2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 5

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Les: Joining us in the members' gallery this afternoon is the Ambassador of Finland to Canada, His Excellency Risto Piipponen, who is here today on an official visit to Victoria and, I believe, Mr. Speaker, had lunch with yourself and several members of the House at noon today. The ambassador is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Marjatta Piipponen. I would like to invite the House to make them feel very welcome.

S. Fraser: Visiting today is a good friend of the family, Haida Bolton. Haida lived in Ottawa during her high school years, during which time she felt her second home was the Parliament Buildings. This is because Haida's father was Lyle Kristiansen, the MP for Kootenay West from 1980-1984 and re-elected in 1988-1993 for Kootenay West–Revelstoke.

Today Haida is visiting us in the gallery in the Legislature. She hasn't been here since she was eight years old. Along with Haida is her friend Margie Parikh, who is also from Nelson, actually which is where Haida was originally born. She's currently a resident of Oak Bay. Along with them are friends Lonn Friese, Amisha Parikh-Friese and Liam Orme. Will the House make them feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Visiting us today from the great constituency of Langley are Dick Moes, Elsina Moes, Harry Moes, Martha Moes, Bert Moes and Wieke Moes. Accompanying them all the way from the Netherlands are Harold Moes, Ella Moes, Jan Houweling and Olga Houweling. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Today joining us in the gallery are two gentlemen that I had the opportunity to meet with earlier. They are with Air Liquide and contribute greatly to the economic well-being of our province, particularly in the northeastern part. Joining us are Laurent Rimano, who is the energy manager of large industries for Air Liquide, as well as Pierre Drolet, who is the vice-president of large industry for Air Liquide. Will the House please help me welcome them.

L. Popham: Joining us in the Legislature today is a delegation from Langley, some constituents of the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. This group is here to discuss the serious issues facing their community. We have members from the local community associations, local advocacy groups, as well as representation from members of Langley's founding farming families.

Following an invitation I had to visit Langley and meet with this group about their serious issues, they came over for lunch today in the continuation of highlighting the issues that are present in their community — protecting their community and farmland, which is clearly under attack.

The guests that I have in the House today are Hank Der, Megan Dykeman, Dave Stark, Connie Blundy, Frank Cox, David Davis, Earl Mufford, Nicholas Mufford, Peter Pretorius, Ilona Pretorius and Petrina Arnason. Welcome to the House.

D. Barnett: I am honoured today to have a constituent of mine in the House: Nancy Gale. She is in her 13th year of being the CEO of the Williams Lake Child Development Centre. She is a rotarian. She is a member of the Downtown Business Improvement Association, and she also teaches — early childhood education program. Her daughter Shirley-Pat Gale will be receiving from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor the Queen's Jubilee Medal later this month.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, Members, please welcome a very honourable lady from my constituency, Nancy Gale.

L. Reid: It is my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia and to our House a delegation of visitors from Mexico. Joining us in the gallery this afternoon are Rene Arcila, Auditor General, supreme audit office of the state of Yucatan; Louis Medicna, director of performance audit; and Francisco Mijares, special performance auditor of the state of Mexico audit office.

Over the lunch hour the delegation had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with members of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and are pleased to be part of this exchange. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

P. Pimm: I have a couple of constituents in the precinct today. I have the mayor of Hudson Hope, Karen Anderson, and the CAO of Hudson Hope, John Locher, with us today. Would you please help me make them welcome.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Also joining us in the gallery today is a good friend of mine and a good friend of this Legislative Assembly, Mr. Roger Harris, who was formerly the MLA for Skeena and presently serves as our
[ Page 10172 ]
forest safety ombudsman. Will the House please welcome Roger.

M. Coell: Our former Clerk of the House, George MacMinn, is in the precinct today, and he has guests in the gallery: Dr. William Davis and Mrs. Davis. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — MOTION PICTURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1340]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to introduce amendments in the Motion Picture Amendment Act for 2012. Under the Motion Picture Act, all theatres, distributors and businesses selling or renting motion pictures are licensed. The act also requires the classification of all motion pictures before exhibition in theatres and the classification of adult movies for sale and rental.

Amendments will update definitions and introduce terms to reflect the modern digital age of the motion picture industry. The amendments will complete delegation to Consumer Protection B.C., the agency tasked since 2007 with administration of this act.

Also, the amendments will modernize the act's enforcement provisions. An updated progressive enforcement regime will introduce compliance orders, undertakings and administrative penalties. These enforcement tools from the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act give Consumer Protection B.C. the same tools used for the other sectors it regulates.

In addition, the amendments will align the statute with the Criminal Code's definition for obscenity. The definition for adult motion picture is updated, and the director will now only be able to approve or refuse to approve adult material in line with the Criminal Code standards. All other motion pictures for exhibition in theatres will be classified.

Together these amendments continue the protections currently in place for consumers, including laws on how adult and restricted movies are sold, displayed and exhibited. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31, Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

AVALANCHE RISK AND
BACK-COUNTRY RECREATION

B. Bennett: I'm speaking today about the extreme avalanche risk in the B.C. back country, hoping that we in the House might be able to raise the profile of the extraordinary dangers that are facing recreationalists right now in British Columbia.

Recently the Kimberley Search and Rescue made a dramatic rescue of a back-country skier from Hellroaring Creek, which is an area just southwest of Cranbrook. This is a spectacular mountain range in the Purcells that I've hiked in, in the summertime with my wife, but I can hardly imagine going there in the winter where these skiers were.

The search and rescue team evacuated the skier who had a fractured leg, dislocated shoulder, lacerations to the face and head, but he was still alive. The injured skier and his courageous female companion were highly experienced, and they did have transceivers, which is probably why he survived. Nonetheless, it took 15 search and rescue volunteers, two snowmobiles and a snowcat and many, many hours to rescue the injured man.

That same weekend in February a skier in the Meadow Mountain area of the West Kootenay, near Kaslo, was not so lucky. He didn't make it. Then a week ago a 33-year-old Alberta snowmobiler was buried and died in an avalanche just east of Sparwood. Ironically, that accident happened just a couple of hours after the Canadian Avalanche Centre issued its second warning to recreational users.

I'm told that avalanches this year are likely to be much bigger than usual and that this year they can be triggered from the bottom of the slope or even from a distance, given the extremely unstable nature of this winter's snowpack. Even less steep slopes and even in the trees where avalanches don't normally happen, the snow is highly unstable, complex with many weak layers, and fatally dangerous.

In the past seven years there have been 25 avalanche fatalities in B.C., 20 of which came from the sport of snowmobiling. So going into one of the most dangerous periods of the winter, right now over the next two or three weeks, I ask that all snowmobilers take the time to have the right equipment and perhaps consider taking a couple of weeks off.
[ Page 10173 ]

ART OF JOHNSON SU-SING CHOW

J. Kwan: Imagine an unfinished Chinese ink painting sitting on a table. A curious boy walks by and sees the unfinished painting. Filled with intrigue, he picked up the ink paintbrush next to the painting and began to paint. His mother saw what the boy was doing and scolded him for ruining his father's unfinished work.

When the boy's father, a scholar and an artist, returned home that evening and saw the painting, the boy was afraid that he was in trouble. However, instead of a reprimand, his father was delighted that his boy had an interest in art. He brought the painting to show others, and all agreed that the boy had talent.

That was a story that Prof. Su-sing Chow shared with Gabriel Yiu and me over lunch. That boy in the story is Professor Chow when he was nine years old. On February 21 Professor Chow celebrated his 90th birthday, and he's still running strong.

[1345]

The opening of the "Johnson Su-sing Chow at 90" art exhibition took place this past weekend at International Arts Gallery. Professor Chow, a world-renowned artist, has held more than 179 solo art exhibitions. To celebrate his love for art, to promote cultural exchange, he has generously donated his work to numerous museums.

Today museums internationally, including the National Gallery of Canada, hold collections of his work. Several cultural institutes have over 100 of his paintings as part of their permanent collection, and a selection of his calligraphy has been carved on a stone tablet and included in the Contemporary Scholars of Forest of Steles in Henan province, China. Professor Chow has published 36 volumes of his work and received over 150 arts awards and honours over the years.

As the founding president of the Chinese Canadian Artist Federation in Vancouver, Professor Chow works tirelessly to nurture local artists. He has generously donated his paintings to support local charities, and since 2006 in celebration of the lunar new year, Professor Chow penned a beautiful calligraphy poster that the official opposition has shared with members of the community. Professor Chow is a jewel of Chinese culture.

PACIFIC ASSISTANCE DOGS SOCIETY

J. Thornthwaite: Many British Columbians do not fully appreciate the challenges that people with disabilities experience day to day. Yet today there is a variety of dedicated people and organizations working across our province to mitigate these challenges.

It's my pleasure to commend the efforts of one such organization, called the Pacific Assistance Dogs Society, or PADS. PADS helps provide people with a physical disability or who are deaf or hard of hearing with an increased level of independence and, more importantly, an elevated quality of life. PADS' mission is to breed, raise, train and place assistance dogs with people across western Canada, as well as to provide long-term support to these client-dog teams for the duration of the dog's working life.

