is that we have not kept stats for each year, but we have aggregate stats for the program from its inception to date. I can share these numbers with the member.

From the inception of the program on March 1, 2001, there has been a total number of applicants to the program of 1,530. Now, of those, there have been 1,238 nominated. I can share with the member some of the employment sectors that these individuals are involved with. What I'll do is just give the member those for which there were over a hundred nominated individuals. If he would like the complete data set, I'd be pleased to provide that.

In education there have been 168 to date; in health, for registered nurses, there have been 269; high tech, there have been 102; skill trades, 127. I guess one other that I will highlight, just because I know it's of interest, is doctors, and there have been 53 to date.

A question coming out of this…. I understand those are aggregate numbers and are not available on a year-by-year basis. Going forward, will the ministry be looking at these numbers on an annual basis?

M. Farnworth: The number around physicians. Is there a target for any of the health professionals, or is it just a target in general? Specifically, is there a target for physicians?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are not specific targets for any one occupational group, the reason being that the PNP program is not a program of first resort. First of all, an employer has to ensure that there is not an available skilled British Columbia resident who could fill that position. Only then can a provincial nominee program be put in place.

We do have certain categories that we focus on through the PNP program. It's divided into two areas. One is what we call strategic occupations. This is one of two streams, you might say. Strategic occupations, which are health care professionals, which include registered nurses, physicians and midwives in particular — it's not to exclude any other profession; secondly, the skilled worker category; thirdly, the international student category.

The second stream is what we refer to as the business category, which includes business skills, the regional business category, and what's referred to as the projects categories.

M. Farnworth: I understand the member's comments about this not being a program of first resort but rather one where there are skill shortages. Given the debate that's taken place in the province over the last decade, at least, particularly around physician supply, it would seem to me that there would be more than enough indicators, both from inside government and outside government, on the need for physicians, particularly in some of the key specialities. So I'm wondering why there are not targets in that particular area.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's not really for us to establish those targets. It would be for the Ministry of Health and the health authorities to determine what their physician needs would be.

In British Columbia we have been very successful over the last four years to attract physicians from other parts of Canada. We actually have the largest in-migration of physicians from other provinces than any province in Canada. I think there have been one or two years where Alberta's been slightly ahead of us, but if you look at the time period of four to five years, we have, in fact, surpassed every other province in our ability to attract physicians to this jurisdiction.

The other thing is that there is talk of certain specialities. There are occasionally news stories of certain specialists that have been unable to get status in British Columbia, but it is not true to say we have an across-the-board physician shortage. We have a shortage of certain specialties. We have a shortage of full-service family practitioners in some communities, but we have been very successful at attracting more physicians to come into those communities.

The PNP program is there. It can be used, but it would not be used as a first option. The first thing we have to do is expand our UBC medical school, which we are, so that we can be training our own young British Columbians to fill that need. Secondly, we recruit across Canada. In terms of recruiting internationally, that's where the PNP could become a useful program.

M. Farnworth: The minister has said it's not the first line. I fully accept that, but it's those specialty skills that this is, in part, intended to address. My question would be: is there communication dialogue with the Ministry of Health? Is the Ministry of Health encouraged to use the PNP program in terms of identifying suitable applicants and ensuring that we have access to those specialty skills?

I see that since 2001 there are 53. That's just over 12 a year — maybe 13 a year. If we're looking at specialized skills, that would not seem to me to be an unreasonable number. I'm wondering: are we actively working with Health to use this program to identify those very specialized professionals that we need?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is yes. It actually goes back to the ramp-up of the program four years ago. The first focus was on using the program to fast-track nurses who would like to immigrate to British Columbia. One of the complexities with the PNP program is that when it comes to credentialed professionals, we also need to work with their respective credentialing bodies — in the case of physicians, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C.; in the case of nurses, what is now the College of Registered Nurses of B.C., formerly the Registered Nurses Association of B.C. — to ensure that these applicants would in fact be eligible for credentialing in British Columbia. It is a bit more complicated to facilitate immigration for individuals where there is that credentialing requirement, but we do work closely with not only the credentialing agencies but also with the health authorities and the Ministry of Health to make sure that this program is used to the fullest extent possible.

M. Farnworth: Is it the Ministry of Health that's taking the lead with the credentialing authorities in terms of explaining this program? Or is this ministry taking a proactive role with the credentialing authori-

Hon. C. Hansen: It would actually be the employer that would have to work with the applicant. One of the principles behind the PNP program is that the applicant has to have a job offer in British Columbia. It would be the health authorities as the employers that would have to work with the credentialing authority to facilitate the credentialing or to determine what outstanding issues there may be that the applicants would have to upgrade their skills for, in order to ensure credentialing in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the program itself, it would be fair to say that, really, it's…. While the program is there, unless you're going to get approval from the credentialing authority ahead of time, you're not necessarily going to be able to get in to practice your profession if you come through the program. Does the minister understand what I'm saying?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a sequencing, particularly for physicians, where they can get temporary licensure here in British Columbia while they complete all the necessary exams, but there would still be dialogue with the college prior to the individuals arriving in Canada to do at least a preliminary review of their qualifications.

