Hansard -- Wednesday, October 5, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 2, No. 1 (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


Introductions by Members		455

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		456
	World Teachers Day
	J. Horgan
	Substance abuse services on North Shore
	K. Whittred
	Aboriginal cultural events on North Coast
	G. Coons
	Kay Meek Centre for the Performing Arts
	R. Sultan
	Women's resources in Nanaimo
	L. Krog
	Government assistance for Okanagan fruit growers
	A. Horning

Oral Questions		458
	Conflict-of-interest guidelines for 2010 Olympic Games
	C. James
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Funding for 2010 Olympic Games and role of Auditor General
	H. Bains
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Legacy project and Mount St. Joseph Hospital
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Terms of sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan
	C. Evans
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	S. Simpson
	N. Macdonald
	Softwood lumber negotiations
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Compensation for sawmill workers
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman

Second Reading of Bills		463
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12) (continued)
	A. Dix
	B. Ralston
	D. Chudnovsky
	H. Lali
	N. Simons
	Hon. S. Bond
	H. Bains
	S. Simpson
	S. Fraser
	C. Wyse
	B. Simpson

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		503
	Estimates: Ministry of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Deregulation
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	M. Karagianis
	C. Trevena

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased this afternoon to introduce to the House Randi Hermans, who is a teacher-librarian in the Chilliwack school district. In fact, she is the vice-president of the B.C. Teacher-Librarians Association. She teaches at Evans Elementary School in my riding. A few years ago she taught at East Chilliwack Elementary, where I joined her with a class of students and read a few books — East Chilliwack being the place where I started my schooling many years ago. I ask the House to please make Randi welcome.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to welcome a guest to the House: a sometime teacher-librarian, Fred Robertson, who teaches grades three and four at Port McNeill. I hope the House will welcome him.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the visitors' gallery we have two special visitors from the republic of Trinidad and Tobago. His Excellency Arnold Piggott, High Commissioner for the republic of Trinidad and Tobago, and Mrs. Allison Wendy Kitson-Piggott are making their first official visit to Victoria. I ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

H. Bains: Today in the gallery is Shelley Wilcox, who has been a teacher for 20 years. She is from my constituency of Surrey-Newton, and she helps teachers with integrated technology and curriculum. Please join me in extending a warm welcome to Shelley to the House.

Hon. W. Oppal: It is a pleasure for me to introduce Brian Hue, a teacher from David Thompson Secondary School in my riding. I'd ask the House to give a warm welcome to Mr. Hue.

S. Simpson: It's a pleasure for me to introduce one of my constituents, Suzie Mah, who is an elementary school teacher in Vancouver, grades six and seven, in the Greater Vancouver Distance Education School where she teaches 34 students. These students come from Whistler to Delta. I would hope the House would make her welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to welcome a tourism industry delegation from Guangzhou province in China. They represent the tourism administration of Guangzhou province. They came to Vancouver today after visiting Los Angeles, Chicago and Toronto, and this morning they visited Butchart Gardens here in the capital city. The group is led by Mr. Mah. I'm especially pleased because we are currently negotiating an approved destination status with China, through the federal government. We hope to welcome many more delegations to our province over the next number of years. So I hope they will go back to China and spread the word about what a fabulous province we are. I would like everybody to welcome them and wish them a great day in the best place on earth, beautiful British Columbia.

R. Austin: It is my pleasure today to introduce one of my constituents, Maryka Gregg, who is a teacher-librarian from school district 82. Maryka teaches at Clarence Michiel Elementary School in Terrace. She's also the chair of the working and learning conditions for the BCTLA. I ask that the House please welcome Maryka.

I. Black: It is my pleasure to welcome to the House today ten students from Simon Fraser University, with whom I had the pleasure of sharing lunch and enjoying the fine fare of our dining room. I'd ask the House to make them feel welcome.

J. Nuraney: I, too, have the pleasure of welcoming a teacher-librarian from my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, Pat Parungao. I would ask the House to please make her feel welcome.

J. Rustad: Today visiting in the gallery is a constituent, Carolyn Rowland. She's an elementary teacher, and she's also the past president of the Prince George District Teachers' Association. I look forward to meeting with her later this afternoon, and I ask the House to please make her welcome.

A. Horning: I am pleased to introduce to the House today a special guest, Angie McRitchie, who is a teacher and librarian in my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country. Would the House please make her welcome today.

R. Hawes: I rise to make three introductions today. The first one is Brandon Langhjelm. He's a member of the Young Liberals and a director of my riding association at home. I also have the pleasure of introducing, from arguably the best independent school in British Columbia, Mr. Parker, who is a grade 11 teacher, with 25 of his students from Meadowridge Secondary School in Maple Ridge. Could the House please make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today is Norma Eaton with Sophia Pacino. Norma is the director of the Cosmetologists Association of British Columbia and represents 18,000 women and about 10,000 businesses in British Columbia working hard to make British Columbia a better place. Could the House please make Norma and Sophia welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: We're joined in the House today by a constituent of mine, Karen Lindsay. Karen is a longtime educator in Victoria with 22 years of classroom teaching and four years as a teacher-librarian to her credit. While she resides in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, she is actually currently a teacher-

librarian at Reynolds Secondary School in Saanich South. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.

H. Bloy: It's an honour to stand here today and introduce students from Simon Fraser University — the B.C. Liberal group. They've been extraordinarily hard workers on a number of campaigns across the province through this last election, and a couple of them were from the riding of Burquitlam.

We have Woosang Lee, the president, and Silvester Law. We also have Brandon Langhjelm, Brock Stephenson, Jacqueline Halliburn, Derek Turner, David Yau, Henry Ma, Richard Ly, Shaun Webb and Yang King. Would the House please welcome these dedicated, hard workers from Simon Fraser University.

N. Simons: I'd just like to draw the attention of the House to a visiting group of Young New Democrats in the gallery from the University of Victoria. Please let them be welcome.

R. Cantelon: It is indeed my pleasure today to introduce to you a constituent, Dorda Pitaway, a teacher at Georgia Avenue School. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

J. Nuraney: I have one more guest to introduce. I have the great pleasure of introducing a very special guest, Rayyann Alibhai-Maherali, who is a student with the Meadowridge School in Maple Ridge and a granddaughter of a very special friend of mine, a person called Sadrudin Nasser Alibhai. May the House please make her feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two very good friends from Salmon Arm. Nancy Cooper is a former colleague at Okanagan College and today is a city councillor at Salmon Arm. With her is her husband Harry van Warden.

Harry is special for a whole lot of reasons. He's the manager of the employment assistance office in Salmon Arm and does a wonderful, wonderful job there. I can tell you that he is an invaluable asset to our constituency office there and does a great job. Even more special, he is one of those wonderful British Columbians who today are receiving a long-service award, so I think we want to extend special congratulations and welcome to him.

Hon. P. Bell: It's always a pleasure for me to be able to introduce someone from my constituency. Today I'm especially proud to be able to introduce a neighbour, a friend and a great teacher from Prince George North, Raine Harding. Would the House please make her very welcome.

J. Horgan: Today is World Teachers Day. First celebrated in 1994, World Teachers Day was put in place by the United Nations agency UNESCO to recognize the vital contributions teachers make to the intellectual, cultural and social growth of our communities all over the world.

Today I'm very proud to stand in this place to celebrate World Teachers Day, and I am pleased that there are teachers in the gallery joining us for that opportunity. It is a day to recognize the teachers of B.C. and to let them know how very much they are valued, respected and appreciated.

Teachers play a crucial role in helping shape our children in the communities that we live in. The role teachers play should never be underestimated or undervalued, for without them our society would not grow and prosper. Teachers are the people we entrust our children to every day. As I said yesterday, these are the people that help many of us through challenging and perplexing childhoods in the past, in the present and into the future.

Teachers all across this province guide our children through tricky math problems, teach our children the history of our country, coach our soccer teams, sponsor clubs, teach cello, chaperone at dances and many, many, many more extracurricular activities.

This is their day across the world, yet in British Columbia it's a sombre day — regretfully, a sombre day. In Manitoba today the Legislature is celebrating and honouring teachers. Here in this place we are a bit more sombre, and that's unfortunate. Despite the situation, I urge all members of this place to join with me in acknowledging the absolutely incredible, invaluable role teachers play in the life and vibrancy of our province.

K. Whittred: Four years ago the communities of the North Shore began a journey to address the plague of substance abuse. Our substance abuse task force is taking a comprehensive four-pillar approach to dealing with drug addiction through prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction. This task force brings together partners from across the community spectrum. It includes Vancouver Coastal Health's mental health and addiction unit. It includes the North Shore Youth Safe House, the school districts of West Van and North Van communities, five separate municipalities, the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh first nations, the West Vancouver police and the RCMP.

Every organization that can effect a positive change is stepping up to the plate in this community endeavour. It's looking at issues and innovative solutions including drug courts, community treatment programs and preventive programs for youth and families. I would like to commend the task force and all its partners for their hard work and creative solutions. Working with the province and with the recent $7 million announced to fight crystal meth, we will be closer to solving our communities' drug problems.

I commend the North Shore community for the model they have demonstrated. It has become a template for other communities to follow.

G. Coons: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about two celebrations that occurred in my riding this past weekend. Lax Kw'alaams, a Tsimshian community outside of Prince Rupert, hosted more than a thousand people at a three-day event that honoured their elders and youth. Lax Kw'alaams band council, chiefs, matriarchs and residents officially recognized the completion of Tuck Road that leads to their village from the ferry dock. A trip that took one hour and ten minutes now takes 25 minutes.

Also celebrated was the village's $16 million investment in TFL 1 and the Terrace licence, which will bring a large component of the northwest forest industry under local control.

One of the highlights was a grand opening of the leisure centre and pool — actually, with a waterslide, elder centre and renovated rec centre. The completion of this project grew out of the input from the youth in the community. What a tribute to them to see their dreams come true. Lax Kw'alaams not only respects the past through their elders, but they have honoured the future through their young people.

I also had the privilege of attending the raising of four totem poles in the village of New Aiyansh. Raising four poles at the same time has never been done before. The totems represent the four tribes of the Nisga'a Nation. Each tribe — the wolf, eagle, killer whale and frog — told their story through what is termed as a Breath of Life Ceremony. Residents and many visitors physically and emotionally participated in this cultural event. The four totems, which bring together the Nisga'a as one, are located in front of the village of the New Aiyansh government office. It's a sight not to be missed.

In closing, I would like to thank Albert Tate, an internationally acclaimed art carver, for inviting me and taking me under his wing to join the eagle clan for the tribal picnic and evening festivities.

R. Sultan: I ask this House to celebrate the opening of the Kay Meek Centre, a new $10-million cultural jewel located in my riding. The project, a joint venture of the Kay Meek Foundation and West Vancouver school district 45, features two state-of-the-art theatres: a 500-seat main theatre and a 200-seat studio theatre. It's an example of generous private philanthropy combining with innovative public school management.

Kay Meek, a longtime supporter of the arts, died at age 91 on the very day her dream of a learning-based performing arts centre had its first performance. That first performance featured the African Children's Choir. It has 35 children, ages seven to 12, from Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda — children who call themselves the princes of Africa, because they lost their parents to war and to AIDS. Proceeds will help keep them in school. You couldn't find a dry eye in the house.

Another memorable performance I attended recently featured the gospel music of our own Marcus Mosley's Good Noise Choir. West Vancouver politicians don't usually jump up and shout hallelujah, but I was tempted. Finally, our high school students offered audiences their version of the musical Grease — with references to Brylcreem, fast cars and pregnancy — which for me brought back alarming memories of King Edward High School.

Here we have a new cultural asset built by one of the truly superb teaching units of our provincially funded public school system, facilitated by the dreams of a lady who wanted to help the kids. I invite you to dig out your worst shoes and attend this month's Kay Meek fundraiser, the Sneakers Ball, and check out what our dedicated teachers, talented students and smart management can offer — good entertainment and great education.

L. Krog: I want to talk about the Nanaimo Women's Resources Society today. It has a proud 25-year history of providing service to women in Nanaimo. Since 1981 it's been an organized non-profit. Its staff and volunteers have always been available to help women in crisis. They serve some 300 to 400 clients a month during the 60 hours that they can actually afford to stay open — just 15 hours a week.

October is Women's History Month, but there's not much celebration at the Nanaimo Women's Resources Society since they've lost their core funding. They had to lose their executive director, and they have to struggle to make their rent every month. In September they managed to raise $1,700 at a beer-and-burger night so they can stay open for another three months.

Nanaimo has one of the highest rates of single-women parenting. Child poverty, the rates of teen pregnancy, spousal assault and illicit drug use are higher in Nanaimo than the B.C. average. Nanaimo female single-parent families earn $4,500 less per year than the B.C. average. Compared with other communities in B.C., Nanaimo has the second-highest rate of dependent elderly women. Between 1997 and 2002 Nanaimo saw a 130-percent increase in family violence and, more recently, a steady and sharp decline, obviously, in accessible legal services.

This centre provides free counselling, legal clinics and workshops, and free computer, photocopier and fax services. It offers programs to help women with substance abuse, a free clothing exchange, parenting support — even free diapers, soap, bus tickets and more.

They are keen to continue their work in our community, but without support it becomes almost impossible for them to do so. So particularly as we celebrate

Women's History Month, I would ask this House to recognize the important work that the staff and volunteers at this agency do, but I also ask this House to consider its obligations to all citizens and groups that require our support in this province.

A. Horning: Orchardists in my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country and across B.C.'s beautiful Okanagan are facing a financial crunch that's putting a damper on what normally would be a bumper-crop year in 2004. U.S. fruit is glutting the market, lowering prices and making it tough to turn a profit for close to 1,000 growers.

The good news is that a federal-provincial program, the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program, exists to provide a financial safety net for growers. But Okanagan growers are finding it difficult to tap into the program, which is based out of Winnipeg. There are also cultural and language barriers for Indo-Canadian growers trying to access CAIS.

Some growers are simply throwing up their hands in frustration with the application process, as evidenced by the fact that only 20 percent of growers have applied to CAIS for assistance with last year's low crop returns.

The truth is that CAIS has great potential. That's been proven by how successful the program has been in helping farmers close to its home base in Manitoba, but the Okanagan is a long way from Winnipeg. The federal government needs to seriously look at having an Okanagan-based representative from CAIS who can work face to face with our local growers and assist them in navigating the CAIS bureaucracy. That kind of face-to-face contact would also be of huge assistance in breaking down cultural and language barriers that may be keeping many Indo-Canadian orchardists from tapping into this aid program. This is a simple fix but one that could make a huge difference to B.C.'s fruit growers.

I also want to acknowledge the proactive work of the provincial Agriculture Minister in bringing federal representatives to the Okanagan Valley to assess the problems and work towards overcoming the barriers that our growers face.

C. James: Can the Minister of Economic Development define what constitutes a conflict of interest and an apparent conflict of interest? This morning he said it was complicated. Does he have a better answer for us now?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would be pleased to refer the member to the conflict commissioner, who is an independent officer of this House, and the conflict-of-interest legislation. I'm sure she can find her definitions there.

C. James: I'd like to present to the minister a specific case to speak about conflict of interest, since he seemed unable to do it earlier. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Concert Properties is considering a bid on Olympic facilities. Concert's chair is leading the Vancouver organizing committee. Another Concert director sits on VANOC. Concert's president headed up the Olympic Yes campaign. Could the Minister of Economic Development tell us if that's an apparent conflict of interest?

Hon. C. Hansen: Concert Properties, at the time that the bid was put in on behalf of the city of Vancouver, made a commitment to the people of British Columbia that they would not bid on Olympic construction. We expect them to live up to that commitment. I have talked to Jack Poole this morning, and he has assured me that Concert Properties has not and will not bid on Olympic construction.

C. James: I'm sure many are pleased to hear that, but it doesn't take away from the issue. Can the Minister of Economic Development please outline the conflict-of-interest guidelines that are in place to ensure that government will protect taxpayers on the construction of Olympic facilities?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm sure the member is aware that VANOC is a federally chartered not-for-profit society independent of the provincial government. Therefore, they do not fall under the conflict-of-interest legislation that we have in place for the province, but they do have in place their own conflict provisions. They have actually gone to the extent of putting in place an ethics adviser within VANOC. I am very confident, in the case that is in the media today, that they are living up to those conflict-of-interest requirements, because Concert Properties has not and will not be bidding on Olympic construction.

H. Bains: We're talking about taxpayers owing $600 million. The Minister of Economic Development has trouble getting straight answers as to how taxpayers are being protected. Given these concerns, will the government now agree to give the Auditor General full oversight over Olympic spending?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased that the hon. member, the critic for the Olympics, asked the identical question

in estimates in Committee A last night. I will give exactly the same answer today as I gave to him on that occasion, which is in Hansard, and that is that the Auditor General of British Columbia is an independent officer of this Legislature. He has the authority to review all commitments made by the province of British Columbia to the Olympic Games. He does not need to have direction from us to do that. He has the power and the independence to investigate any and all aspects of the commitment that the province has made to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

J. Kwan: Of course, the issue with the Auditor General is around the budgeting, and the watchdogs around the Legislature are not getting more money to do the work that needs to be done.

Having said that, I'd like to move on to another issue. Last April the then Minister of Health said unequivocally that the government had no plans to close Mount St. Joseph Hospital. In fact, her statement came after the opposition raised the concerns coming from families and patients at the facility.

At the time the minister said the opposition was fearmongering. Yet shortly after the election, the Providence health authority released a study entitled Providence Health Care Legacy Planning Projections, which revealed the authority does indeed have plans to close the hospital. The authority currently operates St. Paul's Hospital and Mount St. Joe's. The report cites: "The goal of the legacy project is to consolidate those two remaining acute care sites onto one site."

Does the Minister of Health still stand by his colleague's earlier statement that the government has no plans to see Mount St. Joseph Hospital closed?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly do stand by my former colleagues. In fact, I sit by them here each and every day, and I'm happy to stand by them on this issue as well.

The member quotes from the planning equivalent of the Dead Sea scrolls. This is not only an antiquated document, but also an inaccurate one. The hospital in question will not be closed. It is not part of the consideration around the legacy project, and I'm glad to reassure the member on this point. I look forward to seeing her ability here to take a straight answer to, perhaps, a difficult question.

J. Kwan: That's very interesting. Maybe the minister should actually tell that answer to Providence. They released a document two months after the election, stating: "The goal of the legacy project is to consolidate these two remaining acute care sites onto one site" — two months after the election. Who's telling the truth — Providence or the government?

Hon. G. Abbott: Or (c)? Has the opposition got it hopelessly muddled? My guess would be on (c), actually — that they have got this hopelessly, hopelessly muddled. The straight answer to the question is that the legacy project does not involve Mount St. Joe's. It does not. The member should be very happy about that instead of trying to create issues where there are no issues.

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Welcome back, Minister.

The business section of the New York Times ran an article on August 27 of this year, and it was titled "Memo to the United States: Pay Attention to Canada." The American author interviewed for his article Senator Pat Carney on the softwood issue. He wrote: "She wants the Canadian government to begin scrutinizing American investment in Canada. She pointed in particular to the…$6.9 billion acquisition of Terasen, a Canadian natural gas pipeline company, by Kinder Morgan."

Then the writer goes on to say: "Memo to American business: Pay attention to this. It could cause trouble. That goes double for you, Richard Kinder. As a Texan, and president of Enron in the mid-1990's, you are on friendly terms with President Bush. You should whisper in his ear to settle this thing fast. It's in everyone's best interest."

C. Evans: Oh, sorry. Hon. Chair, please put to the Minister of Energy the question: will you ask the B.C. Utilities Commission to put on hold the Terasen decision for 90 days to give Mr. Kinder a chance to talk to Mr. Bush?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm certainly not here to start telling Mr. Kinder who to talk to and when to talk about anything. As far as the proposal of Terasen Gas, there was a procedural hearing on September 9, where the B.C. Utilities Commission, which is a quasi-judicial body in British Columbia, heard presentations by stakeholders as to what should happen in regards to this proposal. The B.C. Utilities Commission actually decided to have written presentations made, and they have given till October 17 for those folks that actually wish to put forward their yea or nay to make that to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

We respect the B.C. Utilities Commission in its ability to look after British Columbians in the best interests of British Columbians without political interference. We don't intend to politically interfere with that process with a quasi-judicial body. We expect that they will make the decision amongst about four other bodies that this proposal would have to go through, including the Canadian government, to make them in the best interest of Canadians and the best interest of British Columbians, which they have done over the last four years.

C. Evans: My supplemental is also for the Minister of Energy. It would appear to me — and, I think, to all British Columbians — that the government actually does have a position. Pat Carney, the senator who negotiated the free trade deal with the United States; the New York Times; now the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada all expect that the government of British Columbia might have an opinion about this sale. The minister sent his staff to the Utilities Commission to say, on purpose, 29 words. "We have no opinion on hearings." So, minister, you have sent a message.

C. Evans: Through the hon. Speaker, maybe the minister could please tell us if he doesn't think his statement to the Utilities Commission rings all over North America as a position and a message and an invitation to plunder.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Interesting. At least the staff from the Ministry of Energy and Mines stayed till the end of the hearing, unlike the two members from the NDP caucus who left shortly after saying what they thought should happen.

What we have done in British Columbia is return to a B.C. Utilities Commission that is not interfered with by government. Unfortunately, over the ten years previous to our government, under the government of the member who has asked the question, who was part of government…. His government continually wrote directions — secret directions — to the B.C. Utilities Commission about what they should do with decisions made in backrooms by their cronies.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We took that process and changed it, and we put back in the B.C. Utilities Commission the authority to make these decisions on behalf of all British Columbians. We should all be reminded: this is a publicly owned company traded on the stock exchange.

Maybe the member doesn't understand "publicly owned." That means that a lot of people across this province own Terasen — shareholders. In fact, pension funds from unions own Terasen. They, at the end of the day, will have the authority by voting in excess of 75 percent whether this sale should go through or not. The shareholders of Terasen will make that decision.

S. Simpson: It's interesting that the minister talks about the hearing. He would note, if he had attended the hearing, that the only people who spoke opposed to having public hearings were Kinder Morgan and Terasen. Every other British Columbian said: "Let's have hearings." But that's the public interest, not his interest.

As people will know, Kinder Morgan has been fined over $5 million for environmental violations. They have faced 44 violations on environmental matters. They are facing $100,000 a day in fines by the U.S. Department of Transportation if they don't deal with these within 120 days. On Monday the Minister of Environment said there is nothing for us to worry about on this matter, that they will meet all the environmental standards.

So my question, considering how poor Kinder Morgan's record is, is to the Premier. He is the author of the five great goals, including the best environmental standards in the world. Can the Premier please tell me: does he agree that the idea of not paying attention to environmental considerations in this sale is, in fact, meeting his five great goals?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have strict environmental rules in this province. They are as strong as any rules there are around North America. Whether Kinder Morgan owns Terasen, or whether Terasen continues to own Terasen, those rules and regulations must be adhered to. We take the environment seriously, unlike an administration past.

Minister, take your seat for a second. Members, the courtesy was directed to listening to the question. The courtesy should also be extended to hearing the answer.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We take seriously our environmental concerns here in British Columbia. We know that the rules and regulations we have in place that are administered by the Oil and Gas Commission, by the Ministry of Environment and by numerous other ministries are adhered to regardless of the ownership of Terasen.

S. Simpson: Well, the minister has certainly demonstrated: anything for a buck, including destroying

our environment. I'm very disappointed in him and disappointed in the Premier for not thinking this is an important enough issue to comment on.

Kinder Morgan has a long and serious track record of environmental violations. The problem we have is that the B.C. Utilities Commission won't look at those matters unless they get special direction from the cabinet. They just don't do that. We now have the U.S. Department of Transportation doing the job and putting Kinder Morgan on notice that they need to clean up their act within 120 days.

My question is to the Attorney General, who has responsibility for the B.C. Utilities Commission in this government. Since the Premier won't deal with the issue, the Minister of Environment won't deal with it, nor will the Minister of Energy, will the Attorney General at least hoist this application — direct it to be hoisted — until the U.S. Department of Transportation finishes their business? If you won't do the investigation, they'll do it for you. Will you hoist it until the U.S. investigation is completed?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to draw the attention…. I know the member tries to say that we don't have a good environmental record in the province. We have an excellent environmental record in British Columbia, and we continue to move forward with that.

You know, contrary to the last administration, who actually ordered the B.C. Utilities Commission to tell B.C. Hydro to build a pipeline from the U.S. to Vancouver Island, interestingly enough, to build a gas-fired plant on Vancouver Island and to actually give direction to move land out of the ALR, given by the member for Nelson-Creston when he was Minister of Agriculture…..

It's interesting that none of those members opposite have any idea what a quasi-judicial body is in British Columbia. We respect that quasi-judicial body to actually work in the best interests of British Columbians and Canadians — along with the federal Competition Act, the Investment Canada Act, approvals under the Water Utility Act and numerous others — to move this forward.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …British Columbia that own shares. I might bring to the attention of the room that the Leader of the Official Opposition owns some shares in Terasen, and I would assume that she's going to be there saying no at that meeting that takes place shortly.

N. Macdonald: Terasen Gas serves 880,000 businesses and homes in 125 different communities. Local governments across B.C. are concerned about the sale to Kinder Morgan, and they're concerned that nobody is taking the time to respond to their concerns.

My question is to the Minister of Community Services. Has she met with local government representatives to address their concerns about the sale of Terasen, and what is she doing to help them get the information they need?

Hon. R. Neufeld: At UBCM, I met with numerous communities during my meetings. Actually, I don't recall it being brought up once, and I'm not sure…. I'd have to go back to my correspondence, but I don't believe I've had one letter from a community yet.

I think the communities across the province of British Columbia understand fully how this works. They understand fully that the B.C. Utilities Commission will make sure that everything that is done, regardless of what it is, is done in the best interests of British Columbia and the best interests of Canada so we can move this great province forward as we actually see investment, maybe, in this province from others to make sure that we continue on the path that we're on.

N. Macdonald: The question is for the Minister of Community Services. What she would know, which the Minister of Energy does not know, is that the UBCM passed a resolution. The resolution was unanimous, and the resolution stated that officially the UBCM will be asked to petition the B.C. Utilities Commission for public hearings across the province.

The Minister of Community Services knows that, so I'm directing the question to her. The government has the power to make those public hearings happen. This time to the Minister of Community Services: why will she not help local governments get the answers that they're looking for? Why is the government refusing to allow the B.C. Utilities Commission to hold public hearings?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just a few minutes ago I responded to that question, which said that the B.C. Utilities Commission set out a time frame for written submissions. That will end on October 17. At that time the B.C. Utilities Commission still has the authority, and in the order that they laid down, to hold oral hearings across the province if they so deem it.

Until we see what the B.C. Utilities Commission's decision is on October 17, again, we will respect that quasi-judicial body in moving forward in protecting British Columbians in relation to this proposal by Kinder Morgan.

M. Farnworth: Given the importance of the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia to the economy of British Columbia and to the economy of this country; given the fact that a respected Conservative Senator, who helped negotiate the original free trade agreements…. Given the commentary that has come out of the United States; given the opinion, for example, in the New York Times, a very well-respected journal in the United States, about the opportunities to

link — in the case of the sale and the principles behind the sale — energy and solution to softwood lumber, my question is to the Premier.

Has the Premier considered the linkage between energy and softwood lumber as one option that could be used to help bring a resolution to the softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. R. Coleman: We are presently in discussions on a pan-Canadian position to go forward to the Americans. There are some very important meetings coming up shortly with regard to that position. That will drive an agenda that may or may not get us back to the table. We know in discussions with the people on this file, both north and south of the border, that tying something to that today would be counterproductive to the negotiations we wish to undertake, and it would not be successful in the long term for British Columbians.

M. Farnworth: These negotiations in various forms have been taking place for more years now than many of us can remember. We need to be using every tool at our disposal to ensure that the best interests of British Columbians and Canadians are achieved at a negotiating table. So my question would be: has the government then rejected the linkage of energy to the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'd remind the member about the success of the former NDP government with Nanoose Bay and the issues with the Americans that did not work for British Columbia.

I also want to remind the member that this is a national trade file. It is not a provincial trade file. Therefore we work with the federal government and our colleagues across the provinces as we bring something forward.

I agree that this has gone on way too long. We want another NAFTA decision today — another one, on top of another one, on top of another one. But if we continue to actually work at this thing in the manner I think we are today, my feeling is that we may have an opportunity in the next 60 days, a window of an opportunity, to do something and be successful. If that window closes at that point in time, then I'm happy to sit down with the federal government and discuss what other sanctions may be necessary.

We also have to do that because we demand that the Americans stay within the rules of the trade boundaries that we expect them to trade with us on. We're not going outside of those and doing sanctions until we have the proper legal remedies available to us within the WTO and other trade agreements so that we can operate properly as Canadians.

We're not going outside the rules because somebody thinks we should go outside the rules. We're going to be the ones that will negotiate in good faith. We're going to be the ones that will be honourable and accept the deals we make, and we'll stand up to and honour the deals we make with the Americans in the future.

B. Simpson: Forestry workers all over B.C. have lost their jobs during the last four years, and many are working part-time, specifically because of policy decisions made by this government. In recognition of this reality, when the government brought in the Forestry Revitalization Act it promised that workers who lost their jobs would be entitled to severance pay, and companies would be compensated as well. Today we know that companies have received that compensation, but the government seems to be picking and choosing which workers are entitled to severance pay.

To the Minister of Forests: why did the revitalization strategy not take into consideration that sawmill workers would also lose their jobs and include these workers in the compensation package?

Hon. R. Coleman: I was just at a meeting yesterday in Saskatoon with the Ministers of Forests from across this country. We sat in on a presentation from CIBC World Markets, an expert on world markets with regard to forestry, and they said this: there is one jurisdiction in North America, one jurisdiction in Canada, that's actually made the tough decisions moving forward to make their forest industry sustainable. He also told us that the forest industry in North America will go through at least one to three more years of difficult times as changes are made to make it a sustainable industry if governments, communities and industry can think forward on how this is going to look in the future.

It's easy to stand here and make some comment with regard to what may or may not have gone on in a period of time. I remember sitting in this House. I remember the announcement in Prince George: 21,000 jobs under the jobs and timber accord.

Not one job was delivered under the jobs and timber accord. We lost thousands and thousands of jobs because the NDP government didn't deliver. We are going to deliver on a forest plan for British Columbians to make it sustainable for the citizens of B.C. long-term.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the briefing on the minister's meeting, and I appreciate his passion about job loss. That wasn't my question. My question wasn't about history. It was about the current moment. In this moment this Liberal government has policy that is creating job loss. That is a tough choice, and as the Minister of Finance said, it's all about choices.

B. Simpson: The tough choice has been made. What I asked was: why does this government discriminate between forest workers on the land base, who are harvesting, and forest workers who work in the sawmills, who are losing their jobs? Why the discrimination? Why are sawmill workers regarded as second-class citizens? And will the minister change the compensation package to address that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Different employment environments and different responsibilities under employment and investment with regard to EI in Canada….

Frankly, I've heard too many times, or read too many times, how this member always talks about how this is going to be a terrible thing in the Cariboo and the sunset industry in British Columbia. I'd like him to move away from Chicken Little and "the sky is falling" and even look in his own backyard at the 60-plus jobs and at the tens of millions of dollars that were invested in Dunkley Lumber in your riding to create new jobs because of the policies of this government with regards to good business practices and good forestry.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber is continued second reading debate on Bill 12 and in Committee A, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

I was reminded a little bit, in listening to the member for Nelson-Creston last night, of the words of Thomas Paine many hundreds of years ago — some of the most profound and passionate words ever said about politics, I think, and some of the most insightful. When he said that perhaps the sentiments…. He was talking about his book Common Sense. He said: "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not sufficiently fashionable to procure them a general favour. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom, but the tumult soon subsides; time makes more converts than reason."

I was reflecting on the attitude of the current government towards education, an attitude that has privileged confrontation and lack of respect towards people in education — teachers, students and parents — over the last four years. It's an attitude that has led ministers in this House to rise six times with legislation taking away rights from teachers — six times. This is number six. I think we need to reflect on the impact of the changes made over that time by this government, not just on teachers but, in particular, on students. I think about it.

We know what the big numbers are. The big numbers from around British Columbia are 2,500 teaching positions cut; 113 schools closed; in particular, cuts to special education teachers, 17.5 percent — almost one in five special education teachers cut; teacher-librarians, 23.4 percent. I'm going to return to that in a moment, because it's a fundamental question about how we deal with questions of literacy and education for the future in British Columbia. ESL teachers, so important in my constituency, cut by 20 percent as a direct result of these legislated measures, which notionally were about the government asserting its will in this Legislature over the interests of groups and society — in this case, teachers.

You know, in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway…. It's a constituency I'm very proud to represent, a constituency that represents people who have come here from around the world here and are living together and striving to make a better life for themselves. In my constituency there are today 1,562 students learning in classrooms that are so large they would not have been allowed prior to 2002. Think of that.

Think of the fact that every serious study of class size says that larger class sizes hurt students. Think of the fact that many, many students — the largest percentage of students in British Columbia — who are learning English as a second language are in my constituency. Think of the needs of special needs students, and then think of that number — those students who are being shortchanged.

We have to remember that those students don't get that opportunity to be in elementary school twice. This is their opportunity, and it's an opportunity that this government has hurt by its policies, by its vendetta against public school teachers — which has had for victims the interests of students.

The British Columbia Society for Public Education, which is largely a group of parents in Vancouver, did a study over just one year of the impact of the government's cuts on education in Vancouver. I see my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena over there. I'm sure he'll be particularly interested in this.

They reported that fundraising in Vancouver schools, usually on essential items, was over $600,000 in the 2003-2004 school year. Mostly what was being bought was computer and software equipment. The number of counsellors fell by 2.6 percent just in that school year, the number of teacher-librarians by 5 percent just in that school year. The largest classes, across the board, were in math and science — three classes, including one in my constituency, of 36 students in

math. They discovered that all secondary schools in Vancouver, all of them, charge course fees — the most frequent fees for hospitality foods, French, math and art.

They discovered wide disparities between schools. One school reported having only three research-standard computers, while another school had 31. So the impact of the government's measures — dressed up as an attack and a war on teachers as a collective bargaining issue, but in fact, a cut to the quality of education — felt by students in Vancouver has been profound.

In my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway at Grenfell School, there are rooms that used to be used for storage that are classrooms, because the Minister of Education won't fund a capital project to add classrooms. At Norquay School in my riding, there is one half-time teacher-librarian, 2.5 days a week, in a school with a high ESL population, with 650 students in it. Why is this the case? This government took away the right of teachers to negotiate and to protect ratios for teacher-librarians in public schools in British Columbia.

I think it's important to reflect, because the government and the Premier frequently talk about the importance of literacy in our public schools. They frequently wax eloquent on the question, but the fact of the matter is, since the Premier became Premier, one in four teacher-librarian positions has been lost — one in four.

What is the work teacher-librarians do? The work they do is fundamental to literacy. In some households, it's true, parents are in a position to buy books and get lots of books for their children, but the only other place for most children — particularly children in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway — to get access to books is to borrow them. Usually, where they have to borrow them is from their school libraries. We see not only the effects of the loss in resources, the cuts to books. We have libraries in schools in my riding, at Collingwood schools, that are virtually empty of books.