I encountered one of my constituents, a PADS volunteer named Karen Tregillas, in Park Royal mall this weekend. She was training her PADS dog, Riley II, a beautiful eight-month-old black Lab. PADS dogs make a real difference in their human companions' lives and serve a variety of functions based on individual needs.

Another constituent of mine, Monica Craver, told me:

"I used to have a PADS hearing dog many moons ago. She was a Pembroke Corgi named Minnie, a wonderful dog who helped me raise my then three young children during her 12 years of service. Minnie would lead me to any of my kids calling for mama from any room of the house. Otherwise, I would never know where they were or if they were in trouble. Minnie was a real peace of mind for me back then. Thanks, PADS."

This story only scratches the surface of the real difference that assistance dogs make in the lives of many British Columbians. On the North Shore we have seven puppies in training, five active volunteers involved in training puppies and dogs, and four working client-canine teams. I encourage every British Columbian to visit pads.ca to learn more about these amazing animal companions and how we can contribute to this most worthy cause.

RIDGE MEADOWS HOSPICE SOCIETY

M. Sather: In 1980 a former public health nurse, Edna Trethewey, recognized the need for emotional support to dying patients and their exhausted families as death draws near, as well as the need to provide support during the grieving process. Edna was the founder and first volunteer of hospice in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The Ridge Meadows Hospice Society was incorporated in 1987 and has grown to include nine staff members and 120 volunteers.

The decision to volunteer for the hospice society is a big commitment, as training to become a visiting volunteer takes 30 hours over three months. However, the course itself can bring deeply rewarding life changes by teaching active listening, being in the moment, non-judgment and acceptance. After the course volunteers are ready to visit the bedsides of patients at McKenney Creek or private homes. Their presence is a comfort to both patients and families.

Volunteers can further their training with the one-on-one bereavement support and group facilitation programs. Another option is to specialize in children's bereavement support, accompanied by support of the parent or guardian. The society also offers a weekly relaxation circle, where professionally trained instructors invoke deep relaxation to decrease depression and anx-
[ Page 10174 ]
iety, improve quality of life and quiet the mind and body.

[1350]

Finally, there is the Ridge Meadows Hospice Society Thrift Store, which uses the profits from donated goods to augment their funding. Currently 55 volunteers spend time at the thrift store, including people with developmental disabilities. As Executive Director Laura Cherrille delicately points out, the hospice society is an organization that every individual may benefit from at some point in their life. Death is not something that we like to contemplate, but it helps to know that the hospice society is there to make it easier.

RICHARD WRUTH AND
VANDERHOOF CHILDREN'S THEATRE

J. Rustad: Theatre has always been important in my life, and it's through theatre that I met my wife. Today I rise to speak about a person who found his passion right in his hometown of Vanderhoof. For the past 12 years Richard Wruth has been the volunteer director and producer of the non-profit Vanderhoof Children's Theatre.

Managing a group of dedicated, enthusiastic kids is no easy feat. There are usually 30 to 40 young actors of all ages to work with at once.

After auditions, rehearsals, costume fittings and long hours of painting sets, Richard manages to put on two incredible shows a year — all of this on top of running his own clothing story, California Dreamin'. The hard work is always well worth it in the end for Richard. His love for theatre and youth contributes to not only the success of the productions but to the personal growth of the kids as well.

In this inclusive environment kids gain important experience in public speaking, teamwork and leadership. Being part of a team that works so closely together under a driven role model like Richard Wruth builds work ethics, team spirit and, most importantly, self-esteem.

After putting some elbow grease into fundraising, these energetic performers will get to travel around the region and showcase their hard work to school groups and the general public. Playhouses always sell out, and the crowd is always impressed.

The success story of the Vanderhoof Children's Theatre would not have been realized if it weren't for the efforts of volunteers like Richard Wruth. It really does take an entire community to support the arts, and we're lucky in British Columbia to have such supportive community leaders.

FISH AND WILDLIFE
COMPENSATION PROGRAM

M. Mungall: In just nine days the people who staff B.C. Hydro's fish and wildlife compensation program will be leaving 333 Victoria Street, otherwise known as the Pink Building, in Nelson. Some of them have worked there for nearly three decades. Their work, mandated by the licences B.C. Hydro holds to operate multiple dams within the Kootenays, was essential to protecting fish and wildlife in the region.

Generating 50 percent of the province's electricity doesn't come without a price tag to our natural world. So the fish and wildlife compensation program was diligent in its efforts to mitigate any negative impacts.

The kokanee salmon in Meadow Creek spawning channels have benefited from this program. So have the endangered northern leopard frogs in the Creston Valley wildlife management area, and bighorn sheep and caribou too. Critters, large and small, with lungs and gills, have all benefited, and so have we.

On Kootenay Lake alone the fish and wildlife compensation program staff has conducted an angler survey, as well as one of the largest lake restoration projects in the world. They have worked with First Nations, community groups and local experts, forging strong relationships that give us the opportunities to work together for our region.

Now, without a plan or a new model for conducting this legally mandated work and with no public consultation, the knowledge of the fish and wildlife compensation program is moving on, and we will most certainly lose out.

Too many times have the Kootenays been blindsided by distant decisions on the electrical generation capacity of our region. Too many times has our natural environment been the casualty. The loss of seven staff in a valuable program that has picked up the pieces of those decisions rings too close to negative experiences of the past.

The fish, the wildlife, the people of the Kootenays deserve better. We deserve the expertise of the fish and wildlife compensation program.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members that these are two-minute statements.

Oral Questions

AGREEMENT ON NAMING RIGHTS
FOR B.C. PLACE

J. Horgan: Well, the long-negotiated TELUS naming rights at B.C. Place fiasco ended in spectacular fashion. But who would have thought that the excuses for that fiasco would have been even more spectacular?

[1355]

Just to recap for those who are scoring at home, initially the Premier said it was a bad deal for taxpayers. Then we heard from the minister responsible for big stuff that they wanted to keep the name B.C. Place. Then he changed his mind and said: "No. Actually, the signs were
[ Page 10175 ]
too big." Lastly, we heard that the Minister of Finance involved himself in the expenditure of public moneys, which is a useful thing, and he got in the middle and killed the deal.

My question to the Premier. My question to the Premier, on her year anniversary. After 12 months we've got higher ferry…. We've got….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: Sadly, the anniversary present for the public isn't quite what it should have been. Twelve months later — higher ferry fares, higher hydro rates, higher MSP premiums, more stays in criminal proceedings, continued budget deficits, more raw log exports offshore, failures in the forest, a thousand jobs lost at B.C. Hydro.

I could go on, but let's just focus on the 40 million bucks you left on the table with TELUS. Will the Premier stand in her place and take responsibility for blowing 40 million bucks of taxpayer money?

Hon. C. Clark: Thanks to the member for acknowledging this date. I should say it has been an honour to serve British Columbians in the role as Premier for this last year.

Let me say this about the TELUS deal on B.C. Place. It's the same thing that I said last week, and it's the same thing that I've said since then, which is that it wasn't the right deal for taxpayers. We needed to make sure taxpayers had a better deal than that.

But you know, there are bumps in the road in any relationship. We do have a great relationship with TELUS, and I'll tell you why. We have a billion-dollar partnership that we've forged with TELUS since my government took over, and that billion-dollar partnership is going to save taxpayers a whole whack of money.

It's a great deal. Not every deal is a great deal, but this one is. It's going to save taxpayers about $400 million over its ten-year term.

I'm proud to say it's a partnership with a company headquartered here in British Columbia that supplies thousands and thousands of jobs. And if there's one thing that we're about on this side of the House, it's about enabling and protecting and creating jobs all across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: So many opportunities. It's difficult to pick one. I don't know how accountants budget a whole whack, but I do know what they do with $40 million. They're going to have to take it out of taxpayers' pockets.

We had a private sector company prepared to put up 40 million bucks. Two years ago the minister for big stuff said that $20 million "might not be too much to the member opposite, but to some of us in the world it would be a substantial amount of money." Before, the minister for big stuff said $20 million was a lot. Now $40 million isn't enough.

It may not be a big whack to the Premier, but how does she justify walking away in a time of deficit budgets? In a time when we've got a fire sale of public assets, how do you walk away from 40 million bucks?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I said, the contract with TELUS that we have is going to save taxpayers $400 million over a ten-year term. That's evidence of the relationship that we have with a great B.C.-based company.

I will say this. I know the NDP…. It's interesting to hear the member talk about where he thinks that $40 million will come from. For so many days in this Legislature I've been standing up and asking them where they think….

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: It is interesting to hear the member talk about where he thinks money will come from, because of course we have been standing…. Of course, the media has been regularly asking the Leader of the Opposition where he thinks all of the money that will go to fund the teachers' contract and other items for government would come from.