In the example of, say, anaesthetists coming from a foreign country to practise in a northern community in British Columbia, they would be able to get temporary licensure, based on their qualifications, prior to them writing all of the extensive exams that the college would require before they would be given permanent credentials in British Columbia. Again, that would be driven by the employer and the applicant with the support of officials at the PNP program, but it would not be officials in my ministry that would be directly involved with facilitating that process. It would be the employer and the licensing body.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to move to the business category. How has that fared over the last four years? Do you have statistics on that in terms of…? Are they aggregated or are they on an annual basis?

Hon. C. Hansen: When we talk about business immigration, there are two programs. One is the PNP program, so we talk about…. When I referenced earlier this sector being a business category, it could be individuals with skilled trades. It could be, for example, under the category of entertainment. It could be in many of these areas. Then that would be differentiated from what the business immigration program is per se, where an individual would have to come in and make minimum investment levels in British Columbia. Just for some clarification, maybe the member could explain exactly which type of information he is seeking.

M. Farnworth: I'm happy to: the business immigration program where you are bringing in money to invest and, on the basis of your investments, you are able to settle here in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Hansen: There are two categories for business immigration in British Columbia. One is for investment coming into the GVRD, and the other is for regional businesses outside of the lower mainland. The threshold now for the lower mainland investor would be $800,000 of new investment and for other parts of the province — the regional program — it would be $250,000 of direct investment in a business.

The numbers. In 2004 there were 60 individuals; 2005 is projected to be 150; and for 2006 it is projected to rise to 250 individuals.

M. Farnworth: Over the last four years have the parameters on those amounts changed? Have the parameters of the program changed?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is yes. Those thresholds have actually been reduced for what I think is…. I said GVRD. I think, actually, the lower mainland and the capital city region are in the one category, although I'd have to double-check that. But the threshold has been lowered from a million dollars to $800,000, and for the regional program it has been lowered from $300,000 to $250,000.

Hon. C. Hansen: We actually follow closely what's happening in other provinces. We think this is one of those areas where B.C. has to be competitive with other provinces in Canada. We have adjusted our numbers because, first of all, we think we can handle more individuals coming through the program, and second, it continues to make B.C. an attractive destination compared to other jurisdictions.

M. Farnworth: Of the 60 individuals that came through under the program, what's the breakdown between within the lower mainland and outside the lower mainland?

Hon. C. Hansen: Some 56 percent of all approved applicants are locating into areas outside of the GVRD. I don't have a breakdown for the lower mainland generally or for southern Vancouver Island, but over 50 percent are outside of GVRD, if that number helps. If the member would like more precise detail, I could endeavour to get that for him.

M. Farnworth: Yeah. What I wanted to get was a sense, because if it's 56 percent outside the lower mainland, then 44 percent should be inside the lower mainland, the GVRD. That answers the question.

Were there targets set? Are there targets within the ministry in terms of a breakdown of where we would like to see the business investment program taking place? Is there an encouragement, for example, to the lower mainland, and does the ministry make its planning on that basis?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is yes, there is encouragement for individuals to locate outside of the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. That is done, really, through the differential amount that has to be invested. It is a pretty big difference. It's the difference between $250,000 and $800,000 of investment that's required, and that is to encourage more people to locate in those regional parts of the province.

M. Farnworth: But there's no specific…. Yes, we want to increase, but I notice that in terms of your targets for 2004 and 2005, you're looking at $40 million in investment. But there's no target in terms of: "Okay, we want 80 percent of that outside the lower mainland and 20 percent in," or "It's not a question of 50-50; it's a question of" — what?

Hon. C. Hansen: Our target is to do half and half: 50 percent of the business immigrants would be coming into rural parts of British Columbia, or the non–lower mainland, non–capital city areas; and 50 percent into those lower mainland and capital city areas.

M. Farnworth: The question I have is: the 40 million — has that been static going back since 2001? Has it averaged that? Has it been increasing, or has it been the same?

Hon. C. Hansen: That number is growing. If you go back to 2004, there were only 60 individuals that came in through this program. Even though the thresholds were higher at that time, it would still have been significantly less than the 40 million we're now targeting.

M. Farnworth: What criteria are the targets going forward based on? We've lowered the threshold. We have an expected number of people coming through each year, so what criteria are the increases based on? Particularly, I'm looking out at 2006-2007. That's a fairly significant — almost 75 percent — increase.