The Premier talks about the value of literacy, and yet the libraries are lacking in books, and they're lacking in librarians. Teacher-librarians are essential to working with ESL teachers, who have also been cut, to assuring that ESL students have the same opportunities to succeed in life as all other students. In fact, they have cut those programs, in particular, and they've cut them because they have taken from collective agreements the rights of teachers, and they have inserted changes by legislative diktat that have hurt students. When they try and portray this battle, this fight for public education, as a fight of them on the one hand and a union on the other hand, they are wrong. This is about students.

My father-in-law was a great man. He was school trustee in New Westminster. He passed away a few years ago, and when I speak of teacher-librarians, I think that in some ways I'm giving voice to a real passion of his life. He came to this country from India. He taught in Newfoundland. He taught in northern Quebec. He served as a school trustee. He fought to fill libraries with teachers. He fought to fill libraries with books. That was the drive of his career as a school trustee. He believed in it, and sadly, when he passed away…. The new library, in the riding of the hon. member for New Westminster, Queensborough Middle School, is named after him. It's the Vasant Saklikar Library.

I think the government in its effort to drive through legislation, in its effort to pick a fight with teachers, has made a serious mistake to the memory of so many people who have fought to ensure that teacher-librarians play a valued role in our education system. It's made a serious mistake in targeting its cuts to them and in using those cuts as part of a fight with the BCTF. It's wrong, what they're doing, and it's shameful.

Let me just say this. It's not just the cuts to education that have had a profound effect. We in this Legislature should be thanking teachers every day for the contribution they make. In the last four years this government slashed day care funding. They slashed income assistance rates.

I was meeting with child development workers last week. There are more than 7,000 children and infants between the ages of zero and five on waiting lists for child development, for assistance. The challenges that are coming to our public schools are growing. The government, by its policies, has contributed to that challenge.

Rather than picking fights with teachers, they should be meeting with teachers. We've had Ministers of Education in the last four years…. There's one who is no longer in politics who was the Minister of Education for three years and never met with the BCTF. I think she met with them once for 15 minutes. Never met with them — can you imagine? Teachers, the most valuable workers in the public sector, contributing in our public schools, and the Minister of Education won't meet with them — yet six pieces of legislation by diktat in here. They talk to teachers through the television set; they talk to teachers through Hansard. It's a shame.

Before coming to this Legislature, I worked as a representative of parents. I worked as the executive director of Canadian Parents for French. I had the opportunity to meet teachers and visit schools in 40 school districts.

I remember going to Hazelton. Hazelton, British Columbia, has a French immersion program. It's the smallest community in Canada with a French immersion program. The school — Field elementary in Hazelton — is 40 percent aboriginal. They wanted French immersion as well. Teachers and parents and students and the community got together and fought for a program, which not only teaches French immersion but teaches Gitxsan language and culture. Can you imagine that?

That's what teachers do in the community. They do remarkable, unusual things to allow students to succeed, to allow students in Hazelton to have the same opportunities as students in the riding of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and myself. What an extraordinary thing.

I know a teacher in Quesnel, in the riding of my colleague from Cariboo North. There was a grade four student who was having great difficulty, who was defined as a student with special needs, and who wasn't succeeding in school. They met with the parents, and they decided that maybe French immersion was an option for them. Now, French immersion is a program that starts in kindergarten in Quesnel, at Baker School — a remarkable school in downtown Quesnel. It's very, very difficult to take up a program in grade four, but teachers in that program had decided that any student at any age should have that opportunity.

This student, two years ago, joined that program. I met that student recently, and that student, because the teacher took all of the extra time needed to allow that student to succeed, is now succeeding near the top of his class and feels a sense of confidence, of achievement, of self-worth. He's going to do great.

Imagine that. And this government views teachers as the enemy. It's a shameful thing. It's counter to all our experience, all of our individual experience in life. We all know the contribution teachers make. It is, I think, shocking.

This summer I attended events with students across my riding — students from Windermere and Gladstone, secondary schools in my riding — on Canada Day and other celebrations throughout the summer. At those events, those students, as they participated in events, were always supported by teachers giving of themselves, giving extra time, giving, giving, giving. And what do they get from this government? What attention do they get from this government?

The government won't talk to them. They won't meet with them. They won't speak in the debate. They won't say anything. They give messages to teachers. They strip their contract by diktat in this Legislature. That's the response of the government. It's not good enough, hon. Speaker. It's not good enough.

The position of the Minister of Labour, the position of the Minister of Education…. It's like — we all remember — the debate in the 1984 federal election. They say they have no option. The system's broken, they say. It's just broken. It just happened out there. It's like an accident they saw in the street. They saw it, and they saw that the car is broken. You wouldn't believe, hon. Speaker, that they broke it. Yet they did. They broke the system.

They say they had an option. Well, let's review what they've done. Let's review what they've done over the last few years. Let's review those six pieces of legislation during a period when they weren't meeting with teachers or their representatives.

I should say, before I start down that road, something about that. There's a continuing effort by government ministers and their supporters, sometimes by editorialists, to demonize the B.C. Teachers Federation because government ministers and editorialists find it inconvenient that teachers get to vote for their own representatives.

You know, at times, I have found it inconvenient that Phil Hochstein is president of the ICBA. I find that inconvenient, but that doesn't stop me from meeting with Mr. Hochstein. That doesn't stop me from meeting with other representatives. It's not my choice who the president or the executive director of the ICBA is; it's the members of the ICBA. It's not the government's choice who represents teachers; it's teachers. This continued effort to disparage their democratic rights is wrong.

We've seen six pieces of legislation. Let's review the government's attitude — what they've done and their attitude toward teachers. First, as we know, in 2002 they stripped the collective agreement: the class-size provisions, the limits on the number of special needs students in particular classrooms, the ratios for teacher-librarians. Stripped from collective agreements. Not the business of teachers. In other words, working conditions don't apply. You can't negotiate working conditions, something that everybody does.

Members of the Legislative Assembly negotiate working conditions. We have a committee where we negotiate working conditions. Some of the members of this House are on it. We get to negotiate working conditions in the best interests of this place — hopefully, in the public interest as well. We get to do that, but teachers don't get to do that. That's where they started.

Where do they move on to? This was maybe the most profound insult to teachers, it seems to me. When I went around to schools as executive director of Canadian Parents for French during the 2003-2004 period, the decision by ministers and members on that side of the House to take away the professional status of teachers through their changes to the B.C. College of Teachers…. Those efforts denigrated teachers as a profession, and they did that without consultation, by legislative diktat. It was wrong. They did it at the same time as they were giving self-regulating status to other professions — to car dealers and other people in society. They were taking it away from teachers, without consultation.

Again, the number three shot, and it continues on to this day: legislation after legislation after legislation because somebody has told them that it is in their political interests to attack the B.C. Teachers Federation. It seems to me that the government is on a profoundly wrong path in this regard.

I wanted to just briefly say about this that we're in now…. The government says that the system is broken, that it can't be fixed, that they have to legislate. As we noted, they've said, essentially, to teachers that you can't negotiate working conditions, you can't negotiate salary. And then they appear shocked. It's like Casablanca. They're shocked that there's gambling going on in here. They're shocked that people can't come to an agreement.

It seems to me that it would be impossibly naïve, and I don't think the government's impossibly naïve, so it must be deliberate. They've invented collective bargaining by Franz Kafka in this discussion. They have said to teachers: "You can't negotiate anything, but you're being unreasonable by not negotiating." That's their position.

Hon. Speaker, it's worse than that, of course. We all know that in the 1990s there were agreements negotiated between government and teachers. We also know that in those agreements, teachers made real sacrifices to improve the quality of education, real sacrifices to reduce class size. They were courageous decisions by the leadership of the Teachers Federation of the day — courageous decisions that they made. There were deals between government and between government and teachers and their representatives.

When this government came to this House by legislative diktat and stripped away those agreements and then went on to demean the professionalism of teachers, I think they demean the role of government in this province.

It seems to me that the government forgets something. Sometimes we all forget it. I think all parties forget it sometimes. We value, I think, the force of law too much, our ability to pass legislation too much. All parties pass a lot of legislation. The NDP in office passed, I think, in the 1990s — the member for Nelson-Creston was here; I was here for some of that time — almost 500 bills. This government has passed hundreds of bills.

Passing bills is, in a technical sense, relatively easy. Somebody writes the bill. It doesn't take very long. This is a very short bill. Someone writes the bill, you bring it in the House, you have a majority, you ram it through and it's passed. Compared to other actions you can take, like mobilizing people for genuine action, building community support, initiating a successful program or negotiating a collective agreement — even spending money requires the collection of taxes and decisions about spending money — passing laws is easy. This government has done it six times to teachers, six times taking away their rights. Passing laws is easy, but it's not the easy road to go, it seems to me. In fact, it's not the right road to go.

Negotiating collective agreements can be a long and arduous process. Anyone who has been involved in it knows it. The B.C. Teachers Federation knows it. The members of the government know it. It requires patience. It requires determination. It requires imagination. It sometimes requires courage.

However, if you're successful, if people come into a room and come to a compromise, to an agreement that they can both walk out of, then everybody…. It doesn't just have the impact, it seems to me, of having a good deal and a nice press conference and everything else. It forces everybody in the system to have responsibility because everybody in the system had a role in the decisions that were made.

Too often, in the case of health workers and in the case of teachers, this government has taken the easy road. It's imposed a solution that takes away people's dignity and their role. It doesn't allow teachers or hospital workers or nurses or whoever it might be the slightest ownership in the result. It's not surprising that this leaves people — teachers, nurses, hospital workers, ordinary people in this province — frustrated and angry about their government.

Whatever one might think about the different positions taken by parties in this dispute or any other dispute, this is a negative result. What it says to me is that these disputes, for this government, aren't about health care or education. They're about power games. This government has been taught that they needed to pick an enemy and fight against an enemy. In this case, it's going to be teachers and their representatives, and they're going to drive it through.

But it's a terrible mistake, because teachers do not approach this issue the way the Premier of this province approaches politics. It is not a win-or-lose proposition. They work in the classroom. This is their life. This is what they've trained for. This is their passion. This isn't a game.

For the Premier, it's a game. Six days before the election he invents some sort of issue involving teachers. He pretends they're going to go on strike in the month of June. He pretends it. He creates a contrived issue to create division to drive his point home. That's how he treats education. He treats it as a contrived game.

Well, teachers don't feel that way. Students don't feel that way. The parents that I represent don't feel that way. They feel passionately about education. They know it's a day-to-day task that everybody has to work hard at to succeed.

Politicians like the Premier forget that laws are blunt instruments. What laws are best at doing is to set minimum standards, the minimum standards for environmental or labour standards. The government has some lessons to learn in that regard, I might say. But that's what they do. But when laws are imposed solutions on individuals — and we've seen this on every kind of issue imaginable, from gun control to legislated solutions to collective agreements…. When they impose solutions on people, the minimum becomes the maximum. The goodwill necessary to really perform well on the job, to go the extra mile, is gone. Everyone ends up sticking to the letter of the law — and in education, that is no good as a solution.

When it comes to education, surely what we want — what teachers want, what parents want, what students want — is more than the minimum. We want our classrooms to be palaces of learning. We need it to compete in a modern society. We need them to be palaces of learning, and this government has taken away those palaces brick by brick — larger class sizes, getting rid of ESL teachers, getting rid of teacher-librarians, not filling libraries with books. This is what they've done — six pieces of legislation attacking

People on this side of the House, parents and teachers in B.C. — we want more than that. We want smaller class sizes. We want libraries filled with books. We want libraries filled with teacher-librarians. We think it's a shame that, because of government action, there's a librarian in Norquay School only two days a week for 650 students. We say that's a shame. We say that's not good enough. The government responds with legislation attacking teachers.

Well, for my part, I think that there's a better way, that the government still has time to come back from the brink. The government still has the time — and the fact-finder's report shows that — to listen to teachers, to respect teachers and to sit down and negotiate with teachers. There is nothing inevitable about this legislation. The government created the conditions of it. They control one side of the bargaining table. They are not an honest broker. They've got to take their share of responsibility and go back to the table and negotiate an agreement in the best interests of parents, of students, of teachers — of all of us in British Columbia. That's what they need to do.

If they do that…. Sometimes good policy and good politics are the same thing, it seems to me. I think the Premier's wrong. I don't think he gets much benefit from attacking teachers and students. He'll find that if he treats teachers with respect, teachers live a life of respect. They teach respect every day. If they receive respect from a Minister of Education and a Premier, they will give it back in spades in return.

That's what we need in this discussion. That's what we need in this debate. We need a government that finally treats people working in education with respect, because the work they do together is the most important work we can do. If for no other reason…. They need to treat teachers with respect for the future.

When I worked at Canadian Parents for French, we did numerous reports on teacher shortages. The government of British Columbia, rather than engaging in needless confrontation with teachers, should be working with teachers to promote teaching as a profession.

There are numerous areas of teaching today, in language education and sciences, where there's a shortage. Ten years from now there'll be a shortage. What message is the government sending to young people when they show such disrespect to teachers? What message are they giving them? They're giving them a message that teaching isn't a valuable profession. That's their message.

Well, I have a different message for them and for all British Columbians. We need to rally around the teaching profession, around teaching — some of the most valuable work anyone can do in society. We need to rally around that so that we have teachers who are supported now and so that future teachers, young people today, see teaching as a profession that is worthy of their effort and interest, that is valued by their society, their government, their Legislature, parents — valued by all of us. That's what we need in this debate.

I want to say in conclusion that there is always an alternative. This is a government that has been on one track for so long that it has lost its way on this question. There's nothing but spin now. They talk about 35 meetings in this discussion — 35 meetings. Well, when there's nothing on the table from one side, it might as well be 750 meetings. The government has to come to the table. They are party to this discussion. They have to come, meet and talk to teachers. They have the power in their hands to have a real solution to this problem — one that benefits students, one that improves public education.

I know that, between teachers and the government, we can come to that solution. I urge them to withdraw this legislation, to go and meet with teachers, to spend as long as it takes to come to an agreement, because our children deserve it, because teachers deserve it and because British Columbia's society needs it.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak in opposition to Bill 12. Sometimes members on the opposite side and many of us here, as well, look to the private sector for assistance in solving issues of public policy. While I wouldn't recommend that on every occasion, in this particular case I do have an analogy. I don't pretend that the production of cars is anywhere near as important to us as what teachers do in schools, but the recent Ford Canada negotiations are perhaps a lesson for the government in how to conduct and run a proper collective bargaining process.

In the recent discussions, Ford Canada was targeted by Canadian Auto Workers as the first auto company up to bat in the negotiations. They were led by their chief spokesman Buzz Hargrove, who — as members will know and perhaps recognize, I'm sure — is no slouch when it comes to the process of collective bargaining and is recognized nationally as a very capable negotiator of all sorts of collective agreements. But what happened there was that the company negotiator, Ford's Stacey Allerton Firth, managed to pull off the negotiations, settle the agreement within five days and was praised by Mr. Hargrove as the best negotiator that the company had ever put out.

There was a lengthy interview with her in the business section of Globe and Mail, and what she said is that she tried to set a tone which aimed for collaboration rather than confrontation. Issues were talked out, rather than fought out, in an atmosphere of mutual respect. She was interviewed further and was asked to give some maxims or tips on how to achieve these kinds of results in collective bargaining. What she said, and I'll quote some of them because I think they may be of assistance…. These are the kind of analogies from the private sector that perhaps the government or the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance or Minister of Education, who give these directions to their negotiators, might wish to consider. She said: "Be honest. It's tough to reach a deal if there is a hidden agenda or one side doesn't have all the facts."

That's a company negotiator for a multinational company in a very competitive industry, talking about how to conduct collective bargaining. I commend that to the members opposite in considering how to conduct negotiations in the future. She goes on to say: "Respect the other side. They represent 12,000 people, and that's the heart of our business."

Again, a chief negotiator for a multinational automobile firm in a very competitive global industry is talking about how to conduct collective bargaining — and very successfully. She also says: "Train your team. Teach active listening skills to make sure everyone understands what the other side is saying."

So rather than embarking on confrontation with a predetermined agenda, perhaps the government, I would submit, ought to consider the words of Stacey Allerton Firth at Ford Canada as a model of how to conduct negotiations, because those seem to me to be very helpful hints that the government thus far has not followed.

When we turn to the negotiation process it does appear, I would suggest, that the government has a predetermined agenda. Contrary to what Ms. Allerton Firth says and her caution that it's tough to reach a deal if there is a hidden agenda, I would submit that it's at least partially hidden and has been hidden for some time. But it's becoming very apparent with the introduction of this legislation in this session of the Legislature.

The report of the fact-finder was received on Friday, September 30 — just past. The legislation that we're considering, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Act — perhaps a misnomer — was introduced on Monday. On Tuesday — that's two days ago — a barrage of advertising commenced in the media. It would seem that the report from Mr. Connolly, the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour, was given very little if any consideration, since the legislation was introduced within two days and the time horizon for placing the ads was on the same day — Friday. So one would tend to question, and I would submit with good reason, the sincerity of the government in requesting a report from a fact-finder and then not proposing to act on it in any way.

It was significant, as well, that the advertisements that were placed — and most people in public life know something about advertisements from their own campaign…. The Minister of Finance, when confronted by very simple questions about the cost of those ads, did not answer those questions here in this House.

The Minister of Finance is new to her role but has some considerable experience in the past in business as a director, which involves a fiduciary duty, and as a chair of the board of a large public organization. Fiduciary duty requires that you shepherd and treat with respect the finances of the province. Given that she's the Minister of Finance, it's her solemn obligation and duty to oversee the spending of money on behalf of taxpayers of this province.

She was asked the question: "How much did these ads cost?" There are really two ways of answering that question. One could be, "I don't know," which would suggest that if she didn't know, she ought to have known. Perhaps in her role as a new Minister of Finance she didn't know enough to ask that question of her staff. Or secondly, she did know and chose not to reveal that to the Legislature, given that that might be politically embarrassing to the other side of the House and therefore was a strategy to be avoided.

To simply say, somewhat disingenuously, that the matter will come forward in public accounts nine months from now…. While it's factually true, it really evades the important question of her responsibilities as Minister of Finance to simply assure the public that she knows what's going on in her own ministry. I in particular was very disappointed by that answer, and I'm sure many people in British Columbia were very disappointed by that answer, given that this appears to be a pre-orchestrated campaign coincident with the receiving of the fact-finder's report and launching straight into legislation without any time to explore the opportunities that the fact-finder's report opened up.

As the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca pointed out, the fact-finder's report did offer some possibilities for consideration by the minister in giving his directions to his negotiators, and let's not be disingenuous about this. The negotiations, although nominally conducted by a public body on behalf of the government, are directed by the government and by the relevant ministers in question, I would submit. It's simply a legal fiction to suggest otherwise.

When we're talking about negotiations, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education certainly have the power and the obligation to direct the negotiations in a manner that they choose. Indeed, the Minister of Labour is handling the file and is aware of the steps taken in the negotiations along the way and has indeed held forth here in this House about steps that were taken in this process. So he's acutely aware of the process.

But it seems to me that within the fact-finder's report, there was a possibility and there remains a possibility that the government may choose to explore. What the report says on page 2 is that the BCTF — that's the representatives of the teachers — also expressed an interest in exploring options for entering into dialogue with government directly to discuss the public policy issues relating to learning conditions and, in particular, class-size levels, composition of all classes, the number of special needs children in any one class, a system of guarantees that the levels and the conditions established by the legislation are adhered to and remedies in the event that there are breaches of the established policy.

The BCTF articulated a process that is parallel to the collective bargaining process with different participants, government and BCTF, but linked to and concluded at the same time as a collective bargaining framework. Given that the legislation…. I'll get to the

rather sorry legislative history in the 2002-2003 era. Given that those items are no longer part of the collective bargaining processes, by virtue of the actions of the government in that period, it still remains, in my submission, a creative solution to the dilemma that's posed to the BCTF — which the member for Vancouver-Kingsway described as Kafkaesque bargaining, where you can't negotiate wages and you can't negotiate working conditions, but you're expected to meet and resolve a collective agreement.

This opportunity remains open and was, in my view, an opportunity that could be seized upon by the government to reopen negotiations, rather than initiate legislative action to extend the collective agreement without any further discussion.

It is recognized very clearly by the B.C. Court of Appeal — lest the government's public argument be accepted — that what goes on in the classroom — the class size, the number of children in a classroom, the composition of that class, whether there be special needs children or children who are learning English as a second language…. All of that is properly described as working conditions or a condition of the employment relationship.

Indeed, in a decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Lambert of the Court of Appeal confirmed that. I'm quoting from the decision:

"So I" — states Mr. Justice Lambert of our Court of Appeal — "regard class size and aggregate class sizes as a significant part of the employment relationship."

I understand that the government applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that was denied. That's the law of this province. The Court of Appeal has recognized that, notwithstanding what happened in 2002 and 2003 of stripping those matters from the collective agreement, they remain, in the view of Mr. Justice Lambert, a significant part of the employment relationship.

If the government wants to follow the suggestion or the opening provided by Mr. Connolly, then there's a process recommended and an opportunity to begin that negotiation, which the government has — by the introduction of this bill — apparently rejected. But it's not too late. The government could have a change of heart, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has pointed out. The government perhaps should have a change of heart, in the view of the members on this side.

The other thing that Mr. Connolly pointed out is that it was drawn to his attention by representatives of teachers…. I quote from page 3 of his report. This is something, I would take it, that wasn't considered by the government, given the time from which the report arrived on the minister's desk and the legislation was introduced. The report also goes on to say: "The BCTF went on to add that teacher morale was very low and that the attitude towards and relationships with government and the employers could worsen if they are further subjected to legislation."

The government had that report. This is a respected senior public official who's preparing a briefing for the minister. This is not a partisan document. That information was before it when it made this decision. Notwithstanding what I would call a warning in that document and notwithstanding the opening that's provided by Mr. Connolly in that document, the government has chosen to introduce this particular legislation.

In the introduction to the bill the minister said, "I don't expect to hear much about the last decade and a half, about the history of teacher bargaining," suggesting perhaps that there was something over on this side of the House to be apologized for or to be avoided. I would say that I don't think that's the case at all.

It is useful to look at the history of collective bargaining. The right to strike for teachers was introduced in 1987 by that well-known left-wing socialist Bill Vander Zalm, the former Premier of this province. The invention of the right to strike or the creation of the right to strike was introduced into law by the government of Mr. Vander Zalm, so it's not a question of it occurring in the 1990s under some nefarious plot by the New Democratic Party. That was introduced by Mr. Vander Zalm. I think that's important to bear in mind. It was, quite properly, the culmination of a long campaign and was recognized by the government of the day as a legitimate public policy alternative. That's why, presumably, it was introduced at that time.

The member for Nelson-Creston also talked a little bit about the history of the transition to a provincewide agreement, which took place in the period between 1994 and 1996. That was a very challenging period, because previously teacher bargaining took place locally at the school district level. The decision was made to create one provincewide agreement. That was understandably a very difficult endeavour, in the sense of bringing a number of competing agreements with different terms and conditions and wages into one master agreement for the entire province.

In 1996, contrary to what the minister has suggested, teachers and trustees voted in favour of that agreement. So in 1996 there was a negotiation, and there was a vote by the teachers and trustees in favour. There were, however, some political complications and resistance — from the Surrey school board in particular, I think — which resulted, as the election approached in 1996, in the requirement to avoid a strike during the election period, which I think all members would agree would not be entirely appropriate. Legislation was introduced at that time, but only for that reason. I think it's important to recognize that there was an agreement bargained in that time.

In 1998 there was an agreement negotiated directly between the government and the B.C. Teachers Federa-

tion, so a second agreement was bargained. There were, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has noted, considerable sacrifices made by the teachers union in agreeing to certain provisions — in particular, some class-size language and, in addition, some agreement to forgo wage increases for a commitment by the government to hire more teachers in certain parts of the province. However, what happened was that the school trustees would not support the agreement, and accordingly, the joint agreement by the government and the BCTF wasn't supported.

In my view, the minister blurs or telescopes this history of the previous agreements in order to avoid what is the really central change in the relationship between the government and teachers, which took place in 2002, after the present government came to power in 2001. At that point language concerning class size, including the language governing the inclusion of students with special needs, was simply stripped out of the contract. The government imposed a salary increase of 2.5 but funded it only for the first year, so that school boards were left to fund an increase which was imposed and then downloaded to school districts, which resulted in a number of very tough decisions having to be made by school districts.

Those weren't decisions that the school districts undertook voluntarily. Those were decisions that the school districts were obliged to take and bitterly complained about. Indeed, in 2003 the then Surrey school trustee and now member for Langley, in dealing with the impact of this legislation upon the Surrey school district — the biggest school district in the province in terms of the number of students — said: "It seems like such an obvious discrimination against Surrey, and yet we don't seem to be able to make that clear at the provincial level. It feels like a betrayal. This will hit pretty much every area of our employee groups, including administration. "

Of course, that was then, and this is now. The member for Langley has changed her views, no doubt.

The impact upon Surrey in that period was significant. In their discussion about school funding, members opposite sometimes like to point out that the total number of students enrolled in the province has declined. In Surrey, which is one of the fastest-growing cities in the province, the number of students has not declined. However, the number of teachers has declined in response to the cuts. Between September 30, 2001, and September 30, 2003, student enrolment increased 3 percent — approximately 1,144 students more — and the number of teachers decreased by 141. There's an 18-percent decline in the number of teacher-librarians, a 19-percent decline in the number of special ed teachers and a 16.4-percent decline in the number of ESL teachers.

The impact of those cuts was absorbed by the school district in Surrey in a way that was not the best, in my view and the view of members on this side, for students in Surrey. Unfortunately, this government has chosen confrontation as its first option, rather than negotiation. The words of Ms. Allerton Firth are apposite here: "If you have a hidden agenda and you don't give the other side all the facts, you're not going to be able to successfully negotiate a collective agreement."

So the system may be broken, in the view of the Minister of Labour, but that's a judgment that he has come to without making the necessary effort to reach a collective agreement. The preparation for collective bargaining is intense, and what Ms. Allerton Firth also says is that it's sometimes necessary to meet people casually before collective bargaining begins.

A number of meetings were scheduled between the Premier and the representatives of the B.C. Teachers Federation over the summer, and I gather that those meetings did not take place. If that kind of message is sent from the highest level to the bargaining process, then it seems predestined or doomed to failure. It's perhaps no surprise that we have ended up in this particular place.

When one looks at the report that was tabled by Mr. Wright, it would seem that the plans of the government have been set by the Wright report. The Wright report was a report recommended by a commissioner, Don Wright, to look at the collective bargaining system for teacher contracts in British Columbia. Mr. Wright received representations from the employers bargaining association, the BCTF and the school trustees, and made a series of recommendations. All of the recommendations that he accepted were those advanced by the employer and the government, and none advanced by the union. This would, in my judgment, not augur terribly well for success if his recommendations were to be implemented.

Significantly, what Mr. Wright is recommending as a dispute settlement mechanism is what's called "final-offer selection." Final-offer selection is a technique…. I would expect and anticipate that the government will impose the recommendations of the Wright report after they return and after there's an appearance of the passage of time and a consultation. But in my judgment the result is predetermined, and it is a course of action which, if it's followed, will result in the imposition of final-offer selection.

Final-offer selection is a very drastic labour relations remedy which obliges an arbitrator charged with that jurisdiction to choose between one side's final offer or the other's, exactly as the name suggests. It's regarded as a drastic remedy which obliges the parties to consider their position and not move forward with a final offer unless they've carefully considered all alternatives and can live with it.

However, although it's been around as an option for a number of years, it's very rarely been incorporated in any collective agreements. That's for a number of reasons, but particularly, it's the inflexible nature of that particular option.

A very knowledgable and wise labour lawyer, Paul Weiler, who was the chair of the first Labour Relations Board of this province and is now a professor at Harvard, wrote in a book about final-offer selection. What

he said about final-offer selection is the following, and I'm reading a passage from his book:

He suggested that if there is to be a dispute settlement mechanism, a range of alternatives ought to be considered. He's talking about a range of collective bargaining options. He's not talking about legislation which simply strips the teachers of the right to bargain, extends their contract on the same terms for another nine months and obliges them to forgo any wage increase until such time as bargaining begins.

No doubt the minister is sincere in his view that the process here is broken, but the reason that it's broken is because the government has resolutely refused to change its behaviour and come to the table and negotiate a collective agreement. It is still possible. I note with some optimism that apparently the minister is going to meet with representatives of the Teachers Federation, if my information is correct. Let's hope that bargaining can resume and that this bill can be lifted.

At this point, though, it's clear that this legislation, as the only option, is the wrong option. Therefore, that's why we on this side of the House speak strongly against it.

D. Chudnovsky: I am honoured to stand in this House to speak against this legislation. Madam Speaker, I have made my professional life in teaching for more than 30 years, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit emotional about this issue. My feelings are strong, and they come out of my experience in teaching.

I have, over 30 years, taught at the nursery school level and worked in elementary schools and high schools and taught at the university level. I've been a teacher in British Columbia, in Ontario and in England. Over 30 years of teaching, as rough as things have gotten and as difficult as the situation has gotten and as challenging as the issues we faced have gotten, I have never for one minute regretted choosing teaching for my career.

As a teacher over these many years, I have had the enormous privilege of working with thousands of young people. I'm going to talk about that in the next few minutes, but I also want to say that over those years, I have sat on committees in schools and worked on extracurricular activities, multiculturalism and anti-racism committees, literacy committees, adult education committees, task forces and ESL technology. I've also spent a tremendous amount of my time working for and with my local teachers union and my provincial teachers union.

Now, I don't mention those things to call attention to myself or to suggest that I'm special. I'm not special — just a teacher, and that's what teachers do. That's what teachers do. They work with the thousands of young people who will be the future of this province, and that's their job. They also give enormous amounts of time and energy and passion and love to the additional activities that have to take place if our school system is to have the strength and the vitality that it needs to have. So I speak to this House today as the representative of the people of Vancouver-Kensington but also as a proud teacher.

It's worthwhile asking, to begin with, why all the passion around this? Why is it that over the last week or two, and certainly before that, there's been so much interest, so much concern? Why have the people on this side of the House chosen to take such an assertive position on these issues? Why is it that so many teachers have chosen to join us over the last week or ten days in this House? Why is it that the pundits and the journalists and the headline writers have taken so much time with this issue?

I think it's because for all of us in our community, in our British Columbia, public education is the bedrock of democracy. Public education is the one institution in our community, in our society, in which every member of the community participates. Public education is that institution in our society which builds equity, which builds equality, which builds tolerance, which builds critical thinking, which teaches us to be citizens and helps to formulate our futures as active citizens.

Public education is that institution in our community which everybody, every child — whether they're rich or poor, whether they come from the city or the country, whether they or their parents were born in British Columbia or not — deserves and expects. And we need to provide for them the best that is possible — the best that is possible for every child in our public education system.

Because the goal and the mandate of our system is to provide that education that allows for every individual child to reach her potential, for every child in the province to reach his potential. It's a profoundly democratic notion. It's at the base of our understanding of what we're doing as a community.

Through the years when we've asked British Columbians what it is they want from their education system, they've been very clear. There have been many ways in which we've asked them: the Sullivan royal commission; the various consultations that have gone on; the select standing committee, which heard from British Columbians and then reported a bunch of other stuff, but heard from British Columbians what their goals and priorities for education were; and the Charter of Public Education process.

When we asked British Columbians over decades, "What is it that you want from your public education system?" they talked about equity. They talked about accessibility. They talked about the breadth of the edu-

cation project. They said that it's not enough — and there is chapter and verse of this in all of the studies that have been done — to just create a level playing field in our schools. That's not enough.

That's not enough, because our kids come to us from a context. They come to us, too often, hungry. They come to us from situations of violence. They've dealt with racism in their lives. Some of them have special needs: social, intellectual, physical and behavioral. They're special, just as all the rest of the kids in the system are special.

The people of British Columbia have said to us: "It's not enough to provide in our schools a level playing field. We need to provide for every child in British Columbia, in schools, the best that we can for their individual needs." The people of the province know and understand that if that's our goal, our mandate and our commitment — if individual attention to the individual needs of every child is what we're on about in our schools — then we need reasonable numbers of students in each class, we need to know that the composition of that class is appropriate to the needs of those individual students, we need to know that the specialist teachers and the classroom teachers are available to provide that individual attention, and we need to know that the resources are there. You know, that's a tremendous, tremendous goal.

We live in one of the few places on earth where we can achieve that goal. We live in one of the richest societies, one of the wealthiest communities, in the history of humankind right here in British Columbia. So when we say to ourselves that we can provide for every individual child, that we must provide for every individual child, that which will allow that child to be successful in their own terms — in her terms or his terms — we can do that. We, in British Columbia, could do that if we choose to do that. We're so enormously privileged that we can do that. Virtually nowhere else in the world can they do that and say that. Here we are in 2005, and that commitment is put into question.

I came to British Columbia in 1978. I was an immigrant from Ontario, along with my family. I came to teach in Surrey, a wonderful community. I want to tell you that the first week I taught in Surrey in the fall of 1978, I attended a school board meeting where the teachers of Surrey had come to make a presentation to the school trustees to encourage them to reduce class sizes in the kindergarten classes of that school district. Almost 30 years ago I came to B.C., and the first week…. You know, it wasn't new. The teachers of British Columbia had been, for years before that, engaged in a campaign which hasn't yet ended — and shouldn't end — to reduce class sizes so that we can do the best we can for every child in our province.

I need to say, very quickly, that there have been lots of allies in that campaign — not just the teachers. Teachers need to take credit for the work they've done to help reduce class sizes, but there were lots of allies in that campaign over many years. Many of them participated in that campaign — school principals, school trustees, government people, bureaucrats, parents and community folks — because they all know that it's an important campaign.

The campaign has taken many forms over many years — surveys, demonstrations, meetings, lobbying and even strikes. Even strikes, because part of democracy is the right to belong to a union, the right to bargain collectively. Once in a while, it's even the right to strike. All of those tools and many more were used to attempt to improve the lives of kids in schools, to provide for us the conditions within which we can do the best for every student.

Progress was made. Tremendous progress was made. By 2001 not one kindergarten class in this province had more than 20 students in it. I've said it before, and I'll never stop taking pride in saying that. In the year 2001 there wasn't one kindergarten child in this province in a class with more than 20 students in it. We all, every one of us, should be proud of that fact — every one of us. We did that. That was done. I say "we" — not teachers. We as a community did that. Teachers, together with school trustees, together with parents, together with students, together with the broad community did that.

The tool that we used to do that was collective bargaining. It's an important tool. It's a good tool. It's a tool that's part of democracy. It's part of what we mean when we talk about democracy: the right to be in a union and the right to collective bargaining.

I need to say, and I'll talk a little bit more about this in a few minutes…. Subsequent to that situation in 2001, the government imposed Bills 27 and 28. Things were changed. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour have taken pains to say in this House that they thought that class size was so important, they took it out of collective bargaining and they put it into legislation. Well, what did that mean in English? What it meant in English was that they raised the class-size limits. That's what it meant in English.

Class-size limits for kindergarteners were raised from 20 to 22 when the government imposed Bills 27 and 28 in the winter of 2002. Now, some would say: "What's the big deal?" What's the big deal? Class-size limits in kindergarten are 22. It's only two kids. It's only the difference of two kids. That's 10 percent of the class. That's 10 percent less attention to the individual needs of each student. If you take kindergarten and all of elementary, and you look at secondary school, and you look at the 12 years during which our students come to us in public schools and you say that every year they're going to get 10 percent less individual attention, I think that everyone would agree that that's an issue to be concerned about. Everyone would agree with that.