Finally, now the House Leader has come clean and said he knows where money comes from. It comes from taxpayers' pockets. Thanks for that admission.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Since the Premier arrived a year ago, she has been here sporadically. During that time $30 million….

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Just take your seat for a second, Member.

J. Horgan: I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

J. Horgan: So $30 million for Boss Power, $6 million for the Basi-Virk trial, and now $40 million left on the table. I don't know where the Premier thinks this money will come from. We're selling assets on one side, and we're not taking money off the table from private sector companies.

I want to go back to the relationship, hon. Speaker, because the Premier said she had a good relationship with
[ Page 10176 ]
TELUS. So through you to her: have you ever sat down with Darren Entwistle and explained to him why you yanked the rug out from them after they went through all the trouble of wiring the building, buying the sign and getting ready to sponsor TELUS Park? Did you ever talk to Darren Entwistle? How's that relationship?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member likes to talk about what's happened in the last year. I'm happy to do that, because we should be talking about some of the things that have occurred in the last year — like, for example, 39,900 net new jobs, 9,000 of them in just this last month.

We also have seen progress on the Huckleberry mine, the Quinsam mine, New Afton, Red Chris, Bonanza Ridge, Mount Milligan. We see them clearing land for the first of the three LNG lines that will be up and running. We've seen Shell buy the property that they would potentially put an LNG terminal on. We've seen Mitsubishi commit $2.9 billion to EnCana to support LNG.

We've seen Alcan make one of the largest private sector investments that's ever been made in the history of the province. We have seen Western Forest Products demonstrate its confidence in the economy by investing $200 million in its operations on Vancouver Island, and we have landed an $8 billion shipbuilding contract that will put 4,000 people to work on Vancouver Island and in North Vancouver. Not bad for a year.

M. Karagianis: The Premier left off the list the biggest of them all: the HST fiasco that the people of British Columbia voted out. We didn't hear about that.

But on this TELUS story…. The B.C. Liberal government promised us, when we went $563 million into the hole for the B.C. Place roof and renovations…. They told us this was going to pay for itself. They had all kinds of deals set aside to have it pay for itself. But of course, we've seen every one of those deals fall through.

The casino deal disappeared. The TELUS deal — gone. What do we hear? Every single day it's a new excuse for the mismanagement of the B.C. Liberals.

"The signs are too big." "The deal is good." "The deal is bad." "They did it." "It's somebody else's fault." The finger-pointing goes everywhere but to the B.C. Liberal government — one lame excuse after the other. So it would seem to me that there's not a lot of great leadership going on over on the other side of the House on this or other issues.

[1405]

So on this anniversary that the Premier is celebrating…. She's had a year in office to get this job under her belt. I would like to know. The Premier has had a year to get this job under her belt. Let's see her stand up and take responsibility and sort out this mess she's made with B.C. Place.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite talks about leadership. Last fall, last November, the largest-ever trade mission in the history of the province of British Columbia, led by this Premier, to China, to India. Over 60 deals signed.

We're building one of the most exciting mining sectors that's ever happened in the province of British Columbia, with new mines across this province, significant investments in Tumbler Ridge, in Prince George, in Fort St. James, in Burns Lake, in Houston — right across this province. That's leadership.

Just last month — in forestry, fishing, mining and gas — an additional 1,400 jobs; in manufacturing, an additional 3,300 jobs; in trade, an additional 12,000 jobs. This province is building an economy that won't be stopped, and it's because of the leadership of this Premier of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Let's talk about the companion list here — $40 million for the naming rights of B.C. Place gone, $30 million to Boss Power to pay off an action that this government admitted was illegal, $6 million to pay off convicted criminals in the B.C. Liberal corruption trial.

Let's just talk about the corruption trial itself. Biggest scandal in the history of this province — B.C. Rail sell-off. Millions of dollars wasted. Shredded HST brochures. All kinds of Liberal propaganda shredded.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: Hundreds of thousands of dollars gone down the drain. So how can the Premier stand here and expect that anyone would take this government seriously after blunder upon blunder upon blunder? And now the botched B.C. Place–TELUS deal.

Hon. P. Bell: We are at a time when it is very challenging globally. In fact, we're in very stormy economic times. It takes strong leadership through that stormy period that we're facing in this province. So this government has led the most aggressive strategy at increasing international investment ever in the history of any subnational government.

In fact, since 2007 we've grown lumber sales to China from under $100 million to $1.1 billion per year. But you know, those benefits expand across the province, and it's because of the leadership of this government and this Premier that we've seen an additional 4,800 jobs on Vancouver Island just in the last month.

This province is building. We're a powerhouse, and we're going to make sure that we continue to grow the economy.
[ Page 10177 ]

VANCOUVER FLOATPLANE
TERMINAL CONTRACT

S. Chandra Herbert: The Liberals' extreme mismanagement extends beyond B.C. Place. While overseeing the massively over-budget convention centre, the Liberals struck a deal with the Clarke Group to build a $21 million floatplane terminal. The deal was rejected by Harbour Air, B.C.'s largest floatplane company, because of high user fees that would gouge passengers $20 each trip.

The new Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre now sits largely empty. The company now says it plans on suing the provincial government for breaking its contract. So can the Premier tell us today how she plans to fix her Liberal government's mess?

[1410]

Hon. P. Bell: As the member opposite knows, we've had a mediator involved in this dispute between two private parties for over a year. He is a distinguished individual, Dan Doyle. I know members opposite know of him and his reputation, and I'm sure all of them would agree that he's a highly qualified individual.

I also know that the first priority of PavCo and of this government is to make sure that we have a safe facility. That is our top priority, and because of the potential risks associated with us going to court, I won't be commenting past that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the minister has had a mediator for over a year, and nothing has happened. Coal Harbour residents are unhappy. Floatplane passengers stand to get gouged. Floatplane operators refuse to use the docks. The terminal sits empty, and the company, as the minister has acknowledged, is planning to sue his government.

It's been almost a year without a deal. We've raised this issue in the House before. Will the minister tell this House his plans to fix this situation his government created?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't think that the member opposite would suggest that we should require occupancy of that facility until it is safe. In fact, I'm almost certain that's the case. So if the member does believe that the facility should be occupied before it is safe, I would certainly encourage him to say that.

B.C. PLACE BUSINESS PLAN

S. Simpson: Liberal mismanagement of PavCo has become quite stunning. First, we have the multi-million-dollar cost overruns on the convention centre. Now we have the flight centre mess and B.C. Place, with almost a $600 million roof, with no plan on how to pay for it.

We started with a half-baked casino scheme that went in the ditch, followed by a $40 million sponsorship deal that was killed with TELUS. At the end of the day, tens of millions of dollars of debt will rest with B.C. taxpayers.

Will the minister tell us: where is the plan for how to pay for B.C. Place and the roof?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member's question is timely, in the sense that there was just an economic report released late last week on the 99th Grey Cup. The 99th Grey Cup, according to this independent report — I know members don't like to hear this — generated $118 million worth of economic activity.

The fact that this investment was made has enabled the Vancouver Whitecaps to move up from the previous division that they played in the United Soccer League's first division to the major soccer league division in British Columbia. That's taken them from only being able to have about 5,000 spectators per game to about 20,000 spectators per game — another major tenant in B.C. Place that's going to continue to drive economic value.

This has been a good investment. It's going to last for 40 years. It's something we should all be proud of in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The Whitecaps and the B.C. Lions might be having a good year, but taxpayers are getting hosed by this government's incompetence. How do British Columbians have any confidence in this Premier and in this minister and in this government?

First, the government kills the $40 million deal to presumably protect the B.C. Place name. But when that argument doesn't wash, then it's about, "The signs are too big," and then it's about: "The deal is not quite right."

Peter Brown didn't buy it. He resigned from the PavCo board. David Podmore, the CEO, didn't buy it. He said: "Where's the $40 million that the government is going to have to provide PavCo to relieve this?"

The reality is this. Most importantly, British Columbians, who ultimately have to pay for this, don't buy the minister's argument or the Premier's argument or the Liberal argument. Where is the plan to pay for that stadium and pay for that nearly $600 million roof?

[1415]

Hon. P. Bell: It's a little bit rich sitting on this side of the House, listening to that member preach about economic prudence, for a government that drove the economy of the province of British Columbia into the ground — No. 1 to No. 10 through the 1990s. Conversely, this is the government that has been able to get consecutive upgrades in its credit rating to triple-A credit ratings.
[ Page 10178 ]

There are investors around the world. Mitsubishi is putting $3 billion into this province. They don't do it because they don't have confidence in the management team of this province. They do it because they do have the confidence in that management team.

LOG EXPORT POLICY AND TIMBER EXPORT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECISIONS

N. Macdonald: Well, we just heard from the former Minister of Forests, who lost 17,000 jobs on his watch. That's his record. Let's go to the current minister.