Hon. C. Hansen: In past years there has been a reactive approach to this program, as the ministry responsible at the time was not going out and actively seeking business immigrants. That's the shift that we see taking place. We will be looking at specific sectors where we think business immigration can play a significant role. We will be actively targeting individuals or actively encouraging applications to the business immigration program much more extensively than we have in the past.

Hon. C. Hansen: Part of the work we're doing within the ministry is looking at the kind of companies we would like to attract to British Columbia, the kind of expertise. How we build in the high-tech area, for example. Through our in-market representatives and through the work that's done by ministry staff, we would actually be seeking out companies and individuals that we would like to see move to British Columbia to be part of meeting some of the strategic needs of the province, where we see there are opportunities and shortages. So, we will be targeting those sectors in certain countries through proactive work that we will do from a Vancouver-Victoria base but also by working through our in-market reps.

M. Farnworth: To date, a lot of that work would have been done within the ministry, in-house. How many people would have been dedicated to working on that?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the provincial nominee program and the business immigration program, there were 16 FTEs that were transferred from Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services into the Ministry of Economic Development.

M. Farnworth: Given the targets and the goals that have been in the ministry's plan, I would ask, then, if we're anticipating an increase in the number of staff. If so, by how many?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are, at this stage, looking at what our staffing needs are going to be going forward and the pressures that are on the ministry. That will become part of our annual budget-cycle presentations that we will be doing this fall.

In terms of this budget before us now in these estimates, there are 16 FTEs for the balance of this fiscal year. I think it's also important to note that these individuals, when they were working in CAWS, were working in a different environment than they are working in now. Within the Ministry of Economic Development they have much broader access to some of those individuals, which can help with that proactive outreach that was not directly connected to the work when they were in the other ministry.

M. Farnworth: Is the minister concerned or feeling that when he goes to Treasury Board with his plans, if he doesn't get the funding he would be asking for, then the targets in the plan may not be met?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the member, from his previous experience, knows never to second-guess Treasury Board ahead of time. We are confident that we can reach these targets, even with existing staffing levels within the ministry, with perhaps the support of others that may have to assist those 16 individuals. We believe that that is doable within our budget con-

straints; albeit those individuals would be definitely working above and beyond the call of duty.

I'd like to proceed a little bit in terms of…. This program has been working in terms of wanting to bring business into the province from outside the lower mainland and the interior, but that's just one piece, a component, of a successful economic strategy for economic development in the province — and especially outside the lower mainland, which tends to function very much almost as its own economic unit.

What other programs or strategies has the ministry got in terms of economic development in the rural parts of the province?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member is hinting at…. Maybe I'm drawing more from his question, but this is actually where we're at with this ministry today. I often describe it to people that…. We've had elements that have come into this ministry from other ministries — specifically, the Industry Training Authority, which I know we'll be talking about shortly — and also these various immigration programs that have come into the ministry.

If you look at the Olympics, which was really reporting through this ministry previously, that is an exciting entity in its own right, and we need to get to the point where, as I describe it, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The reason that these initiatives have all been brought under Economic Development is that they are important components to a much bigger economic strategy. Over the coming months we will be fleshing out what that economic strategy looks like. We will have a strong Asia-Pacific focus, as we talked about last night. So we are building towards that, but we're not there yet.

In terms of encouraging economic development outside of the lower mainland, there are a couple of key initiatives. One is the various trusts that have been established or are being established. The northern development initiative was $135 million of funding that flowed as a result of the B.C. Rail partnership agreement that is assisting northern communities with their economic development strategies. The two new trusts: the southern interior trust will have $50 million go into it; the northern Vancouver Island coastal initiative trust will also have $50 million going into it.

We have, working with the ministry, eight individuals around the province, and we refer to these individuals as the on-the-ground staff. To reflect back to last night's conversation, they are not tied to bricks and mortar. They are getting out and travelling in their respective regions, working with local governments and regional governments, working with key industries in those areas both in a reactive way to assist them with their challenges but, more importantly, in a proactive way. They're going in to talk to these companies about what their barriers are to expansion, what their needs are in terms of investments and skilled workers so that we can proactively feed that back into our other government initiatives and stay one step ahead and make sure that the needs of industry throughout the province are being met.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying. I guess, to be a bit more specific, I would like to get a sense of where the ministry is at or how they approach the issue. There used to be mechanisms in place — such as the job protection commissioner, for example — that could deal with specific situations and come back and make recommendations which government could act on. I'm wondering: are there any mechanisms or tools like that currently in place that the ministry has at its disposal?