In 2001 there wasn't a student in grades one to three in a class larger than 22, and the government trumpets their decision to impose Bills 27 and 28 in 2002. They say: "Well, it was so important, we put it into legislation." In English, what that meant was that the class-size limits were raised from 22 to 24 for primary school

students in this province — 10 percent less individual attention from their teachers.

There were guarantees in that contract that, with a stroke of a pen, disappeared in 2002. There were guarantees of provision of service from school librarians, and I note that there are some of them here with us today. There were guarantees that there would be the services of teacher-librarians, ESL teachers, learning assistance teachers, school counsellors and other specialist teachers, and those guarantees were gone. Those guarantees were gone, and the result is a real undermining of the services available to kids in schools. That's the result.

Those on the government side can talk all they want about the numbers. I've been in the schools. These people who are with us today have been in the schools. The teachers of this province have been in the schools and so have the parents and the kids. They know that the services we were able to provide for the kids in our schools have been reduced significantly.

Let's hear what some teachers have to say. Let's hear what they have to say about their experience. Let their voices be heard in this House. "I have a grade eight class which is unteachable because there are 33 students in the class and 15 are identified with special needs, including an autistic student who has no support, a severe-behaviour student who runs away and a student who cannot sit still because he has ADHD. I have no support." Real teacher. Real students. Real communities. Not some theory.

"Please don't let class size get any bigger. There are just enough desks to seat students. Moving around the classroom is difficult, and it is just way too crowded." This from a secondary teacher in Surrey in her first five years of teaching. How long do you think she's going to last in our system? In good times we lose about a third of the new teachers in the first five years of their careers. How long do you think that the teachers who are beginning now will last if we don't provide the supports for students that need to be supported?

What about the impact on the broader program? The cuts, and those on the other side of the House insist on saying there have been no cuts…. They insist on saying it. Come to the schools. Don't tell us there haven't been cuts in the schools. Don't tell us there haven't been cuts in the schools of this province over the last four years. The students know. The parents know. The teachers know. The communities know that there have been those cuts.

How many music programs have been cut? How many drama programs have had reduced time? How many art programs and tech ed and home ec? How many of these classes have had huge increases in the number of students in those classes? I know. I've been in the schools.

The impact is on teachers and students. Teachers want to do the best they can for the kids in their classes. You just can't do it. How many times have I heard, and I know that each of us has heard because the teachers of British Columbia have been speaking out over the last months…. Each of us, on both sides of this House, has heard from the teachers, who say: "I want to do a better job, but I can't. I want to do a better job, but I'm not able to."

A veteran teacher from Vancouver: "I've never felt so tired and overworked as I do this year. I don't feel I'm able to do as good a job of teaching because of all the increased pressure: larger classes, more mixed-subject classes, more marking, more special needs students, more administrative-directed paperwork and meetings."

Another teacher: "Never have I seen or felt the profession or workplace so strained, disrespected, driven, for reasons I do not see as educationally sound."

Another teacher: "In the past few years I've found it sad and discouraging to work within the confines of cutbacks. My concern for this wonderful job is that we are not attracting, nor are we able to keep, the good teachers who have such energy and stamina to keep going under tough conditions."

I got an e-mail this morning from a teacher in North Vancouver: "I'm a teacher in North Vancouver. October 5 is World Teachers Day. What's the Liberal government of B.C. planning to do? Pass Bill 12. One of the goals of World Teachers Day is to celebrate, motivate and educate teachers. At this moment I do not feel motivated. I feel attacked and disrespected. Bill 12 does not address our needs or the needs of our students."

I worked for a few years for the British Columbia Teachers Federation. I was honoured to have been elected by the teachers of British Columbia to be their president. When I stopped working for the BCTF, I went back to work. I went back to school. I wrote a little article about the differences I saw, the differences that I encountered when I went back to teaching after four years.

All of that is true. It all came true. I wrote it in September, and it all came true.

Now, the government blames the school boards. They talk about choice and flexibility. They say that it's

the school boards that are the problem. Madam Speaker, you will know — and those on both sides of the House will know — that I myself have been in some conflicts with school boards over the years. As a representative of teachers, I've sat across bargaining tables, on arbitration panels and grievances with school boards. But it's not the school boards' problem. Even the school boards that I don't like or that we don't agree with — it's not their fault. It's not their fault — even the Surrey school board, which makes mistakes from time to time.

I want to quote from a piece by Russ Searle, a school trustee in school district 64. Mr. Searle, in case anybody doesn't know, is not well known for being a big fan of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. He, in fact, sat on the other side of the table in negotiations with us, on the side of the B.C. Public School Employers Association. This is what he says about the government's proposition that it's the school boards who are to blame:

So there is choice. The government, to some extent, is right. There are choices. The choices of school boards are: should they close libraries, reduce special needs and ESL and counsellors? Should they close schools? Should they reduce programs? Should they cut maintenance? Should they cut textbooks? I'll have a word to say about textbooks in a minute. Or should they go to the four-day week?

Four-day week. There are thousands of students in this province today going to school four days a week instead of five days a week as a result of the decisions made by this government — a government that tells us that not a day should be lost, and is bringing in Bill 12.

Just parenthetically, the Minister of Finance, yesterday or the day before, I think, commented that an amount of money had been injected into the system for textbooks and that now there were enough textbooks. "Now there are enough textbooks." I don't know what city she lives in, and I don't know what schools she's visiting, but the minister's wrong. It's tragic that she's wrong. There are schools in every community in this province where kids are sharing outdated, old, tired, broken textbooks.

When the government isn't blaming the school boards for the problem, they blame the bargaining structure. It's true that the bargaining structure has some flaws and that it needs to be improved. That improvement should come not from the imposition of a system, the imposition of new laws, but through consultation with the parties who are involved. I want to talk — and my colleague from Surrey-Whalley spoke to this a few minutes ago — about the fact that the system isn't as broken as you think, if people use it correctly.

I want to give an example that I was involved in three or four years ago. The 1998 agreement included a letter of understanding that reduced class sizes in the primary grades — K-to-three, kindergarten to grade three. That was about to expire. In the winter of 2000-2001 the British Columbia Teachers Federation sat down with the British Columbia Public School Employers Association and freely negotiated those provisions into the collective agreement. I was there. I know. It happened.

The variable that was important, the element that allowed that to happen — perhaps members opposite would be interested in this; I don't know — was a government that provided the resources and the mandate for that to happen. That's what's lacking here. That's what's lacking in the current situation: a government that's prepared to use its power and resources to make sure that the mandate is there for the Public School Employers Association — not to give them no mandate.

There's the notion that there's…. The fiction is propagated on the other side of the House that there's bargaining going on here. There is no bargaining going on here. When the mandate is zero-zero-and-zero and the rules say that working conditions aren't allowed to be bargained, where's the bargaining? It's a fiction. Both of those things have to be changed so that we can move forward. The goal isn't politics. It's moving forward in our schools. There need to be bargaining rights.

The teachers of the province aren't asking for special bargaining rights, you know. They're asking for those rights which are enshrined in the international agreements that the government of Canada is signatory to. They're asking for the rights which the International Labour Organization — the United Nations — has said are due to the workers in our schools. So the first thing that needs to be done to resolve this situation is that the bargaining rights have to be available.

Secondly, there needs to be some respect. The teachers of this province — and others, but we're speaking about teachers today — have been treated over the last four or five years as if they were somehow the enemy. But the people of British Columbia understand that the teachers of our province are not our enemies. They're our neighbours, and they deserve our support and respect for the important job that they do

every day in the schools of British Columbia — and bargaining rights, respect and a commitment to the improvement of the conditions under which children learn in this province.

I need to close in a minute. I was a little worried when I got up to speak that I wouldn't have enough to say. Man, I've cut out a lot of it. I have the honour to be here for four years. I predict that this will be the most serious thing I will say in those four years.

If anyone in the government on the government side believes that the imposition of Bill 12 is going to provide for stability, for predictability and for calm in our schools, they're fooling themselves. You can't legislate loyalty, you can't legislate morale, and you can't legislate enthusiasm. We need all three of those from our teachers. I urge the government to take the opportunity to sit down with the people who work in our schools and find a solution.

H. Lali: I appreciate this opportunity to talk to the people of my constituency and also to the people of British Columbia on this very important occasion here. As you know, hon. Speaker, I am opposed to Bill 12, which the government has brought in and has brought in under very, very questionable circumstances as well. I'll have a little bit more to say about that towards the end.

I want to say that this particular dispute that has been going on, this issue, is not about New Democrats and Liberals. It's not about wage increases or anything like that. It's not about teachers, in the end. This is all about parents. You know, most of us here in this Legislature are parents. Some have older kids who have gone through the secondary and primary school education system and have gone on to university. But there are many of us here, as indeed there are thousands and thousands of British Columbians out there, who have young kids who are in school or are going through the school system as we speak. Parents raise their families; they raise their kids. They have high hopes for their children. Parents have high expectations for their children. They want to leave this world a better place for their children than the world that all of us, as parents, have inherited.

Our parents took time out and devoted a lot of time, energy, resources and money to make sure that we got the proper education. I'm very thankful for that. I'm thankful for the job my parents did in supporting my education and, of course, my brothers and sisters as well — all throughout my education. So this is very, very important. It's about parents — parents who care about their kids, who want their kids to have a decent future.

No longer are the days there when you could have a grade 12 education and get a really decent job — whether it's in the resource sector or in the non-resource sectors of the economy. Those days are gone, and children have to have a decent, affordable education for the future in order just to compete.

The bachelor's degrees and master's degrees are standards of the day, and having diplomas and certificates in a specialty of their choice is the order of the day. No longer can you have a high school education and just leave it at that and expect to have a decent family-supporting job.

This is very much about parents — all those tens of thousands of parents out there who have children in the school system. It's about the students — students who are going through the educational system. Students deserve a place where they can go to school, where they can feel happy and have a good learning environment. They need to have the proper tools at their disposal in order to have that decent education, so they can go on to post-secondary education and get the career of their choice because they have had an education system that has been provided to them from K-to-12 where they can sit in a classroom, where they can get the attention from their teachers that they need and they can have proper tools, books and supplies at their disposal on a day-to-day basis.

Lastly, it's about teachers as well, because they can't be left out of this mix. We as parents entrust our children to their care during those hours from 8:30 to 3:30, Monday to Friday. In most instances it's Monday to Friday, and the last couple of years it's been Monday to Thursday in a lot of schools because of the cuts that this government has perpetrated on our educational system.

Those teachers are there not because there's a lot of money to be made. You start out, and you're just making an average wage. Yes, if you've been there for 25 or 30 years you can make a decent wage in the school system as a teacher. But that's not what teachers are there about. Teachers are in the helping profession. Teachers are there because they care about teaching. Teachers are there in the educational system because they care about the students that they're teaching.

In a lot of instances, teachers spend more time with the kids in school than parents do at home. So many parents, for whatever reasons — they may be working double shifts in some instances in order to make ends meet, so they may have just a babysitter looking after them, or they may be low income, so they're having to look for work while the kids are often at home alone…. In many instances, teachers end up spending more time with those very kids than their own parents do.

They're not there because of the money or the prestige or that it's supposed to be some sort of a really high status position that they're making tons of money on. No, they're there because they care. They care about students. They care about the education that those students are going to get. They care about them. They're there because they want to be there, and it's not about the money or the wages.

Of course, it's about respect at the end of the day. Teachers want the level of respect that they deserve.

They want a work environment where they can work, where they're not going to be handicapped by the government of the day because they're not given the proper resources — or in terms of the environment in the school itself, in the classroom, where they can work with the students.

But I'm really disheartened to say that since day one this government, from 2001 when they took office, has had nothing but a relentless attack on teachers and the educational system of this province. Really, in the end, it's an attack on parents. It's an attack on children, who are there to get a decent education within the school system.

They've been doing it in a number of different ways — this attack that just won't relent. It's almost like the government seems to get some sort of pleasure out of attacking teachers so they can create enemies when there are none, so they can go out there and bash the teachers and then turn around and make themselves look good to their corporate buddies, who have basically been governing this province over the last four years.

This attack on the education system has come in many different ways. It started with this arbitrary closure of schools. They like to use the excuse that enrolment is down, but they've closed 113 schools. If you take a closer look at the facts and figures, you will notice that only 45 schools would have needed to be closed in order to take care of the decrease in the enrolment in classes.

They went well beyond that and went around arbitrarily closing down schools, especially in rural British Columbia, in a lot of remote communities where it's difficult for the children to access education. Now they have to hop on a bus and go into town. They have to get up earlier. They come home later, and it affects their sleeping time. For the kids, it affects their learning as well, because they could use that extra hour — or hour and a half and in some instances two or two and a half hours — before they go into a particular school. They could use that time to sleep and also to learn — read their books and do their homework. That's what they're supposed to be doing.

But no. The government didn't just close 45 schools in order to take care of the enrolment decrease. They closed 113 schools arbitrarily and have put more pressure on the system itself.

They like to think that they're the education province and that they're supporting education. They fired 2,500 teachers in the process. So what you have in the end result is this huge increase in the class sizes. Those very class sizes that were decreasing in the 1990s have now, once again, increased under the Liberals in the 2000s.

You know, government likes to say: "We're putting a record amount of money into education. It's been the biggest increase in the history of this province." Well, the government just doesn't want to talk about the decreases in educational funding over a three-year period where they froze funding for education.

This Liberal government is blaming school districts upon whose shoulders they have put the costs that have been increasing over that four-year period that the Liberals have been in office, instead of taking the blame themselves. The Premier sits in this Legislature, and outside of it as well, and the ministers in the cabinet and that Liberal caucus…. They are turning around. If they're not blaming school districts for the misery that this government has caused, they're blaming teachers, and they'll even sometimes blame parents for the misery that they caused.

Or they'll blame the opposition, which has been railing against this government for the last four years to put more funding and supports into the system so that kids don't have to suffer and teachers don't have to actually put money out of their own pockets to make sure that the learning tools are provided for the kids in the school system.

Hon. Speaker, you will find that special education funding has also decreased in those three years under the Liberals. There are 17.5 percent fewer teachers in special education. Those very students who need the most amount of help out of all the students are the very ones who are paying for it, because this Liberal government has cut the number of special education teachers in the school system.

Teacher-librarians. There are a lot of kids out there who need to learn how to use the library system — whether it's using it through the computer system or the actual hard-copy books and pamphlets that are available in the library system — to be able to do their research in an effective manner. What does the government do over that three-year period? They cut 23.4 percent of the teacher-librarians. The kids that use the libraries or need the assistance from the teacher-librarians are usually the ones who actually require that within the school system.

There are a lot of kids out there who are able to use the system, or they've got the help of their parents, or they're quite computer literate. They know how to use websites for information. But it's the ones who need it the most who use the teacher-librarians, and this government turns around and cuts 23.4 percent of the teacher-librarians.

English as a second language — a 20-percent reduction in the number of teachers who taught ESL. That was the priority of this government — to cut ESL. Again, on the one side, we have immigrants who come here from many countries across the world and in great numbers. A lot of them, if not most of them, don't speak English, but they come here looking for a better life. On the one side, we have Canadian and British Columbia society which expects immigrants to learn the tools and have the skills and the training necessary so they can go out and get decent family-supporting jobs. Of course, that requires education. That requires going to school — going to even post-secondary education institutions where they can pick up ESL classes —

so they can improve their English, so they can improve their skills, so they can get better training, so they can get a better education, so they can go out and get decent family-supporting jobs.

What does this government do? They cut funding for English as a second language and left all of those immigrant Canadians out in the cold. Then they're expected to catch up with the rest of Canadian society and British Columbia society. Yet they're knee-capping them at the very moment where they need those supports the most.

Aboriginal education is another area where the Liberals cut funding during that three-year period. You know, one of the most disadvantaged groups in British Columbia, if not Canadian society, is aboriginal first nations. Education is a key for aboriginal people to get the proper training and skills so they can actually move from the category of disadvantaged to the category of the advantaged, so they can actually go out there and get family-supporting jobs because they can get a proper education. How does this government help aboriginal people? It helps the aboriginal people by cutting its funding in the school system. That's how this government does this.

To recap, what does this government do to try to make this an educational province? It cuts special education funding. It cuts teacher-librarians. This Liberal government cuts English as a second language. It cuts aboriginal education. It closes 113 schools. It fires 2,500 teachers. It freezes educational funding for three years in a row and does not fund any of the growth that is taking place or the inflation, cost of heating and all the other inflationary items that are in there. This is how this Liberal government is trying to promote education in this province, by actually knee-capping it and systematically destroying the educational system that we have in this province.

I've already talked about how class size has increased under this Liberal government, where in the 1990s it was decreasing.

Of course, we have a situation here. There's supposed to have been bargaining going on between the BCTF and this government through the BCPSEA, the mechanism that is there. They've had 35 meetings to bargain on the various items that are on table. If you look at that, there has been either no progress or virtually little progress made. One wonders how two groups can meet 35 times and not make any progress, and you ask yourself why there hasn't been any progress.

Well, the reason there hasn't been any progress is because the government, on the one side, has told teachers to get to the bargaining table and to bargain with BCPSEA but has laid out a mandate that has, from the beginning, doomed this bargaining to failure. That's what this Liberal government has done. The government has said that it cannot interfere in bargaining between BCPSEA and the BCTF, yet this very Liberal government has repeatedly run interference in this bargaining process in public and also in the press. That's how they're trying to get the BCTF and the BCPSEA to bargain. While they're out there supposed to be bargaining, the government is standing there publicly knee-capping the process at every step of the way.

Learning conditions are a huge item, hon. Speaker, as you're quite well aware, having followed this debate over the last many months. You know it's very, very important. Any one of us, whether we're legislators or somebody who's a corporate executive or somebody who's a school teacher, or it could be somebody working in a sawmill or a rancher or…. Pick any particular occupation you want, and you'll find that in any one of those situations, there are working conditions.

Of course, for students in the classroom, there are learning conditions. The more the learning conditions improve, the more the education of that particular student improves as well. It just goes without saying. It's a no-brainer, and I just wish the government would actually understand that.

Since the year 2002, since teachers' contracts were stripped by this government, learning and working conditions have been seriously undermined for teachers and for students. As a result, there are now larger classes. We have less support for students with special needs. We have fewer specialist teachers such as counsellors, teacher-librarians, ESL teachers and special education teachers.

In many, many schools across this province, because of the cutbacks to education that this Liberal government has passed on to school districts, school districts are forced to have a four-day learning week for students as opposed to a five-day week, because this government has chronically underfunded education for the last four years.

If you look at the learning conditions and also the work conditions, Hon. Mr. Justice Lambert of the Court of Appeal for B.C., our highest court, stated in February 2005: "It seems to me that it is significant that the subject of class sizes was negotiated in collective bargaining between teachers and school boards before the 2002 legislation and was clearly, in the past, regarded by the parties as a term or condition of employment."

These aren't my words. These are the words of the Hon. Mr. Justice Lambert, a very reputable judge in this province. These are his words; these aren't my words. This is Mr. Justice Lambert continuing: "The fact that the subject of class sizes can no longer be negotiated nor have any place in the collective agreement of the parties does not make that subject any less a term or condition that affects the employment relationship. So I regard class sizes and aggregate class sizes as a significant part of the employment relationship." These are the words of the Hon. Mr. Justice Lambert of our Court of Appeal, who stated them in February 2005.

We have the courts telling us that learning and working conditions are part of the bargaining process, and this government is turning its back on the Court of

Appeal, even, to say: "We can do as we wish." That's what this government is doing.

I also want to point out that the Minister of Labour had hired Mr. Rick Connolly, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. He was brought in by this government as a fact-finder to go out and talk to both sides in the dispute and anybody else he needed to, so he could come out with the bare facts and prepare some recommendations for the minister on how to solve this dispute.

Mr. Connolly has actually been fairly clear, and I want to read from his report that he brought back. On page 2 he says:

This is from Mr. Connolly's report. They're saying that we can talk about these items that he has just mentioned in his report in a parallel process, and that they're willing to talk. They're willing to bargain. They're willing to discuss this, while at the same time the collective bargaining framework continues on in a parallel way. That's the position of the BCTF, a very workable kind of position.

These are not my words once again. These are the words of the assistant deputy minister to the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, who was hired by that minister to go out and find some facts. He goes out and does his work in an honourable way, comes back and gives his independent recommendations.

One of those is quite clearly that the government has to come to the table and that there should be an independent process set in motion while collective bargaining can continue. Those are the words of an individual that this Liberal cabinet, this government, hired to go out and do some work and bring back a recommendation.

What does the government do? Takes that recommendation, files it out the window and brings in this Bill 12 on Monday to legislate a collective agreement. That's what this government has done. It hasn't even listened to the people who they themselves, this government, have sent out to do its work for them. It's pretty arrogant, to say the least. Pretty arrogant. Really arrogant. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because when you look at the attitude of the Premier and you look at the attitude of those cabinet ministers who sit across the way, what you have seen from the day they took office on May 17, 2005, has been nothing shy of arrogance.

As I stated, the BCTF wanted to bargain. They wanted to talk. They had asked the fact-finder to actually facilitate a dialogue to that effect with the government. Government had the opportunity to work towards a constructive solution and cool the situation down. Instead, the government has chosen a course of action that is confrontational and will not serve to improve the learning conditions in the classroom.

The fact-finder's report on the collective bargaining dispute between the BCPSEA and the BCTF highlighted an opportunity for government to actively address learning conditions in the classroom, and this opportunity should have been taken seriously by the government. If it had been taken seriously, it would have proven to be less confrontational than the legislation that was introduced on Monday by this government. The Premier could have shown leadership. He could have taken advantage of this opportunity and improved classroom education, but that opportunity was missed once again. Instead, the Premier has chosen once again a confrontational method of doing business in this province.

The government really actually had three options with the public educators. I mean, they could have taken an adversarial approach by instructing BCPSEA to demand teacher concessions at the bargaining table. They took this approach — tying the employer's hands, to begin with — with a narrow and unreasonable bargaining mandate that actually left no room for constructive negotiation or compromise. Anytime you have negotiations from two sides, there's give-and-take. But when you tie one side's hands, they're not going to give.

Secondly, the government could have taken a legislative approach by imposing compensation and working conditions unilaterally through legislation. On Monday the government actually chose to take this approach by introducing Bill 12 and arguing that it has no other choice. But the government did have another choice. They could have actually taken a cooperative approach to the labour relations process. They could have openly and supportively met with the BCTF representatives, established the extent of the problems and challenges that faced our education system, and jointly attempted to resolve those problems and overcome those challenges that we are facing. The government could have done that. That was another one of the options, but obviously it's an option that they didn't take. They chose confrontation and have chosen to actually work against teachers, against parents, against children, instead of working with them.

The labour relations process is not broken, but this government is not creative and is not supportive enough to actually use the process properly. They just are not, because they had already decided that they wanted confrontation. The only thing that you actually see from the government in this whole process is this whole issue of blame.

As I pointed out earlier, they have blamed the BCTF. They blame teachers. You know, they've even blamed the opposition. They'll go out there and blame some forces across the continent or across the world — on the other side of the world. They used that for three years to not sit down with the teachers and cut all the supports and knee-cap education during a three-year period when there were funding decreases that were taking place.

They blamed everybody else. The government blames everybody else to the point that they even blame the school districts, the school boards, upon whose shoulders they've piled on those costs by underfunding education. The only people that they've refused to blame are themselves, because it's the government that has created this situation to begin with.

What you find is that this government is actually to be blamed for the impasse that is there, because they've tied BCPSEA's hands with a narrow and unreasonable bargaining mandate that has left no room for any kind of constructive negotiation or compromise. I see the Minister of Education across the way. The fact that the minister had knee-jerk reactions….

I just want to conclude my remarks to say that the Minister of Education has done very little to actually help the situation by having a knee-jerk reaction every time there is something in the media. In closing, I say that the government has to negotiate in good faith. Let's get a process going so we can have this impasse resolved.

N. Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker — and the members opposite for their warm welcome. I rise today to add my thoughts about Bill 12 which, unfortunately, may cause the members opposite to change their warm welcome. I consider it to be regressive and, unfortunately, representative of an abject failure of government to take on the role that they've been elected to do — that is, to represent the best interests of British Columbians.

While we've heard a lot about Bill 12 already, I'd like to just point out that it's called the Teachers' Collective Agreement Act. I'd like to point out that it's a misnomer in every regard. It's not for teachers. It's not for any collective agreement. It's certainly not an agreement. It should really be something more in the line of "Imposition of our view against the opportunity for any debate." I find that disappointing, really. I find it disappointing, in large part, because I believe that our opportunity here representing our constituents is an honour. We are called upon by our constituents to represent their interests in an evenhanded, fair, open and balanced way.

If this government truly believes this is their only choice, it saddens me. It saddens me as a son of two teachers. Since I was quite young, I saw the role my mother played in teaching the hearing-impaired. She's done that since I can remember. Her dedication to the job was not unlike the dedication I've seen in the teachers in Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who work long hours, long past the time when they leave school and go home. They work on the weekends. They are dedicated, and their sole interest is in providing a good and balanced education to the young people of British Columbia. I applaud them for that. I applaud them for going always above and beyond the call of their duty.

That actually brings to mind the fact that teachers are really…. It's more than a profession. It's a calling. Teachers become teachers because they want to teach. It's not just another job. They know of their fundamental role in society — to raise young people to become responsible, considerate, empathetic adults who know how to resolve differences and disputes in an adult and mature way. Unfortunately, the message I see in Bill 12 is exactly the opposite of the lessons we want our students to learn.

I would like to remark on some of the words that the hon. Minister of Labour spoke when he introduced the second reading of the bill. He said that nobody in this chamber takes any pleasure or satisfaction from the need to introduce this bill. Indeed, he's right. Well, he's right, as far as I'm concerned from this side of the House, but I can't help but wonder. I can't help but allow the doubt to enter my mind that perhaps there was a degree of disingenuity in that remark, it seems to me, in that when left with the illusion of no other option, they can say that this was the only option. This was not the only option.

The hon. member said that this was a failure in the collective bargaining process. I'd like to say that it was an abject failure on one side of the collective bargaining process. Effectively tying the hands of the negotiators before they even enter the room to negotiate is pseudo-negotiation. It's not quasi-negotiation. It's not para-negotiation. It's pseudo-negotiation — an illusion that it's an opportunity for negotiation when it is nothing of the sort. It is an imposition by proxy of the vision, or lack thereof, of the government when it comes to the importance of education of our young people in a healthy public school system.

He also spoke about the predictability and the inevitability of this outcome. Having studied a bit of psychology myself, I know what a self-fulfilling prophecy will do to the individual, and in this case we see the example of how this has affected a wider group of people.

It was not necessary. It was heavy-handed. If it's not considered heavy-handed by the members opposite, I believe — and the vast majority of British Columbians believe — that there's a perception of a bully tactic. That disappoints me.

I don't want to give the members opposite a guilt trip, but I do think that there is definitely an opportu-

nity for some self-reflection. Perhaps there is more doubt in the members' minds opposite as to the appropriateness of this bill than they will let on. I certainly hope so, because I know that there are teachers in the ridings of the members opposite who are very upset. I know there are very many teachers and far more students who also see this result as being detrimental to them.

It's not a failure of the parties to come to an agreement. It's a failure of the framework to allow the parties to come to an agreement. The member opposite said that their side, the government, has a fundamental principle that guides them. "It's first and foremost and primarily this…." They purport that it is to keep the students in the classroom. "Not only do they deserve to be in the classroom, it's a fundamental right for them to be in the classroom receiving an education, and yes, lest there be any doubt, it is the view of this government that that right trumps all others."

Well, I humbly and respectfully and in a moderate tone suggest that that is a bunch of unparliamentary words. I strongly believe that using rhetoric — and using the base rhetoric that I see, appealing to a very small number of people, I hope — the idea that it's about children being in school or teachers walking the picket line…. That is not what is at stake here. What's at stake is a fundamental principle of collective bargaining that has been completely abrogated by this government.

I see the gasps and incredulity, perhaps for lack of understanding, from the members opposite. The truth is known by most people in this province: this government had no intention of solving this issue. If it did, how did it fail so miserably? How is it possible, if the intention was there and the will on the part of the teachers was there, that they failed so completely and unequivocally and in entirety? I'm sorry. If the minister and the government opposite claimed that they tried their best, I find it pathetic.

N. Simons: I'm happy to say that I notice one of the members opposite is listening. I'm happy to say, also, that I hope he learns something in this debate instead of sitting here, perhaps going through the motions of putting up with the fact that there is an opposing view that challenges the fundamentals of his perspective on this. The fundamental right to free collective bargaining mustn't be overturned by rhetoric and simplistic thoughts spewed by a government that doesn't understand the basic values that we subscribe to as British Columbians.

Ironically, the member opposite added that some of the furthest-reaching, most intrusive legislation came not from their government but from a previous government. I might add that the very type of — and at the risk of offending children — childish rhetoric: "You started it; you did it first…." That is what I heard repeatedly, not only yesterday but today.

I think that the members opposite are obviously agreeing with me. It's shocking, this: "You started it. You had more bad history than we do." Well, we should be learning from that history. We should be becoming better at doing things and not worse.

My concern with this legislation is that it does take away rights. It takes away rights. There's no other way of putting it. As much as the government would perhaps like to say that this is just keeping children in schools, fundamentally the most important principle — subscribed to, I think, by the vast majority of British Columbians — is that it's more important to have a strong, healthy and supported public education system than one that is being forced, through coercive means, to simply go through the motions.

We know that teachers never just go through the motions. Teachers offer far more to the students in their classrooms at every turn. They don't need to be forced to do anything. They willingly go forward every day, not because of the government forcing them to do anything but in spite of the fact that the government has made their jobs almost intolerable.

I hear it from teachers. I hear it from teachers on a daily basis. As a social worker for 15 years in the child protection system, I know what cuts do. I know what cuts do to the child welfare system, and I know what cuts do to the education system. The result is the same. The result is that children suffer. And they'll continue to suffer if the attitude of government is not one of reconciliation. Instead, it's an iron fist. That's not acceptable in the British Columbia that I love.

Let me just turn to a letter that I got from a teacher. They're not my words, but they're probably words representative of his or her colleagues. It does, perhaps, require an explanation from the Minister of Education, and maybe from the Minister of Labour or the other ministers who support this draconian legislation.

Whether they like it or not — the words may be stronger than even the ones that I would use — this is the perception among many people that I speak to, and I speak to a lot of people.

I started to say that I go into schools a lot. I go into schools to talk to the children, often to interview them. The teachers are run off their feet. Special needs kids…. It's a sorry state of affairs, and everybody that I've met in the school system tries their best day in and day out.

The Minister of Children and Family Development said that social workers had the hardest job. Yes, I agree with that. But close after are those who are called to the teaching profession and who are dedicated to try

and educate children to become productive, responsible, empathetic citizens. They have a hard job.

I've seen children and their parents in my office with frustration in their faces, not understanding why a youngster in grade two has to be kicked out of a class because there's nothing that the school can do for them. They've been stripped to the bone. I see it.

N. Simons: …and more recently in schools than the member opposite, especially elementary schools — more recently, I'm sure. I'm sure I was in school more recently than you. I might be older than I look, too.

I'd like to discuss just briefly the Connolly report. It's another example of…. You know, you set the terms of reference a certain way, and you'll get a certain answer. I'm tempted to make a sports analogy as the critic for sport, but I think I'll refrain from doing that. They usually end up in the wrong place.

He goes on to say: "The class sizes, as a significant part of the employment relationship…." Okay, I'm repeating myself already.

Class size. What does it mean? Class size is not just how many children are in the class.

Class composition. Teachers have told me that sometimes the classes they're teaching are the right size. However, they also say that if it wasn't for the fact that they had too many special needs children in the class…. I've dealt with a lot of special needs children, and they deserve to be nurtured by teachers, cared for by teachers, heard by teachers, taught by teachers and listened to by teachers.

I know teachers who drove kids home from school, teachers who went out of their way to pick up kids to bring to school because they knew they might have missed the bus or knew they would probably forget something. We're talking about a dedicated group of professionals who don't need to be legislated to work.

You know, I talked to school teachers in the northern part of my constituency. They say they're losing people. They're losing people to Alberta. This is not what we want. Nobody in this House wants to see that. They're good teachers with excellent credentials. They probably came out of a school in British Columbia, and they're going to Alberta, not just for the better wages and better working conditions but because they're being treated with respect. I'm afraid that's sadly lacking. It seems to be sadly lacking. If, in fact, this is the best solution the government can come up with, then it is lacking. I can't help but say that it's pretty close…. If you ask me to do a report on this, I'll say there seems to be a lack of respect.

You don't go to a bargaining table and say, "My hands are tied. I can offer you nothing. What do you mean you're not going to give me something?" and then go back and say: "They're not giving me anything." Common sense says that you go to the table. You have an opportunity to bargain. Bargaining is bargaining.

I don't want to lose teachers to Alberta. It puts a lot of pressure on the teachers that are here. I don't want to see a system underfunded to the point where the inevitable question is: well, is our public school system working or not?

It's the same thing that's been happening to the public health care system. Suddenly little voices of privatization come in. Public health and public school systems are fundamental to our communities. I think we should all agree that a strong public school system is a good public school system, not just for now but for the future.

I worry about the lessons that young people will draw when they see that there's an inability to resolve conflict — not just to resolve conflict — and to agree on how that conflict should be resolved. It doesn't help when one side of the conflict says: "We have nothing to offer." It certainly doesn't help.

The Minister of Labour said yesterday that it's not very easy, if you're bargaining on behalf of some hard-working men and women, to have to come back and say: "Zero-zero-and-zero." He added, significantly, that sometimes it's easier, if you think about it, to go back and say: "We didn't negotiate. The government did it to you." Well, in this particular case the government, through its omission, did it to the system. They say: "We didn't do it." Yeah, you didn't do anything. To me, that shouldn't happen.

My first political action that I remember, besides grade four — and I can't remember what happened then — was in high school when teachers were forced back to work in Montreal. I remember thinking that it was patently unfair. It could have been mixed with some other variables, but I suggested we leave this school out of respect for the teachers, even if it was just for the afternoon, and we did. The school was shut down. The students left the building.

What an excellent learning opportunity, an excellent way to demonstrate that we have rights that we can protect by the actions we take. We're not going to

be bullied. We're not going to let our friends be bullied. We're not going to let our teachers be bullied. We walked out. We snuck onto the buses and into the Metro system and went home.

The next day, of course, I got called to the principal's office, and I was given a lecture on anarchy. I took every word seriously and joined the Liberal Party. Now, that part is not true. But I did realize, even as a student in this province, that we need to learn the lessons being taught in this situation and that we need to learn that it's not always about who shouts the loudest, who's got the most power, who carries the most armament and who has the ability to pass law. It's about what's right. What's the right thing to do in a situation like that?

We don't have to go back and say: "Well, it never happened before, so it can't happen again," or "The system's broken, so we shouldn't bother trying to fix it." These are individuals with brains who know how to sit down and should know how to negotiate. I worry, because I get stories sent to me. People know me in the community, in the schools, because I often went to the schools in my previous employment.

I just want to add now that it's not just the special needs students who suffer from the lack of funding. It's the rest of the students in the class as well. It is to the benefit of all of us to make sure that children with needs have their needs addressed.

She goes on: "The morale of teachers in my school is very low, and the response to the Liberal" — in quotation marks, for the benefit of the Hansard people, and I use that term loosely — "and to the contract negotiation is somewhere between outrage and disgust."

I have to point out that I'm usually very moderate in everything that I do, believe it or not.