Yesterday the minister admitted that he has been routinely overriding the decisions made by the timber export advisory committee. He has given up 103,000 cubic metres of our logs — logs that could have created jobs here in British Columbia. That's unprecedented. He has overruled his own committee 86 times. Those are the unchallenged facts.

So the question is…. Yesterday the minister could not explain why he had overruled the committee once. Today can the minister explain why he has overruled it 86 times?

Hon. S. Thomson: Let's be clear. Yesterday we confirmed that this TEAC committee is an advisory committee to our process. They're advisory. They provide us with advice in assessing whether applications for us to not approve export applications are fair. When we receive those applications, that's the test that we apply to it.

Let's be clear. What happened here was that TEAC changed the process and the criteria on which they assess applications. This ministry did not change their criteria. We continue to administer the criteria on the basis that had been consistently done previously. We are continuing to work and reviewing this policy with TEAC. We've committed to get back to them, and that's what we'll do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister knows for a fact that the principles that the export advisory committee uses have not changed at all. They have not changed. The minister met with this committee last week, and that's what they told him. They made the case. Instead, what we have is the minister choosing to override…. It's not advice; it's expert advice.

What are the consequences? Members should know what the consequences of that sort of activity are. We learned today that Teal-Jones in Surrey intends to shut down shifts today. Those are hundreds of workers who are not going to be receiving a paycheque today.

It's because they cannot get logs. There were 86 opportunities for them to get logs. Each and every time, this minister stepped in and robbed them of that opportunity. Why? That's the question. You still have not stood up in this House and given a good explanation for why you choose to rob B.C. workers of jobs.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite is wrong. The TEAC committee did change their direction and did change their policy. This is not about doing things exactly the way they were doing them before. They changed their policy and their recommendations and the process around the criteria with which they assess it.

The ministry did not change its criteria. We've continued to administer it consistently with the way that we had before.

Let's just be clear that the ability to export logs in British Columbia is one that provides the balance and provides for economic activity across the coast, in coastal communities. It's a policy that is keeping jobs in mills on the coast and across British Columbia. We will continue to administer policy to ensure that we have the balance there that provides for that economic activity across the province.

[1420]

B. Routley: I know — I've talked to members on that committee — that they haven't changed their principles whatsoever. They've always sent logs to a local market. They determined the local market, and they made a recommendation 86 times to this minister. Because of the actions of this minister, ignoring the recommendation of his own committee, now B.C. forest workers and their families are sitting at home.

You explain why….

Mr. Speaker: Member, Member.

Member, just take your chair for a second.

I want to remind all members that they go through the Chair.

Continue, Member.

B. Routley: The question is, through the Chair: why? Why are logs being exported from British Columbia at the expense of B.C. workers' jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: We continue to hear the continued rhetoric from that side of the House on the value of log exports to British Columbia. When we're working hard to balance the budget, creating and sustaining jobs here in British Columbia, this opposition continues to just simply provide misinformation to the public.

Here's what we know. Log exports are keeping people employed in British Columbia. That is the case, and those are the facts.

For example, if you want to look at the people involved in the industry who talk about the policy. "If log exports were banned today, we might as well close the doors and throw away the keys. Every contractor would immediately be shut down and…their employees laid off."
[ Page 10179 ]
This would affect workers across British Columbia, affect workers in Terrace, affect workers on the north coast.

Log exports are part of the balance of the equation that keeps people employed here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: Only a small percentage of logs in British Columbia are ever blocked, a very small percentage. Here's the story. Teal-Jones is an independent, family-run company. They don't want any kind of special treatment. But workers in Surrey, this coming weekend, are losing their jobs, and this minister still hasn't explained why.

Why are logs leaving British Columbia? Why has he chosen exporting raw logs over the jobs of British Columbian forest workers? Just why?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said clearly, during this process the TEAC committee, the advisory committee, changed their criteria under which they assess applications. We've been consistent in how we manage those applications. That includes two tests. One is whether they're needed for domestic purposes. There also was a test of whether it is a fair-market offer for those export applications. Those are the tests that are applied to the applications to ensure that there is fair market value being applied.

As I said, I've met with TEAC. I've committed to meet with them again. We're going to continue to do that and continue to review the policy on which most of the criteria of the surplus test is applied and the fair market price is applied.

RELEASE OF MEDIA CORRESPONDENCE
WITH GOVERNMENT TO EMINATA GROUP

M. Mungall: On Monday the minister told this House she did not share an e-mail from a Province newspaper reporter with Eminata Group. The e-mail concerned a story the reporter was writing about the private post-secondary conglomerate, and it ended up in the hands of Eminata's CEO, Randy Cox. The minister subsequently told the Province reporter that she has asked her staff to look into the matter.

[1425]

It is Wednesday. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell us today how an e-mail for her eyes ended up in the hands of Eminata's CEO?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I mentioned to the member opposite on Monday, there has been no e-mail sent by myself, from my office or ministry staff to the organization that the member opposite is referring to. With respect to, I believe, this Province article, I am looking into the matter. That's what I pledged to do on Monday. I still continue to pledge to do that today.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we'll continue debate on Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, in committee. And in Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will continue with the estimates debate of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. Should that complete, we would then move to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22: L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the committee on Bill 22 will come to order. We'll be returning to consideration of the amendment to section 6.

On the amendment (continued).

[1430]

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment on section 6 on Bill 22. My colleague the Minister of Health indicated moments ago to me that this was his favourite section…

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Favourite critic.

…and given some persuasive arguments, he may well be there. So I will attempt to give him some persuasive arguments on the amendment. Just to refresh the Chair, and members of this House and those watching on the legislative channel who may not be familiar with the amendment, it is as follows:

"Bill 22, intituled the Education Improvement Act, to amend as follows. Section 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined. Mediation." Therefore, you would cross out, "The Minister of Education must appoint a mediator," and replace it with: "An independent mediator must be appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code to assist the parties in settling the terms and conditions of a new collective agreement in accordance with this section."

Then it goes on to subsection (2). "The terms of reference for the mediator are as follows…(c) the new collect-
[ Page 10180 ]
ive agreement is to" — underlined; this is what's added — "include any measures which may enable high-quality teaching and learning" — again underlined — "including but not limited to (i) effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement, (ii) alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and (iii) scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs."

This is an important amendment, because what we're saying is: let's put in place an independent mediator, one who has the ability to deal, in the way the current legislation is structured, with many of the non-monetary issues in a way that can help bring a resolution to the dispute that we have seen.

As we noticed earlier in question period today, the government itself has admitted that they have a mediator, an independent mediator, in place in the disputes around the new floatplane flight service centre in Coal Harbour. That, to me, is an example the government may want to consider.

I see my learned colleague from the North Coast nodding in agreement with that suggestion. He himself as a former teacher understands the benefit that an independent mediator could bring to the dispute. That's why this amendment is so important. I point out, in speaking to the amendment, the position that the government has taken in another area, in another dispute, where an independent mediator is at work and attempting to bring resolution to some of the challenges that face the government.

Now, in terms of the kinds of areas that could be addressed by an independent mediator, in terms of the non-cost items, there are a considerable number, and I just want to go through some of them. Some of them are particularly pertinent to my own particular community as to why I think this amendment is eminently supportable and, I suspect, would be particularly important to my colleague the Minister of Health.

For example, these non-monetary items can include layoff and recall, qualifications, educational change, job-sharing, seniority, evaluation, temporary teachers' rights, supervision, transfers, professional autonomy, new-school planning and staff committee, just to name a few.

I'd like to address one of these, and that's the area of new-school planning. You know, we are a fast-growing province with significant areas experiencing rapid and dramatic population growth. Our own school district 43 is one of those — my own community of Port Coquitlam, for example. I think it's important that when we're looking at placing new schools, not only do we take into account the kinds of demographic changes that are happening in our communities but also we look at the particular needs that arise in the school system, the education system, in some of the fast-growing parts of British Columbia.

Surrey, Abbotsford, Chilliwack all come to mind. In the Tri-Cities, for example, we have seen significant increase in those who speak a language other than English or French as their mother tongue. We've seen a dramatic growth in those that speak Punjabi, those that speak the Asian languages, whether it's Mandarin or Cantonese. We have seen an increase in Farsi speakers. Recently there has been a move to resettle refugees who are ethnic Nepalis from Bhutan in the Coquitlam area, and all of these contribute to a changing demographic in our school system.

[1435]

Who better, in terms of school planning, to understand the impact that this has on the classroom and on the school than teachers themselves who have to deal with these issues, you know, on a day-to-day basis.

Therefore, when it comes to the planning of new schools, I think it's important that teachers are involved so that they can provide their insight, their experience, their wisdom into how we can make a new school as effective and as positive a learning environment as possible. I think that that's something that all of us in this House would want to see.

I know that the changes that were….