Hon. C. Hansen: The eight individuals around the province would play a key role in trying to work with various companies to anticipate their challenges and to make sure they're met so that they don't wind up in difficult circumstances.

The job protection commissioner who was in place in the late 1990s — a lot of what he did at the time…. I think Doug Kerley, who was in that position for many years, did an absolutely admirable job for the province during those years, but they were largely driven by his ability through the legislative powers granted to him to provide subsidies to those companies. It may have been tax forgiveness, and there was a variety of other…. Lower hydro rates — I forget all the powers that he had.

In today's context we would look at those kinds of initiatives as subsidies to companies. They may make sense in the short term, but in the medium to long term we believe that upsets the competitiveness of other companies and that often by subsidizing one company, you wind up compromising the financial viability of a second company. That is why we've eliminated business subsidies going to specific companies in this province.

In that respect, the work of the job commissioner, or the work that that job commissioner has done in the past, has really transitioned into a new approach. That's by trying to work with companies ahead of time so that their challenges, in terms of investment and labour force and other issues, can be met before they become a crisis problem for any particular company.

Hon. C. Hansen: In the case of Port Alice we have been trying to work with the proponent who is looking at the possibility of purchasing that mill, but the bottom line for us right from the start has been that we will not provide subsidies to that particular enterprise. If you go back to late last May, I guess it was, we received a letter from the proponent which had a long

list of requests of government, most of which constituted subsidies. We were able to engage in a discussion with him about what we felt were or were not subsidies, but there's been a lot of work done by ministry staff to try to facilitate a decision as to whether or not that mill can be reopened. So in this case it's not a case of going in and doing subsidies; it is a case of looking at what some of the other avenues are in which government can be supportive, short of subsidies.

M. Farnworth: I agree. It's not always about subsidies; it's about other actions that government can be doing. I guess the question is…. That type of thing could have been done in the past by the job protection commissioner. It wasn't just about subsidies. He could look at other things. So it comes back to: has there been a replacement mechanism to try and do that type of activity, where companies know that there's a toolkit the government has or an individual they can come to, to deal with these types of problems before you get into this sort of last-minute crisis?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is a role that is played by the Ministry of Economic Development. If you look back to some of the work that the job protection commissioner would have done in the past — of working with local government, for example; working with various ministries of the provincial government; working with various departments of the federal government — those functions still take place. In the case of Port Alice there has been a lot of work done across ministries that has been led by the Ministry of Economic Development to basically fulfil the same kind of functions as you would have seen the job protection commissioner play in years gone by, short of having the power to actually grant subsidies to that enterprise.

M. Farnworth: With that, I will ask for a five-minute recess, and then we can move to the ITAC.

G. Robertson: My question to the minister is with regards to the economic development initiatives on the north and central coast. Can you give us a brief overview of the status of pending economic development investments from the provincial government in that region?

Hon. C. Hansen: I may need some clarity from the member as to exactly what he is referring to. We do have in place for the north and central coast the two trusts: one is the northern development initiative, which would actually come as far south as the southern boundary for the Skeena and North Coast ridings, I believe. I stand to be corrected on that. Then the new trust that is now before the House with legislation is the northern Vancouver Island and coastal trust, which would actually include the midcoast up to the southern boundary of where the northern trust is in place.

G. Robertson: My question is more specific to what is more broadly known as the Great Bear rain forest and the coastal solution, which has been in development for a number of years now. Specifically on that initiative, is there any activity within the ministry that he can report on?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Ministry of Economic Development has not been involved in a direct way. Those discussions have actually been led by what was previously the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, which is now Agriculture and Lands. The Lands portion of Agriculture and Lands is what previously was largely in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

G. Robertson: Maybe I'll be a little more specific then, because I'm surprised if there isn't a role being played by the Ministry of Economic Development. There is $110 million in private funding and investment pending in this initiative at this point, from what I am led to believe. The total package is approximately $180 million in new investment for B.C.'s north and central coast. A key part of the consensus agreement is an economic development and conservation management initiative between the philanthropic community, the Canadian government and the British Columbia government to bring that whole investment package together.

Maybe a more focused question is — I hope it is applicable to your ministry — has your government made it clear to the federal government that this coastal economic development package is a priority for your government, and are you actively seeking necessary matching federal contributions in order to make these investments possible?

Hon. C. Hansen: There has been a tremendous amount of work put into this initiative, and I know that work continues. It is being led by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands because it is centred around the development of that land and resource management plan. I'm not in a position to answer the member's question directly, but I'm sure that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, when we get into those estimates, would be pleased to provide him with whatever details are available.

M. Farnworth: I'd now like to focus a bit on the Industry Training Authority. I would ask the minister if he could give us an outline of the authority, how it's intended to work and the relationship between the ministry and the authority.