N. Simons: You don't know me, do you? Madam Speaker, the member opposite doesn't know me, does she? I'm trying to speak in appropriate parliamentary language.

I have always been careful and measured in my words, and I have seen people who are even more careful and measured in their words express outrage, in words that would not be able to be uttered in this chamber, over the approach of the Liberal government towards contract negotiations. It's as simple as that. They're outraged. Conservative elements in my communities are shocked that this is again the solution the government has found to a labour dispute.

To finish this letter, out of respect: "I have a ten-month-old daughter who would very much like to be educated in the public school system. I'm sure she's expressing her views already. Perhaps some of it's open to interpretation, but she wants the education system to be about the needs of the child and not even always about just money."

I have to say, in speaking to constituents, that they understand. Teachers are members of our communities. We see them in the shopping centres. We see them at sports events and when we go out to watch a film. The teachers are everywhere. They have such a significant role in our community, a role that I think must have been forgotten by a government that thinks forcing them to work is the way to deal with it.

I don't think it's healthy for students in school not to be afforded the time they need to resolve differences between them. I know that the member for Vancouver-Burrard agrees that the importance of conflict resolution requires a little bit of time, a little bit of patience.

In closing, I'd just like to say I certainly hope that members opposite will consider other options before making this bill into law — because other options exist — in the interests of children in this province.

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted to be in the House today to be able to speak to this bill. First and foremost, I find myself compelled to respond to some of the comments of the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, across the floor.

I want to talk a little bit about the word "respect," because it is important. I certainly want to point out to the member opposite, who is new to this House, that there are many, many members on this side who have not only spent their lifetimes involved in public education but have regularly and consistently — and for periods of time that exceed four and eight years — visited schools, spent time in schools, because they care about students. I think that to show respect to members in this House, I simply want to make the point that

there is a deep and passionate sense of caring for people in British Columbia demonstrated by many of my colleagues who are much more senior to this House than either the member opposite or I am.

One of the things that continues to be referenced in this House is the role of teachers in the province. I want the members opposite to recognize that from our perspective, we understand and would concur that teaching is about a calling. It's a profession that is honoured. It is respected, and in fact, no one on this side of the House — to reiterate the comments of the Minister of Labour — takes any pleasure in where we find ourselves today. That's not a partisan issue. It's an issue that all of us share and that we feel passionate and very concerned about.

Constant references by speaker after speaker after speaker about the abject failure of a system…. Though members are new to a House, they simply can't walk away from a history that involves the party of the members opposite.

Let's go back and have a look at the history of the bargaining system in British Columbia. Over and over and over again today we've heard about this particular bill. Where were the members opposite in 1993, in 1996 and in 1998 when similar situations were actually engaged in, in this province? This is simply not a matter of this government's issue. This is an issue that reflects more than a decade of a bargaining system that simply does not work.

We know that it is time for that to be fixed. It's simply a time so that we can say to the parents, to the teachers and to the students of this province that we're not prepared to allow this to happen in this way again.

When we talk about the comments made recently that we seem to have a problem with opposing viewpoints…. We absolutely don't. That's the point of this Legislature. That's the point of being elected. There are people here to express different views, but make no mistake about it: it has to be accurate. It has to reflect the absolute situation that exists in the province. It's not enough to simply get up and forget what's happened over the past more-than-a-decade in this province in relationship to bargaining. We should learn from the past.

In fact, that's precisely what we're trying to do here. We're trying to say that no longer will we allow the students in this province to be held hostage by a bargaining system that simply does not work. That is what leadership is about. It's about making very difficult decisions and learning from the past.

What have we learned? We've actually learned that in 1993, in 1996 and in 1998 — under the previous government — there was legislation put in place to deal with precisely the same circumstance. Yet speaker after speaker on the opposite side stands up and says that this is a problem of this government. No, Madam Speaker, this is an inherent problem with the system, and we intend to fix it.

Hon. S. Bond: The members opposite can continue to say that this is our bill. Well, unless they have no roots with their party, unless they do not share the beliefs of the previous members that have sat in this House under previous governments in 1993, 1996 and 1998, we've found ourselves in similar circumstances.

I'm sure that they felt similarly at that time to what the members on this side would have felt. No one took any joy at that time, either, in finding themselves…. It's time to bring those circumstances to an end. It is time to actually put a system in place that will prevent this kind of uncertainty, not simply for parents and students but for classroom teachers, who today are as concerned about what's going to happen on Thursday and Friday and Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday as is everyone else. Are we concerned about that? Yes, we are.

I can't understand how, when we look at the problem…. We are trying to find a solution to more than a decade of failure with the bargaining process. How is it that even in trying to find a solution, two sides of this House can't agree that we need to find a solution? Everyone agrees that the bargaining system is broken; I've heard the members opposite say that. Yet now we attempt to find a solution to that, and the constant comment does not reflect the fact that we actually need to be proactive and find a solution.

Over and over in this House we've echoed the same point — both sides of the House — that the current negotiating system is broken. The evidence speaks for itself: more than a decade of unsuccessful negotiations. No matter what comments have been made across the floor, there have been 35 bargaining sessions — 35, with not one item of common ground — and negotiations over ten years that have resulted in legislated settlements.

That being said, the reason we are standing here today debating Bill 12, despite the comments of the members opposite, is not simply because of a broken system. It is because we intend to put students first. We have said from the outset that education is a priority and that any loss of school time is too much. How, in good conscience, could the union's lawyers stand before the Labour Relations Board and suggest that weeks — in fact, months — don't make a difference? We know that's not true. We know that every single day matters to a child's education. We know that the members opposite wouldn't disagree with that either. We actually believe that students need to be in classrooms.

The difference? We said, consistently and throughout the entire mandate and campaign, that we believe it so much that we believe education is an essential service. We made it an essential service, despite the fact that the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition said that education is not an essential service and that they were prepared to remove that designation.

How can people not accept the fact that education is absolutely one of the most essential things that we do in British Columbia? Yet there is no attempt by mem-

bers from the opposite side to suggest that what is critical today is that together we make sure our students stay in classrooms. We've heard from teachers, from parents, from students. Students want to be in classrooms. Teachers want to be teaching.

Yesterday, however, I heard the Leader of the Opposition, former chair of the Victoria school board, close her remarks on Bill 12 with the statement: "It's a sad day for students in the province of British Columbia." In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You see, the entire point of this debate, and the issues we've been discussing for the last several months, is about students. Bill 12 is to ensure that our children have a right to an education that is not impacted by labour strife.

Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way, and we know there are differences of opinion. As I've said previously, the Leader of the Opposition clearly stated that if she were Premier, she would remove education as an essential service.

We have heard from parents. We have heard from teachers. We have heard from people in the province of British Columbia. Actually, they believe that education is an essential service. We also agree that class size is an issue of importance and significance. In fact, that's why we took steps in the last term to ensure that class-size limits were an important part of legislation. We enshrined our limits in legislation.

Recently we also announced that school districts will be required to annually report class sizes for each class in each school in the province. We said, during the campaign, that we would hold that type of accountability, that we would be public and that it would be accessible for parents to look at. That information will be available on the school profiler on the Achieve B.C. website.

We want to have a discussion about class sizes. We've never said anything other than that. What we have said — we've said it consistently, we've said it clearly, and we will continue to say it — is that the place for class-size discussion is not at a bargaining table, that it is not the sole purview of the teachers union and not the sole purview…

We believe there is a critical role for parents in this province, for administrators and, in fact, for classroom teachers to be involved in that discussion. It is not an issue of discussion that should be at the bargaining table, and many of our partner groups in this province have said that clearly and agree with us. We want to talk about class size. We've said that clearly. We're going to hold the first teachers congress in this province. We want to hear directly from classroom teachers about the things that are impacting them.

Let's look at the issue of funding. We continue to hear about cuts to public education. We have the highest level of funding ever in British Columbia — the highest level ever. That includes $150 million this year alone, the single largest increase in over a decade in this province. That's not an issue of debate; that's a fact. In fact, it's $150 million this year alone to support the reduction of class sizes and to add additional teachers. We are seeing school districts add an additional 600 teachers — a total of 1,600 professionals in the system — at a time when there are 30,000 fewer students in the system in British Columbia. That's not a subjective comment. That is a fact.

Let me give you an example of that. The human resources principal in Okanagan-Skaha school district 67 said this, as a matter of fact, today in the Penticton Western: "With the funding improvements that came this year and board initiatives, we've addressed class size at the middle and secondary levels. We are reporting that we've lowered class sizes at all grade levels."

Let me use my own school district, because it's been brought up by numerous other speakers. Prince George school district is spending $1 million to reduce intermediate class sizes and $400,000 to reduce primary class sizes in three inner-city elementary schools. Central Okanagan school district is spending $680,000 to improve class sizes. New Westminster school district is spending $300,000 to reduce class sizes. We need to make sure that resources are going to the local level, allowing school districts, school trustees, classroom teachers and parents to make decisions about what the best class size is for those students.

While we might disagree with the teachers union about where the discussion of class size should take place and who should be a part of it, we agree totally, and we have made it clear, and we have been consistent, that class size needs to be discussed. We simply disagree about where and who should have that discussion.

We think parents are critical partners, despite the comments of the Education critic. We believe that parents should have an absolutely fundamental role in deciding how schools are organized. Classroom teachers should sit down and be involved in that discussion. We've given districts $150 million that will help school districts from this year forward to make those decisions, and they are making decisions in the best interests of students.

Parents, trustees and administrators have also said that any discussion of class size should involve all of the education partners. We have a forum for that discussion.

We have a group called the education advisory committee, which includes representatives from our education partners. It includes parents, teachers, students, trustees, principals, vice-principals and superin-

As a member of the Education Advisory Council, the B.C. Teachers Federation has had four years to actually bring the topic of class size to the agenda, but it hasn't. You see, there's a fundamental disagreement. There is a belief by the union that in fact, that should be the sole purview of bargaining. We disagree. In fact, we believe the education advisory committee is the perfect place to have that discussion. We have met 29 times since we were government in 2001, and this issue is one that the union has not brought to that table.

Speaking from experience as a parent, as a parent-volunteer, a PAC president and as a school trustee and board chair, class size is an issue that concerns government as well as our stakeholders, including those classroom teachers, parents, students, trustees and administrators. As I have said in the last several days, we intend to place class size on the agenda of the Education Advisory Council. That's where the discussion should take place, with those partners that all have a fundamental role to play. We also will be holding our teachers congress, through which classroom teachers can directly communicate with government on issues, including class size.

Government is committed to keeping students in classrooms. We have made that clear. We have been consistent about that. The system is broken in terms of the bargaining process, and we all need to work to fix it. Parents have told us they want students to be in classrooms, and many teachers have told us they want to be in classes too. Quite simply, a labour negotiation should not interfere with a child's right to have an education.

The previous speaker spoke eloquently from his perspective about the importance of the collective bargaining system and how that fits, and yet in many ways placed lesser importance on the right of a student. This government is proud to stand up and say we believe that teachers are absolutely essential — so essential that we made sure education became an essential service, unlike the members opposite, who weren't prepared to say that.

We also want to stand here today…. On behalf of my colleagues and this caucus, we believe students have a right to be in the classroom. We believe adults have to figure out how to fix a broken process. Our first priority will be keeping students in the classroom.

As we move forward, we need people to understand that the $150 million that is the largest increase will help school districts continue to focus on improving student achievement. School districts have made wonderful use of the $150 million, choosing to hire 1,600 additional staff, including 600 teachers, education assistants and support staff. These 1,600 additional staff, including teacher-librarians…. In fact, in school district 57 they're also adding a significant number of music teachers. They're also adding a coordinator to look at the arts programs.

School districts are making wise, smart and informed decisions about how to support students. They can do that because we've added the largest increase in a decade to the public education budget.

Let's look at the record. Since 2000 and 2001 this government has increased funding to B.C. public schools by nearly $460 million. During that period of time we've lost over 30,000 students, and the decline has not ended. The system will continue to lose students — 6,000 students a year the anticipated loss. Yet the $150 million increase is to the core budget. That will continue to be a resource that school districts can use despite the continued decline in enrolment.

Per-pupil funding will go from $6,752 per pupil in 2004-2005 to $7,097. That is a cumulative total of $881 per student since 2000-2001. I'm going to say it again, because we can debate lots of things, we can debate policy, but we can't debate this: we have the highest budget for education ever in this province. It has grown from $4.59 billion in 2000-2001 to $5.07 billion. That is a 10 percent increase. How does that meet the word "cut"?

We've heard lots of information that's been shared. Let me give you some information about some of the things that other people have said.

The Vancouver school board news release of January 31 said this: "The Vancouver school board welcomes word of today's provincial government funding announcement for education and says this is a great day for children." Victoria school board chair Michael McEvoy, Victoria school board news release, February 28, 2005: "It's the first time in ten years" — let me think; we've been here four and a half — "we've been able to add money back, and we will ensure it will benefit students in each and every classroom in the district." Diane Janzen, chair of the Chilliwack school board, Chilliwack Progress, February 1, 2005, on the $150 million increase: "Terrific, very substantial. Certainly the largest amount of funding we've received from the ministry in years."

In 2002 the province — we the government — enshrined class size limits in law, with caps on individual classes and district-wide averages. Last year in the Victoria school district we actually had 131 middle school classes; 123 of those had 30 students or fewer, and that is expected to improve this year because of the additional funding.

We want to look at those classes that are oversize and that have challenging composition. In fact, we're going to put on the public record size for class by class by class numbers so that we can look at those numbers. In addition, if the members opposite have specific classes that are challenging and that are large in number, we would be happy to take the information on those classes and go back and talk to school districts about why those numbers exist.

We want to talk about class size. Let's look at one other example. Last year in Surrey — there's been much discussion about Surrey — there were 1,630 grades four to seven classes; 1,596 of those had 30 students or fewer.

As we look at what the funding resources have been, as we've sent those to the public education system, we have to look at one other thing. What really makes me sad today is the fact that much of the debate in this House today, and much of the comment…. If we think there was an issue with morale before, I can't imagine how some people are feeling today.

As we look at what we want to do, let's look at the outcomes in the public education system. One of the amazing things about teachers in this province is that despite the challenges they face, and despite the challenges that each classroom teacher faces every day….

I'm a parent too. We've heard lots of comments about parents from the opposite side of the House. My children have had a superb education in this province. I've had the pleasure of working beside teachers as a parent-volunteer, and I can assure you of this: one of the things that we appreciate about teachers most is that despite those challenges, they continue to do a superb job in this province. How do we know that? Because British Columbia's students continue to be among the best in the world. There are few countries that outperform us in the areas of science and math and in reading. Our results….

A member stood up and talked about the issue of aboriginal education. Since we came to government, we have focused and worked hard with the first nations communities and aboriginal communities, and what have we seen? Working with classroom teachers and school boards and trustees, we've seen extraordinary improvement. Is it good enough? Of course not. We have more work to do. But aboriginal students are completing school at a record level in this province. Non-aboriginal students have the highest completion rates ever.

All of that is about a team, a group of people who work to make sure our children have the best public education they can possibly have. Teachers are the centre of that.

I am going to talk about respect, because it's necessary in this House too. My colleagues and this government believe that teachers are so essential that we're prepared to make the tough decisions to fix a bargaining system that actually has continued to be dysfunctional and allowed there to be uncertainty and uncertainty and uncertainty, year after year after year.

No more. We aren't prepared to let that happen anymore. And why? Simply because we believe that a student has a right to be in the classroom. We believe it so much that despite the discomfort and the frustration and the sadness we feel about being here today, we're not prepared to go back to 1993, 1996, 1998 — which the members opposite were all party to, whether they sat in this House or not.

It's time to move forward. It's time to do that with record resources in this province, with outstanding outcomes in the public system. It's time to do that with our partners. It's time to include parents, teachers, classroom teachers, trustees and administrators in a discussion about class size. We care about it. Make no mistake about that. We are going to move forward. We are hopeful that we will fix a dysfunctional and broken bargaining system.

We are going to do it for the best possible reason: because we believe that children have a right to be in a classroom. We want that classroom to be designed by the people who are a part of that team, who make sure that education is as wonderful as it is in British Columbia. We're going to make sure that dialogue takes place. We're going to sit down at the education advisory committee with those partners. I urge the teachers union to come to that table with an attitude to talk to us about class size. I urge them to have their members, their classroom teachers, come to our teachers congress to talk to us about those issues. I ask them to do that.

Make no mistake. We're going to move forward, we're going to fix the system, and we're going to continue to make education the number one priority in this government.

I just want to make some comments about the comments that were made by the Minister of Education earlier today. It was great to hear a minister say that, among other stakeholders, teachers should be involved in the discussions on class size. What a refreshing admission. The minister doesn't mention teachers very often, when I've heard the minister speaking in the past, unless she's disparaging them in the press.

I'm also glad to hear the minister once again announce $150 million for the schools. I missed it the first 18 times the minister made this announcement. I was too busy watching her interfere with the teachers, who, she admits, want to be in the classrooms. If this government thinks for one minute that it can fool British Columbians into thinking that $150 million makes up

for all the teachers that the school boards were forced to let go by this government, or that this too-little-too-late money makes up for the more than 100 schools this government has closed…. She holds British Columbians, those parents and the teachers she claims to champion, in very low regard indeed.

She says teachers are the centre of our education system, so I wonder why she is sidelining them with Bill 12. She's making tough decisions, she says, to strip them of their right to bargain, but it was too tough a decision for her to bring herself to convince the Premier to actually meet with the teachers. She vows to fix the dysfunctional bargaining system by interfering with it once again. She claims that every day matters. Then why has this government allowed at least three school boards in this province to run four-day school weeks? That's right — a four-day school week, because those school boards cannot afford a full week of education.

I find it hard to understand how every day can matter to this government when the government wants to look good in the press, but not every week for the last years when parents in those districts have had to make other arrangements for their kids because there was no school for their children to go to. I'm glad to hear that the government is now going to require school boards to report class size, but what on earth have they been doing about class size until now? They had four years.

I want to speak on this bill because I believe that this is a bad piece of legislation. It's bad because it goes against everything we believe in, in a democratic society. It undermines democracy. In the democratic society that we chose to live in, one of the basic fundamental rights that we all have cherished and care about is our Charter of Rights. In those rights one of the most fundamental things is the right to association, through which comes the right to free collective bargaining. This government is telling the teachers, the parents and the rest of British Columbians that they do not deserve that right, that they are going to strip them of that right. That is wrong in a democratic society.

It is a bad piece of legislation because it undermines teachers. As the minister said, teachers are the essential part of our education system. But we are telling them that we will not even meet with them to talk about education issues, to talk about learning conditions. It undermines our students, the very basic component of our education system, through which we all talk about building this country. That's our future.

How on earth can we believe that this government, through this bill, is helping children and helping the education system by putting children in an environment where their teachers are stressed and demoralized, where they're not getting the attention that they need and deserve? It undermines our education system as a whole.

I came to Canada in 1971. One of the reasons I chose Canada was because we have an education system that recognized that it shouldn't be interfered with by politicians. It recognized that a janitor working in a Royal Bank tower will have the same opportunity to acquire the same level of education for his or her children as the CEO of the Royal Bank.

What I see in this bill is that the system is being deteriorated, because government is interfering with the system that was built from the bottom up by our forefathers. I could never imagine the day would come, whether it was this government or previous governments, when the governments would be interfering in our basic social programs — such as education, such as the health care system — when dollars would come first before our children and our seniors. I never imagined when I came to Canada that that's what would happen with this country. That's exactly what's happening right now.

H. Bains: Some of the members sitting on the other side believe that that is not true. Well, let me take them to the country where I come from. We have a system for the rich where their children are getting a top-class, world-level education, and then there's the education system for the rest of us. Come and see with me. Go and visit those countries. Go and visit those schools rather than sitting here and making snotty remarks. That is the reality, because they are hiding from the reality. I thought I left that system behind. I thought I left that system.

I don't believe in conspiracies, but there are many people out there who believe that this government is on a track and a direction to privatize our education system. When you look at their record of the last four years, everywhere they could put their hand on, they tried to privatize it. Why wouldn't they believe that this is the case in this case as well?

This bill has nothing to do with the education system, as the Liberals have claimed. It has everything to do with punishing teachers. You know why? Because they stood up to this government when this government was going after our social programs. These teachers stood up for the education system. They stood up to this government. They told this government that what they were doing was wrong. Health care workers — same thing. When they stood up to this government, they ripped up their collective agreements and threw thousands of those on the streets.

We've seen some unjust laws in the past. This is another one. This will be considered as one of the dark points in our history again, along with many others that we've seen — much legislation that was passed in this House. Today we feel that we are ashamed of the people who passed that.

I ask the members on that side: think about it. Think about what your children, their children and their children will say 50 years down the road when they read what you were doing to our teachers. They will not be very proud of the things that this government is doing to our teachers at the same time they

I want to turn to negotiations. I've been through a few sets of negotiations myself in my working lifetime. Government says that this system does not work, that the system is broken, that the system has failed. When you set out to fail the system, it will fail, and that's what this government did. They set out right from the beginning to fail it. They said: "We will negotiate, but you can't talk about money. There's no money." They said: "We'll go to the negotiation table, but you can't talk about learning conditions either. You can't talk about class sizes. You can't talk about class composition."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to a conclusion that when you tie your negotiator's hands in such a fashion, that system will fail, and it has failed. It's not the fault of the negotiators. It's the fault of this government, because they never gave the mandate to negotiate, to conclude that collective agreement successfully.

Over the years I have learned that there are some basic fundamental principles to conclude a collective agreement successfully. I'm sad to say that all of those elements were missing. You must bargain in good faith. It's essential to make any negotiation successful. There was no faith. There were no negotiations. When you go to the table, mind already made up that you're going to say no, no and no, at the end of the day there won't be a collective agreement.

You must have respect for each other. There was no respect for the teachers going to that bargaining table — none whatsoever. All you have to do is go back and look at the statements that were made by the members of this government. They were on the border of threats, statements that were inflammatory.

You don't negotiate through the media. You go to the negotiating table and talk about those issues that are important to both sides, and this government refused to do that. This government refused to meet with the teachers.

You must be honest with each other. There shouldn't be any hidden agendas. There was no element of that. There were other agendas that the government was trying to achieve out of this. They wanted to make political gains by trampling on the rights of the teachers. They set the system to fail so that they could go to the people of this province and say: "We care about your education. We are making these laws to protect your education, to keep your children in school."

If they sent their negotiator with a full mandate to negotiate, children would be in schools, the teachers would be happy, morale would be high, and we would have a better education system.

You have to be proactive rather than reactive in negotiations. Parties are required to meet way before your collective agreement expires. This government even refused to meet with teachers. It's necessary so that you can identify the issues that are burning issues — issues that are important to both sides — so that you can start working on solutions to these issues rather than working against the clock and then, under pressure, making irrational decisions.

That didn't happen because this was set up to fail. It was set up to fail. Make no bones about it. All of those elements were missing in these negotiations. Are they surprised that after 35 meetings, not a single issue was agreed to? When you tell your negotiators that you're not agreeing with anything…. What a surprise. The system failed because it was set up to fail. We failed our children, we failed our teachers, and we failed our parents in doing so. That is wrong.

Government claimed that they didn't have any money — zero- zero-and-zero. Well, let's talk about the money issue. It was the government that put themselves in that position. They had four years to identify those issues — four years. They didn't flinch. They didn't talk about any issues. They didn't talk to the teachers. Instead, in those four years $2 billion worth of tax breaks were given to millionaires who became billionaires. As a result, money has to come from somewhere. They went to the seniors. They went to post-secondary education students.

They went to the school boards and downloaded all of the costs onto the school boards. They didn't pay for the MSP premium increases that this government implemented. School boards had to absorb that. They didn't pay for the teachers' salaries that they imposed on school boards. School boards had to absorb that. Utility bills that were rising daily — they didn't pay. School boards had to absorb it.

They brag about $150 million, but the number put together by many on the downloading part of it is over $250 million. Now, because $150 million is coming back, everyone should be happy. That downloading resulted in 113 schools closed and 2,700 teachers laid off. It was the government that created that crisis, the government that created this crisis.

In this recent budget they chose to give a half-billion-dollar tax break to the corporations — a tax break that the corporations didn't even ask for or expect. It's about choices. That's the choice this government made. They made choices to make millionaires billionaires by ignoring students. They chose confrontation over negotiations. They chose corporate tax breaks over education. They ignored children to please their millionaire friends. Those are the priorities of this government.

Then they complain that the system failed. It was set up by this government to fail, and it failed. Now they are blaming everybody. They're blaming teachers. They're blaming the NDP. They're blaming the world. Except look at them. What crisis have they created themselves?

The minister talked about the NDP record. But don't forget that when the Liberals were on the campaign trail, they said they were better than the opposi-

tion. They were better than the NDP. They would do things differently than the NDP did. I'd just like to remind them that two wrongs don't make a right. Two wrongs will never a make a right.

They are saying: "Because the NDP did it, we're going to do it." But there are some other fundamentals that are missing from that equation. The NDP respected teachers. They put education first, because they put class composition in the collective agreement. They agreed with the class sizes. That's the difference.

This government — I must say it's sad that they are choosing political gains over education. They are choosing to win another election by sacrificing our students and teachers.

The government talks about how the enrolment was lower in the last four years, so they had to close some schools. We've heard in this House before that there were schools that shouldn't have been closed, because there wasn't any lower enrolment.

That brings me to Surrey, my home city. We have more students now than in 2001, and we have fewer teachers. Where is that argument? That argument does not wash in Surrey. We had 1,700 more students in those four years, but we had 27 fewer teachers.

The enrolment in Surrey, one of the fastest-growing regions of this province, grew from 2001 to 2004 by 3 percent. Guess what happened to the teacher-librarians? They went from 95 to 77, a decrease of 18 percent; special ed teachers, from 460 to 373 — a decrease of 19 percent; ESL teachers, from 184 to 154 — a decrease of 16 percent. That is in Surrey.

I want to talk about Surrey a bit more. When we talk about the composition of classes, we have schools that have more ESL students than other students, and we have seen a decrease in ESL students. Guess what's happening to those parents? They're stressed out because their children are not learning the language that they need to learn in order to stay ahead and stay with the rest of their class.

When that was happening, this is what one of the members from the Liberal side said at that particular time. "It seems like such an obvious discrimination against Surrey, and yet we don't seem able to make that clear at the provincial level. It feels like a betrayal. This will hit pretty much every area of employee group including administration." This was the member for Langley speaking at that time. I just wonder what she has to say today. I wonder what she has to say to those parents and those teachers, when she championed their cause at that particular time. I'd like to see what she has to say to those students, those parents and those teachers in Surrey.

The minister talks about school boards that have praised the government for this $150 million, and I agree with that. Some money coming back is better than no money coming back. This is what the chairman of the Surrey school board had to say. It's in today's paper, in The Now. "Surrey school board chairman Shawn Wilson said he's pleased stability will return to the classroom but was dismayed by the way the teachers are being treated by this government." This is today.

Then he went on to say that the conflict has exposed the current negotiation system as flawed. He said the government will have to deal with teachers directly instead of distancing itself through its bargaining agent, the B.C. Public School Employers Association.

"It's obviously not working, and it's not fair to anybody," he said. "I'm very sympathetic to the plight of teachers. They played by the rules, and now they are being legislated back to work again." This is what the chair of the Surrey school board said today.

Here's what some of the teachers have to say about what this government is up to, how it is affecting their teaching abilities and how it is affecting the children's ability to learn. "I'm unhappy with overwhelming class sizes. It is frustrating, and the numbers change my job from an educator to an enforcer. I think this is a wonderful profession, but it's frustrating when I don't feel respected by the government policy." This is a teacher from Surrey. This is how this teacher feels.

Here's another one. "My class composition and workload is overwhelming. I have two special needs students without enough support, one severe behaviour student and six students with severe learning disabilities, including two who cannot read or write. I cannot meet everyone's needs." This must be very, very frustrating as it comes out of these teachers — very frustrating — and parents don't appreciate this. Instead of fixing the problem, they're bringing hammers.

In closing, I must say that we must…. I urge the members on the Liberal side, on the government side, to rethink their position. Don't make it political. Think about the education, think about our children, think about our teachers, and think about our parents.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak today to the House on Bill 12. I join with my colleagues in speaking in opposition to this piece of legislation.

What I'd like to do at the outset is talk a little bit about what it is about education that's important to me and what actually played a significant role in my activism over the last number of years to get me to this place. My daughter Shayla is 14 years old, and she's in grade nine in high school. When she went into elementary school at Hastings School in the constituency I represent, I got involved in the parent advisory council there very early on in her education and stayed active in that council for all of the time that she was there. So I come at this not as an educator, but I certainly come at this as a parent, and I look at this from the perspective of a parent.

I was actively engaged in that PAC in a whole range of areas, whether it involved questions of raising funds or determining relations with teachers and administration. I saw all of the parent involvement and, I guess, over the years there hundreds and hundreds of parents who were active and engaged in that school,

It's a school that was extremely complex. It was a school that brought a whole lot of different factors into play. But what made it work was the partnership, and it was a partnership of hundreds of dedicated parents. It was a partnership of dedicated teachers who came every day to do the best for our kids, of innovative administrators who figured out how to best make work all of the potential services available, of a school board that for many of those years wanted to do the right thing.

Hastings School is an interesting school because it's big. It has about 650-plus kids. It's an eastside school. It's an inner-city school. It's a community school, so it supports community school support and funding. It also is a French immersion school. About two-thirds of the kids were in the regular classes, and about one-third were French immersion kids.

The dynamic of that school was interesting, because we have a very large…. My constituency in Vancouver-Hastings, in terms of income rates, would probably be the second-poorest constituency in British Columbia, after the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's, I would suspect. We had an awful lot of poor kids in our school, and then we had kids that came from middle-class families, like my daughter. We have a very large first nations population, aboriginal population — a lot of first nations kids. About 40 percent of the population in the school is Chinese, Asian-speaking. So it was a mixed bag.

That school worked incredibly well. The reason that it worked so well is because it had the luxury of, on one side, the complexities of being so large and multifaceted. On the other side, it had the luxury at the time my daughter was there of having a whole series of services. They included teachers, teacher-librarians, resource teachers, youth and family workers, community school coordinators and staff, and innovative leadership in the administration with the principal. Together, though it was a fragile balance, that balance worked extremely well to bring all of those kids together, to make everybody welcome, to be incredibly inclusive, even though there was real diversity among who these kids were and their backgrounds.

To give you some idea, though…. That struggle happened every year to keep those pieces together. Every year in that school I know we would come together as parents when inner-city funding was in jeopardy, because your government jeopardized inner-city funding. Every year, along with parents from other schools throughout the city, we would fight the fight and lobby and work with other people in the community to convince your government to restore that funding. Because of the effectiveness of parents working with teachers and with other community interests, pretty much every year we succeeded in bringing that back.

But it wasn't right that every year parents had to fight that fight. It wasn't right that every year parents had to wonder whether those essential inner-city services would be there. It wasn't right that every year we had to wonder whether the lunch programs would actually get money. But every year — every single year since 2001 — that was a fight, because inner-city funding simply isn't a priority for your government. Those programs for those kids simply weren't a priority. You got dragged, kicking and screaming every year, into funding that — embarrassed into funding it.

We had situations with the community school: $75,000 to keep a community school open. We did the analysis. The amount of money that we brought in for the community school was about 8 to 1 with funding from businesses in the community and from other interests. The community school coordinators would go out and draw all kinds of resources into that school to create programs for kids, to support after-school programs — to support a whole array of programs. But every year it was a struggle to get your government to commit $75,000 to that school that would bring another half a million dollars of support there.

You didn't get it. So we struggled every year. And every year to the credit of parents, teachers and the broader community, we got the $75,000. Was it right to put the parents through that? No, it wasn't right, but you didn't see it. You didn't get it.

We look at what's going on in that school today. Well, today, because of changes in how you chose to fund inner-city schools and community schools, the Vancouver school board has had to restructure. It has meant that schools like Hastings have lost a lot of those services. Other schools have benefited, but schools — some of the most needy inner-city schools — have lost those services, and they struggle today.

The reality is that that school isn't quite as good a school as it was when my daughter went there a couple of years ago. It's not quite as good a school, because it doesn't have the same well-rounded set of services. It doesn't have a community school coordinator there who dedicates themselves to that school; they now have six schools to work with. It doesn't have the same level of counsellors. There's one less family and youth worker there. It doesn't have a vice-principal dedicated to doing the work with the parents that used to be there. That just doesn't happen anymore. It's because the funding was eroded.

Consequently, the relationships are a little more strained. It's a little more difficult in that school to make things happen. It's a little tougher.

The reality, though, is that the Vancouver school board has, I believe, made its best efforts over the last couple of years. They have done the best they can do with what they have. They have looked at the ways to integrate. They've looked at the ways to maximize resources, and they've accomplished a fair amount — sometimes at the expense of some of the schools that are in my constituency.

The problem with this is that those schools got put in that situation because of actions of the government. Other schools in my constituency face even more difficult challenges.

Macdonald school, maybe second only to Grandview school in the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's constituency, has the largest first nations population in the city. It may be the poorest school financially in the city of Vancouver. It's a school that's in difficult straits. It's a school that is close to what's called the kiddie stroll in our community, which is where a lot of under-aged prostitution goes on — and we know that there are people soliciting at that school.

They don't have enough resources to be able to meet all the needs of that school to ensure that these kids are protected. All of this was eroded because of the conduct of your government.

The challenges we face come largely from 2001. We know that the government performance left B.C. with the lowest per-student funding in real dollars in 15 years. In 2003-2004, in real dollars, you supplied the least money in a decade and a half…

Madam Speaker, the result of the past three years, as we know, has been 115 closed schools and 2,558 fewer teaching positions than we had before this government got elected. That's the Liberal record. In political desperation, though, this government — which only does things when it's politically desperate and doesn't know the meaning of social conscience and social responsibility — puts $150 million on the table in '05-06 and says: "Aren't we a remarkable bunch?" It had to put money on the table. It had to get through an election.

What does that really mean? Well, the first thing, I believe, that putting that $150 million on the table was…. It was the clearest admission you could have by the government that they had failed students in this province since 2001. It was the clearest admission that they knew they had cut too deep. It was the clearest admission that they were failing our kids and failing our parents. And in desperation to try and put the thing back on the rails, they threw $150 million at it.

Why did they do that? Well, 113 schools closed and 2,558 teaching positions lost. That's your legacy. That's what you can be proud of. This government can be proud of closing more schools than any government in the history of this province. This government can be proud of laying off more teachers than any government in the history of this province. This government can wrap itself in the flag of having the poorest education policy and program of any government in the history of this province.

In real dollars, the $150 million that this government put on the table didn't even restore the damage done after 2001-2002. To have gotten back to 2001-2002 levels in real dollars, they'd have had to put another 58 million bucks on the table. That's based on a 1991 baseline. In real dollars, in 2001-2002, it was about $7,093 per student — in real dollars. In '05-06, it's about $6,992 in real dollars. How could this be? The rhetoric on the $150 million ignores the increased costs of delivering education.

And those costs aren't based on what we say. Those costs are based on Stats Canada's education price index. When they value the price of the cost of education, and when you factor in their index for the cost of education, all of a sudden the $150 million doesn't even bring us back to '01-02 levels. You know what the shameful thing is here, and maybe it's because we're not likely to have an election next year or the year after. This government, when you look at its funding for the next two years, will put every district in this province back in a deficit position, because it's not worried about having to face the voters.