The Chair: Member, the Chair would encourage the member to seek an original line of inquiry, discussion, as it pertains to the amendment.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I think that the issue of school planning — and I take the Chair's words — is an original line of…. In speaking to the amendment, this is, I think, an original line of questioning. I know the Minister of Education disagrees, but I bet you right now I'm the first person in this chamber to mention the arrival of ethnic Nepali Bhutanese into the Tri-Cities and the impact that that would have on our school system.

The Chair: And could you respond with respect to how it pertains to the amendment.

M. Farnworth: Yes, that is the point of my argument, and I am talking to the amendment. You see, the amendment is important because what the amendment does is allow the appointment of an independent mediator who can address these kinds of issues. I think that's why it's so important that this amendment pass, because an independent mediator is able to sit down and weigh the concerns at the table, work with the parties to address these particular types of non-monetary issues.

That's why I'm saying, from the teachers that I talk to in my particular school district of district 43, I think school planning is particularly important because of the high growth rate that we have in our communities. That's why this amendment is important.

It's not an attempt to say, "Let's delay," because, as I know the Chair is aware, under Standing Order 83, re-
[ Page 10181 ]
petitiveness is an attempt to stall a vote. That is not the case, hon. Chair. The point I'm doing, in speaking to the amendment, is to draw the attention to the opportunities that an independent mediator would have to address some of the outstanding non-monetary issues. I'm trying to do it from the perspective as in my own particular school district.

So as I said, school planning. Again, I think that in terms of the programs that are offered in many schools, particularly in some of the ones where the issues are around programs dealing with the environment, we have a very rich and varied environment in our community. As such, in planning for new schools we are able to take into account — in terms of the siting and, again, the types of programs that are there — specific types of teachers that would work well in delivering those kinds of programs. That's why I think new school planning is an appropriate area to be looking at.

I'd also like to look at one of the issues that have been raised, and that is around layoff and recall. Different school districts have different ways of dealing with seniority, for example. So I think one of the things that, probably, an independent mediator would be able to do is to sit down and work and look at all the different models that exist. Burnaby is different, I believe, than the Coquitlam school district, which is school district 43. That particular school district is made up of Coquitlam and Port Moody, Anmore, Belcarra, and of course, my own riding of Port Coquitlam.

Again, non-monetary items being able to be dealt with, I think, by the appointment of an independent mediator will go a long way to resolving or helping to resolve the impasse that the government finds itself in at this current point in its dispute with the teachers of British Columbia. I think that's the job of a responsible opposition, to be able to put forward these opportunities for the government to consider and for members to speak to it from the perspective of their own particular constituencies and from their own particular school districts.

[1440]

One of the things that I have learned — and one of the great things about being an MLA and why I'm speaking to this particular amendment — is that you really, truly, when you travel around this great province of ours, appreciate the diversity that exists not just in terms of the landscape and the geography and the topography but the people.

Port Coquitlam is quite different than Hazelton. It is quite different than Hazelton. Shuswap is a beautiful part of the province, but again, it's different than Port Hardy or Cranbrook. There are different concerns.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: And as the minister says, even Salmon Arm. That's absolutely true. I'll give an example. Educational programs. Teachers, I know, in my community and in Salmon Arm, often, come Thanksgiving, when the salmon are returning to the Shuswap….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Then I will be happy to enlighten the minister. Programs that take kids out of the classroom to see the return of salmon up salmon-spawning creeks — Adams River run — are important in his particular area and in our community. It is important, but in some parts of the province where the streams have been paved over, like in parts of Vancouver, kids don't have that opportunity.

I think what we're doing is illustrating some of the diversity within the province. But I don't want the minister to lead me astray and have me digress too far from the amendment, so in speaking to the amendment I want to bring it back. I don't want the minister or myself to run afoul of the Chair. That would not do.

To speak to the minister…. The ability to provide an independent mediator under section 74 is something the government needs to seriously consider because it has — I think, and as other members of the House have said — the potential to show a road map of how we can end this dispute.

The amendments. I've said why, but just specifically how, mechanically, it would do this is it would expand the scope of bargaining. It would expand the scope of bargaining by permitting the mediator to look at any measures which may enable high-quality teaching and learning. Again, that is something that I think all of us in this House can support.

Certainly, from what I've heard from comments by the minister, those are policies that the government wants to pursue. I know from this side of the House those are policies that our expert and learned Education critic, the member for Skeena, has certainly advocated. It's certainly what I hear from teachers in the many, many hundreds of letters that they have delivered both to my office and to my e-mail account — they have said. And it is certainly something that parents and students have said in a loud way that they would like to see take place.

Hon. Speaker, I notice the light is turning green, and I know that signals my time is almost up. So I would just like to make one final pitch to my colleague the Minister of Health. I know the Minister of Education has been listening attentively, and the Minister of Health, no doubt, is as well.

This is a unique opportunity, and I think parents and teachers and students across this province would be more than appreciative if this government seized the opportunity presented to it by this amendment and was able to support this amendment. Then we, I think, will be going on many, many steps to being able to end this dispute.

With that, I wind up my comments on this particu-
[ Page 10182 ]
lar amendment. It has been a pleasure to speak, to share some views representative of my district, and I look forward to hearing what colleagues from both sides of the House have to say. With that, I take my seat.

The Chair: Members, I'll take this opportunity to refresh the House's understanding of Standing Order 43:

"…the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of that Member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct that Member to discontinue speaking."

[1445]

I trust everyone has taken that to heart.

J. Horgan: I wanted to just add a bit, perhaps, to your ruling on Standing Order 43. Following the standing order as it's presented in MacMinn's, it's followed by: "The purpose of this rule is to safeguard the right of the House to reach a decision and to avoid ineffective use of the time of the House." I would submit that we will be reaching a decision on this bill based on the time allocation motion that was moved by the Government House Leader yesterday.

Further, Beauchesne's, paragraph 459, says…. On the question of repetition and irrelevance, it goes as follows: "Relevancy is not easy to define. In borderline cases the Member should be given the benefit of the doubt," although the Speaker has frequently admonished members who strayed in debate. And that's fair comment, of course. The presiding officers are directed by — in this case, standing orders from the House of Commons — Standing Order 11-2 to call to order members who indulge in persistent repetition. "The rule against repetition is difficult to enforce as the various stages of a bill's progress give ample opportunity and even encouragement for repetition."

My submission, hon. Chair, is that as we know this bill will reach a conclusion tomorrow at five o'clock, all members on this side of the House individually wish to speak with some thought to this amendment that was proposed by the member for Skeena. Our objective is not to delay the bill. Our objective is not to waste the time of the House but instead to ensure that the representatives assembled here on this side of the House and those on the other side of the House, if they wish to, can make submissions on behalf of this amendment, which we believe is an important one and will materially improve the bill.

The Chair: Thank you for your submission. The member who has just spoken will know that the Chair has listened carefully to all submissions over the previous three hours. Again, I would encourage all members to seek an original line of enquiry or discussion as it pertains to the amendment.

J. Brar: I am very pleased to stand in my place and speak in favour of the amendment presented by the member for Skeena regarding Bill 22, committee stage. It's always a real honour to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the people of my constituency, Surrey-Fleetwood, and the people of Surrey.

I continue to receive letters, e-mails and phone calls from the people of Surrey regarding this Bill 22. They have very serious concerns about the bill, and that's why I support the amendment presented by the member for Skeena. I really appreciate the member for Skeena proposing a very creative, positive and future-looking amendment to deal with this very complex issue.

What happens…. Usually we hear that the opposition only opposes, never proposes, but this is an opportunity that the member for Skeena has given to us, to have a second look at Bill 22, particularly as it pertains to section 6. I appreciate the member for Skeena proposing this amendment, and I urge every member of this House to look very carefully at what is being proposed under this amendment.

The member for Skeena proposes in this amendment…. There are two key elements in the proposal, and the first one is: "An independent mediator must be appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code to assist the parties in settling the terms and conditions of a new collective agreement in accordance with this section." That's the amendment, the first one, that the member is proposing.

On the other hand, the proposed Bill 22, under section 6(1), states: "The Minister of Education must appoint a mediator to assist the parties in settling the terms and conditions of a new collective agreement in accordance with this section."

[1450]

Basically, there is a clear distinction between this amendment and what is being proposed under the legislation, Bill 22. I think a fair question to ask is: how is this proposed amendment an improvement to the existing section 6 of Bill 22?

To make it very simple, the member for Skeena is proposing that an independent mediator should be appointed by the Labour Relations Board — that's proposal No. 1 — whereas under Bill 22, the Minister of Education actually appoints a mediator. So that's the difference.

In one scenario, which is Bill 22, the Minister of Education appoints a mediator. Under the proposed amendment, that mediator will be independent, appointed by the Labour Relations Board. So that's the difference.

I support this proposal by the member for Skeena because I think that this will allow the mediation process to be fair, independent and objective. That is very important when we have the mediation process. That process must be independent and fair, acceptable to both the parties, and this amendment will allow that.
[ Page 10183 ]

This will also remove any perceived bias in the mediation process, which is there at this point in time because of the long-pending conflict between this government and the B.C. teachers. I think it is important for us to remove that bias from this mediation process. This mediation, under the amendment, will allow that.