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like introduce Brian Clewes, who is the chief executive officer of the Industry Training Authority. That is an agency that had previously been reporting through the Ministry of Advanced Education and was moved over to this ministry as of the middle of June.

The Industry Training Authority was established about 18 months ago. They have a budget of, I believe, about $74 million a year to provide for specific industry training and apprenticeship programs in the province. They are now developing what we refer to as industry training organizations, where specific sectors will have a direct advisory role to the training authority with regard to what the skill needs would be in the future. A lot of work is going into trying to forecast what the demands would be in the future and ensuring that our programs are tailored to meet those demands.

The most recent industry training organization that was rolled out was, in fact, yesterday morning. That was the residential construction ITO — one that, I think, was very well received in the construction industry. It is the model for others that we anticipate rolling out in the future.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the forecasting, then, who is doing the determining? Is it a collaborative effort, or is the work done within the ministry?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is very much a collaboration between the ITA and industry. There is data being collected by industry and industry associations that is getting fed into the projections that we will be relying on to design our programs.

M. Farnworth: Who makes up the ITOs? What stakeholder groups are involved in the formation of the ITOs?

Hon. C. Hansen: The respective industries themselves determine what would be the appropriate makeup of the ITOs. There's no one cookie-cutter for this. There are now three ITOs that we have embarked upon. One is in the residential construction that I mentioned, the other is in horticultural, and the other is in automotives. In each case they are slightly different in their makeup, depending on what are seen as the needs of that particular industry. There is also input, with some coming from trade union representatives. There is input, in some cases, coming from post-secondary institutions. There is input from various industry associations and from direct employers, who are all helping to facilitate the work of the ITOs.

M. Farnworth: It's a combination, then. When we are talking about the stakeholder and talking about the business, we are talking about the full range, then, from business, labour and post-secondary education organizations. Is the ministry ever involved at all, directly or indirectly?

Hon. C. Hansen: The ITA, like every other government organization, would be annually submitting a three-year service plan so the ministry has a direct involvement in setting out those strategies and expectations and ensuring there is accountability at the end of the day. In the actual makeup of the ITOs, the ITA itself would play a role, but the final decision on the makeup of the ITO would really be up to the industry. As I say, there's no one cookie-cutter approach. It really is looked at on a case-by-case basis as to which of the various interested groups or parties would be invited to participate in the work of the ITO.

M. Farnworth: So you are anticipating an ITO for each of the skills that are in demand within the province. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: We anticipate that there will be a total of about ten to 15 ITOs once this initiative is fully implemented.

Hon. C. Hansen: In the service plan what we have targeted for this fiscal year would be two new ITOs to be up and functioning. We have actually met that target already. In the following fiscal year — we are looking at '06-07 — there would be an additional five. In '07-08…. Sorry. These are not incremental, so there would be two this year, a total of five next year and a total of ten in '07-08 — ITOs that would be up and operational.

M. Farnworth: Over the next three years we're looking to get ten up and running, and we're looking at having, I believe the minister said a moment ago, about 15 in place — ten to 15?

M. Farnworth: Is the development of the ITOs matching the…? What's been the determining factor in the creation of the ITOs to date and in the future? Is it the demand in the particular skill trade that's required? Or is it that we can get these people together and get it up and running that's driving it?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, to date it's really been a case of both of those factors. There have been some industries that have been much better positioned to get an ITO up and operating very quickly. In other cases — and I'm thinking specifically of residential construction — there is obviously a very demonstrated need for a coordinated, strategic approach to skills training in the years ahead.

M. Farnworth: Besides the issue of residential construction, which industries have the greatest problems right now in terms of getting skilled trades?

Hon. C. Hansen: Aside from residential construction, the ICI construction sector — in fact, the whole non-residential construction which, I guess, is actually a little bit broader than ICI — would be the area where there are also challenges. Certainly, whether the challenges today are real or perceived is one discussion, but for sure, we know that there are going to be challenges in the future.

I guess, in some of the other areas it's not so much industry-specific, but we do recognize that there are some trade-specific challenges that are coming at us around electrical and carpentry. Instrumentation is a big and growing issue, particularly for the oil and gas sector and the forest sector. We will be looking at all of those as we plan the next ITOs and where the focus of industry training will go.

M. Farnworth: The minister said about real and perceived skill shortages…. I would hope that we could be more specific within the ministry than that. Clearly, any sort of long-term economic developments in British Columbia require some sense of what skills are going to be needed and what areas we're going to face shortages in. Are there, within the ministry, any initiatives underway to differentiate between the real and the perceived?

Hon. C. Hansen: When I talk about perceived skill shortages, there has been lots of media in the last number of months in this area. I think that as we see some articles talking about critical shortages in certain fields and then we explore that, what we find is, in fact, there may not be as big a challenge today. But many people recognize that there may be some challenges in the future if we don't aggressively address the issue of skills training.