So what do we face today because of this government's actions? Well, we have a government that has shown a total disrespect for our public educators. We have a government who orchestrated a bargaining scenario that said: "No money for wages, no discussion of learning conditions, and no room to improve working conditions." Then the government wondered why the bargaining regime didn't work, after they told their agent that they, in fact, couldn't bargain anything meaningful.

Well, teachers are angry, they're frustrated, and they're disillusioned. It's for good reason. They have been abandoned, and they have been abused by a government that's supposed to support them but has provided no evidence that they will provide that support.

So what are teachers saying? What are teachers saying in Vancouver? Well, we talked to some teachers just to see what they had to say about the situation they're in, and I'd like to offer a couple of those comments into the record.

What are parents saying? What we've heard from the government is that this is all about parents and kids. Well, I got a letter sent to me from the parent advisory council at Van Tech high school in my constituency. It's a letter that was addressed to the minister and sent on October 5. It's sent from the chair of the parent advisory council, who said:

There's an organization in Vancouver that's becoming quite prominent these days. It's an organization called the B.C. Society for Public Education. It's primarily an organization of parents and some educators, but primarily parents. It looks at the needs of kids, and it looks at the needs of our schools. It provided a list of what every public school in Vancouver needs, they believe, to satisfy needs. It says:

That's not a wish list. That should be a bottom line, but because of the situation that this government has put our schools in and put our school districts in, it will be a challenge for schools to meet this list — not a wish list but a basic list of fundamentals.

There are basics that we need to understand. I think that when we look at some of the issues that are facing our schools now, we need to make determinations about how to address them. When I look at Vancouver schools, I look at our high schools. We have about 23,700 students in our high schools in Vancouver and about 31 percent of those kids are ESL students, first nations students and special ed students. But what we don't have are adequate resources to ensure that those kids, in fact, have their needs met.

I heard one of the members on the other side make a comment about reduced student populations. Well, when we look in Vancouver at that, what we see is staffing statistics that have been gathered for the last couple of years, '03-04 and '04-05…. In contrast to student enrolment figures that declined by about a half of 1 percent in that period, staff numbers declined by over 2 percent. So, for the half a percent of lost students, we had four times the loss percentage-wise in terms of staff.

When we look at our staff levels in Vancouver schools — the total staff decline — office support numbers are down, admin numbers are down, district-allocated teachers are down, resources are down. You know what? I'll take an example of that. Again, at the school that my daughter goes to, there was a reduction last year in student enrolment. That school has about 1,750 kids, and there were 17 less kids in that school last year than the year before. It has a faculty of about 101 full-time teachers. Well, the faculty was down to 96, so we lost 17 kids and we lost five teachers. That's how the numbers work.

When we talk about resources, we need to talk about the resources that affect some of the kids that are most troubled and some of the resources that are most critical. One of the areas that's very essential in Vancouver is counsellors and teacher-librarians. When we look at the '03-04 and '04-05 numbers, what we see in Vancouver is a 2.6-percent reduction in the number of counsellors and a 4½-percent reduction in the number of teacher-librarians. That was less than half-a-percent reduction in students. Those are the numbers we're dealing with, and those are real numbers. They're very troubling when you look at schools where you may have one teacher-librarian, and all of a sudden you have a half a teacher-librarian. That's the situation that we're facing.

You know, this side talks about what it does around class size. Well, the B.C. School Act currently requires school districts to maintain an average class size of 30 students for intermediate and secondary grades. What does that mean in relation to other provinces around our country? They vary. In Ontario the

Alberta is moving towards a maximum. The Alberta maximum will be 25 students for grades seven to nine and 27 students for grades ten to 12. What do we have? We have 30 students. We shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back too heartily for that.

When we talk about funding and where the money comes from, this side likes to talk about the $150 million that they put in. Well, if we look at resources in our schools…. Let's look at our libraries. Libraries are allotted funds for the purchase of resources according to a funding formula that's set out by the board. They provide a combination of a flat grant and per-student grants, based largely on money they get from the government. What we've seen now is that they've been forced to reduce those allocations from about $6,200 to about $5,000 in total, with a per-pupil grant of about $8.30 — down, reduced again from what it was before.

Everywhere we look we're seeing reductions. We see reductions in teacher-librarian ratios in our province as compared to Ontario, where they set standards for teacher-librarians. We don't set those standards here.

When we look at these things, we really need to think about what we're looking to accomplish. I want to reflect back a little bit more on the schools in my constituency and on the challenge that kids face there. We have a lot of poor kids in those schools. The school plays an integral role in the lives of a lot of those kids. Their families are having difficult times. They're poor. They have other issues. They're struggling. The school provides the one place in many of those kids' lives where they have stability, where they have continuity and where they have positive role modelling available to them.

We have to see our schools as more than just a place where kids go to get an education. We have to see our schools as an integral part of our communities. We have to see our schools as playing a role within our community that's much broader than it was envisioned to have done maybe ten or 20 years ago. We can't do that unless we respect and support our teachers, because they are the glue that makes the schools work.

We can't do that if we're disrespecting our teachers. We can't do that if we're looking towards a future where we're going to have continued conflict, and we're going to have that conflict because this government hasn't figured out a way to work with teachers to solve the problems that they face and the problems that we face together.

I would hope that this government, which has, I believe, at times been somewhat preoccupied with its ideology around these things — with a notion that government and all the things around it are bad and that the private sector is good, including in the area of education — might find its way to get past that. It might find a way to begin to talk to teachers and to parents in a collaborative way where we begin to find solutions.

Unfortunately, that's not the track record in this House. We need to try to change that. We have a great challenge in this House, and we need to meet it with creativity and commitment to children and the educators that play such an important role for them.

I guess the last comment I would like to make, really, is a quote from John Ralston Saul. In the fall of 2002 he said at a conference — I believe he was here in Vancouver: "Public education is the primary foundation in a civilized democracy. Any weakening of universal public education can only be seen as a weakening of democracy."

Madam Speaker, the conduct of the government this week with Bill 12 clearly leads to a weakening of that democracy. I would urge the government to have second thoughts about this. I would urge the government to do some of that sober second thought we often talk about and to in fact reverse their position.

I don't expect that to happen, and I expect that they will force this legislation, Bill 12, through. I expect that we will have a very difficult time in front of us for a long time to come because of the conduct and actions of this government. I think it's unfortunate for British Columbia, it's unfortunate for teachers and kids and parents, and it's unfortunate that the government hasn't got the vision and hasn't got the sense to understand there is a better way to do this.

S. Fraser: I am from Alberni-Qualicum. It is a beautiful constituency. It spans Long Beach to Qualicum Beach. There are two school districts within that area. I am proud to represent that district — the school districts and the constituency.

I quote from a recent B.C. government caucus update, the Capital Report newsletter. This is the Liberal's government propaganda. It says: "New booklets to help families improve student literacy. The province will give parents of kindergarten and grade one students a set of booklets to help improve their children's literacy skills."

Our teachers and students don't have enough books. The ministry's solution is a booklet — a booklet on literacy for the benefit of the press to grandstand about literacy. But books to help our students, whom the minister claims are so important to her ministry, books to make our students the most literate in this golden decade….

I stand here in opposition to this most divisive and inflammatory piece of legislation. Probably the most deplorable aspect of this government has been in how it works to divide and vilify groups like teachers within our province. It is a disturbing pattern that began with the previous election. This government im-

posed an incredibly divisive and inflammatory referendum on minority rights in an attempt to make enemies of friends and neighbours; spent billions of our tax dollars rewarding political friends and supporters with corporate tax breaks; turned a record surplus, according to the Auditor General, into a record deficit; and proceeded to pay for those self-serving and somewhat questionable actions with cuts, broken promises and torn-up contracts.

For public education and for collective bargaining rights, this government was ruthless. Public education was in the sights of the Liberal government — gutted contracts removing the ability of our educators to have a meaningful say on our class conditions, class size or class makeup. Our teachers are the people that know. They are the professionals charged with educating our children, our future. Many of us are parents. I am. Our children are our future.

Some 2,500 teachers cut. And the excuse by this government? A drop in enrolment. The numbers didn't add up — a spurious argument at best — 112 schools closed and a legacy of downloading millions of dollars of costs on local school boards.

I received a letter from a secondary school teacher in Port Alberni today, a professional with almost 30 years of experience. As she explained, basically the whole system has been eroded. Class sizes are too large and have a composition that is not being supported. Weak students don't have adequate attention or help. She terms it "survival of the fittest" for our children. As well, there are required support systems failing, infrastructure systems failing, failing cleanliness, failing janitorial standards, failing computer systems, lack of integration support personnel, lack of testing, lack of current texts, cutbacks in libraries. Her frustration is palpable.

With this last provincial election there was talk of a new way of doing things, a friendlier, more kind-hearted government bridging differences and historic animosity. But these were only words. The mean-spirited attacks on our public education system continue.

During the election this government began by attempting to vilify teachers, setting the stage for a failed process, leading to the bill that we are here this week debating. Looking back, the parallels from the previous election should have tipped us off. The new budget — again, massive tax breaks to corporate friends and supporters and, again, how to pay for them — is exactly the same as the last time, the same narrow priorities as the last time. It is déjà vu all over again.

The rationale for Bill 12 is an impasse in negotiations. An impasse? No kidding, an impasse. This government ordained that negotiations should not include things like wages, class sizes or working conditions. Negotiations won't include those. Then we hear ministers acting surprised. Gee, we can't get an agreement. Can you picture a negotiation like that? What would it be like when you can't negotiate? What do you do in a room like that? How about those Canucks? What do you do in a room like that?

The teachers participated in 35 sessions. Despite this, it led to this impasse. Well, it is a credit to the BCTF negotiators to return 34 times. What a credit to the teachers. What an affirmation of their willingness to negotiate and make a better public education system for this province, for our children, for our future.

When this government laid down criteria that wouldn't allow negotiations to proceed, then we got a fact-finding report that says there is an impasse. B.C. parents expected and expect the government, whichever government, to work with teachers — not against them — to improve education for our children. This government has let parents and their children down, and they try to blame the teachers. This government fails to recognize the value of our educators. It fails to recognize what true investment is. This government claims to represent business, and it fails to recognize what an investment is. It fails to recognize the value of a strong public school system with strong and meaningful input from the professionals, our teachers.

The most educated and literate society and jurisdiction? It's part of the five goals, but this government cut special education teachers by 17½ percent, teacher-librarians by 23.4 percent and English-as-a-second-language teachers by 20 percent.

The most educated and literate jurisdiction or society? Words, just words. More words for this government. Words like "negotiating in good faith," or "we will not tear up contracts" or "we won't sell B.C. Rail." Words, Madam Speaker.

Education is an investment, the most important investment a government can make. It is an investment in our children, an investment in our future — maybe more important than Liberal corporate tax breaks. These negotiations were set up to fail, not to create the most educated and literate society. A complete lack of respect and recognition of the value of our teachers.

The government didn't need a confrontational approach. The legislation increases the level of confrontation and does nothing to improve learning in our classrooms. The fact-finder provided an opportunity for, I think, substantial progress. The BCTF has shown a willingness and a desire to meet with government to break the impasse. But that did not fit in with this government's plan to skirt collective bargaining and impose Bill 12.

The timing of the priceless full-page Liberal propaganda ad tells the real story here. The Liberal plan was to break the teachers and impose a settlement at the expense of and risk to a quality education for our children. The reasons boggle me. Maybe if the public system was brought to its knees, private education would be given a boost — reminiscent of a similar argument around public health care. Maybe make it broken so that the privatization argument works — maybe. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Your fact-finder, the government's fact-finder, Mr. Connolly…. He said in his report that working and learning conditions are crucial in this round and strongly suggested there is no route under the Liberal-designed structure for teachers to take in talking about them. Your own fact-finder indicates where fault lies here. Mr. Connolly goes on to say….

Teachers are seeking an opportunity to articulate their thoughts and knowledge on the learning conditions. Government has elevated the issue to the status of legislation. I dare say this government engineered this current situation. The fact-finder says: "It is my opinion that government should engage with teachers and education stakeholders in an effective and meaningful dialogue regarding this critical issue that is entirely separate from the collective bargaining process." The issue being class conditions, class size.

Well, that didn't happen. But it says so by the fact-finder. So far we haven't created the most literate society, or it hasn't been read by this government.

I have a letter today from the board of school trustees from a district within my constituency.

What discussions with government have occurred? BCTF began calling for a meeting with government last spring in order that there be a mutually acceptable process put in place that would lead to a negotiated settlement at the table. After the election the Premier said that he would meet with teachers. His staff even contacted the BCTF to set up a mutually agreeable time.

In July he wrote to decline such a meeting. The federation wrote again. The Premier declined again, indicating that there was a meeting set up between BCTF reps and the Minister of Education. However, the Premier made it clear that the meeting was not to talk about bargaining.

BCTF reps attended the meeting with the minister, at which the federation reps expressed the need to address bargaining issues. The minister said that the discussion of the bargaining was not part of the meeting.

In September the Minister of Labour put in place a process through which the deputy minister would meet with the BCTF and BCPSEA in order to see if a settlement was possible, with report back by September 30, as we all know. Representatives of the BCTF made it very clear that a solution was possible and that teachers were willing to work day and night to problem-solve.

At the meeting on Tuesday, September 27 the deputy minister indicated that he had all the information he needed. It was clear that the original mandate given by the government to BCPSEA still stood: no salary increase, any improvement in benefits to come at the expense of existing benefits, and no negotiation of learning conditions.

The federation continues to call on government to problem-solve with teachers, not to legislate more problems. Don't do this. Don't legislate more problems.

Why are teachers so intent on having learning condition clauses in the collective agreement? Teachers worked for decades to gain the right to bargain learning conditions in our schools. All of our experience shows us that only when we have firm clause language in contract, with the ability to grieve violations of the language, do we have the conditions actually in place for students. When the contractual guarantees are not there, the funding and the conditions aren't either.

Since teachers' contracts were stripped in 2002, learning and working conditions have been seriously undermined. As a result, there are now larger class sizes, less support for students with special needs, fewer specialist teachers such as counsellors, teacher-librarians, ESL teachers and special education teachers. When these clauses are in the collective agreement,

instead of school board or government policy, they are firm, and they are enforceable — not subject to unilateral and arbitrary change. They are guarantees that students, teachers and parents can count on at every school and in every district.

What happened with this latest round of bargaining? During the last round of bargaining, BCPSEA tabled a number of demands for concessions. Teachers were on a limited job action, similar to a work-to-rule, when the government passed legislation that imposed a contract, stripped the learning condition clauses from the collective agreement and eliminated a number of local agreements in amalgamated districts.

Over many rounds of bargaining, local and provincial, teachers sacrificed salary and benefits for themselves in order to gain improvements in learning and working conditions for the students. Generations of students were able to benefit from the smaller class sizes and the services and support that teachers negotiated.

The International Labour Organization of the United Nations condemned this B.C. government for passing this draconian legislation and provided advice for future rounds of bargaining as follows: "The committee firmly requests the government to avoid, in future, having recourse to such legislative settlement and strongly hopes that the next round of negotiations will be held in accordance with the freedom-of-association principles mentioned above."

I guess nobody read this. Again, we haven't got one of those five goals yet — one of the most literate societies in this country.

My daughter is attending Kwalikum Secondary School in grade ten. Previous to that she went to Ucluelet Secondary. We lived in Tofino for 12 years, and she went from kindergarten through grade seven in the public school system — Wickaninnish elementary school. I've been to so many schools in our constituency. As many of you may have noticed, whether it's high schools — ADSS in Port Alberni — or the middle schools, you have the best all-candidates meetings.

The kids are getting great service from their teachers despite the horrible conditions they've been forced to work under over the last four years, and the cuts and the challenges that has created.

I'll give an example from Wickaninnish School, because I know its representative across…. It's an interesting school. Half of the elementary school is first nations, and half, non. It's a great mix of cultures and ideas. It creates challenges, and the teachers rise to those challenges and bring the best out of the children. They learn to work together, to grow from each other's differences, to listen to each other and to learn from each other. I wonder what they think when they see what happens here, when they see a government that imposes something on the educators that are teaching them to work together, to listen, to cooperate.

Now, I was taught when I grew up…. Parents — Mom — always said, "Do as I say, not as I do," or something like that. Actions are what children see. When I was in grade ten, there was a high school strike, and there was the threat of losing our school year. You learn education in school and out, and I learned from my teachers that stood up for their rights. I'm a better person today because they did stand up for their rights. They gave me a better education, for standing up for their rights. Don't punish our teachers. It is what you're doing.

Those ads — the ink wasn't even dry. This was prepared ahead of time. This is not part of any new relationship with anyone that this government talks about in many contexts; this is the same old confrontation. And putting politics aside, it doesn't help our children; it hurts them.

Our school system is a precious thing, and most jurisdictions in the world consider it enviable and learn from it. It's not the edifice. It's not the building. It is the people. It is the teachers. When a government does not learn or seek knowledge or advice from those who are the professionals, whether they be teachers or nurses or doctors or their own staff, it is foolish. It is a resource that must be accessed to get the best — the best for the people of this province, the best bang for the buck for the taxpayer. It is what government should do. It is the right thing.

We should be well beyond confrontation by now. The fact-finder commissioned by this government has indicated that the teachers were willing to meet and discuss critical issues around the education of our children, and that did not happen. There was some indication today in the paper, if I read it correctly, that there is a chance that it might. If that chance is real, I beseech the hon. members opposite to urge the minister to do that — to meet, to negotiate in good faith on behalf of our precious public education system.

C. Wyse: I'm looking forward to your guidance, Madam Speaker, to assist me in treating this House with the same respect that we hope is extended to everybody throughout the province of B.C. and, particularly, here in the House tonight. Do please help me out as I move through my speech tonight to the House.

I am a retired classroom teacher, having taught for 35 years. I began teaching in 1969 and have taught over 7,000 students spread throughout five different decades. In my first year of teaching, 1969, I taught seven classes with over 40 students in each class. Surely, none in this House would describe this as an ideal learning condition for our students. My career experience was that if the teachers did not demand learning and working conditions for their students, no government ever offered to improve the classroom situation for the child — bottom line, end of story, no exceptions.

Here we are 36 years later. During my last four years of teaching I taught in an alternate program. This program supported students that are academically capable but, for a variety of reasons, have not been successful in at least two different schools for at least two years. It was an experience that required me to

work with many different agencies in the community to support the child, to increase the child remaining in and being successful in the school.

Teaching was a job that brought me great personal satisfaction, but that is not why I share this information with you. I share this information so that you may understand that I represent the beginning of an increasing number of the teaching profession who will retire shortly. This fact apparently has been overlooked by this bill that we are debating today. Your government has the responsibility to attract teachers to work here in the province. Demographics show a teacher shortage is looming throughout North America.

With that introduction, Madam Speaker, let's discuss how your government missed a great opportunity to build bridges with an employee group. Teachers requested an opportunity to discuss working and learning conditions, but apparently, your government forgot that teachers as a workforce have become much more mobile…

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, member. Address your comments through the Chair, please.

…as baby boomers retire. By refusing to discuss the topic of learning and working conditions, your government has missed an opportunity to show that its confrontational approach to problem-solving has indeed changed, as promised earlier in the session. It appears your government continues its style of pick a fight, might is right.

Factually, there are provinces that pay teachers more than B.C. pays. A strategy of confrontation, paying less and ignoring the learning condition students face here in B.C. encourages a trained workforce to look elsewhere for employment, in my opinion. These conditions make B.C. less attractive to get trained people to relocate here and teach our children.

B.C. parents expect government to work with teachers, not against them, to improve education for their children.

Later, Madam Speaker, I will give you examples of what parents are describing, what they find in the existing education system today from my part of British Columbia. Please remember the year 1969 and class sizes of 40-plus students that I referred to earlier. Later, Madam Speaker, I will describe to you how your government is attempting to portray its efforts in education over the last four years, at least as I see it.

At this time I wish to focus on how the government has let parents down and failed their children. Your government did not need to take this confrontational approach. The proposed legislation increases the level of confrontation while doing nothing to improve learning in the classroom. The fact-finder provided an opportunity for substantial progress.

Let me quote from the Victoria Times Colonist dated October 4 of this year, from an article written by Mr. Les Leyne:

Clearly, your government once more has decided to take a confrontational approach to problem-solving. Once more, Madam Speaker, your government has decided that might makes right. Both sides in this dispute acknowledge that establishing a parallel process to discuss learning conditions could have led to progress on other issues at the table without disrupting classrooms. Your government deliberately ignored that opportunity and went straight to a forced settlement. It chose a confrontational approach that hurts education, in my opinion.

Now, Madam Speaker, let's discuss what your government recently did choose to do to improve education here in B.C. They bought costly full-page advertisements in all major daily newspapers, advertisements meant to portray the government in the best possible light, at a cost unknown to the House. The House was told that it was important for the government to talk directly with the public, or at least words to that effect. The costs will be released later in the budget year.

The advertisements state, in part: "The needs of students must come first." The public will not be fooled here. While, indeed, the needs of the students must come first, the facts contained in the advertisements are meant to portray the government decisions in the best possible light.

Now, let me share directly with you, Madam Speaker, the thoughts of a member of the public printed in the Williams Lake Tribune on Tuesday, October 4 of this year. The author is Ms. Agnes Mayer, the PAC chair for Big Lake Elementary School:

Miss Mayer goes on further, asking parents to step up for our children. Remember, it was 1969 that 40 children were found in class-size numbers, and as earlier, I'd asked the House to pay attention to these two facts. This is now the year 2005, and we're beginning to hear those numbers with increasing frequency, as far as the classroom situation occurs.

Let us now examine what the advertisement did not state. It did not describe how your government gave teachers an increase in salary and did not cover that cost. This increased expenditure, with other inflationary costs likewise not covered, contributed to 2,500 teaching positions to be cut, 113 schools to be closed, with special education teachers being reduced by 17.5 percent, teacher-librarians being reduced by 23.4 percent, English as a second language being reduced by 20 percent.

Now, as an alternate classroom teacher, I personally experienced the accessibility to support ministries shrink for the children in my charge. For example, I witnessed wait times for a child to receive a mental health review increase from weeks to months, as other government services were reduced during the same period of time.

This government seems to always choose confrontation as its first option. This government has consistently viewed legislation as a political game instead of viewing teachers, parents and students as equal partners in education. The Premier needs to establish this table as soon as possible to ensure that issues important to children and learning are faced head-on.

Now I believe it is important for you to hear directly from three teachers in the Cariboo, as they describe the results that decisions made by your government have had on their classroom and the learning conditions facing their students. First, from a primary teacher:

There are not enough support services for my students. The speech pathologists have only been able to get to our school three times this year. I have students who have been waiting since September to be assessed.

Now I'd like to give you a description from an upper intermediate teacher: "Class size, 32 for two years in a row — with the usual special needs, behaviour problems and so on, killer marking load."

Now, finally, from a high school teacher: "I have more students enrolled in grade 11 classes than I physically have desks for."

I would like to read that over again, because it had come up once before from a parent.

Besides giving a tax break to the corporations, I respectfully request that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education convince the cabinet to release some of the $2 billion surplus to address the learning conditions of the children of B.C. As I have demonstrated throughout this speech, running advertisements containing only partial information will not change the situation facing the children of B.C. nor the conditions we expect teachers to work in to meet the child's needs.

I request that the government stop its confrontational style with the people of B.C. and actually fix the situation their policies have worsened. If, indeed, students' needs are to come first, their learning conditions must be improved. You have heard that not only are class sizes too large but courses are cancelled, even though 20 students were requesting that course. Classes are scheduled without enough desks for all students to sit at if each student turns up for that class. Further, a parent reports that her children attend a school where, twice a week, there are four grades in a classroom.

For the record, I wish to describe the learning conditions of students that have been reported to me in some more detail. "There are more and more special needs students, as well as learning-disabled students, and fewer and fewer resources and staff to help them. Gifted students lose out as well, as they don't get the attention they deserve. My spelling textbooks are from the 1970s."

That's just about the time I started teaching, as I reported to the House before you came in, Mr. Speaker. You missed out on some of my history, and I would just like to bring you personally up to speed on that particular item.

C. Wyse: An encore. You bet. I'm going to assume that all the hon. members on the other side of the House have been listening very attentively to me right from the beginning, so I'm going to continue to develop my case, because I believe it is a very wise case and is well worth listening to.

C. Wyse: Actually, I'm glad you pointed it out to me, because it had gone over my head. I do appreciate it. Thanks very much.

I wish to remind the House most respectfully once more that these conditions I'm now describing to you in the year 2004-2005 were the conditions that I started off my presentation to the House with tonight, which was 1969. Over the same five decades of my experience in the school…. We have gone back to that same period of time.

Another example. "My three grades for the past four years have changed by the end of September."

It's a theme I have referred to on more than one occasion tonight: once more, a smaller school with a multigrade situation, a common classroom situation in the rural part of the province — for those members across the House that may not have the experience of rural British Columbia directly around them. "We are often left out in receiving full support services, because

they're a distance from the main centre" — an issue that comes up constantly and consistently.

"There's not enough time to cover a ridiculously wide curriculum." It would be nice if the importance of education and good teachers were recognized in this province. A science teacher draws attention to this fact: "My lab was set up for 24. I have up to 29 in junior classes this semester." Once more, the issue is the physical plant being able to match the number of students that are actually being assigned to the room — again, something that directly affects learning conditions for the students.

I remind the House once more that my experience has been that unless the teachers ask for improvement in these particular types of conditions, no one else does. Therefore, they are doing the same professional item that we expect other professions likewise to do when they're dealing with people that provide funds. They bring forward their case in a professional manner, and it is not at all out of place to be requesting the government to provide them with such a venue. The doctors do it. We accept it. The nurses do it. We expect it. Here we have a situation in which, when the teachers do it, it is considered to be confrontational and must be ruled out — quite a situation, in my humble judgment.

Teachers are being held more and more accountable with fewer and fewer resources.

We have mentioned a number of times around this House our commitment to have a situation where we provide the opportunity for each individual to reach their potential. We have recently had announcements attempting to deal with drug addiction, around crystal meth. This issue of drugs, the effect upon youth and the success within schools has been around for quite a long period of time, unfortunately.

I mentioned that I remember the '60s. I've been told that that means I actually didn't experience the '60s, if I have remembered them. The point I'm making is that these resources must be provided across all ministries, not just Education, in order to increase the success possibilities for our students. As the advertisement says, the students are to be held first.

The cuts to the learning resource program positions are terrible. There are too many students with special needs, not enough special ed support time and not enough resources. The funding formula is 2 percent of the population that exists within a district. That is an average, and if you will move from school district to school district, of course, this average is affected quite profoundly. The resources remain the same. With the vastness of geography, in order to meet those sets of conditions, it is exacerbated — a problem that needs to be addressed. It falls within this very broad category.

The government, in my estimation, has the responsibility for looking after all of the students here, not just selected ones. There is not enough help for ADD….

C. Wyse: I thought I would never get there, Mr. Speaker, and I still had more to go. Thank you for your patience.

B. Simpson: I recognize it's been a long day, and I recognize it's been a lot of information for the members on the other side of the House to take in. Hopefully, some of it does sink in.

I want to take a slightly different tack to close off this evening. I want to take a look at the government's position on this, and I want to look at what the government's intent is, relative to the golden decade and their five goals that we've heard ad nauseam since this House has resumed.

The critical thing for me is something that the Minister of Labour said when he tabled this bill — Bill 12. The minister said the following, from Hansard: "What is that principle? What is that overriding principle that I hope all members know guides the government in its deliberations?" And he said it's this: "It is first and foremost and primarily this: students deserve to be in the classroom." That was the principle.

Well, now that I have the hon. members' attention on the opposite side of the House — it seems like they're more awake — I would like to explore that statement. It's interesting to me, because one of the things I've noticed since I've been here…. My background is in organizational effectiveness and change management. That's what I've done for the last 14 years. One of the interesting things about that is that people need to hear things in their own language. They need to hear things in their own context in order to actually hear what it is you're saying, because if you're saying things that do not go with a person's ideology, it automatically stops the brain from comprehending that.

I want to speak in terms that, hopefully, the government members can hear and understand. According to the Minister of Labour, the principle is…. Do I say it again for fear of getting distracted one more time? The principle is quite clear for him.

I guess my comment is that the principle ought to be that it is a quality education. It's not so much that the children are in the classroom; it's what they are experiencing when they are in the classroom, what

constitutes a quality education. The critical component of that is: what role do teachers play in ensuring that the educational experience is quality?

Prior to exploring that, I want to make sure that we're clear in the House today that education is not simply formal education. It's not simply what happens in the classroom. As other members on this side of the House have said today, the educational experience goes beyond the confines of the classroom. What we do as politicians, what we say, how we position teachers in our society, how we look at the school system and what we do with it is just as educative as what happens in a classroom. Therefore, we have to be very careful about that. If we undermine the very system that we're trying to support, if we undermine the goals of that system by our actions, that isn't beneficial to this society, and it's not appropriate behaviour for us.

What is a quality education? Well, first of all, I think it's important that we recognize what the purpose of education is. The purpose of education ought to be to continue to sustain a progressive, democratic society. That's what it ought to be. If we think about that, then we have to recognize the fundamental role that teachers play in continuing a progressive, democratic society. That is a sacred trust that we give to teachers. They are the people that we depend on to continue to allow our society to progress, to continue to allow our society to be democratic. So we have to look at the role that teachers play.

What I would like to reference is something that this government takes great pride in, and that is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That's the group that we benchmark our schools against. What the government fails to look at are the other things that this organization says about a quality education. In a report that the OECD has put forward called Teachers Matter — and let me repeat that: teachers matter — they talk about the fundamental role that teachers play in our school system. In one of their summary statements, they state: "The broad consensus is that teacher quality is the single most important school variable influencing student achievement."

If we have a government, if we have a group of politicians who are undermining the role of teachers in our school system, who are negating all of their requests of how we can improve the school system, then how can we have our school system positioned in society in a way that it continues to play the role it does and offer a quality educational experience?

The report goes on to say: "As teachers are in daily contact with the students, who potentially form the next generation of teachers, the enthusiasm and morale of the current teacher workforce are important influences on future teacher supply." Again, I challenge the hon. members on the opposite side of the House to think about that.

As the member for Cariboo South pointed out, we are facing a potential teacher shortage coming up. We're going to be in competition in western civilization, Western Europe and North America, for teachers — for people who are qualified to get into the classroom.

As the report points out, if in our society here in British Columbia we are not diligent about honouring, respecting and valuing teachers, we will be driving them away. If we do not value their input into classroom conditions and into what they need in remuneration, we will drive them away. We will not be, to use the government members' words, in a competitive position.

The report goes on to state that there are some significant policy considerations. There are policy implications of their findings. This was a study of Western Europe and North America. Two areas that I'd like to highlight today…. Again, this is the group this government looks to, to evaluate our school system and as a benchmark and, therefore, I think, ought to be listened to by this government. It's their language, it's their group, and it's appealing to them.

This group says there are policy implications. Those policy implications in one area, making teaching an attractive career choice…. It says that first, in order to make teaching an attractive career choice, we must improve teaching's salary competitiveness. That's the OECD saying that. That's not the opposition members saying that. That's not the BCTF saying that. That's the group that this government benchmarks our schools against, and they say improving teachers' salary competitiveness is what we need in order to attract people into the teaching profession. They ought to listen to that.

The second thing they say to improve the competitiveness of drawing teachers into the system is that we must improve employment conditions. We call that, in this debate, working conditions — the very thing that this government will not engage teachers in. I'll speak to that shortly. So two things there from an independent source that this government looks to are saying exactly what the BCTF is saying and, therefore, ought to be listened to.

Another area for policy implications, according to the OECD, is retaining effective teachers in schools. Employee retention is a fundamental component of organizational effectiveness. You can get people in the door, but if you can't keep them, then eventually you get into a spin cycle, as I call it, of bringing people in and getting them trained up, they realize that they don't like their working conditions or their remuneration, and they go out the door. You never get the opportunity to really hit a high, effective state in an organization.

Under the area of retaining effective teachers in schools, the OECD says they must improve the school climate, and they must improve working conditions. Again, not the BCTF, not the NDP — the OECD is saying this. Yet this government refuses to listen to something that they benchmark the school system against. I don't understand that. Again, as I said in a previous debate, there must be ideology at work here and not common sense and not based on fact.

I'd like to, then, talk about how organizations change. As I indicated before, I've spent a lot of time on this — on large corporations and small businesses, community groups, and helping organizations become more effective. There are a number of people who are very effective at going out around the world and doing this kind of work. One of those is a woman by the name of Margaret Wheatley. Margaret Wheatley has an interesting approach, because what she merges is science…. She looks at the science of living systems and believes that, as human beings, we need to understand that our organizations are living systems as well. She indicates a couple of things that I think this government needs to take a look at.

The first is that in order for an organization to change and, in this case, in order for an organization to achieve the competitiveness that this government's looking for and the quality this government's looking for, it has to have a collective activity to discover what the goals are. A collective activity — that means a coming together of all parties. She goes on and states that more clearly. She says that everybody must be involved. "During the past several years, I've often learned the hard way that participation is not an option. As organizational change facilitators and leaders, we have no choice but to figure out how to invite everybody who is going to be affected by change to the table. Those that we fail to invite into the creation process will surely and always show up as resistors." Everybody needs to be invited to the table.

In turning to the fact-finding report, that is exactly what Mr. Connolly suggests. One of the things I found fascinating with the minister's comments and the hon. members on the other side of the House is that they keyed in on one phrase in the Connolly report — the phrase at the end that says that they could not…. Let me turn to it so that I'm accurate: "This position is therefore irreconcilable with the government's fiscal mandate," and there doesn't look like there's going to be room for agreement on compensation. What they don't key in on is what Mr. Connolly said about working conditions.

"Effective public policy requires involvement of all those affected." That's in the fact-finding report. It's exactly what the OECD says, it's exactly what Margaret Wheatley says, and it's exactly what this government is refusing to do. They are refusing to engage all parties in discussions about working conditions. Therefore, the principle of a quality education cannot be met because of this government's intransigence in this very matter.

What the teachers have asked for is something parallel to the bargaining process, but Mr. Connolly is saying that nonetheless, it is an important aspect of the dialogue. We will not have effective educational change, and we will not have an effective bargaining process until teachers can engage in debate and dialogue on work conditions.

The other interesting thing that I hear from this government is that class size doesn't matter. They've had ample evidence today from teachers, as they've been read into the record, that class size does matter. There's an interesting component to all of the studies done on class size. What they did was simply look at a class size difference of four or five — so going from 35 to 30 or going from 30 to 25. Now, that does make some changes. We could argue about that, but a lot of studies indicate that it doesn't make a substantive change relative to the cost factor.

There is a study that was done by a group called Century 21 Learning based out of Britain, the most substantive study done on class size difference. What that study showed is that you do not get a substantive difference in quality until you drive the class sizes down — below grade four — into the teens and the smaller teens. That's where you get the difference. So class size does matter. What that study begs is a discussion about what the new science indicates and what new studies indicate about working conditions, which this government will not engage teachers in, although teachers have been asking for that for some time.

The other thing I would like to put into the record is that the teachers are not out of sync with the stated goal and objective of this government. That's troublesome. Teachers really want the same thing. If you ask teachers: do you want to achieve goal one of these five goals for the golden decade? I don't think many of them would say no. In fact, I would argue that most of them would say yes wholeheartedly. The difference is: how do you get there?

I, too, would like to read into the record some stories from teachers, this time from the Minister of Education's riding. The Minister of Education seems to me to be discounting these stories, so these are her own constituents, who are in her riding. This is what they're saying.