It is also that we respect the teachers. We show respect to the teachers, the respect they deserve, because the teachers are basically teaching our next generation, making them able to compete in the global workforce. That's very important, and this amendment actually offers the respect people expect from the process.

That's why I think the amendment proposed by the member to appoint an independent mediator is very important. It is only through independent mediators that a respectful conclusion can be reached by both the parties. That's the first part of the amendment.

The member also proposes the second amendment to Bill 22. That is about the scope of the bill. At this point in time Bill 22, section 6(2)(c), states: "the new collective agreement is to enable high-quality teaching and learning through…." And there are three different objectives indicated under the proposed legislation.

The first one is: "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers to promote improvement." Now, if you read this line, it's very, very vague. It certainly doesn't make what it means very clear.

The second line under this proposed legislation, under section 6(2)(c), is: "alignment of professional development with teaching needs." The third one is: "scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs."

So there are these three very narrow, vague objectives expected out of this mediation process. That makes it very difficult for both parties to negotiate the agreement in good faith, because there are a lot of other things which are non-monetary which are left out of this process.

I don't know, when this legislation was adopted, who was consulted. Certainly, it is very clear from these three different objectives that teachers were not part of the consultation process.

[1455]

The member for Skeena is proposing, instead of these three very specific, very vague and very limited objectives, as indicated in the bill…. The member basically makes an effort to give teachers the opportunity to talk about other very important issues they feel should be part of the negotiation.

The member for Skeena proposes that under section (6)(c), the new collective agreement is to include any measures which may enable high-quality teaching and learning, including but not limited to those three objectives, as indicated in the proposed piece of legislation.

Basically, what the member for Skeena is saying is that it should be open to all other non-monetary issues that are important to the teachers as well as to the classroom. That should be part of the negotiation, and there's a long list of those issues, which I believe are very, very important to reach a respectable agreement by both the parties.

That's why I support this amendment. If this bill goes through without any amendment, this bill will hit the hardest when it comes to the Surrey school district, the biggest school district in the province. Almost 10 percent of students right now are receiving education through portables, with almost 25 percent students in some classes with special needs and with a number of students in every class with ESL needs because of the growing population of new immigrants and particularly some refugees coming from refugee camps.

The nature of the class and the number of students in the class…. It's, of course, overcrowded. As well, it's a very complex makeup of students, which is very hard to handle by the teacher.

Therefore, teachers must have a say in this process so they can actually contribute to an agreement which is respectable — not only for the government but also for the teachers and for the students in that situation — so that we can have a classroom that is manageable by the teachers.

There are a number of non-monetary things, issues, which can be included in this negotiation process, such as layoffs and recalls, qualifications. I think it's very important for us that we hire teachers who are fully qualified to teach our next generation. That's very, very important.

Today's workplace or workforce is global, and our children have to compete in the global market. Therefore, it's very important that our teachers have the qualifications they need to train and teach our next generation so that they can compete in the global community. That's very important.

It also includes educational change. It's a very vague term, and I think the teachers need to sit around the table and talk about what it means when we talk about educational change. I think that term needs to be defined, in consultation with the teachers. If we accept this amendment, that will allow it to happen.

[1500]

Similarly, there is an issue of job-sharing and seniority, for example. Evaluation. One of the issues is how we evaluate our educational system as a whole. Part of that is the evaluation of teachers. If we accept the amendment, this system will allow evaluation to be part of the negotiations as well. The list goes on. It also includes temporary teachers' rights, supervision, transfer and professional autonomy.

New school planning. When it comes to new school planning, the member who spoke before me, the member from Port Coquitlam, has made a case about the changing demographic in Port Coquitlam. But Surrey is the place when we talk about the changing demographic, which is happening big-time in the city of Surrey. Students and teachers, particularly in this case, must be
[ Page 10184 ]
part of new school planning.

Surrey is the only district with fastest-growing student enrolments, and therefore, it is important for us to give teachers the opportunity to participate in the negotiation process, where they can talk about new school planning.

In Surrey, as I said earlier, the students in the classroom…. It's not only the overcrowded classrooms. There are students with complex needs, such as ESL and special needs. That's why I think we, the members of this House, need to think very carefully about this proposed amendment.

I don't know how much time I have, but I would like to summarize my presentation. I support the amendment because the amendment talks about appointing an independent mediator that will allow the teachers to discuss and talk about the issues they need to when it comes to the education system.

This will also allow a lot of non-monetary issues teachers want to discuss in this negotiation process. I think every member of this House should support this amendment, and I support this amendment. Every member should support this amendment.

S. Hammell: I am very pleased to rise and join the debate on the amendment to Bill 22, intituled Education Improvement Act, moved by my colleague the member for Skeena.

The amendment to subsection 6(1) centres around the imposition of a mediator chosen by the Minister of Education to settle the dispute or to work with the teachers and try to come up with a settlement to the current dispute. Instead of imposing a mediator — again, chosen by the Minister of Education — the amendment suggests that a preferred option be an independent mediator, one appointed in accordance with the Labour Relations Code.

I'm supporting the amendment that would strike out: "The Minister of Education must appoint a appoint a mediator…." In my opinion, the act would be better suited if it had instead the statement: "An independent mediator must be appointed in accordance with section 74 of the Labour Relations Code." That would be "to assist the parties in settling the terms and conditions of a new collective agreement in accordance with this section."

There are further details in the amendment that has been presented in this section around the terms of reference, but I will speak to that in a moment. I first want to concentrate my comments, and my reasons for supporting the amendment, on the appointment of an independent mediator rather than one appointed by the minister.

The value of an independent mediator would be that the person would be arm's-length from the two parties in dispute. As soon as you have someone who is arm's-length, you have the perception of fairness, that that person is neither tied to one party or the other. The person is not a surrogate of one of the parties in the conflict but a person who is separated from both.

[1505]

It would not be seen as an extension of the ministry or an extension of the minister or an extension of that particular point of view, not his go person or his chum-chum. It would be seen as someone above the dispute, above the fray, someone who has not got a vested interest in one party or the other but someone who could bring to the dispute a separate set of eyes, a different perspective, some different ideas on how to move through the dispute. Most of all, the notion of fairness would be embedded if the House would embrace the amendment.

This amendment suggests a different path out of the impasse with the educators of our province. The amendment would provide a path of leadership that honours consensus-building, so we would get away from: "My way or no way." We would find another path that wants to talk and build consensus.

This amendment would provide a path of leadership that builds that consensus with the person he or she leads. This amendment would provide a path of leadership that puts out trust and gives confidence to the people who are involved in the dispute. Most important, this amendment would provide a path of leadership that we — all of us — would want our children to emulate.

This is about a school system. This is about kids. This is about the behaviour of adults. This is about consensus-building. It's about respect. For the minister to choose the mediator, sets aside those issues. It is, and will be seen as, heavy-handed and autocratic.

This amendment is there to soften and to engage the other parties in this conflict. The amendment would signal that the minister understands the current section that we are trying to amend. We are attempting to amend that the current section, as it stands now, is certainly not consistent with the culture of our schools.

Our schools have a unique culture. This is not the normal workplace, in the sense of the industrial model or some of the other workplaces. Our school system has a unique culture that requires cooperation and goodwill amongst the stakeholders.

It is absolutely necessary that the stakeholders — and there are many of them in a school system — cooperate with each other to make that system effective. There is no school where there is just one autocratic driver of the moment. It is a place where consensus is built, not only between administrators and teachers, but support staff, students and the parents that are involved.

This amendment, where we ask for an independent mediator, is in the spirit and support of how great schools work. I've worked as a teacher at numerous schools, and the very best schools out there are those where power is shared. Power is not abdicated, but it is shared. Great schools are where there is respect amongst all of those who have a stake in that school being successful — successful on behalf of the children that are in that school.
[ Page 10185 ]

[1510]

Great schools are where the administration, the teachers, the support staff, the parents and the students are pulling together, because they are in it together. Every administrator and every parent and every teacher and every support staff person in those schools wants those students to be as good as they can possibly be. They have the students' best interests at heart, and they know that if they are going to have a great school, all of them have to be in sync. All of them have to have a common vision, and all of them have to play a strong role in making those kids successful.

This amendment is a metaphor for how our schools should be working and how great schools do work. The administration in a school administers, but it also supports and develops the vision through which that school functions. The administrator is an educator for a reason. They not only administer, but they provide the leadership through which a vision is created for that school, and the teachers who hear and experience the voices and the abilities of their students provide input and have part ownership of the vision that drives that school.

But it does not stop there. When you have great schools, you have the students involved and you have the parents involved. The support staff is involved, and they have a supportive school district.

I think the players who are the furthest away from the classroom, the ministry…. This is the furthest place that you can get away from the classroom. They should not be deciding how the whole system is to be run. They are a part of the system, but they are not the deciders. They are not the people who have the end-game in mind.