When it comes to looking at the difference between what is real and what is perceived, that is where we're relying on industry to help us to define exactly what would constitute an immediate skill shortage in the province that has to be addressed in the short-term basis. A lot of that is still work that's in progress. We are looking to industry to assist us with a lot of those definitions and how we quantify the need so that we can respond to it with our specific programs.

M. Farnworth: The current policy, then, is to rely very much on industry in terms of determining what the need is going to be. I still would like a sense, then, of…. None of that work is…. There's no market survey or projection survey, labour force data surveying, taking place within the ministry outside of industry to either corroborate or to point to areas that we may find need attention?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are efforts made to try to project skill needs. One, if I can remember exactly what year it might have been…. About 1983, I think it was, I spoke at a conference in Ottawa that was the genesis of the Canadian Occupational Projection System, which is affectionately known as COPS. It is an initiative by the federal government to try to forecast occupational demand in the future. As I think was recognized then, when it was first being established and has been recognized subsequently, it is not an exacting science. There is still the requirement for strong input from industry on a day-to-day basis to really fine-tune the kinds of projections and skill demands that will be there.

Essentially, there are three sources. One is the COPS system that we utilize. We also get feedback from our colleges and post-secondary institutions around the province in terms of their projection of demands. Most important, I think, is to tie into industry and industry associations, which have real, on-the-ground data and probably the best subjective sense of what their needs are going to be as we move forward.

M. Farnworth: The role of industry is clear in terms of driving a lot of the demand, in terms of setting the ITOs up and ensuring that we are identifying the skill shortage areas we need to address. By and large, the ITOs are broadly composed of labour, of business and, also, of the post-secondary educational institutions.

What's the role of the post-secondary institutions? How is it currently working with ITA?

Hon. C. Hansen: The role of the post-secondary institutions is primarily service delivery. I think this is, perhaps, one of the most significant changes that has taken place in the last few months as the Industry Training Authority has been shifted from Advanced Education to the Ministry of Economic Development. Funding from Advanced Education is often seen as grants to post-secondary institutions, and then there's a heavy reliance on those institutions to determine how they best meet a particular educational need in the province.

It was deliberate, in the shift for the ITA to come into Economic Development, that the work of the ITA had to be much more oriented towards the needs of industry as projected by industry, rather than being the parameter of post-secondary institutions to design what they saw fit. Through this change, we believe that the industry training initiatives of government will be far more sensitive to the projected needs of these specific industries as we go forward.

I think there has been some transitioning in the relationship between the ITA and the leadership at our post-secondary institutions. There have been lots of good discussions, and I think we've finally got to a point where there is a good understanding on everybody's part as to how this new relationship can work.

M. Farnworth: This is quite a shift, then, in terms of the post-secondary education approach to an industry-led approach. The key element is still going to be the provision of seats, in terms of whether it's designed by post-secondary education or whether the program is an industry-designed program. One of the key elements of

that is still going to be the provision of seats for the different courses that are required.

Hon. C. Hansen: When it comes to the targets that have been set in the service plans for the ITA since its inception, those targets are there and there is a requirement, an expectation and an obligation on the part of the ITA to, for example, increase apprenticeship registrants in British Columbia from the 14,676 when ITA was first established. Their target is to reach 30,000 by the end of '06-07. Currently we are well on target to achieve that, with well over 20,000 apprenticeships registered in British Columbia.

The change that has taken place because of the shift from Advanced Ed to Economic Development is that we expect the programs put in place by post-secondary institutions will more directly reflect the specific skill sets that we believe will be in short supply if action was not taken to meet that demand.

M. Farnworth: I want to come to that in a few minutes, the issues around enrolments and completions, because I think there are some issues that have been raised in that particular area.

Currently, in terms of the funding then: how many seats is the funding designed or anticipated to be providing in the current public college and university system?

Hon. C. Hansen: Currently we have approximately 23,000 registered apprentices in British Columbia. In addition to that, we also have what's referred to as entry-level trades training, and there are about 10,000 students registered in those programs currently.

Our goal is to eliminate wait-lists for young British Columbians wanting to go into apprenticeship programs. We are fairly confident that with some of the new funding the ITA has available to it this year, we will be able to virtually accommodate every individual who would like to enter into an apprenticeship program.

M. Farnworth: The minister commented on wait-lists. How big a problem are wait-lists, and are there specific trades where wait-lists are an issue?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are currently providing additional funding to the colleges this year of about $2 million from ITA. That's to provide for an additional 1,400 seats, approximately, across the province to deal specifically with those wait-lists. The trades that are of primary focus would be electrical, carpentry and the piping trades such as plumbing and pipefitting, etc.