Another story is from Prince George: "I am tired, and I want to do a good job, but I just can't keep it up. If the Minister of Education thinks that losing one day will hurt the students, she has no idea what learned helplessness does to those who have given up because classes are too big."

I want to key in on those words "learned helplessness." In organizations that are not effective, in organizations that cannot meet their stated objectives, when you look at the employees, they have learned helplessness. They have disengaged. I would suggest that this government's actions on this bill, this government's actions in the previous four years they were in power are causing greater and greater learned helplessness and disengagement of teachers in the school system. You cannot get to quality education with that.

It's exactly as I said at the beginning: there's formal and informal education. As long as this government and the members of this Legislature who are on the government's side continue their efforts to undermine teachers, they cannot achieve goal one. They cannot achieve quality education, and they will get out of sync with the competitiveness that they seek.

In a final one that I'd like to read — again, a constituent of the Minister of Education's because, as I understand, she probably wouldn't read these constituents' concerns into the record, so I am happy to do that for her.

That's a story we hear over and over again. This individual goes on to ask the question, and I think it's a reasonable one: why do teachers continually have to make up for the flaws in the system?

The OECD says categorically that we must look at teacher remuneration and that we must look at teacher working conditions, for both recruiting teachers and retaining teachers. In organizational effectiveness we know that you must bring everybody to the table in order to engage in meaningful change.

This government wants to achieve a goal that is a high-standard goal. They will not achieve it on the path that they are taking. They will not achieve it by tabling a bill like this and ending what should be a free and fair collective bargaining process. They will certainly not achieve that goal if they do not bring teachers into the room and have meaningful discussions with them about class sizes and working conditions.

If we want to maintain a progressive and democratic society, if we want to achieve the most literate area, or whatever the goal is, in the world, then one of the things we must do — and I reflect back on some of the government's ads on the best place on earth to work — we must make schools the best place on earth to work.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL
BUSINESS AND REVENUE AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR DEREGULATION

Hon. R. Thorpe: Chair, if I could start with some opening comments, I'm pleased to introduce the esti-

mates of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue and also the Minister Responsible for Deregulation for the fiscal year 2005-2006. We have accomplished a great deal this past year, and I'm excited about the goals and objectives that we've set for ourselves as we continue to provide great public service to British Columbians.

First of all, I'd like to introduce the staff with me today. My deputy minister Robin Ciceri, ADM Beth James, ADM Elan Symes, ADM John Powell, ADM Karen Dellert and our senior financial officer Ranbir Parmar. I thank all of them for joining us here today.

I would also like to thank all of the other staff in the ministry who have worked and have committed tremendous efforts on the preparation of our estimates and, of course, those who carry out the duties on a day-to-day basis in the ministry. I am very, very proud of the work our ministry staff do, and I thank them for their ongoing support. Their work in this ministry continues to contribute to the success of the government in meeting its commitments to restoring sound fiscal management in British Columbia and our goal to be the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

The Ministry of Small Business and Revenue has a mandate to provide a competitive environment for small business and investment in British Columbia and to develop a modern regulatory system that makes it easier and more efficient for businesses to operate in British Columbia. The ministry is providing a centre of excellence to the province for revenue management as well as managing and supporting the property assessments appeal process. The ministry also represents British Columbia in its relationship with the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency to ensure that revenue due to the province is identified and received in a timely manner. It collects taxes and fees for local governments and for other agencies.

The ministry is committed to providing all of its services in a fair, equitable and timely manner, and our goal is to provide the best customer service possible. This is a goal that requires continual focus and attention of everyone in the ministry.

In the fiscal year that has just ended we expect to collect and manage combined gross revenues of $18.4 billion on behalf of the province. A healthy and strong economy brings in more revenue to government to operate programs and services that benefit the people of British Columbia.

I'm very encouraged by the number of continuing, positive economic signs we're seeing in British Columbia. The number of major projects proposed or underway in British Columbia is at a record high of over 600 major capital projects, worth an estimated $78 billion, planned or already on the go in 2005. There's booming activity and investment in our oil and gas sector. Revenues from our forest industry have increased in recent years.

British Columbia leads Canada in job creation, with over 238,000 new jobs since 2001, and the unemployment rate in British Columbia is at 5.8 percent. It's the lowest rate since January of 1981. British Columbia's small businesses are among the most optimistic in the country. A recent Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey shows that over 60 percent of the owners feel that their business prospects look to be very good over the next 12 months. For the first time in almost a decade, more people are moving back to British Columbia.

The ministry's goals, objectives and performance measures support the five great goals of our government's strategic plan. By promoting a competitive environment for small business and by streamlining and simplifying our regulatory system, this ministry is helping to achieve the government's goal of having more jobs per capita than any other jurisdiction in North America. Revenues collected by this ministry pay for vital government programs such as health care, education, transportation and social services. Looking to the future, we will continue to build on the successes and support the ministry's ongoing commitment to continuous customer service improvement.

I'd like to start by talking about the key goals we have set for our ministry over the next three years and the initiatives that we will use to accomplish these goals. These goals are (1) to encourage small business development; (2) to support the regulatory climate that supports economic business competitiveness; (3) to maximize voluntary compliance; (4) to collect all outstanding amounts owed to the government; (5) to provide fair, efficient and equitable administration that meets taxpayers' needs; (6) and to continually improve performance and accountability, all the while continually striving to improve our customer service.

On our first goal, to encourage small business development: small business is big business in British Columbia. Over 98 percent of all businesses in British Columbia are small businesses, and small business represents 57 percent of the employment in British Columbia. We need to have a supportive business climate where small businesses can grow and prosper. Our goal is for British Columbia to become the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

Our ministry will encourage opportunities for small business. This fiscal year we will establish a permanent small business round table. It will consist of small business stakeholders who will provide advice to government on issues facing small businesses. We will work towards diversifying economic opportunities in partnership with our aboriginal, youth, women's and ethnic groups.

Our second goal is to support a regulatory climate that supports economic and business competitiveness. Our government has seen great strides already. There have been over 150,000 regulations eliminated in British Columbia since 2001, a reduction of 40 percent. Now we see jurisdictions like Newfoundland and Labrador, the city of Winnipeg, the Yukon, and yes, even

Alberta, meeting with British Columbia and looking at our system. Newfoundland and Labrador has adopted it. Winnipeg is adopting it. The Yukon is adopting it and working with officials from British Columbia to see what they can learn from the great gains that we've made.

British Columbia is continually striving for a modernized, streamlined and simplified regulatory system, while at the same time preserving those regulations that are needed to protect public health, public safety and our environment. To accomplish this goal, this ministry will improve regulatory quality and reduce the regulatory burden. To improve quality, all new and revised regulations will be developed in compliance with the regulatory reform policy, a set of ten criteria based on internationally recognized principles of good regulatory design, while ensuring that our safety, environment and health are not compromised.

Over the next three years we have a goal of zero net increase in regulations in British Columbia. By reducing the impact of regulation on small business and cutting red tape, business owners can spend less time on paperwork and more time on what's important: running and growing their successful business.

An example of how our regulatory changes are improving customer service is a new single business number. It makes it easier, faster and cheaper to deal with several levels of government at one time. We're also proposing changes, through a partnership with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, that will reduce regulatory and reporting burdens on the oil and gas industry, an industry that is very important to our economy.

Our third goal is maximizing voluntary compliance. That's when people pay what they owe government on time. It is the most efficient and cost-effective means of collecting revenue. It saves us and the taxpayers the complex work and expense of having to enforce payment. Most revenue administered by the ministry comes in without intervention. This fiscal year we have set our goal at 97.9 percent for revenue identified as owing — meaning collectible — without audit or enforcement activity. Over the next three years we will work to increase this to 98.1 percent. This may seem like a minor change, but it translates into millions of dollars more in voluntary on-time tax payments.

To make this happen, we'll continue to improve on programs that make it easier for our customers to get the information they need so they fully understand what's owed, and to make payments to government, especially electronically. Simply put, we're committed to high-quality customer service that meets the needs of British Columbians. We have set three strategies in place to help taxpayers get information they need and understand their obligations so they can make their payments on time.

First, to develop knowledgeable customers, we'll build on the success of provincial sales tax seminars that we held in the north and on Vancouver Island in the past year. We'll be offering these seminars throughout the province, up to 60 of them, in the coming year.

We'll increase on-line access to information. That means taxpayers will have 24-7 access to policy updates and information bulletins. Right now we have more than 11,000 subscribers to our on-line updates, and it's growing at about 200 subscribers a month.

Finally, we will continue to improve electronic payment options, which are more convenient to the customer and cost less to process. We're setting a standard and expanding our payment options to include credit cards, on-line banking and electronic bank transfers. Our target for electronic transfers is 65 percent this fiscal year and 70 percent in three years. We'll continue to improve by monitoring how well we're doing through customer feedback, and we'll implement the changes as required.

There are other ways we are meeting our goal of voluntary compliance. An example is the northeast oil and gas strategy, a new sales tax compliance program that we put in place just over a year ago. It ensures that all oil and gas contractors operating in the northeast know about their tax obligations and are paying their fair share of taxes. We are working with contractors to distribute information through associations and holding information sessions aimed specifically at this sector.

On the ground in the northeast we're using inspection and audits to ensure a level playing field. We want to make sure that the Alberta oil and gas businesses operating in British Columbia pay the taxes they are required to pay. Since we started this program just over a year and a half ago, it is estimated that we have collected around $30 million. That levels the playing field for British Columbia's small businesses in the Peace country.

Our fourth goal is to collect all outstanding amounts owed to the government. This supports government's commitment to sound fiscal management. This goal is achieved through our new collections program and our audits and review. Audits identify money owed, and collection programs help us recover outstanding debt. The result of these programs is increased revenue for British Columbians to support our very important government services, such as health care and education.

Audit and compliance programs also ensure a level playing field for the majority of customers who are meeting their financial obligations voluntarily, and they educate other taxpayers about their obligations by identifying what rules apply and when. Success in meeting this goal is measured by incremental revenue identified through audit activity and money recovered through collections activities.

We are improving processes to increase taxpayers' awareness of their financial obligations to increase voluntary payment of money owed. Government's new revenue management system is one tool to help us meet these targets. The goal of our new system will be to consolidate debts from several ministries, leading to more efficient and consistent collection practices and

better customer service. Our revenue management program will begin to streamline and simplify as many as 40 different revenue systems that are currently scattered throughout government. It will reduce overdue receivables and improve the management of incoming revenues for all ministries. It will establish a single contact centre for customers and consistency in business processes and procedures, resulting in less confusion for customers and improved customer service, enhanced efficiency and a reduction in accounts receivable.

Privacy will never be compromised, and we will always be protected. The province retains control and ownership of personal information, and EAS must comply with all Canadian and British Columbian laws.

This project is estimated to generate $382 million in net benefits over ten years for British Columbia for use, again, in our important government services. We're also working with the Canada Revenue Agency to improve the way the federal government collects taxes on behalf of the province. Together, we are developing a new British Columbia–Canada tax collection agreement. Until now, there was no document that set out the level of service we expect from the CRA.

In addition to the tax collection agreement, we have a British Columbia workplan, and we are also working with CRA to develop clear service standards and measures, such as turnaround times for audits that British Columbia refers to the Canada Revenue Agency. This is aimed at ensuring British Columbia gets its fair share of both personal and corporate income taxes.

Our fifth goal is to meet the needs of customers through fair, efficient and equitable administration. This goal of enhanced customer service also led us to develop the taxpayer fairness and service code. This code was developed in partnership with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Retail Merchants Association of British Columbia, Retail Council of Canada, Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia and the Sales Tax Practitioners Liaison Committee. Through it we formalized our commitment to our customers — the British Columbia taxpayers. It will help customers understand how they can expect to be treated, and it reflects our ministry's — and our government's — commitment to be responsive to the business community.

The code explains a customer's rights: it starts with courtesy and respect; privacy and confidentiality; fair treatment; how to obtain help; how to receive complete, accurate, clear and timely information about the steps the ministry takes in audits, collections and refunds. It clearly lays out a dispute resolution.

It also establishes benchmarks for timely appeals. When ministry decisions are appealed, it's important to resolve them in an impartial, fair and timely manner. We are committed to significantly improve the time we take to produce a final decision on appeals filed by taxpayers. Our targets are very ambitious. In the first year we have committed to reduce the time it takes for a decision by almost 50 percent. By the third year we are aiming to reduce the time line from 11.4 months to 4.5 months. This is a direct response to the concerns we all heard directly from taxpayers.

We're also committed to improving the property assessment appeals process, and we will also have increased focus on customer service at B.C. Assessment. We will ensure that the review panels' process for property assessments across the province will be completed by March 31 of each year. There will be an ongoing review of the property assessment and property appeal process to ensure that they are working for all British Columbians who are assessed.

Customer service will be improved. We want to streamline and simplify the assessment and appeal processes and reduce the length of time for appeals to be resolved. We are also looking at developing consistent policies and procedures across tax acts on the grace periods interest rates use for late payments. By doing this, we will reduce the confusion and increase fairness and equity for all taxpayers.

My ministry is working with businesses all across the province to look at the provincial sales tax system and find ways to improve the economic environment for British Columbia businesses. Any changes to the provincial sales tax must be made revenue neutral and be fair to all British Columbians. Starting in mid-December, we will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the British Columbia sales tax policies and legislation, focusing on streamlining, simplifying and enhancing fairness.

Our sixth goal is continuous performance in improvement and accountability. Examples of our commitment to this goal of performance improvements have already been mentioned. Initiatives like the taxpayer fairness and service code and the revenue management program are just two ways the ministry is improving performance.

Another way we are improving performance, and also accountability, is through the Revenue Program Advisory Committee. Through it, they tell us how we can streamline and simplify things so that they can spend more time in business and less time on government. It is also used as an information and ideas exchange on taxation, an opportunity to network and build relationships between the small business and business community and ministry staff, and a way for them to provide input on policy issues.

To summarize, over the next three years we will promote a competitive environment for small businesses to grow and prosper. We will strive to find ways to reduce regulatory burden for all British Columbians. We will maximize our tax and non-tax revenue and debt collection capabilities and continue to strive to create efficiencies and savings. We will make significant progress in streamlining revenue management and administration across government, and we will provide excellent and timely customer service.

In closing, I would like to personally thank each and every member and employee in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue for their dedication to serving the people of British Columbia. Your commitment and service are greatly appreciated. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all of those British Columbians and associations who have worked with us to achieve very positive results for British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: Minister, first I would like to compliment your staff on an excellent briefing they gave me the other day. They were very concise and cogent in explaining to me exactly the structure of the ministry. I confess that it had escaped me up until that point that, in fact, this is the Ministry of Revenue, with regulatory reform and small business kind of tacked on the side. Things actually made a lot more sense to me once I realized that.

I'd also like to give some compliments to my staff who have helped me. I do have a bit of a curious mind, and in going through your service plan, I ended up filling it with lots of notes and lots of little sticky-tabs to ask questions. Luckily, my staff has organized that into something a little bit, I guess, easier to follow and, perhaps, department by department.

I would, Minister, like to call your attention to a story that appeared today in the Globe and Mail. I'm not sure if you've had a chance to see this. It says predictions are that confidence is diminishing in the areas of energy prices, interest rates and job creation. So the Globe and Mail is actually predicting, perhaps, a bit of a downturn here, which may or may not have some effect on the ministry.

I would like to start by just asking a couple of general questions to help clarify in my mind the general overall staffing and, perhaps, a couple of areas that may or may not be in your jurisdiction.

First, I see here in your service plan that the Revenue Services' recoveries over the coming years are actually increasing significantly. I wonder if you could explain to me the significance of those increases. I see that in 2004-2005 it was $39.502 million, $43 million in 2005-2006, $52 million in '06-'07, etc. Perhaps you could just clarify for me what that means.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I wouldn't be too alarmed by articles that appear in the Globe and Mail. We're actually not going to run our government based on articles that may or may not appear in the Globe and Mail or any other paper on a day-to-day basis.

We have a strategic plan. As we look backward, we see that the fundamentals that we put in place, in our opinion, have accrued great results for the province. We've introduced some 44 different tax measures. We've reduced regulatory reform by 40 percent. We're striving to work with our partners throughout all sectors, whether it be the chamber of commerce or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

You know, there's no question — and it is actually part of life — that there will be challenges on a day-to-day basis, whatever they may be. Our overall goal with respect to our economic plan is to make sure we do all the things that we possibly can do to ensure, if you will, that we create an environment in which the entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbia is allowed to express itself and achieve the dreams and goals. Ours is not to interfere or to tell them how to run their businesses or chase their dreams. Ours is to create an environment in which they can pursue those dreams. That is just a little comment with respect to the Globe and Mail — that one day the sky is going up, and the next day the sky is coming down.

With respect to your revenue question — through the Chair to the member — the increased flow in revenue…. I've been advised it's as a result of us bringing different sectors of revenue in from different areas as we consolidate the 40-some revenue streams in government into one revenue stream.

M. Karagianis: That certainly makes sense. I would gather from that, then, that the time line on bringing all the other ministry revenues into the one central responsibility really is pegged at this service plan over the next four years.

So now I see that executive and support services…. Those recoveries actually decreased, as well, over the same time period. Can you explain to me the decrease in those figures?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It would be easier if the member could tell us what page she's referring to in the service plan, so I can pull it right here and look at it.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I thank the member for the question. In the corporate line that we're talking about, we had been allocated within government an amount in excess of just over $8 million for future revenue opportunities, to source opportunities to secure revenues. Quite frankly, we have been able to do that with the resources and the manpower and the FTEs that we've had, and we've given this back to central government to fund other things. We did not need the resources in the ministry to achieve the goals that had been established.

M. Karagianis: If I understand correctly, this was $8 million in total. So that's now been given back to general revenue. Is that where that goes at this point?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That money flows back, and it will just go into consolidated revenue. We did not need the

allocation that we had received to achieve our goals and objectives. It was an amount that had been allocated to us. No FTEs had been identified or committed to. It was an amount frozen for opportunities. We have found that with our new revenue management system and our audit teams and staff in place, we can achieve our goals and, therefore, return this money back to government, which does go into consolidated revenue.

M. Karagianis: So if I were to then look at the universal budget, I would see that going as a line item straight across? Or how does that actually appear?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, you will not see it as a line item. It's just part of the overall government budget process. Revenues come in at the top — a variety of places. Expenses are over here. We had originally been allocated that in previous budgets. That has now gone back. It will just stay in here, so that will flow to the bottom of government — or may have been reallocated to another ministry. I don't know that. But our ministry has the resources it needs to do the job it has to do.

M. Karagianis: I guess that leads, then, into my next question with regard to the number of FTEs in the ministry. I've seen a sharp decrease here noted on page 11 of the service plan. FTEs were decreased in 2004-2005 from 1,076 to 859. All of these seem to have occurred in Revenue Services. Can you please clarify for me what that represents?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The reduction in our FTEs is a direct result of our revenue…. An estimated 217 FTEs were transferred from the ministry to Revenue Services of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: When you're talking about Revenue Services, is this part of the contract with EDS?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Revenue Services of British Columbia is an agreement we have with EAS, which is a subsidiary of EDS. These 217 employee FTEs have gone over to Revenue Services of British Columbia; that's correct.

M. Karagianis: So, in no way has this been affected by previous years' core review reductions in staff numbers? Can you perhaps give me an idea how many staff were affected in that core review in the previous years?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In fact, our ministry was created in 2001 by the Premier at the time. It did not exist before, so it did not go through core services review. In fact, since 2001…. I don't have the figures here. I don't know if staff do, but there have been hires in Provincial Revenue, which now, of course, is Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Deregulation. There have been increases over the first couple of years, and then the 217 being allocated to EAS, Revenue Services of British Columbia. So there have been no decreases, and Small Business and Provincial Revenue was not part of the core review.

M. Karagianis: That probably explains some questions I'll have later about staff increases.

I see on page 13 of the service plan that you state: "Loss of skilled employees poses a key risk to the ministry. To mitigate the risk, the ministry is focusing on creating a culture of excellence and continuous learning that will encourage staff development and retention." I applaud you on those principles. That's something I think many organizations also are facing and fear. Can the minister elaborate on how the ministry is creating the culture of excellence and the continuous learning opportunities that are available?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We take training very, very seriously in this ministry. In fact, we have a group that are responsible for looking after training in our ministry. We have worked very closely with Camosun College here to develop training programs to assist our staff in personal development. A large percentage of our staff are of professional designation, and they are continually going through refreshment and upgrading and courses like that.

As a matter of fact, one area which our government eliminated, corporate capital tax for non-financial institutions…. We've had some very, very qualified people working in that area. Now we will be working with those folks because that program is closing down, and we will be taking the expertise that they have, if training is required to move into other areas. Training on the revenue management side, on the tax administration side, is an ongoing process. Our budget for training is $400,000 in this budget here, and it is continually increasing. I can tell this member that as minister responsible, I am committed to personal development and enhanced training — as are my deputy, assistant deputies, directors and management — because it's a very, very competitive world out there.

You know, we have to make sure that we are giving our employees the tools they need to enhance their opportunities, because when they enhance their own personal opportunities, they enhance the opportunities of the government of British Columbia for the people of British Columbia. So we have a very, very aggressive training program.

When the estimates process is finished, if the member would like to visit the ministry and see some of the facilities and see what we're doing in training, we'd be very pleased to organize that.

M. Karagianis: I do appreciate the invitation, and I will take you up on that invitation and take advantage of that.

When I look at the terms under the service plan where you talk about the loss of employees being a risk…. Can the minister elaborate on exactly what other risks there are and if, in fact, some of the skilled

training has gone over to EDS in this process that we discussed in the previous question?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, only those employees that wanted to go to Revenue Services of British Columbia, went to British Columbia. That was their option. Secondly, having skilled, trained personnel is an ongoing challenge. It's a challenge in the private sector; it's a challenge in the public sector. Only yesterday I was talking to my deputy about my hearing that our good friends at Canada Revenue are looking to hire 300 new auditors. That can potentially create pressure for us. That is why — and I didn't mention it when I was talking about training — we pay for professional training, professional designation. It's one of the ways we try to make sure that we are competitive.

There's no question that this is going to be an area we're all going to have to look at as we move forward, because there is competition. We will continue to work with community colleges, universities and other post-secondary institutions to ensure that our employees are in a workplace that provides them opportunities, and we will continue, as we increase our profile and as we go around the province of British Columbia, to attract some of our best and brightest in British Columbia to come into government service and work in our ministry.

M. Karagianis: I can see immediately that having the CRA purloin staff is definitely a risk, so I'm curious as to whether or not the training investment that the ministry makes is attached to some kind of loyalty expectation from staff. Certainly, it is always disappointing for any employer to invest in their staff's skills training and then have them immediately leave to go to another employer. I'm wondering if, in fact, that is a concern or whether or not there is an understanding on how these training dollars are invested in your staff and what the expectations are.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Some things just don't change in life. You know, I happen to be an accountant by degree, and as the member can appreciate, it was many, many years ago that I got my degree. My employer back in those days actually rewarded me by helping me when I achieved results.

What we're trying to do with ours…. First of all, no, we don't make people commit to anything. We think that as a responsible employer it's our responsibility to make sure we are as competitive as we can be in the overall segment with respect to compensation and those kinds of things. But it is also providing training opportunities and ensuring that we have a work environment where our folks want to come to work.

I was just in the airport last Friday night, flying home. I was walking down to catch my plane, and there were two of our provincial auditors who were just coming from an out-of-province jurisdiction audit, and we stopped and talked a little bit. They were so positive and excited about working for the province of British Columbia, it was just very rewarding.

What we're trying to do is make sure that we have a very positive work environment, that there's upward opportunity for progression. In fact, in our ministry over the last year and a half we've seen significant upward movement, with people having the opportunity to advance themselves. It's not just one segment. It's all part of a whole package of making every effort we can to make our ministry — and in fact, our government — a good place to work.

M. Karagianis: One of the things you stated previously is that in the transition of staff to EAS, only employees who wanted to actually moved there. The employees that had been working in that particular department within government, then, stayed. Or were they transferred to other departments? Did they stay, or what exactly did happen to those employees?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, through our collective agreement, working with the BCGEU, employees that wanted to go, obviously, went. I think we may have one employee that has decided to come back to government service. Those who were in that area, who did not want to go through our collective agreement process with the BCGEU, would be able to apply and have rights based on the contractual obligations.

Staff worked very, very closely with the members of the union to achieve the goal of making sure that our employees had the opportunities they wanted. If some wanted to stay — and I understand the number was about 45 who chose not to move to Revenue Services — they had the choice of either being reassigned or leaving government service. There was a whole process, and we worked very closely with the BCGEU on this matter.

M. Karagianis: I guess my question, then, leading out of that is…. Having been in government service at one point, although not in the union end of things, I understand how important it is to be able to retain that ability to move back into government service. For all of those 217 employees who went over to EAS…. Do they have that open door to come back into government service at some point?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The members of the BCGEU who were members here transferred over to Revenue Services of British Columbia. They are still members of the BCGEU. In fact, the employer and the union negotiated an extension of their contract. It's my understanding that at the present time they still have an opportunity, should they want to, to move back to government service. They have that opportunity.

M. Karagianis: Is there a time limit on when that free movement back and forth into government service can occur? EAS is a private company. Should some terms of reference there change in any way, does that

close the door for those employees to move seamlessly back into government service?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I don't have that information with me, but I'd be pleased to provide it to you.

M. Karagianis: I think that would be something I'd like to have followed up, if I may.

If I may continue. There was one curious number that really caught my attention in the service plan as well. This was a capital expenditure for the ministry that was under the column on information systems. It was some $34 million, and I found that quite a fascinating figure: $21 million in revenue services, $96,000 in property assessment services and $12 million in corporate services. I wonder if the minister could explain what exactly all of those services are for.

Hon. R. Thorpe: This is what I call customer service. I told you we were going to strive for unbelievable customer service. While my staff get me the information on the capital budget, which I know they have because I went over it the other day, the answer to your previous question is that the employees who went over to Revenue Services of British Columbia have two years in which to come back to government should they choose to.

The question relates to the capital budget of $34.779 million. Let me give the highlights to the member: $475,000 for information management, investment and technology to meet the business needs for capacity, efficiency and security of confidential data. Another $5.2 million is strategic. It has to do with some investments aimed at enabling us to manage emerging changes in our business environment through better decision-support, closer alignment with business and improved product management capabilities.

We have about $4 million for business improvements. One of the things is we run many tax systems for various taxes — property, etc. We have about $4 million in there for those continual upgrades and improvements as we go along.

We also have just under $3 million identified for electronic delivery initiatives to improve both internal business processes and our services to our customers. You may have heard in my opening comments our desire to improve payments received electronically. We have about $3 million required for that.

We also have a small amount in for some property assessment services. I think the member mentioned that. Then we also have $21 million for our revenue management system.

I just want to comment on that. The $21 million is not actually a cash disbursement from government, but it is the accounting treatment of our agreement with EAS. This agreement was provided, and the direction was given by the office of the comptroller general that the revenue management system be established as a leased capital asset and leased liability. So we don't pay for it; they do, but it's a termed agreement. At the end of the agreement it would be ours. This is an accounting treatment that the office of the comptroller general has arrived at with respect to the Auditor General of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: If I understand correctly, the $21 million is for the information technology services that deal directly with the EAS systems contract. We are carrying it on the books because at the end of the contract, which I believe is a ten-year contract, all of those capital assets will fall back into government's hands. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member's absolutely right. The $21 million is a result of an accounting treatment that has been given to us by the comptroller general. It's my understanding that the comptroller general's office has gotten that in working with the Auditor General's office.

What we would get is a perpetual…. It's a ten-year agreement, of course. If we renew, it just stays there. If the assets came back to us, we would get a perpetual licence to run the management system.

M. Karagianis: Being familiar with how municipal budgets work from my last nine years in a municipal council, is this line item simply carried forward? It's not a multiplier in each year? It's simply carried forward as a line item through this ministry? Or is it a one-time-only investment?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member is correct. If the member refers to — and probably has it there — page 11 of our service plan, you can see that our total capital expenditures in year 2005-2006 is $34.779 million and then falls down to $13.118 million and $12.98 million.

The contract, the capital cost, is a fixed price. That's why the member can see, on that particular line next to the revenue services, there's only a relatively small amount in year two. It's a fixed price, and then it begins to be amortized over.

M. Karagianis: Very good. I would like to pick up on something that the minister mentioned in his opening remarks about the relationship with CRA — which I was actually always used to calling CCRA, but I guess they dropped the customs part of that, so Canada Revenue. You had made mention of a new tax collection agreement with Canada Revenue. One question that popped into my mind: was this in response to some discrepancies in the past or some concerns with our collections from CRA?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member should not feel alone in calling CRA the CCRA from time to time because I still do. But it's CRA, and it's because of a change in the federal government.

No, it has nothing to do with any discrepancy whatsoever. We actually have a very good working

relationship with the CRA. In fact, in many areas — because some other jurisdictions, like Ontario and Alberta, have their own corporate and business tax areas — we have been Canada's biggest provincial customer. We have, through my staff, developed a very excellent working relationship. As a matter of fact, I think it was two or three weeks ago the national Minister of Revenue visited British Columbia. We talked, and we met. Then later the next week we had some other discussions. We have a very good working relationship.

What we're trying to do through a new agreement is make sure that the things we need for British Columbians are covered in this agreement. Just as we want to give our customers good customer service, we're striving to make sure that Canada gives British Columbia good customer service, and we're working on developing a…. We have a workplan with time lines on it with them. We're looking for performance measures, not with reference to all of Canada but that are specific to British Columbia. We've had great cooperation with them on a number of projects. We are looking at, contemplating, some projects going forward. As I said earlier, my staff — especially my assistant deputy minister Elan Symes — has an excellent working relationship with Canada. All we're trying to do is codify and put in writing how that agreement will work and what the expectations are, and how we can have performance measures there and get things done in a timely way.

M. Karagianis: Then that leads me to questions about the CRA. We've been hearing from citizens about their concerns over the revenue promised from the sale of B.C. Rail. At the time we were told B.C. Rail paid a billion dollars for a 99-year lease. Of that, $250 million was for tax credits that had been accumulated to the value of $800 million.

The Canada Revenue Agency needed to approve the transfer of those tax credits. If the tax credits had not been approved, then certainly B.C. taxpayers would have been on the hook. Can the minister give me an update on what the decision has been from CRA with regard to those tax credits?

Hon. R. Thorpe: If the member could just repeat the question…. I want to make sure I understand the question.

M. Karagianis: At the time that CN bought the 99-year lease for B.C. Rail, there were some tax credits that had been accumulated by B.C. Rail. They held a value of about $800 million, and $250 million of this lease agreement was to purchase those tax credits that were with B.C. Rail — purchase them and give them to CN. That was under the proviso that the CRA would approve that tax credit shift. If that doesn't occur, had not occurred or is not going to occur, then that $250 million that was paid by CN Rail is actually taxpayers' to absorb — if that tax credit shift is not approved. Hopefully, that explains it a little bit better.

I certainly don't want to avoid any questions that are in my area of responsibility, but unless there's been a recent development this afternoon, I do not have any responsibility for CRA, and I cannot make any comment on the status of any of their rulings or any of their decisions. If I could, I would, but I can't.

M. Karagianis: Perhaps, then, the minister could let me know who would be responsible for pursuing this revenue or this responsibility because, at the end of the day, that is taxpayers' revenue from British Columbia that will go out of hand here.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The two ministries that were the leads in the B.C. Rail–C.N. partnership for British Columbia were the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Transportation. The member may want to direct that question through to them in their estimates, but I would like to state again that it's a ruling, a decision of the Canada Revenue Agency. I would be very, very surprised if they would know the impact of that, because these tax files are private. But I would try the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Transportation in their estimates.

M. Karagianis: I would assume from that, then, that despite the fact that CRA responsibilities come under your jurisdiction, the revenue from this sale is not part of all of the revenue stream that is slowly coming into this ministry's responsibilities?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me be clear. We work very closely with the Ministry of Finance. We are, if you will, the administrative collection side for revenue. Tax policy is set by the Ministry of Finance. We then administer the policy that they have set.

M. Karagianis: I will be pursuing this further because there is a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers' money at stake here. I will certainly hope to track this down and find out whose responsibility it is to collect on it, should the CRA refuse to acknowledge these tax credits.

I have one further question before I kind of move into a specific area, and it has to do with the venture capital investment. It was unclear to me, in looking through the service plan and my notes, whether or not venture capital investment still is a role and responsibility under the revenue aspect of this ministry's responsibility.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The short answer is: no, it is not. It's Economic Development. I'd just add that in my previous ministerial roles I did work very, very hard with the small business community to get the level of the small business venture capital fund increased, and it has been an overwhelming success.

M. Karagianis: I would now like to move into the small business segment of this. It was interesting for

me to find out in the briefing that the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue only has nine FTEs for both small business and regulatory reform. Could the minister break down what projects these nine people are working on at this time?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think the very, very exciting part of the small business segment of our ministry is the upcoming announcement we will be making on our permanent round table for small business. We made a commitment during the 2005 election to establish a permanent round table of small businesses throughout the province, representing small businesses, having women entrepreneurs involved, having first nations representation and other British Columbians involved. That will be the key thrust.

What we want to do here…. I want to be very, very clear here. I have already, with my senior staff, met with some 38 to 42 — in that number — of small business–sector groups, and what we will be doing, probably in mid to late October, will be announcing the round table. I will be the chair of the round table. I will have two vice-chairs. We'll have between 15 and 20 members on the round table, again, from all parts of British Columbia, from all walks of the small business sector in British Columbia.

We want to consult with them; we want to listen to them. We're going to meet about four times a year, I believe. We'll probably do five times in the first year. We want to hear the things that are important to them. They actually live it each and every day, so I want to listen. I expect that we will end up with inputs around the province that will identify a matrix of, I don't know, five to ten key items, whether it be skilled workforce, venture capital, too much regulation, taxation — whatever it may be.

Then what we are going to do is we are going to bring that back into government. We are going to make sure that we…. Because all of the items will not be the responsibility of Small Business and Revenue — they might impact on other ministries — we are going to act as the champions inside government for them. So, whether it has to do with forestry or another area, we're going to work with them to get resolution.

I think the great thing that is going to come out of this…. In part it will be some of the things like regulatory reform that I have talked about many times — hearing their ideas. But it'll also be what small business expects and the advice we get from our small business round table — what they expect small business to do for themselves.

We are also going to make sure that we have linkages. We do have the Progress Board, the Competition Council, the Asia-Pacific trade council and the 2010 commerce centre. We will link these all back together to make sure that we're not having duplication.

Those are the things that we're going to do. I'm very, very excited about it and look forward to later this month being able to announce it and share that information.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I do have some further questions on that. I would gather from those remarks that the nine FTEs…. This is their job; they are dedicated to supporting the round table?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the member has rightly said, there are nine FTEs in this branch. Four of those pertain to regulatory reform. We have found, since forming government in 2001, that the sector that is most impacted by excessive regulation is, in fact, the small business sector. As we know, a very large percentage of them have five or fewer employees, and they really don't have time to deal with all the government red tape. That's why we think it's very important to have the regulatory reform group working under my Assistant Deputy Minister Beth James, together with our five small business FTEs. We're able to work with a number of organizations, whether it be the chamber of commerce or the women's forum or other groups, so that we can work in partnership with them to lever opportunities for groups throughout British Columbia.

This is not about building a big bureaucracy in government. This is about getting ideas, working with small business, listening and then acting inside government.