In every circumstance that I've been involved with, whenever there is a group of people and whenever there is anything that is trying to be achieved, everybody in the part has some power in the play. There is no one person or one party or one stakeholder in the education system that can tell everyone how to do it and how they must do it. Everybody has power and responsibility to play out in terms of the education system. You can come down heavy-handed on the educators of our province, but there is a price to pay for that. There is an absolute price to pay for the turmoil that is in our classrooms.

Great leaders harness power. They bring it together through respect, inclusion, discussion and mutual decision-making. There's an old cliché around that says that to get power, you give power. And to get good schools, you have to give out to the people who are on the ground in the schools the ability to do their job and to be participants in the decisions that affect them.

I just think that the ministry and the minister are not close enough to the classrooms to really understand the impact of the heavy-handedness of being the only person who has a decision or input into who the mediator will be and how and what that mediator will decide. In any good system, people who are impacted by decisions have some say in what those decisions will be.

[1515]

I have to say it probably is extremely disappointing to the educators of this province, because the minister attended one of the assemblies and was warmly greeted and, in fact, given a standing ovation. I've heard that from teachers.

That was a showing of respect and hope from the teachers assembled that things would be different, that there would be mutual respect because this minister, new to the portfolio of Education, would value and respect their role in the education system and value their input.

This amendment does just that. It opens up, moves away from an authoritative push to put one particular person in charge of who that mediator will be. It moves it back to an independent mediator, where there's a perception of fairness, where people can come to the table without believing that they're hooped to begin with, that the game is on — the end-game is being played out — and they really are tokens and have no input into any of the decisions.

It's rather hard to believe that we're at the place where we are now and that the government would actually believe that imposing a mediator would be a good solution. I submit that the solution where one group wins and everyone else loses just won't work in the school system. This is not the military, and it's not the good old days.

The parties whose deep commitment to the system is needed to make the system work are being marginalized, sidelined. The heavy hand of one player, the government, is dictating the end-game through the appointment of this mediator.

Sometimes you do have the euphoria of winning — you've got in there; you've won — but in the end you've actually lost. Examination over time will find that what you won was way less important than everything else you lost. In this situation the loss of respect on both sides, the loss of inclusion and the loss of other voices and ideas at the table that are trying to solve the problem are deeply regrettable.

K. Corrigan: I too am rising to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague the member for Skeena. I've actually risen to speak, originally, on Bill 22 second reading. I was also very happy to rise to speak on the reasoned amendment. I've been pleased to have taken part in questions to the minister in the committee stage, and now I am pleased to support the proposed amendment to section 6 of the bill, which does two things.

First of all, it deletes the requirement that the Minister of Education appoint a mediator and replaces it with wording that requires that the Labour Relations Board appoint an independent mediator.

The second thing that this amendment does is it widens the terms of reference for the mediator to include discussion about "any measures which may enable high-
[ Page 10186 ]
quality teaching and learning." In other words, it is going to widen the terms of reference for the mediator to talking about "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers…(ii) alignment of professional development with teaching needs, and (iii) scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs." All of those terms which, I might note, teachers of this province, who are one of the parties to these negotiations and this coming mediation, have looked at skeptically and have believed that all of these three areas of discussion could, in fact, represent clawbacks to their collective agreement.

So one of the things that I think is important about the second part of the amendment is that in fact what is happening is that this amendment, if approved by both sides of the House, would allow the scope of mediation to widen in a way that perhaps would take away some of the concerns of the teachers — one of the parties, as I said, to the mediation.

[1520]

Every member comes to this House with a unique set of experiences, and my set of experiences, related to this amendment and to public education generally, is that, as many people in this House know, I was a parent volunteer for many, many years. I was a school trustee for nine years in Burnaby.

Something that many people probably don't know is that while I was the chair of the Burnaby school board, Susan Lambert, who is now the president of the BCTF and leading the teachers in their fight for a fair collective agreement, was in fact the president of the Burnaby Teachers Association for that time. And I know that the BCTF…. I certainly know that Susan Lambert is a strong, capable individual. She can be tough.

Teachers can be tough, but we always managed to solve our problems when I was the chair of the Burnaby school board. We solved our problems sometimes with frank discussions, but we did it in a respectful manner. So I think that whether Susan Lambert is the chair of the Burnaby Teachers Association or whether or not she is the president of the BCTF, she and all other teachers and the teacher organization need to be treated with respect, and the relationship has to be one of respect.

How does that relate to this amendment? Well, I think it is important to talk about that relationship, because I do believe that we are at something of a crossroads when it comes to public education and the relationships of the parties that are negotiating the agreements that govern the working conditions, the salaries, and so on, of teachers.

We're at a crossroads, and I do believe that going one way, imposing, being high-handed, saying, "This is the way we're going to do things; take it or leave it," is one way that we can go and one way that will perpetuate what is clearly a dysfunctional relationship. Or we can try to repair the relationship, and I would prefer to try to repair the relationship.

I believe that this amendment, as the previous reasoned amendment that was proposed by my colleagues…. Those two propositions, those two proposed amendments, would be steps — not necessarily big steps, but a step — in the right direction that would signal to the teachers of this province that we don't want to be at war with you. We want to work with you. We want to work together for the betterment of education. We want to have a healthy relationship.

Public education is, in no small part, dependent on the goodwill of teachers. Public education is dependent on us having a professional group of workers in this province who say: "I understand that I don't have hours of work. I understand that I am a professional. I understand that I'm going to work far longer than the nine o'clock in the morning to the three o'clock or so in the afternoon that I am in the school."

We rely on the professionalism and the goodwill and the hard work of teachers throughout this province. If we don't have that goodwill, then we will not have our teachers being willing to do as much work. They are absolutely dedicated, and I'm sure, throughout this and other struggles that they have, that they will continue to be professional. But, you know, we're driving some of them away.

I've said this before, and I think it's relative to this amendment as well. It's very clear that what is lacking in this relationship is trust. I do think that this amendment — that says government will not impose a mediator, but instead an independent mediator will be appointed under the Labour Relations Code — is a step to bringing back trust in the relationship.

I noticed that the minister had — I believe a couple of times or at least once — said that his appointment of a mediator would allow there to be a mediator who was specialized, who perhaps was uniquely experienced, in terms of who that person would be.

[1525]

But I think the minister misses the point. That misses the point. The point is that when a relationship is in trouble, if any relationship is in trouble and needs to be fixed, the parties have to appear to be neutral and fair if they want to make progress.

When there is a lack of trust, as there is, the question is not primarily whether the minister or the present bill is neutral or fair in terms of its approach to mediation but whether the parties to the negotiations believe that the process is fair or neutral. I don't believe that the teachers…. I don't believe personally that the process is fair and neutral, and we have to bring fairness and neutrality back into the equation or we are going to continue to have this dysfunctional relationship.

I think the government would be wise, if government really wants to have a settlement, to position itself in the middle between the two parties, between BCPSEA and the teachers, to be seen to be a neutral party — understanding, of course, that there are some obligations that
[ Page 10187 ]
are attached to the collective agreement. I believe accepting the proposed amendment would do just that.

I want to just note…. I've talked about my community. I want to say that independent mediation is something which the parties to the agreement and other stakeholders have said they want. The BCSTA and the B.C. School Trustees Association have said that they want independent mediation. The teachers have certainly said it, and BCPSEA, which is the bargaining agent for the employers, has said that it wants independent mediation.

The will is certainly there on all sides. I certainly don't understand why it is that government would oppose the will of teachers, parents, school trustees and the employer organization, which all want to have independent mediation.

I want to just do a little local plug and recognize the efforts of some of the people in my community of Burnaby who are supportive of mediation as well. Yesterday the Burnaby school board passed a motion at their public meeting on March 13, 2012. The following motion was passed unanimously as an item of new business by the Burnaby board of education.

Here is the motion that was passed last night. "That the Burnaby board of education send a letter to Education Minister George Abbott…." Oh, excuse me; I was quoting. So: "…to the Education Minister and the Premier expressing…." The Premier is named, but I guess I can't quote it.

I'm going to start again, just so it's all there. "The Burnaby board of education sent a letter to the Education Minister and to the Premier expressing our strong insistence that the provincial government delay the passage of Bill 22 and immediately appoint a mediator with no restrictions on their mandate to work towards resolving the current labour dispute with teachers."

I appreciate that unanimous motion passed by the Burnaby board of education last night. In addition, the public board meeting, the board report, the chair's report last night said:

"Over the next couple of days the Liberal government has plans on ramming through legislation that will severely limit the right for our teachers to negotiate a new collective agreement. Along with a number of specific contentious issues, the Education Improvement Act is seen by many as a direct attack on some of the most basic democratic principles of our Canadian society.

"As it currently stands, Bill 22 significantly limits the ability of a mediator to enable the constructive bargaining discussions required to conclude a fairly negotiated collective agreement."