M. Farnworth: Does the ministry have a long-term plan to eliminate wait-lists, or is this viewed as a short-term issue?

Hon. C. Hansen: We anticipate that the extra funding going in this year will help to almost eliminate wait-lists. I'm sure there will be exceptions, but our goal is to eliminate them to the extent possible. We anticipate that this funding will allow us to catch up with the demand that is there for these seats. In the years going forward it is our goal to ensure that any wait-lists are kept to an absolute minimum.

M. Farnworth: Wait-lists are one issue. What's the role of the ministry in terms of encouraging people to look at trades? I mean, we can provide funding for seats and we can provide funding for opportunities, but if people — young people, in particular — are not seeing this as something they want to go into, we're still going to be facing a shortage. What programs or plans does the ministry have in place to address this problem?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are several initiatives to encourage young British Columbians to go into the trades. I think one of the challenges we've faced over the last number of decades is to get young British Columbians interested in trades at a younger age. We clearly want to ensure that those who are interested in trades can move into them as early as possible.

We do have a new program that has been very successful. It is referred to as ACE-IT, which is an acronym for accelerated credit for enrolment in industry training. What this provides is for students in high schools to actually get credit towards both their grade 12 graduation and simultaneously get credit towards their first year of trades training. It's a great program. There are currently about 800 students across the province registered. We anticipate that by the end of this calendar year we will probably add 1,500 to 2,000 additional students into this program. Right now there are in excess of 40 school districts across the province that are actively participating in the program, and we're obviously working with others to get more school boards onside.

There is also a program called the secondary school apprenticeship program that provides for a $1,000 scholarship for students wanting to go into trades training. We currently expect about 600 students a year to take advantage of this.

Then thirdly, we see the ITOs as playing a significant role in encouraging young individuals to go into trades throughout the province. If you look at the success of the apprenticeship programs and the increased interest in them, I think it speaks well to the fact that that message is getting out, that more and more young people are, in fact, choosing trades. Just the fact that there have been wait-lists up until now, I think, speaks well to the fact that there is a growing demand for trades training, and we're doing the best we can to meet that demand as fast as we can.

M. Farnworth: The minister is correct. We do need to be doing more in terms of getting young people involved in trades. There are a number of issues around how we do that. Are there any programs that focus, for

Hon. C. Hansen: There are a couple of initiatives. For example, at BCIT they've had a very good proactive program to encourage women in trades, and that has been funded through ITA. There are also some industry-specific initiatives. For example, the Roadbuilders Association has a very active program to attract women into some of the roadbuilding trades, and actually within ACE-IT itself, which I talked about earlier, there is…. They are proactive in encouraging women to get into non-traditional areas.

The member may be interested in data, so if I can anticipate that next question…. I don't have exact numbers in terms of how many male or female students are doing that, but if that is of interest to the member, we can try to track that down.

M. Farnworth: Yes, I would be interested in that information and the amount of funding that is being spent in terms of encouraging young women to enter some of the non-traditional trades. That would be great.

The ministry says there is encouragement to get young people into the skilled trade system. So they've decided that's something they want to do, and then they register. The registration process, we seem to…. The minister's indicating there are a significant number of people who are registering. How many are actually completing? Because that's one of the key things in terms of how successful you are. Lots of people start but don't necessarily finish. How is that being dealt with?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member has hit on one of the challenges that we're facing in the apprenticeship program. I'm told that our completion rate for the apprenticeship programs in British Columbia is about 50 percent, which is far too low. But I think the fact is that British Columbia, with an about 50 percent completion rate, is consistent with other provinces across Canada. We believe that number is too low, and we are looking at strategies to increase the participation rate, because being on par with other provinces in Canada is, quite frankly, not good enough for us. We want to be number one, and we want to be number one by far. So, there is work being done.

One of the challenges that we have is also around how you define completion. If you look at a particular apprenticeship program that leads to a Red Seal certification, then you could say completion is Red Seal, or completion is achieving a journeyman status or some other benchmark. But in a lot of the trades training there isn't that kind of definition as to what would constitute completion. It could be, for example, the completion of a recognized certificate from a post-secondary institution. It could also be being gainfully employed in that specific trade on a full-time basis.

Even across Canada there's some question as to how you define completion in many of these trades. But the bottom line is that our completion rates today are not satisfactory, and we will be working to improve them.

M. Farnworth: I agree; 50 percent is too low. If we were looking at this in terms of other post-secondary educational vocations and degrees, we wouldn't be happy with that either. There are qualifications that we recognize at the end of those programs, and some of those exist in skills training. My question is: if the ministry is not sure what constitutes, I guess, a skilled trade certificate, how are we judging the 50 percent of what is or what is not completion?