M. Karagianis: I can take from that, then, that four of these FTEs are devoted to regulatory reform and that the other five will, in fact, be looking to support the round table.

Now, I did note here just one question about the Small Business Ministry. There are a couple of stories that ran about a month ago about a name change. Is the minister at this point anticipating a further name change? I see Vaughn Palmer had some things to say about a mystery around possible name changes and things like that. Is that still a possibility, or has the name of the ministry actually kind of solidified?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The name of the ministry is the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue and the minister responsible for regulatory reform.

M. Karagianis: Excellent. I'm assuming you've told Vaughn Palmer that so he can, I guess, put his curiosity aside about the name change here or the name of the ministry.

Minister, I note that the September budget included a huge corporate tax break — 1.5 percent, which is pretty significant if you have a big corporation. The Minister of Finance has noted that the small business threshold was increased in the previous budget from $300,000 to $400,000 per year. I'm just wondering if the minister has discussed with the Minister of Finance the possibility of any other tax breaks for small business, especially given what we hear is an exceptional environment right now within government.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I meet on a very regular basis with the Minister of Finance and discuss a vast

number of thoughts and ideas with the minister. In fact, we work very closely together. But you know, it's really quite interesting. Since forming government in 2001, our government has had 44 different tax relief measures, many of which actually affect small business and small business owners directly.

In fact, you may recall that we reduced personal income taxes by 25 percent on our first day of government. You may also be aware that those making $83,000 or less in British Columbia today have the lowest tax rate in Canada. Also, hon. Chair, I'm not sure if you or the member are aware that British Columbians making $16,000 or less actually pay no provincial income tax now.

In addition to those measures, when we formed government, the small business tax rate was 4.75. It is now 4½. The tax threshold then was $200,000. It's now $400,000. Actually, we also eliminated the sales tax on production machinery and equipment, which impacted some. We also removed the very punitive corporate capital tax on everyone but financial institutions.

The corporate income tax rate in 2001 was 16½ percent. The member is correct that we have just recently reduced it from 13.5 percent to 12 percent. That affects 20,000 businesses throughout British Columbia — 20,000.

I know that from time to time, for whatever reasons, some like to characterize that as going to a very few big companies, but 20,000 businesses receiving the reduced corporate taxes is many small- and medium-sized businesses throughout British Columbia.

You know, what we are trying to do and what our commitment is…. If you are going to have a strong health care system, if you are going to have a strong education system and if you're truly going to look after those in need, then you have to have a strong economy. Our government is committed to doing the things it needs to do to make sure we have a strong, competitive economy.

I would be very, very interested if the member thinks that small businesses and businesses throughout British Columbia should receive further tax reductions.

M. Karagianis: I'm just making a note here of things like an $83,000 threshold for personal income. That exceeds my personal income, so it certainly seems like it would be a level of income for not all British Columbians. Those below $16,000 we know to be those living in poverty, as the poverty line is at $26,000-a-year income. Those are people living well below the poverty line, and certainly, their contribution to small business is not going to keep a thriving economy in the future.

My question is simply to the minister regarding possible tax incentives. I know from talking to the chamber of commerce and other business organizations here in British Columbia that they, in fact, are advocating for some reduction in PST. I spoke yesterday with John Winter, the head of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, and they are asking for harmonization. They're looking for a reduction of PST to 4.5 percent and a harmonization of GST and PST. It's not uncommon. This happens across Canada.

Knowing, certainly, that the minister would have a better relationship with the chamber of commerce than even I would, I'm curious as to whether or not you are entertaining any of those suggestions.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me just correct…. Perhaps I wasn't clear on my first answer, that anyone earning $83,000 or less in British Columbia pays the lowest tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada. From $83,000 down you pay the lowest tax rate in British Columbia. We actually think that when we put more money in people's pockets to make more choices for themselves, it actually helps small business in British Columbia.

With respect to harmonization, that is not on our agenda at this time. But what is on our agenda at this point in time is a commitment that we made in the 2005 election to complete a comprehensive review of the sales tax code of British Columbia, both from a legislative perspective and a policy perspective, to see where we can look at streamlining, simplifying and enhancing fairness. Those are the things that we're interested in doing.

We have to make sure, as my colleague the Minister of Finance said a matter of a few weeks ago, that we are going to take a very balanced approach. We have to make sure we have funding for health care, which we are funding at unprecedented levels. We have to make sure we're providing education funding, which in this current fiscal year increased by $150 million.

At the same time, British Columbians have told us to be very, very careful with the amount of debt they have, so we are making approaches to pay down debt, as has been identified both in February and in the September update. We're looking at a balanced approach. Our government is committed to making sure we have a competitive tax regime in British Columbia so that the British Columbia economy can continue to grow, both through small business and other avenues, to make sure we can enjoy the fantastic economic growth we've achieved in the past four years.

Again, I would be very interested if the member thinks that small businesses should receive tax reductions in British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I stand corrected on the earlier information about income levels.

Certainly, it'll be interesting to see the results of the tax review you mentioned, starting in mid-December. I'd be interested in a time line as to when that process will begin and end. I do know that small business is facing a lot of challenges. In fact, the article in the Globe and Mail which the minister has dismissed touches on some of the issues that are concerning small business: rising costs of fuel, rising costs of shipping goods and obtaining products. The fuel costs right now are a huge concern. I think it's well worth taking a serious look at and discussing with the business community ways in

I would like to actually move into some more questions about the small business round table, if I may. In fact, that was really where my questioning started, and I did get sidetracked by some newspaper articles that had been written about the ministry.

The small business round table. The minister mentioned 15 to 20 members. I would like to know what the terms of reference of this round table are, how the members will be chosen and if those members have been chosen already.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, let me just correct the member, through the Chair. I didn't think that I dismissed the article from the Globe and Mail. I think I just said that I don't think we should be running a province based on what appears in the newspaper from day to day. I think we should be actually having a long-term strategic plan, which our government has. I just don't believe that we should want to run a government by day-to-day newspaper articles.

Let me say that the objectives of the round table are to identify issues. We want to identify, consult, summarize and prioritize, in a timely manner, the key issues facing small business in British Columbia. We also want to have feedback and advice to the government on specific proposals that may arise from time to time and may well impact small business. We also want to summarize the findings and recommend actions to be taken by small business owners and the small business sector.

This is not just about what people can expect from government. This is about a partnership of how we can talk in a very open format and identify what the issues are and what the responsibilities are of government to pursue and what the responsibilities of small business are to pursue. It's a partnership approach to the round table which, quite frankly, I've found actually very rewarding over the past four years.

With respect to whether the round table members have been selected, all members have not been selected at this time. It's a process that we're going through. I am talking to the accommodation industry. I'm talking to the automotive industry. I'm talking to the agriculture sector. I'm talking to the construction sector, the food services and restaurant sector, the retail sector, the tourism sector, the transportation industry and various ethnic associations. As a matter of fact, I was talking with a first nations leader today on this very issue. We're talking with young entrepreneurs. We're talking with the Retail Council of British Columbia and Canada. We've met with the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and the Women's Enterprise Society of British Columbia, chambers of commerce, the Taxpayers Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

So we are attempting to make very sure that we have a cross-section of folks that we hope will want to join us in a process that we believe is going to provide the next level of opportunity to identify issues, and develop actions and policies that will continue to fuel the growth of small business in British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: That sounds like quite a daunting group, and I really am pleased to hear the kind of scope of organizations and representation that the minister is looking for. But I'm curious as to how, from that very large contingent of organizations and representations, you are going to narrow it down to 15 or 20 members. Is there some kind of process you're going through in order to select that few number from all of those organizations?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Well, one of the things we have to do from time to time is make decisions. In this process, as I've said, we have met with an extensive number of groups and talked to many more that we haven't physically met with. As a result of that process, we've had the opportunity to meet people to talk about the concept. Some of those people have actually said to me that they would like to try to contribute, so we're going through a process.

My most important criterion is making sure that every region of the province is represented. What I want to try to do is make sure we have the diversity that is needed, because that brings different views. Different inputs, no doubt, will help us very much in finding and identifying issues and, most importantly, in developing solutions and actions to implement.

I guess my overall goal is to make sure that every region of the province has representation and that we do it in such a way that we have a cross-section of representation so that we can have the best inputs we can receive from British Columbians who want to serve their province. Unfortunately, I will have to make some decisions, because I've sort of said it will be between 15 and 20, and that is what we believe to be a manageable number. That's it.

M. Karagianis: I understand how difficult that is probably going to be. Perhaps the minister can elaborate on exactly what the time line for this process is. I think you've alluded to the fact that there will be an announcement next month. Have you already obtained a list of potential candidates for this round table, or is there an opportunity for more individuals to step forward and volunteer? In fact, would it be worthwhile for someone to promote this within their own community as an opportunity for business representatives to step forward and be included in the list for consideration?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member asked so many questions there all at once. I'm going to have to see if I can remember them all. I think the starting question was the time line. I expect to announce something, actually, not next month but later this month — the month of October.

We expect to go through a consultative process from probably very late November till sometime in the

spring — late spring or early spring — throughout the province. We will then, obviously, need some time to pull that information together, but it would be my hope and my plan that we will have a summary of recommendations for government to consider this time next year. It is a very, very ambitious undertaking.

With respect to those who may be on the round table, we are…. The member has made reference to chambers of commerce several times here today. We have talked and met with the chambers of commerce. They've put forward some names. We've talked to some other groups here in the capital region that have put forward some names. Then, of course, there are other parts of the province and other different associations that have put forward names.

Yes, we're in that process. I will be making decisions within the next few weeks on that.

M. Karagianis: I guess one last question I did have tacked onto that is whether there is still an opportunity for members of the business community to step forward and offer their name to the list of those being considered.

Hon. R. Thorpe: One would never want to say no, but the time line is such that I am getting closer and closer to decisions. If the member did have some folks or she knows some folks in the business community who might be interested, I'd be pleased to receive that.

I would also tell the member that as we have the permanent round table and as we take the permanent round table and do some consulting around the province of British Columbia, there are going to be a number of opportunities in communities such as Greater Victoria where we will have a round table. We would expect at that round table to bring people from the Greater Victoria area, as we would expect to do in Kamloops or Courtenay-Comox or Cranbrook or wherever we end up deciding to have these round tables.

There'll be the permanent round table, but then there will be a variety of round tables around the province where people will have the opportunity to come. If the member has some names that she would like me to consider, if she could get those to my office as quickly as possible, I'd appreciate that.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate that opportunity. In fact, this process sounds very much like the one that I'm embarking on as a member of the Finance Committee to consult with British Columbians on how they'd like to see the budget spent in 2006. This would appear to me to be a similar process to discuss with business how they would like to see this ministry serve their needs.

I guess my next question on this is: is there an operating budget for this round table and this process?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Whatever it's going to cost us, which we do not expect to be a whole bunch of money, will be funded from existing ministry budgets.

M. Karagianis: So in fact, there is at this point no budget for travel or for meeting rooms and things like that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We do have a global budget within the ministry for activities. Quite frankly, my view on these things is that they are important. This is a priority we've established for our ministry. By it being a priority, we will find the funds within our existing budgets to execute this priority.

M. Karagianis: I was harkening back to your earlier comments about giving $8 million back into general revenue. It might have been nice to have some of that funding for this process.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the taxpayer fairness and service code which has been developed. This was done in partnership with small business organizations around British Columbia.

According to the service plan, the next step in the process is to work with small business to define service standards that may be part of this round-table process you are discussing. The ministry will monitor its performance and report on the successes in meeting this. Can you perhaps provide an update on the ministry's organization with regard to this fairness and service quality program?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the member of our staff that deserves the greatest recognition…. Although, in her own way she would say that it's part of a whole team within the branch that Elan Symes is responsible for. It has been a team effort. We are very, very excited and very pleased with the response that we have received.

The member is absolutely correct. This was developed in partnership with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Merchants Association of British Columbia, the Retail Council of Canada, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Sales Tax Practitioners Liaison Committee. It really has been a great learning experience, and one that we have received — the staff and myself and our government — great acceptance for. It's fairly courageous to get this out there and get it in writing. We did, as the member rightly said, make some commitments to another phase.

If this could be delivered to the member…. On page 10. This has not been released publicly at this point in time. It's for you — a comprehensive approach here to our approach to these estimates.

"We have established excellence in customer service standards." We are now going to strive and work ourselves towards time lines and commitments of turnaround for better customer service — for instance, account registration and clearances: "Registered sales tax and hotel tax accounts within two business days of receiving all the necessary information."

Refunds. You know, it's one of the areas that people have always said about governments, doesn't matter

which political stripe: "It takes you about a second and a half to take our money, but it takes forever to get the money back to us." We're actually committing now, once we've received all the documentation, to have those refunds back to people within 30 days.

We are also making a commitment on answering correspondence in the minister's office, in the deputy minister's office and in the assistant deputy minister's office, and putting that at 14 days. We want to actually walk the talk. We have, as a result of the taxpayer fairness and service code and all of the hard work of my staff — actually, all British Columbians' staff — instituted a deputy minister's information review process, where if people have some concerns, they will be provided a written decision within 30 business days of receiving all the necessary information.

One of the areas that I'm particularly pleased with is appeals. You may be aware of this. In British Columbia, when an assessment is made, people have the right to appeal that. In our government the appeals come to the minister. In our ministry the appeals branch answers directly to the deputy minister, not to the consumer tax branch. It's independent within the ministry.

In the past year we collectively — the team that works on this — have reduced, on average, the appeal times from 11.4 months to six months. We are now going to move to five months. We're going to move to four and a half months in our service plan. We think it's important to give answers to taxpayers so that they can have certainty and get on with their life.

You know, from time to time there are going to be some very complex tax files. There are some very, very complex tax files. But on average we are going to be moving very aggressively, and we have achieved excellent results from the appeals branch, led by Janet Baltes. Her team has made tremendous strides, and we are going to continue to improve.

Chair, through to the member, you have an advance copy, which hasn't been released yet to the public, of phase 2 of the Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code.

M. Karagianis: I thank you very much for this, and I look forward to reading it a little bit more in depth. I'll try not to attach any sticky-notes to it like I did to the service plan.

It does lead me to one other question I had here about PST audits. I know that businesses who feel somehow wrongly audited can have their case heard by the deputy minister. I'd like to know how many of those cases have been reviewed so far.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That was a very, very good question. First of all, I think it's important that we put it in a context. From a provincial sales tax, a social services sales tax, we have 102,000 registered vendors. We have 2,000 registered vendors on the hotel tax, so there are 104,000 registrants. Plus, obviously, there are other folks we deal with that aren't registered. So far this year — from January of this year to October 5, today — we've had five inquiries to the deputy minister's office for a deputy minister review.

M. Karagianis: That actually seems like a very modest number, given your quotation here of the number of vendors that you are dealing with. Could you elaborate on the outcome of those cases or the status of them today?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We've had five inquiries. We still have two in process. We've had one in favour of the government and two in favour of the taxpayer.

M. Karagianis: Well, in odds favour, that actually seems to be a pretty balanced process at this point, I would say.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I assume — and if I'm assuming wrong, I'm sure the member will correct me — that the member was referring to personal income taxes. If that is the case, the personal income tax to the province is ministered by CRA, and CRA have their own fairness code which they work by.

M. Karagianis: I was just actually looking to see whether there is an appeal process for somebody who feels they're being unfairly taxed in any way. Is there an appeal process within this ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Well, yes. I'm going to just take personal income tax and park it over here because that's administered through Canada Revenue. All taxpayers have the right — and we encourage them — that if they are feeling that something is not right — and, you know, if the member….Clearly, we lay out in here the expectations that taxpayers should have in dealing with their government. We lay out their rights, from their right to courtesy and respect; to privacy and confidentiality; to fair treatment; the right to obtain help from the ministry; the right to receive complete, accurate, clear and timely information and full written explanations for our decisions; the right to understand how we conduct business, how we do audits, how we're doing collections, how we're doing refunds; the right to dispute resolution and the right to a timely appeal.

As I said, when an assessment is made for a variety of different taxes — whether it be property transfer tax or corporate capital tax or the social services tax, whatever the tax is — all taxpayers have the right to appeal. Those appeals are reviewed at our appeals branch. They work with the individuals completely apart from the assessing agency. Those appeals are sent to me, and I personally review and rule and question the recommendations fairly extensively. I take that responsibility very, very seriously. I can say that in an update I received a day ago, 51 percent of the rulings were in fa-

vour of taxpayers of British Columbia and 49 percent in favour of the government of British Columbia.

I have here a copy of a newspaper article from the Vancouver Sun earlier this year. In it you talk about a taxpayer-nominated industry expert to help advise the deputy on appeals process. Is that in fact in place?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, that is in place. It is used by the deputy minister in the reviews that the deputy minister exercises on behalf of taxpayers of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I have one last question, which again may not pertain to this ministry any longer. But I noted that the Liberal election platform included a pledge to explore the options for parental leave benefits, for the self-employed and part-time workers. I'm not sure if that's under your jurisdiction, but I wanted to know whether or not funding had been set aside to provide for this kind of parental leave option.

M. Karagianis: Before I move into the next section, I did just have one last question. The minister had stated earlier that venture capital investment is no longer part of the revenue ministry portfolio, but you did make mention of it with regard to the round table. I would like to explore that a little bit further. The province of Ontario has in fact ceased funding venture capital investments. I note that your friend Sara MacIntyre and her organization have also made that recommendation here in British Columbia. In a recent article they are quoted as saying that they'd like to see this done away with in British Columbia as well. It was something you mentioned as being potentially discussed at the round table. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, that is not the responsibility of my ministry. That falls under economic development, which I think I had said earlier. With respect to the details of the program, the member may want to pursue that with the Minister of Economic Development.

Let me just say that the area I was talking about with respect to our round table…. I want to, and my staff wants to, and…. I'm sure the members of our permanent round table will not want to go out and consult with small-business British Columbians with a closed mind to what may or may not be on the agenda. If that's the case, we might as well stay home.

All I can say to the member is that having had a 30-year business career myself and having wondered late some Thursday nights how we were going to make the payroll on Friday, I understand that from time to time, capital, and therefore equity, can be an issue for small business. I think it's important for us to listen to see if in fact that is an issue and then, depending on the outcome, champion whatever the outcome may be, through government.

The member was talking about Ontario. I think the Ontario government has said it's going to stop funding tax credits through labour-sponsored funds in Ontario. That's my recollection, but again, that's not my responsibility. I can say that the small venture capital fund, which we increased since forming government in British Columbia, has received overwhelming acceptance and oversubscription and has helped all regions of the province.

Madam Chair, I was just wondering if we could take a two- or three-minute recess. Would that be fine?

The Chair: If I hear no objections, we'll take three or four minutes off for a recess.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to now move into questions that have a more specific focus on collections — tax collections and the taxation policies. The government has pledged to undertake a comprehensive review of B.C.'s tax policies and legislation in order to develop revenue-neutral options for simplifying, streamlining and enhancing fairness. Minister, perhaps you could just give us an update on that process as of now.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We anticipate being able to start that work, in consultation with British Columbians, if not in late November, in early December of this year, carrying that through till the spring of next year. We would anticipate actually having that as an extension of our round-table visits, as we go around the province. We want to make sure that we hear….

As a former provincial revenue minister, I can tell you that I've had the pleasure of meeting a lot of people in lots of parts of British Columbia. Hon. Chair, if I could have the licence just to tell a couple of stories about the sales tax and some of the issues that people face around British Columbia.

As many members know that have been doing this for a while, when somebody comes up to you and says, "Well, I know you'll know the answer to the question," you know you're in serious trouble to start with. In Prince Rupert I was asked the question: "Rick, can you tell me why paint for a fishing boat is sales-tax-exempt but paint for a whale-watching boat is taxable?" Of course, I couldn't tell him the answer to that question.

You know, one of the things that has happened over the years, through a variety of avenues, is that there have been exemptions granted for certain things, and not for others. Because it is the tax law of British Columbia, the tax law is very clear. This is exempt, and

it says what it is. There's very little interpretation or flexibility. Some of those have come through the agricultural sector. Some have come through other sectors. What we want to try to do…. Let me give another example, if you will. Yellow raincoats are taxable; red raincoats are tax-exempt. I don't know what we do with red-and-yellow-striped raincoats. One was for safety.

Things like that make us believe — and there are many, many other examples as staff work with this stuff day in and day out — and bring us to the conclusion that the sales tax code in British Columbia, first of all, has never been comprehensively reviewed. We think it's time to do that, both from a legislative and a policy perspective. We will be working hand in hand because, as the Chair and members of this House know, tax policy is set by the Minister of Finance. We administer it.

We're going to go out and listen on behalf of our government. We're going to be asking people, both in round-table discussions and through written or electronic methods, to share their thoughts on how we can streamline, simplify and enhance fairness.

Those are the things we're going to do, and as I said, we expect to start that in late November, early December.

M. Karagianis: I would gather from those comments that you're actually seeing this as a similar process to regulatory reform but, in fact, applied to taxation policy.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Not to tax policy. It's about streamlining and simplifying and enhancing fairness. I'm sure we are going to hear some items that may require policy decisions. Tax policy decisions are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, so we are just going to be…. I've been charged with the responsibility to do this.

Quite frankly, we deal with it every day, so we know that there are issues out there that we have to pursue. We're looking forward to working with our colleagues at the Ministry of Finance, working with other ministries in government to make sure that we take this opportunity to hear from British Columbians — in person, in writing, electronically and by whatever other means they want to communicate with us — so that we can do this comprehensive review, both of the policy and the legislation.

M. Karagianis: I'm curious as to why the Ministry of Finance wouldn't conduct that kind of process within their own department, seeing that they are, in fact, their policies. Why is this ministry administering that process for Finance?

M. Karagianis: The Minister of Finance is going to be part of this process. How is this process being established? Do we have a time line for it? Is it a consultation process somewhat like the round table? You mentioned it might be an addendum to the round table. Is that in fact how it's going to work?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, that's exactly how we see it working at this point in time.

One of the things when you embark on these processes…. I'm sure, as the member has told us is about to start on the Finance Committee review, you will note that there is a process, and you will see that some adaptations are required as you travel around. That's just part of doing it, because things don't just always happen the way you think they're going to happen.

I have done a number of these in the past. I think that it's really, really important for us to go to the various communities throughout British Columbia — whether it be in Smithers or Fort St. John or Cranbrook or wherever it may be — so we hear first-hand. As I said earlier, we expect to do that with our round tables.

We're just trying to work on the logistics now. Can we do two or three hours on our round tables and then do an hour or two hours on the tax review in the same locations? We're working on the logistics of that. Overall, we expect to have that process — our conclusions; well, perhaps not our conclusions — and all of our analysis done as a result of these round tables by the fall of next year.

M. Karagianis: Then this group that is doing this taxpayer fairness evaluation process, or consultation process — will it be the same representatives that sit on the round table? You'd made mention of the fact that the Minister of Finance staff or representation will be involved as well. Is this a second body that is going to travel in tandem with the round table?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's a very, very good question. We don't see that we're running a Greyhound bus to transport 47 people around British Columbia to do round tables. What we do see is — obviously depending on the jurisdiction — some of the folks that are involved in the round table…. It may be appropriate for them to attend this in the region, should we be in that particular region.

Again, we expect a variety of sources of information to come to us. We expect it to come from our round tables. We expect it to come from individuals through either mail or electronic, and we're going to set up a website and all of that kind of stuff. Whether it be the Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, the CGAs of British Columbia, the CMAs of British Columbia or the tax practitioners of British Columbia, we expect inputs to come from a variety of groups throughout the entire province, including the chambers of commerce of British Columbia. That's how we expect the input.

I tell you quite frankly, in my opinion we cannot receive too much input. This is the first time it's been

done. It has to be done comprehensively. It has to look at the legislation. It has to look at the policy.

Hon. Chair, I just want to make sure that the members of the House understand that the Minister of Finance is responsible for decisions on tax policy. We will provide advice and information based on the consultations with the stakeholders and the analysis of our staff and Finance staff, but the ultimate decision on tax policy rests with the Minister of Finance.

M. Karagianis: I agree with you: a Greyhound bus with 50 people seems a bit counterintuitive to me. However, I do understand that you are now combining two processes, so you have the small business round table, and now you also have this taxpayers' fairness body, which is going to include some Finance staff.

It would seem to me that there are obviously going to be some logistical challenges in transporting Finance staff with you on round-table discussions. Can you perhaps elaborate a little bit more on how that's going to work?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Actually, I don't think there will be any logistical challenges. We will not be travelling with entourages. We'll be travelling with very small teams. It hasn't been finalized, to my knowledge, at this point in time, but I expect we'll have one tax policy analyst from Finance as part of it, so this is not a big entourage. It's a small team to do the job, and that's out on the road.

Of course, there will be people here in Victoria, assembling all of the input that comes from the variety of meetings we're going to have. Then, of course, that has to go through the analysis stage and the recommendation stage. You see, most of that work will be done right here at the capital.

M. Karagianis: I guess I'm a little bit confused. Are the Finance staff going with you? Are they going to be part of the 15- to 20-member round table, then? Or will they simply attend later in the day for some of these meetings that are being done around the province?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm sorry if I haven't been clear on this, so let me try. No, Ministry of Finance staff will not be part of the 15- to 20-member round table. They will be a staff resource, and we expect to have only one member of the tax policy from the finance department participating, and I'm not sure that it will always be the same person, either, at the meetings that we have reviewing this situation.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much. I think we're getting some clarity on this. So this forum on taxpayer fairness is going to be conducted as a process around the province, and it's going to be a forum that meets with members outside of those coming to meet with the business round table? Is that how this kind of tandem process is going to work?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, it's not part of the taxpayer fairness and service code. This is a review of the social services tax. In some cases, some of the same folks that attend the regional round tables will have input at our comprehensive review of our sales tax code and some of them won't. There is no set way this is going to work. The most important thing we want to do is to make sure that when we go into different communities around the province, we're hearing from those voices that have concerns, have input, have expertise, have solutions. There's not a set way. Some of them will be small business round table, but some of them will not be.

M. Karagianis: I heard the minister say that this is in fact the social service tax review, rather than a comprehensive review of B.C.'s tax policies. It would seem that the words "comprehensive review of B.C.'s tax policies" are a bit more far-reaching than a review of the social services tax. Perhaps I am completely confused now as to what this new process is — undertaking this tax review. Is it more than social services tax, or is it in fact really constrained to only that aspect of taxation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It is the comprehensive review, both legislative and policy, of the social services tax.

M. Karagianis: This taxation review process has a much more diminished focus than I anticipated originally, but it is a forum that is going to take place addended to the small business round table. Input and participation are going to be sought through an invitation to participate. How is that going to be distributed?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I just want to make sure the member knows that the social services tax — or as we call it, the sales tax — is not an insignificant amount of money. It's $4 billion, so it's a very significant amount of money.

We do not have any set protocol on how people are going to get invited. We are working through those things, but I can tell you what my intention is. My intention has always been, as I've travelled to different parts of the province to seek advice, to make sure that I'm hearing from as broad a cross-section as I possibly can and as my officials possibly can.

If I wanted to just hear from a select group of people, we could have one meeting in one location. It's important — when we're in the Cariboo, for instance — that we're making sure that we hear from ranchers. When we're in the Prince Rupert area, it's important that we hear and understand the impact it has on retail businesses in Prince Rupert in dealing with the first nations. So I think we have to…. I certainly have a very open mind and want to have as broad an input — whether it be in person, electronic or mail — as I possi-

bly can so that…. That's what I take from the comprehensive aspect of the review. That is my intention. That is the direction I have given staff.

Yes, it will be logistically part of an extension of a small business, you know, in the community while we're there. It would not be very smart, I believe, or very efficient or very effective to be in Cranbrook conducting a small business round table and not take the opportunity, while we're there, to hear the voices of those impacted by the sales tax, to get their views. Yes, that's the approach we'll be taking.

M. Karagianis: Certainly by my remarks I did not in any way belittle the number of dollars involved with the social service tax. In fact, we all know it's a staggering amount of money. However, I really was taking the interpretation directly from the language — comprehensive review of B.C.'s tax policies — as being something farther-reaching than social service tax. Again, it's clarity of language that will, I'm sure, allow us all a bit more freedom. I certainly applaud the minister for taking on two very large processes at the same time: a significant outreach to small business with a round table as well as a tax policy review of social services tax.

The service plan also notes — and, again, I quote from page 28: "Proposed amendments to the petroleum and natural gas royalty and freehold production…regulation will reduce the regulatory and reporting burden on oil producers, will increase the accuracy of returns and will facilitate electronic delivery of oil royalty information." I would ask the minister at this time: what are the proposed amendments?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As many members of this House, if not every member, and all British Columbians know…. Our gas and oil industry in northeastern British Columbia is accruing significant resources for all British Columbians. What we want to do through this process here is ensure that we are maximizing our return of the value that is due to British Columbians. We want to move from a global reporting structure that the companies do now to an individual well reporting structure.

Interestingly enough, as we investigated this, that's exactly what the companies want to do too, so it helps us streamline. It helps us make sure we're maximizing our revenues to British Columbians, but it also helps us streamline. In addition to that, when the member asked about our capital expenditures, I mentioned an amount in there that we had for a gas and oil registry. We want to modernize our registry so that we can have faster, more efficient and effective reporting that provides us with the tools we need to ensure maximum return of revenue to the province but also provides the industry with the up-to-date methods that they also want to run their side of their business.

We've had some preliminary discussions with the province of Alberta, because they do have an electronic gas and oil registry now, to see if that can be adapted. But if it can't, we will proceed on our own through the Oil and Gas Commission, working with my colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines, to ensure that we're maximizing the revenue returns to British Columbia but at the same time providing a streamlined approach for those that want to invest in British Columbia to invest in British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: That actually leads to a question I've had for some time. Surprising, isn't it? It's on how we actually collect revenues from each of the sectors — oil and gas or forestry. It seems to me that we have relied somewhat on the honour system on these. How in fact have we been assured that we are obtaining all of the revenue due to us from this particular oil and gas sector or from forestry? How do we know that we are getting our just due on those?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Looking at our oil and gas, as we do with other sectors that have to report to the province…. They do their reporting. We do our verifications. We then do risk analysis. Then where deemed appropriate, we do audit work. We do this in conjunction with our Oil and Gas Commission located in Fort St. John, who have, obviously, extensive day-to-day workings with the entire industry. So that's on the royalty side.

What we've also done on the sales tax side, because as we know, Alberta has zero sales tax and British Columbia has 7…. We had, over the years, a number of incidents reported to us where people didn't feel Alberta companies were paying their rightful amount to British Columbia. So we embarked upon a very, very extensive northeast oil and gas strategy, having a person on the ground in the Fort St. John area who has a very good investigative background and lots of experience in the field. We've done a lot of work there, which has accrued benefits to the tax coffers — from Alberta companies to British Columbia's coffers. More importantly than that, it levelled the playing field so that British Columbia companies could compete with Alberta companies. If an Alberta company was working and not paying 7 percent, and yet the B.C. company was, the B.C. company was automatically at a 7 percent….

We have made significant, huge inroads into that area, of which the industry up there has been very, very supportive. We also have spent increased audit work in the gas and oil because, as you know, most of the companies are located in Alberta. So we have audit teams that travel to Alberta to do audit work there. We are now working very closely, and have been for about the last year and a half or maybe two years, with the petroleum association doing some education.

Wherever we think there's a risk, we proceed very, very quickly, and we think those benefits have been seen in the northeast and in the coffers of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I would gather from the fact that you commented, "where we think there's a risk," that

this is as a result of your risk analysis. Does this mean that not everyone is audited?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I said earlier, just in the sales tax side alone, if I could just use that as an example, we have 102,000 registrants. No, we do not audit every one of those. Obviously, we employ very sophisticated risk analysis techniques in all areas of tax revenue, and we apply those very aggressively in the areas where we identify risk. Let me just say that we have been very aggressive in our review and audit work in the oil and gas sector.

M. Karagianis: I would like to know exactly what would trigger a risk analysis of a specific company. What is it about a particular company that comes into British Columbia, which would trigger a risk analysis or in any way make you suspicious about that company in order to put an audit watch on them?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We use a very sophisticated risk analysis based on many, many variables that identify different levels of risk. For instance, we have something as simple as a tip line — I'm just talking about gas and oil here — in the gas and oil sector, and it's surprising what people on the ground know about other people on the ground. We check our histories of non-compliance. We check delinquency of payments. We check a variety of data sources that we have to work with. We do sophisticated computer matching. We work with the Oil and Gas Commission, and we are always working with industry associations from an educational perspective and from an awareness perspective.

As I said, just over a year ago we actually hired additional resources, and we have deployed more resources into this area because of the high revenue that the province receives. Quite frankly, as we look forward, we will probably deploy — if the trends continue — more resources into this area to ensure that we are very comfortable. We are very comfortable that British Columbians are receiving their share of royalties, but we are continually reviewing the situation, continually seeing if we have to bring more resources to that area to ensure compliance takes place and moving them from less-risk areas.

M. Karagianis: Then I see that the tip line and your investigative resources really are what help you identify a bit of a watch over some companies and their remittance to us. Am I correct in making that kind of simplified conclusion?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, in part, but it's not limited to that, obviously. Obviously, we're dealing with a gas and oil commission that has extensive experience. We have ongoing information exchanges with them to make sure that if company X is doing something up in the Fort Nelson area and we're not getting any remittances, it's a pretty quick trigger. I don't want to suggest, and I'm not suggesting, that the member was ever suggesting that it's just limited to tips and some things you stumble along on the ground. There are very sophisticated techniques used to ensure that we get the revenue that is due to us.

As I said, a year and a half ago we heightened very much our attention to the northeast to ensure that British Columbia companies had the opportunity to compete, but at the same time that British Columbians as a total were receiving all of the revenue — both sales tax and royalties — that British Columbia is deemed to be owed.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate that we are talking very specifically about the oil and gas sector at this point. How in fact do the new amendments that we've been discussing here impact the current structure that you have on audits and on how you have conducted risk management, etc., to this point?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That has not been implemented at this point in time. It has not been implemented. We are working hand-in-hand with our colleagues in the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Finance. When we are assured that that is implementable, it will be implemented. I suspect it will be done before March of next year.

The Chair: If I can take note of the time, I would suggest one more question before we recess.

M. Karagianis: Yes, time does fly when you're having a good time. I guess my question is really pertaining to the risk analysis, the investigative services, the tip line and things that we've been talking about in the oil and gas sector. Is it similar in the forestry sector? Do you rely on a similar kind of structure in order to guarantee that that sector is in fact giving British Columbia its due taxation as well?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The same risk analysis, data mining. Those types of sophisticated computer analyses are used to ensure that we're receiving our maximum revenues.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member asked a question earlier in the estimates debate about the employees at the Revenue Services of British Columbia. I just want to make sure that I gave it a correct answer. I think it's close to what I said.

For the first two years of in-service status at Revenue Services of British Columbia, employees can trans-

fer back to government, but they have to compete in a government competition. I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on that.

M. Karagianis: Thank you for the further information on that. It does add a bit of a nuance to their return to service, should it be required.

Prior to the break we were actually discussing oil and gas — the new proposed amendments to production regulation, reporting-out and collecting tax royalties. I had asked whether or not a similar process of audits and investigative process applied to forestry. I believe the minister had replied in the affirmative. So just to be clear, under the new proposed amendments to the petroleum and natural gas sector, all of the same investigative tools will apply. Will the auditing be exactly the same, or do these amendments in any way trigger anything different in the auditing process?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, there will be no changes. We will keep up our very rigorous audit, enforcement and verification routines that we have in place today. That's our responsibility to British Columbians, and that's what we'll do.

M. Karagianis: Will there be some additional burdens on the oil and gas producers with these amendments? In fact, does it in any way reduce or increase the regulatory requirements for them?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I had indicated earlier, it provides better tools and resources for us on a well-by-well basis. At the same time it streamlines for the producers their requirements, so I think it's actually a win-win for both parties.

M. Karagianis: In some ways it actually complies very much with the philosophy behind the regulatory reform? Is that the way I'm seeing this — that, in fact, the amendments really are towards that goal as much as they are to specific individual companies, rather than a global process?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This is not about something for individual producers. This is for the entire industry. It reduces the reporting burden on the oil producers, will increase the accuracy of returns for the government and will actually facilitate electronic filing and return of information, which is one of our objectives of getting information faster and being able to review it faster. It will be, again as I said earlier, a win-win for the province in streamlining and simplifying — getting our information quicker — and at the same time, in lessening the burden on the entire sector.

M. Karagianis: I'm guessing this goes right back to your discussion that you alluded to earlier — creating a new website. Is that part of this initiative around allowing some of this to be done electronically?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, this is not about creating another website. This is about having things done directly — electronic delivery service, where the information can just be received by government quicker.

M. Karagianis: Earlier in our discussions about the review of tax policies, I think you talked then about creating a website. That's obviously something new being put into the picture but does not extend itself to this function. Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. R. Thorpe: They're non-related activities, non-related actions that our government has taken. When I talked about the round table and tax review and those things…. We do expect to be able to have a webpage for information for British Columbians but at the same time be able to receive reports, ideas and information from British Columbians electronically as we would also receive both in written and fax form.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to maybe ask a few questions now about the audits. Earlier the minister alluded to the thousands of vendors and, obviously, clients that the ministry deals with. The service plan on page 22 does mention that the deterrent effect of audits is contributing to increased voluntary compliance. Can the minister tell me how many audits have been conducted in the last year?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We will conduct a total of 168,000 reviews and audits in the coming year.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The number of audits and reviews conducted in the fiscal year 2004-2005 was 187,749.

M. Karagianis: It's very obvious immediately that there has been a reduction in the number of audits. Can you perhaps just elaborate a little bit on whether or not that is the result of more voluntary compliance or why the number of audits would have, in fact, dropped.

Hon. R. Thorpe: There would be a couple of reasons why the reviews and audits have reduced. One is the phasing out of the corporate capital tax that we announced when we formed government, and we have been doing that over the period. That process is just about complete, but it's winding down, so there would be less of those.

Also, we have increased voluntary compliance from 96.1 percent in 2002-2003 to 97.2 percent in '04-05. Also, we believe that through improved billing and collection processes that it will create a greater awareness of people's obligations and, therefore, less audit and compliance follow-up will be required.

M. Karagianis: Now, one of the things you also mentioned in our earlier discussion — about petroleum and natural gas royalty collections, of course — was

the more rigorous investigation process and, obviously, tips that come in. Does that have any bearing on the reduced number of audits that are required? It would seem that it would be the other way around.

M. Karagianis: I do note that in a Vancouver Sun article, which I mentioned earlier, there was a reference to no nil audits and a statement that the service plan still speaks of quotas and targets for overall collections, although it doesn't talk about individual quotas. Would you care to comment on that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Sorry, I didn't understand the question — if, in fact, there was a question.

M. Karagianis: An article that was written, which I referred to earlier, regarding appeals and things…. There was a reference to no nil audits, which I think is a term that perhaps is outdated slightly. It's basically saying that wherever there is an audit, there will be a finding. So I'm just asking whether, in fact, that philosophy still applies on all audits.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Maybe it was the break and maybe it was the fresh air, but I'm having a hard time understanding the question. When there's a nil audit, that means that the people — the taxpayers — are in compliance, and we leave very quickly.

With respect to some of the comments that the member made a few seconds ago, we have no quotas whatsoever with respect to our auditors. They go in; they do their job. If they find that the client is in compliance, they leave as quickly as they can.

M. Karagianis: The service plan, on page 23, notes that there has been a relocation of some auditors to portfolios that required increased time and effort. Can the minister elaborate on what portfolios those are?

As I mentioned several times, our government committed to eliminating the corporate capital tax for non-financial institutions. We had, obviously, a team of auditors that looked after that. So as that program winds down — and we're in the final months now of phasing that and the work that they do out — they are being reassigned to other areas. An example would be corporate tax allocation.

For instance, as part of our workplan dealing with the CRA, which I talked about earlier in the day, we want to make sure that companies are allocating the correct portion of their income to the province so that we can get our fair share of corporate tax. We are moving people into that area to ensure that the fair share of allocation is being made to British Columbia.

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. We continue to have our audit staff in place. There's no question that the marketplace is a competitive marketplace, as I said earlier. That's why we're proud of the investment we do in training and staff development and working with them on their paying of their professionals' fees. But it's just an ongoing dynamic of a strong marketplace that we're going to have to continually work to recruit to ensure that we have the staff we require.

M. Karagianis: Maybe a little bit further to that. On page 23 your service plan notes that the average amount of incremental revenue generated by each audit position in the ministry provides a reasonable indication of the effectiveness of the audit program. In fact, is there any…? Would you like to maybe comment on the change in number of audit staff and this idea of the effectiveness of the program?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The revenue received is not a direct correlation to how much is done per audit. It's just that we are very effective in what we do — what they do, exactly — and, no, there's absolutely no correlation. These are average numbers, and as our target says, on average it should be about $525,000 per auditor for the three-year rolling average.

M. Karagianis: Your service plan also sets the performance measure, on page 26, of elapsed time from receipt of tax appeal to a final decision and aims to reduce that period from 12 months in '04-05 to six months in '05-06. Can you please elaborate on how you're going to achieve that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: A year and a half to two years ago I received a number of calls from folks that had had appeals outstanding for some time. Upon investigation of that — and working with my deputy and assistant deputy ministers responsible and the team responsible — we said that customers, taxpayers in British Columbia, had a real right to timely answers with respect to tax appeals.

At that time I think we were running just under 12 months per average of appeals. We aggressively brought in resources and have driven that down to six months. Our goal is to drive it to five months and four and a half months. It all fits in with our overall thrust of providing good customer service to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I do want to say that there will be complex files from time to time — very complex files. Those will take longer, but on average, we are going to hit six months, five months and four and a half months over the next three years. We believe that provides better customer service to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: Minister, you mentioned that you were aggressive in adding resources. Have staff num-

Hon. R. Thorpe: In looking at that workload, which in our opinion and the ministry's opinion, was not providing good customer service, we looked in the ministry to see where we could, on a short-term basis, redeploy staff that had the expertise. So we did that. In addition, we brought in outside expertise to help get that backlog down. That backlog is down, and now we're back running with our regular complement that we had been maintaining.

M. Karagianis: So the staff that were redeployed have gone back into other departments within the same ministry. Were these contracts for outside services? Is that how they were brought in — on some kind of contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes. Again, we used resources twofold. Obviously, these — not obviously; I shouldn't say that — appeals and reviews require professional expertise, so what we identified…. If you will, we had this wheelbarrow that was too full. We had to figure out how we were going to get that load down to an acceptable level. We said it would be an average of six months, so we identified some areas within our ministry where we could pull some resources. Then we also went outside to the market, if you will, and brought in temporary contractors with the professional expertise to help us handle the backlog.

M. Karagianis: Minister, you mentioned that you are still trying to achieve even higher goals for appeals turnaround. Are you still not requiring that large number of staff to continue to push for an even lower threshold here on appeals turnaround?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, and I thank the member for the question. We believe that the complement we have…. We actually track the inflow so we know what we can manage through the system. We track the inflow, and staff have advised me that based on the current inflows and the goals we've established, we have the workforce necessary. But, again, if we see a peak, for whatever reason, if we see some extraordinary situations where we think we're going to put our service standard in jeopardy, we will first look inside the ministry to see if we can redeploy resources. After that, we would look to the outside marketplace for resources.

I think it's important that we understand that we do not want to staff up just because we may have a little peak period. We want to be able to use taxpayers' dollars the most effective way, and I think that's by redeploying the staff that we can and then bringing in some outside contractors if and when that situation should ever arise again.

M. Karagianis: Has the number of appeals, then, been reduced, or are you expecting them to be lower now that you've basically got rid of your — what did you call it? — wheelbarrow full of appeals? Are you expecting fewer appeals in the future?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I cannot forecast who's going to appeal and when they're going to appeal. I can tell you that our project resulted in processing 1,215 appeals during the last fiscal year, four times more than the 303 appeals we resolved in 2003-2004 and almost three times the 449 appeals we processed the previous year. It helped us drive down our backlog, and as I said, we continue to monitor the inflow versus what we know we're processing out. Again, if we should see the need to bring in extra resources, whether they be a professional accountant or legal expertise or whatever expertise we need, the most important thing for us is to manage to our performance measure and service benchmark that we've established for British Columbians, which we're going to do everything we possibly can to achieve, to provide them with the service they deserve.

M. Karagianis: Minister, can you tell me how many appeals were decided in favour of the taxpayer?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Currently — and I think I mentioned this earlier on the appeals that have been handled this year — we're running 50 percent in favour of the taxpayer, 49 percent in favour of the government.

M. Karagianis: Do these numbers have a bearing on previous averages, or do you have any kind of, I guess, chart or something to indicate how this compares to previous years?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, I do not. Actually, I think that would be the wrong way to look at these things. I think what we have to realize is each one of these appeals is an individual case based on its individual merits, based on its individual situation. I believe that if we want to look at historical tracking or any of those things, in fact, and then project where it might be going in the future, we would actually prejudice our thinking. I look at each one of these files as an individual file that a taxpayer — whether it be an individual, a small business or corporation — has filed, and I review them on an individual basis without even considering what the percentages are or where things are tracking. It is about fairness to the taxpayer.

M. Karagianis: I have some more questions that pertain to the next section, but I know that the member for North Island is here and has some questions, if she may be allowed to ask those.

C. Trevena: At a recent meeting I had with the Employment and Income Assistance Ministry, in my briefing from estimates they mentioned that some of the

revenue debt collection is carried out by your ministry. I know that you have a contract with EDS Advanced Solutions to collect debts from people who owe the government money. I just wondered if this contractor is involved in collecting debts for Employment and Income Assistance?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Revenue Services of British Columbia is a vehicle in which we are consolidating 40-some-odd different revenue streams for government. It's really, really important for everyone to understand that we set the policy, we set the collection methods, and so that's what happens. The answer to your question is yes, Revenue Services does look after collecting outstanding debts due from human resources or Employment and Income Assistance.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Revenue Services of British Columbia does collect that debt. That's correct.

C. Trevena: What's the process for collecting the debt on income assistance and disability benefits or payments?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The accounts that Revenue Services of British Columbia is collecting on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia are accounts that, firstly, are over 90 days old and, secondly, for individual citizens who are no longer on social assistance.

With respect to the process, it starts with an initial letter contact. We try to work with the person that has been identified as owing the debt. We sit down and work with them to see if there are any extenuating circumstances. In situations like that, we'll refer it back to Employment and Income Assistance for their input. Also, we try to work as closely as we can on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia to collect the debt that's owed in a very fair way. If that means extending terms and if that means working with the citizens, that's what we try to do.

C. Trevena: In the approach of sending a letter and then working with them, what sort of notice are people given? How long from hearing that they have a debt, to when the letter goes out, to when you're expecting payment to start being made back to the ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, it's my understanding that clients are notified three times by Employment and Income Assistance of a debt obligation. Then, as I said earlier, those files are transferred to us at 90 days old, and then we would send out a series of three letters. During that three-letter process we would also start telephone discussions to see if some of the funds or if arrangements can be made to secure payments on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: You send out three letters. Over what time period do they come? This is 90 days after the first notification. How often are the letters sent out?

C. Trevena: Are debts ever written off, or do you carry on trying to write letters and get the money back by another means?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, we approach the responsibility of collecting moneys that are due to the taxpayers of British Columbia, as I said, through a series of letters, both through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and through Revenue Services of British Columbia.

We also use tools — what we would call the CRA set-off program — against moneys that folks would have coming back to them, possibly from a tax refund. We would look at third-party demands, and we would also look at liens against assets to secure payment for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: Obviously, we're talking about people on income assistance and disability benefits. They may not have any assets.

What is the ultimate consequence for someone who can't repay their outstanding payments, their debt to the province?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I want to be clear. It is not our intent to go after folks who are on income assistance for collection of outstanding sponsorship debts.

C. Trevena: I'm not necessarily talking about sponsorship debts but just any debts they may get into that have to be repaid. For instance, if they have a security deposit that they have to repay or something like this, just what is the process there?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our policy is that we do not pursue citizens who find themselves, unfortunately, on income assistance for payment of debts.

C. Trevena: I wondered how much debt has been collected in the past year from people on income assistance and from people on disability benefits.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me say once again to the member — apparently, I wasn't clear the first time — that we do not collect money from folks on social assistance.

C. Trevena: So if we can clarify that if somebody has an outstanding security deposit or something on that level, there is no state at which point you reclaim the moneys….

Hon. R. Thorpe: I want to be very clear here. The policy of our ministry in collecting debts, collecting

money that is owed to the taxpayers of British Columbia…. I want to say it once again: we do not seek payment from those who are on social assistance.

Now, there may have been folks on social assistance that have a repayment agreement with Employment and Income Assistance on security, but that would be an issue that would have to be taken up with Employment and Income Assistance.

M. Karagianis: I have a question here that's still related to tax collection before I move into some questions about EDS. Is it true that government actually collects tax on home fire insurance?

M. Karagianis: It was my understanding that, in fact, the home fire insurance tax was raised by 4 percent in order to help pay for the devastating forest fires that we saw in the interior. Can you also clarify that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That question would be best addressed to the Minister of Finance in Finance estimates.

M. Karagianis: So there is a tax on home fire insurance. Is the Minister of Finance responsible for setting the level of that and any of the terms of that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: All tax policy is a responsibility of the Minister of Finance, and the insurance premium tax would be a responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

M. Karagianis: EAS systems. Minister, my understanding is that in November 2004 the government signed a ten-year contract with this company — EDS Advanced Solutions, a subsidiary of the Texas-owned EDS Corp. — and that their contract is to collect all non-tax moneys owed to government. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Currently Revenue Services of British Columbia is collecting MSP premiums. It's collecting B.C. Ambulance overdue accounts; court fines, as we talked about; the employment and assistance program, as we talked about to the previous member; and the B.C. student assistance program.

M. Karagianis: Clearly, we have a list of all of the collections responsibilities that EDS handles. You did mention income assistance, but I think you were very clear with the previous speaker that in fact none of those are pursued. Am I correct in that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: What I said is that individuals on income assistance are not pursued for collection.

M. Karagianis: So the terms of the contract with EAS set out that the collections priorities and the approval of all of their collections, procedures and terms of reference are set by the government?

M. Karagianis: Are those terms of reference reviewed on a regular basis? Are they set to be reviewed yearly? Or are there other performance measures of this contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: If the member could be a little clearer on her question…. I didn't know if it was about government policy or about what EDS is doing.

M. Karagianis: I'm sorry that I was not clearer. The ministry sets the terms and priorities for collection and collection procedures or techniques that EAS is to use. Are those terms of reference of that contract reviewed on a regular basis, and are there performance measures in that contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, policy of government is always evolving — sometimes changing, sometimes adapting — but the policy responsibility is that of the government. If and when government makes a policy change, for whatever reason, we would then, through our alliance office, sit down with Revenue Services of British Columbia and work with them to ensure that government policy of the day is being followed.

M. Karagianis: I understand perfectly that, in fact, government policy is a work in progress at all times, obviously addressing the needs of both government and the people of British Columbia. Certainly, seeing that government is embarking on a process, a small business round table, where there will be a number of inputs that may affect policy, government is looking at a revision or a process around social service tax which, again, may result in some new policy. Does that in fact mean that there may be a change in the contract with EAS systems, and how does that affect the cost of that contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the overall contract and the framework for the contract are put in place. That's a commercial contract entered into by the parties. We do not anticipate the framework of the contract changing. What the contract does contemplate is that from time to time government will change, alter, modify its policy. We will then, through our alliance office, which I have an assistant deputy minister responsible for, work with Revenue Services of British Columbia to make sure that a contractor is in compliance with the policies of the province.

M. Karagianis: It brings to mind the case of Maximus, which has been repeatedly fined by government

for not meeting the criteria of its contract. I believe there has been some response from that company that they've had to, in fact, hire more staff in order to meet the criteria set by government on that contract. I am curious as to whether or not a similar circumstance could occur here, where policy changes, in fact, could trigger increased staffing requirements or anything like that? And does that, then, change the terms of that contract or the price we are paying for that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, our agreement with Revenue Services of British Columbia, and the implementation of our revenue management system, is just over nine months old. We would expect that by March 31 of next year we will be publishing the results of our first year of our revenue management system. At this point in time we are very, very pleased with the implementation. We have an alliance office that is run from our ministry by Assistant Deputy Minister Karen Dellert and her team under the supervision of my deputy minister.

We are very pleased with the way the implementation is going, and I look forward to being able to report out by March 31 next year on the progress that we've made with respect to this revenue management system.

M. Karagianis: I guess that leads me…. The reason I'm setting the framework of this question is to talk about some of the actions that have occurred with EDS systems as well. I think everybody is quite familiar with the number of calls and billings that were sent incorrectly to people throughout the province.

In fact, in February letters of apology were sent out, I believe at the directive of the minister, apologizing to the people for the rather rude treatment they'd received at the hands of EDS. I'm curious how many apology letters were actually sent out in that process.

Hon. R. Thorpe: When I was made aware of the situation, I acted within minutes and issued a directive to my staff, to Revenue Services of British Columbia, that a letter of apology would be sent out to every British Columbian who received one of those letters. I'm very pleased to say that my alliance office, working together with Revenue Services of British Columbia, has learned from that experience. We are moving forward in a positive way.

I think it is important, when a mistake takes place, that it's appropriate for the person responsible, in that case me, to apologize on behalf of our government. We did that; we acted quickly. I'm very pleased to say that it's my experience that we have learned from that mishap, from that mistake, and we are all learning together. It's important for us to know that customer service and the protection of privacy are paramount to us in providing this revenue service through Revenue Services of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I wasn't sure if I actually heard the number of letters that were sent out. Did I miss the actual number?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We sent out approximately 20,000 apology letters. What we have done is to reflect on our customer service commitment.

We also have done the following since then. We've improved the wording on all collection letters. We've improved our customer service response times. We've developed consistent and customer-oriented service and dialogue in dealing with clients when they call in. We've implemented a customer service training centre around the taxpayer fairness and service code.

That's done not because they're doing the taxes but to talk about and instil the beliefs of our ministry in providing positive customer service. We've extended the hours of operations for collections, including Saturdays, and we've put in formal processes to respond quickly to resolve customers' questions and concerns and to ensure that customer service standards are maintained and enhanced.

That's why I have said many, many times that my office number is 250-356-6611. If people have any concerns or complaints, they can call me, and I can assure them they will be addressed immediately.

M. Karagianis: We'll make sure that doesn't get written across the bottom of the screen there: "Call this number."

I commend the minister on the very quick response to those letters and the numbers that were sent out. It was a good, quick response and really a very responsible and appropriate action.

But certainly, in listening to the new process, the number of improved processes that have been put into place — that, again, goes back to my question about whether or not that has put other pressures on this company in order to meet slightly new criteria from what they contracted for in November. Has there been any response from them on that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, that process would have taken place whether the letter had been issued by government or by Revenue Services of British Columbia. I know there are folks out there who do not believe our commitment to customer service, but I can assure you that our government is committed to the best customer service that we can provide. I can also tell the member that the revenue services management team has been very responsive to the need for enhanced customer service and has gone above and beyond the call in implementing what we say is needed for service to British Columbians.

One of the things that we should all learn, the reason we have a little bit of adversity and we all learn from it…. I think that it's unfortunate that we had to send out 20,000 letters of apology, but I believe the result has been an increased focus on customer service that is accruing us great customer service benefits today and, no doubt, into the future.

M. Karagianis: In fact, I have been probing the terms of the contract and performance measures with

EAS, not the government's commitment to customer service. Again, going further to that, we've certainly seen a number of major contracts for services. EAS is one; the Maximus contract is another. IBM has a contract for hardware and support. Telus is doing government payroll.

Certainly, the Maximus issue is foremost in the news. In, I think, citizens' minds are the number of fines that have repeatedly been levied on this company. It really leads me to ask whether or not there is a similar kind of penalty expectation with non-compliance for EAS, again going back to what those performance expectations are on that contract.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I said earlier, we will be completing, in the near future, one year of work on this very complex project of consolidating revenue management in British Columbia. It is my intent and my commitment to release no later than March 31 of next year the full report on the progress of the implementation of the revenue management system, at which time items pertaining to performance measures, the appropriate ones, will be detailed in that report.

M. Karagianis: I'm actually asking whether there are currently some performance measures built into the existing contract, and secondly, whether or not there are penalties built in for EDS if they do not meet their obligations.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm not sure if the member is aware, but I believe the member may be aware that the revenue management project summary report is available on our ministry's website. It is a 27-page report.

On page 12 of that report, it talks about the achievement of service levels: "Twenty-two service levels are defined and may result in financial consequences to EDS Advanced Solutions if they are not met. An additional three service levels are also defined and are subject to contract management escalation procedures if not met by EDS Advanced Solutions. The service levels will be monitored and reported on frequently." As I said, I will be reporting out in full no later than March 31 on the first-year operation of the contract.

M. Karagianis: Thank you for clarifying some of the performance measures. EDS, then, was not fined or sanctioned in any way for the behaviour with the rude letters that resulted in the 20,000 apologies?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I've said several times now, it is my intention to report out in full no later than March 31 on the performance of implementing the revenue services agreement with Revenue Services of British Columbia. We are pleased with the progress we're making to date, and we look forward to the successful implementation of this program to the benefit of all British Columbians.

M. Karagianis: Well, I was hoping to at least have heard that they paid for the stationery for the 20,000 letters.

Earlier the minister alluded to the privacy laws. Of course, that's been a major concern. The USA Patriot Act has been a concern with this contract with EDS systems, the contract with Maximus — in fact, any of the contracts here with large American-based corporations. One question I have is with regard to whistle-blowers and whether or not we, in fact, have had any indication of whistle-blowers reporting on information disclosures that have been done.

Hon. R. Thorpe: With respect to privacy, I appreciate the member's question. I just want to say — I cannot say it enough, and I cannot say it loud enough, and I hope that people understand and accept my sincerity on this — that when we started on this project, I gave very, very strict instructions to my staff and maintained those strict instructions each and every day, that the protection of private and personal information will not be compromised under any circumstances. In fact, further to the member's question, on page 18 of our revenue management project summary — which, again, is posted on our website — there is whistle-blower protection for employees.

M. Karagianis: I was aware of that — hence, my question about whether any whistle-blowers have reported any disclosures of information yet anywhere in this project.

M. Karagianis: We are, I understand, just completely reliant on whistle-blowers, in fact, to tell us if our private information has been breached in any way. I believe the USA Patriot Act is highly secretive and that that is the only method by which we will know if our information has been used.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's not correct. The member may want to take time to read the document that has been published for all British Columbians to view with respect to the protection of personal and private information. There's very detailed information here on how that information is protected, will be protected and will not be compromised.

M. Karagianis: In the case of the USA Patriot Act…. This is a big fear that British Columbians have. We have a number of major pieces of government business that are now in the hands of corporations who are much more subject to that than they are to our own privacy laws here. I would ask the minister if he can elaborate on how, in fact, British Columbians will know if information has been breached. If this information is known to government, are they going to make it public?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The contract includes a range of strict provisions to meet or exceed the privacy stan-

dards set by the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as well as recent recommendations put forward by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

M. Karagianis: Well, I'm sure we'd all love to anticipate when there was going to be a privacy breach, but unfortunately, that actually puts us all in the realm of having ESP or insider information on when there is going to be a breach of our private information. So we are reliant on whistle-blowers or anticipating breaches.

My question to the minister is: should such a thing occur, will that information be made public? It's very obvious in the case of the Maximus fines. Citizens of British Columbia can't even find out how much those were. Consequently, something even more stealthy than that, which would be a breach of our private information…. Is the government going to make that information public?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Perhaps I wasn't clear in my earlier comments, so let me say it again a little clearer. One of the provisions to ensure the province's protection of information and protection of privacy is put in place is that the province has the power of attorney to step in and take control of the company's operations in the event of an anticipated privacy breach. It would seem to me that if the province was taking over this operation because there had been a breach, that British Columbians would know that the province had taken over.

M. Karagianis: Perhaps the minister could be very clear to me then. The language says — and he's read it twice now — "in anticipation of a breach." The government will step in "in anticipation of a breach." Can the minister please clarify for me how would we anticipate that there was going to be a breach? How would that actually take place — this anticipation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: If we anticipated a breach or if in fact a breach took place, we would take control of the company.

M. Karagianis: I understand that if the information had been breached, we would take control of the company. Where I don't understand government's logic here is that we would anticipate that something like that would happen. Are we going to guess that there might be a breach of our information a month from now? Are we going to anticipate, based on perhaps a cataclysmic hurricane — Katrina? Would that have been a reason to anticipate there might have been a breach? If there is a terrorist activity in the U.S., and our information is then immediately captured under the Patriot Act, are we going to anticipate ahead of time so that we can retrieve our responsibilities for those services and that information prior to it going into the hands of the American government?

M. Karagianis: I'm afraid it doesn't give me a lot of comfort. This is the kind of question I get asked frequently by my constituents — an assurance of how our information is being protected. So much of it seems to be anticipatory here in this language that we would have to have foresight ahead of time to know that information was going to be breached.

When the twin towers were attacked in New York City, none of us anticipated that was going to occur. In fact, I remember that incident very, very clearly; waking up early in the morning, turning on the news and being absolutely astounded by the events that were taking place — something that was inconceivable the evening before, when I went to bed. I did not anticipate that that would occur that day. I would assume all of us will be in a similar situation should another event occur that we had not anticipated, where our information is now in the hands of the American government under their Patriot Act. However, I will move on to a different topic.

In the estimates that were done in 2004 the member for Chilliwack-Kent raised some very good questions, and I have been unable to kind of find the answers to those. The member for Chilliwack-Kent raised an issue regarding the collection of unpaid provincial fines for various tickets issued under provincial offences. The member noted that speeding tickets and other motor vehicle fines are tracked against offenders' drivers' licences and must be paid before the licence can be renewed. That, however, has not been the case for a majority of provincial offence tickets.

The minister at the time stated that the ministry was consolidating collections, which we have heard about again here today, and was examining other options for more effective fine collection. Can the minister provide an update with regards to the ministry's approach to unpaid fine collections?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Motor vehicle fines and the collection thereof remain the responsibility of ICBC.

M. Karagianis: For fines other than traffic fines…. I think the member for Chilliwack-Kent was making a

very specific point that anything that is under the motor vehicle fine department is automatically attached to drivers' licences. Other kinds of provincial offence tickets are not attached to such a licence or anything else. Can you please elaborate on anything other than traffic fines?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Those fines, I assume…. If it's not motor vehicle fines that are still the responsibility of ICBC, the member could be talking about liquor fines or something like that. Those remain the responsibility of the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and have not moved to the revenue management system at this point in time.

M. Karagianis: Perhaps the minister, then, could address when we might anticipate that the ministry will expand their consolidation of that revenue management.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The revenue management system is envisaged to take a number of years. There is an on-boarding process that will take place, and the on-boarding process will be dealt with year to year, as we work with other ministries to build the business cases for on-boarding onto the revenue management system. I would assume, as highlighted on page 9 of the posted project summary on our website, that court fines are envisaged to be on-boarded, but at this point in time it is not seen in the near future.

M. Karagianis: How does this actually relate to the transfer of debt portfolios from other ministries, generally? That's outlined in your service plan on page 22.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As we develop and on-board various collections onto the revenue management system, we will assume and transfer those debts from those organizations' portfolios to our ministry. They will come when we on-board them.

M. Karagianis: I gather this is all sort of under the umbrella of "over a number of years"?

M. Karagianis: One thing that caught my attention on page 23 was this phrase: "The incremental revenue collected by the ministry is normalized to remove extraordinary recoveries." Can the minister please provide an example to me of what an extraordinary recovery would be?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In an effort to ensure that figures are, if you will, reflective of the ongoing regular business of collecting and assessing and those kinds of things, we try to make sure that we take out items that are substantial and would be deemed to be a one-time happening.

I cannot talk, obviously — nor would the member, I'm sure, ever expect it — about specific organizations or companies, but I can tell you that in the past couple of years, in one particular case, there was a corporate capital tax assessment and payment of $24 million.

I can tell you that in working on a project with CRA on residency and corporate income allocation — between businesses that said they operated in Alberta but basically operated in British Columbia — an example of that would be $13 million.

So that's what we mean when we say that we've tried to — on whatever the page number was, 22 or…

Hon. R. Thorpe: …23 — take out what we would deem to be extraordinary one-time recoveries of substantial amounts of money.

M. Karagianis: To follow up, then, on that question and that kind of example. In the case of those extraordinary recoveries, is there a follow-up punitive action that takes place? I mean, it would seem to me that in the case of something that sounds somewhat fraudulent, there might be some action that occurs from these kinds of extraordinary recoveries.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We apply the penalties and interest that are applicable in a fair and equitable basis on those extraordinary. And we ensure that we have ongoing compliance to monitor future situations.

M. Karagianis: In the circumstance the minister has given, where hypothetically, a company seemed to be registered in Alberta but, in fact, was resident in British Columbia and therefore not turning over to us the fair share of taxation that we required, is there actually some legal action that takes place as well? Or is it simply fines that occur in that kind of circumstance?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In situations like that, we work with the Canada Revenue Agency, and it would all be based on the Income Tax Acts.

M. Karagianis: I wanted to return a little bit here to the EAS contract. Last November the minister claimed that the EAS contract would generate $38 million in net benefits. To date I would like to know how much has been generated in net benefits.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We have said the Revenue Services contract and revenue management project over the ten-year life of the agreement will accrue $382 million to British Columbia. On average, that would be $38 million a year.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I understand the whole concept of averaging out. What I wanted to know is, in real terms, what had been generated in net benefits to the province.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I've said several times tonight, this agreement is not yet one year old. That will happen in the next couple months. It is the intention of myself, my ministry and our government to report out after one year, and we will do that no later than March 31 of next year.

M. Karagianis: On page 24, the service plan notes that the performance of EAS in relation to non–tax collection is reported as part of the minister's debt collections result. Where does that figure actually appear?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That would show up on page 23 as part of the line called "Debt collection," and in the fiscal year '05-'06 it would be part of the $324 million.

M. Karagianis: Thank you for that information, minister. One of the benefits touted with regard to these kinds of privatization initiatives is the transfer of risk cost. With regard to the EAS contract, what was the risk that was transferred, and what was the cost of that transfer?

Hon. R. Thorpe: If the member would look at page 16, it clearly lays out here: "In addition to financial, transformation and human resource benefits of the system, the province will also benefit from EDS Advanced Solutions' upfront capital investment and ability to absorb risk associated with building and implementing the new business processes and information technologies." The basic risk transfer is the designing and building out of the system that they have assumed.

M. Karagianis: This would all come under the $21 million price tag that we discussed earlier — it has stayed as a line item in our budget — would it?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. As I said earlier, very early in our estimates discussion, the $21 million that is in there is basically an accounting transaction. We have been directed by the comptroller general's office, and I understand…. They're working with the Auditor General on how the accounting has to take place for the costs associated with the project. That's my understanding.

If that answer is not clear enough for the member, and the member wants further details, I'd be pleased to receive that information in my office and make every effort to try to supply that.

M. Karagianis: I do understand the $21 million. I guess what I'm trying to say is that part of this risk transfer is all of the information technologies that come with the EAS contract and that were not required as a capital investment by government. Is that what you are referring to?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, but I think it's also important, if the member is interested, with respect to page 16 of the public sector comparison: "The comparison showed that the contract with EDS Advanced Solutions will result in a net $82 million additional benefit to the province when compared to proceeding with an in-house model."

M. Karagianis: I know that the hour is growing late, and these complicated questions are getting tougher to answer. The minister's service plan states that a key focus of the Revenue Services branch is ensuring appropriate oversight of EDS Advanced Solutions while facilitating the success of the alliance with EAS on behalf of the ministry. Can the minister explain what form this oversight will take? For example, we discussed earlier about performance evaluations.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the member may recall in my earlier discussions, we have an alliance office in my ministry that is responsible for this project. The person in charge of that is my assistant deputy minister Karen Dellert, who is doing an excellent job with her team of ten staff members. They work day to day on the implementation, management and monitoring with Revenue Services of British Columbia to ensure that British Columbians are receiving the best value and the best customer service possible.

M. Karagianis: In coordination with the Auditor General, Partnerships B.C. publishes a value-for-money disclosure report for each public-private partnership project that it completes. Will the minister assure us that such a value-for-money report will be done with the EAS contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I have said many, many times here tonight, this implementation is less than a year old. I have committed to this House and to the member that I will be tabling and making public a report no later than March 31 of the progress that we've made within the first year with respect to the implementation of this agreement.

M. Karagianis: In fact, then, will the Auditor General be doing a value-for-money report based on that one-year report from the ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The Auditor General of British Columbia is at liberty to do an audit and a review on anything that the Auditor General of British Columbia deems appropriate for him and his office to do from time to time.

M. Karagianis: Well, I guess I'm asking for something a bit more in the way of a commitment. Given what I have already voiced as concerns by British Columbians about all of these large contracts for government services — that some are being held by companies outside of this country — I would hope that the minister will commit to have the auditor, in fact, do

that value-for- money report on that contract to back up all of the faith that he has in this contract.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I have said, and as I have talked about earlier, I know that from time to time people want to scare people and try to upset people for whatever agenda they may have

Let me tell you, hon. Chair, that the protection and privacy of personal information is something that I am on record as saying will not be compromised on my watch. What I've also said is that no information will be stored outside of Canada. We've also put in place protection items that enhance those of the Privacy Commissioner. We've also taken steps with whistle-blowers and our employees. We have taken extraordinary steps, and we will do whatever is required to protect the personal and private information of British Columbians.

At the same time, I am proud to be part of a government that is actually looking at how we can enhance the value of British Columbia's resources for British Columbians. I am actually proud that we have the opportunity to establish a revenue centre of excellence right here in British Columbia that we can showcase to the world. I'm proud of the 217 members of our ministry, most of them members of the BCGEU, who continue to perform excellent service for the citizens of British Columbia.

Quite frankly, I take a little bit of exception that sometimes we want to downplay the importance and the sincerity of our employees who were members of the BCGEU when it was government work, that now that they're working for another company, they're not exercising the same level of integrity. I take exception to that. Let me say that only yesterday I phoned one of those employees to congratulate him for the excellent job he was doing, because I received an e-mail from a customer who was impressed by the service they were getting. We are committed to improving customer service, we are committed to protecting privacy and personal information, and that's what we're going to do.

M. Karagianis: Given that very impassioned speech by the minister in defence of this EAS contract, and the fact that $570 million of taxpayers' money has gone to pay for this contract, I would take it that the minister would have absolutely no concerns whatsoever with making a commitment to an Auditor General value-for-money report on this contract that he is so very proud of.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that the committee rise, report resolution 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.