Hon. C. Hansen: The 50 percent number is based on achieving Red Seal. That is a fairly hard number that we can point to. I think when you compare trades training to other post-secondary education, it's comparable. As I understand it, about 50 percent of students that enter university programs in first year, in fact, go through to graduation with a full university degree. It is low, I think, and we do have to find ways to improve it.

One of the other factors here is around the demand in the economy today. A lot of individuals who get into an apprenticeship program find the job market pretty attractive today and make decisions to put aside their formal studies in order to achieve some pretty good paycheques. Anecdotally, at least, I am told that completion rates go up at times when unemployment increases, and when unemployment declines, it takes longer for completion of those trades training, just because of the demands from the work force itself.

M. Farnworth: Is the ministry tracking or is any tracking done of the difference between the completion rate in apprenticeship programs as opposed to industry training programs?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member is referring specifically to the entry-level trades training programs, there is a very high completion rate for those. They're typically a shorter duration and they focus on a particular certificate. So we do find a higher completion rate for those programs as opposed to the apprenticeship programs, which can span out over several years even if a student focuses diligently on getting through that program as fast as possible.

M. Farnworth: The follow-up question on that would be: your service plan indicates there will be a doubling of people who are going to be registered. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that's correct. As I mentioned earlier, when the ITA was first established, there were 14,676 apprentices registered in British Columbia. Our

M. Farnworth: But in the service plan you indicate that the number of people receiving credentials will only increase by 3 percent. How do you account for the difference?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is because of the lag time from the time that a student enrols in an apprenticeship program until they are able to complete it, even on the fastest track possible. Typically apprenticeship programs will take three to four years, so we anticipate that once these new enrollees get to their completion rates, we will start to see the number of certifications rise to reflect the increased enrolments that are taking place during these years.

M. Farnworth: Your anticipation, then, is that out from 2007, over a longer term, the completion rates are going to increase or the number of people receiving credentials will increase significantly over the 3 percent increase that you are currently projecting right now. Is that correct?

M. Farnworth: Do we have any statistics or data that compare the completion rate, let's say over the last four years, under the old ITAC system in comparison to this?

Hon. C. Hansen: We don't have that data at our fingertips today, but if the member is interested, we can certainly provide that for him.

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess I would like to differentiate between private and non-public. There are actually 15 non-public institutions or institutes that would be providing trades training. They are in speciality trades areas — for example, air conditioning or painting. These are in most cases jointly union- and employer-run institutes. They are funded through ITA, just as our post-secondary institutions would be.

M. Farnworth: Do you see the number increasing or remaining the same? Are they part of a long-term strategy?

Hon. C. Hansen: There has been considerable interest in providing more specialty training in smaller facilities. Now, whether…. We certainly see the opportunity to increase the number of union- and employer-run institutes. We certainly don't see that decreasing. We also have had lots of interest from various private institutions. You know, one example is Sprott-Shaw, which has come forward with proposals to provide some specific trades training, and we're certainly willing to receive proposals and to work with them where it makes sense as well.

M. Farnworth: Is ITA actively recruiting employers to provide training programs?

Hon. C. Hansen: Our approach to these challenges is to first of all identify the need. That need is identified, as we were talking earlier, through the ITOs and trying to reflect the needs of the various industries.

Once that need is identified, the ITA will then work with post-secondary institutions to see who has capacity to do that. In some cases we anticipate that employers may come forward to offer in-house delivery of specific trades training, and again, we're quite prepared to work with them. I think the bottom line is that we want to identify the need and then work with whomever is in the best position to meet the needs of the students that go into these programs. We're trying to be flexible to make sure that the needs are met as we go forward.

In terms of the proposals, I understand what ITA is doing. Is the focus, then, on giving or ensuring that the proposals which come to fruition are those that focus on providing, at the end of the program, a level of certification that would be recognized across Canada? I'm thinking of the Red Seal. I think clearly that is demonstrated to be the gold standard, as opposed to something that is just a certificate and doesn't carry the same level of qualifications or ability to move around.

Hon. C. Hansen: Our goal is to ensure that we're providing training that is as mobile as possible. The Red Seal is obviously the ultimate standard in terms of a certification that is recognized all across Canada.

In cases where there is not a formal Red Seal program in place for a particular trade across Canada, we are looking to ensure that the certificates granted in British Columbia are, in fact, as recognized as possible in other jurisdictions. In some cases that may mean that we're working with the province of Alberta, in the case of the oil and gas sector, to ensure that students who receive certification in Alberta institutes will be able to work in the B.C. oil and gas industry and vice versa. The ultimate goal is to ensure that our graduates have credentials that are recognized as broadly as possible.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.