The report goes on and expresses great concern about the government's position. I won't read the rest of it, but I do appreciate the comments of Larry Hayes, who is the chair of the Burnaby school board and a past colleague of mine, and the comments and the concerns that the Burnaby school board has. Certainly, the Burnaby school board is supportive through its motion and would be fully supportive of the amendment that we are proposing today.

[1530]

In addition, in Burnaby there are many teachers who have expressed concern in my community. Carol Topalian is a teacher…. I'm pretty sure she's a teacher in Burnaby because she sent this e-mail to me and to my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds. She talks about her students. She says: "My students are adults completing high school diplomas. On average they are at least 30 years old. Many of them come from China, eastern Europe, South America and all over the world."

Carol is concerned about the impression that her students — new immigrants to Canada who are learning a new language, finishing their high school — are having about Canada and about the education as a result of this strike. They are concerned, and they are supportive of the teachers. They do not understand why the government is not working closely with the teachers in order to allow the teachers to continue to do the work that they can in the best way possible.

She says: "Teachers have cooperated and bargained with flexible positions. We cooperated with the fact-finder appointed by the government. We asked for an independent mediator, and we reduced our proposals, even when the employer refused to compromise." Those are the thoughts of Carol Topalian, and I wanted to bring those in today.

Madam Chair, I won't talk about the second part of the amendment, which I support as well. Many of my colleagues have talked about that.

I want to summarize by saying that I am supporting this amendment. I think this amendment is very important. I think this is another chance for this government to step away, to pull itself back, to support teachers, to find consensus, to re-establish trust and to move education forward in a positive way where we all work together for the betterment of the students in this country.

With that, I will take my seat.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I have heard that a division call has been made. We are currently operating under the time allocation motion adopted on Monday. However, I understand that there is agreement that a standing division may proceed on the amendment. I will now call the members to the House.

[1535]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: The amendment fails. We'll now return to consideration of section 6.

[1540]

Hon. Members, the committee on Bill 22 resumes with the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: Getting back to section 6, I'm looking to focus some of my questions on the issues that relate to matters that get referenced primarily in section (2)(d) around local versus provincial responsibilities and what the mediator may be putting forward.

For people who may be watching this, what section 6(2)(d) says is: "…the new collective agreement is to include additional matters that may be locally negotiated between the BCTF and a board of education if those matters (i) do not affect any other school district, and (ii) would, in the opinion of the mediator, be more effectively negotiated as local matters."

There has always been much debate about whether we want to have a two-tiered system of some sort versus exclusively a provincial or a local bargaining system. I think this, probably more than most sections, would be something where the devil truly is in the details as to what lands at what place in terms of which responsibility.

Could the minister maybe give us his view, generally, what pieces he sees broadly, not in the details…? Broadly, what lands as a provincial responsibility? What might fall into that category of local responsibility?

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may wish to canvass the Blues or the Hansard of yesterday, because there was an extensive discussion of this section. Just for clarity, what issues should be dealt with at the local or district bargaining level versus at the provincial level has been a considerable issue at the bargaining table over the past 12 months. Some of the issues are resolved through an act known as PELRA, the Public Education Labour Relations Act, which directs cost issues to the provincial level, but that leaves in the residual many non-cost issues to be resolved.

I think it is clear from the discussion at the bargaining table over the year that the view of the B.C. Teachers Federation is that all of those non-cost issues should be directed to the local level. I understand that for BCPSEA, the employer, they would see a different mix of those issues being resolved at the local or provincial level.

The opportunity which the mediator will have is to look at those respective perspectives which BCPSEA and BCTF have on the appropriate distribution of non-cost local-provincial issues and bring recommendations.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer. It seems to me that I understand the role of BCPSEA in terms of the collective bargaining side.

The question I guess I would have at this point…. This is a bigger issue than BCPSEA. This comes down to the local boards. At the point where you start pushing bargaining down to the local level, you're talking about local boards, local chairs and local superintendents and the relationship they will have with, presumably, BCPSEA restructuring somehow to be able to provide support to individual boards as they proceed in whatever local bargaining there is.

My next question is: has the ministry…? In writing the bill and crafting this section and contemplating going back to a local bargaining structure or a two-tiered structure of some kind, has there been a discussion with the BCSTA about this matter in terms of their views of this structure?

[1550]

Hon. G. Abbott: To begin, note that there already is two-tiered bargaining in place in British Columbia. There has been that two-tiered bargaining in place since 1994, when the Public Education Labour Relations Act was adopted by government. So there has been that acknowledged split of provincial and local issues since 1994.

In 1995, I am advised, the parties agreed on what they considered at that point in time to be an appropriate provincial-local split on the issues. The current disposition of the Teachers Federation is that they would like more issues to be resolved at the local level versus the provincial level, which I gather is still, though, consistent with PELRA.

The question which a mediator might consider is: what's the appropriate balance between provincial and local? Of course, I'm sure that as representatives of what
[ Page 10189 ]
hopes to be a future government in British Columbia, members opposite have some views on this. Obviously, they did in 1994 and 1995, as I'm sure, in a difficult circumstance, government tried to move through this always compelling and difficult issue of what the right balance is between local and provincial issues.

In terms of any deliberation, consultation, with respect to what the appropriate balance is, that would occur between BCPSEA and the B.C. School Trustees Association. The B.C. School Trustees Association is the parent organization to BCPSEA. BCPSEA is essentially an agency of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

S. Simpson: Well, I'm sure, again, that it will be in the details. Each of the boards may have a different view, based on a number of issues, as to what they think is appropriate for them. The size of the board may make a difference. There's maybe a whole array of reasons why different districts might look at things slightly differently.

In point 6(2)(d)(i) it talks about "do not affect any other school district." Could the minister tell us: does he contemplate here that this structure could allow for some aspects of local bargaining to occur in some districts yet not necessarily occur in other districts?

[1555]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll begin by noting for the member's edification that there was an extensive discussion of 6(2)(d)(ii) yesterday in committee. One can reference that, I presume, either through the Education critic or through Hansard.

Again, to repeat what was said in much more expansive terms yesterday, the point of sub (d)(i), "do not affect any other school district," is that there should be no provision that is adopted in a contract in school district A which will have the impact of binding similar matters in school districts B through Z. I don't want to go through the full debate we had on this yesterday. The member can see that in Hansard.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that comment, and I'll go look at that. I'll get back to what the question that I asked was, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. The question I'm asking is: does the minister contemplate…?

We know that ultimately these are matters that may not be all agreed to. Of course, if we go and look at 6(4)(b), it talks about making recommendations around the dispute. Presumably those are recommendations that will come back to the minister, and the minister will ultimately have to make some decisions on what the recommendations from the mediator are there. These could be the kinds of issues that end up coming back to the minister's desk.

I'm trying to get some sense of the minister's view here. The question comes back again to: is it the minister's view or the view of the government that you could have a situation where an envelope of local items is different from district to district, and districts are negotiating a different package of local items in Vancouver than they are in Quesnel? Or will it be uniform across the board in terms of what's at the local table?

[1600]

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is yes. It could be different, and, indeed, under the present arrangements in PELRA, it could be different as well. I'm advised that there are two appendices, one listing provincial matters and a second, appendix 2, listing local matters, and districts are able to draw down as appropriate from that list of local matters.

For example, there is a provision in the Peace River districts with respect to parking and plug-ins, and, again, that is probably not going to be something that is of interest, indeed, in more southern, more rural districts.

S. Simpson: I would note for the minister that I'm certainly not averse to the notion that this is what we're going to do — have some kind of two-tiered system that, as the minister said, may work. It, again, will depend on what the details are as to how successfully I believe it will work, and I think that what's going on here. This process that the minister is engaged in, in Bill 22, as it plays out, may well take us to the place where we have more clarity. Whether people like the end results or not, we'll have more clarity about what this looks like. I'm trying to get a sense here from the minister

I just want to go back to a comment that the minister made when I asked the question about the school trustees association. The minister at that time said that BCPSEA answers to the BCSTA — essentially was, I believe, the minister's comment, that the employers association answers to the school trustees association on these matters.

If the minister could, then, clarify: the Public School Employers Association, then, will take its direction from the B.C. School Trustees Association on matters related to this in terms of how they engage with the mediator? Or will the Public School Employers Association also be engaged in discussions with the ministry around thoughts from the ministry and where the ministry is at?

[D. Black in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister of the Environment.

Minister of Education. Sorry, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I felt a sense of relief for a moment, and now you've dashed my dreams. How cruel.

The member summarized my comments inappropriately, perhaps, and I know that he didn't do it with ill intent. But just to be clear, BCPSEA is not, in a formal sense, responsible to the B.C. School Trustees Association. It is responsible directly to school boards through its board
[ Page 10190 ]
of directors structure. Obviously, there are linkages there, but a mediator in this case….

Again, just to put a fine point on it, the mediator would be consulting with BCPSEA. BCPSEA, in turn, would be consulting appropriately with their school boards — again, either directly or through their board of directors structure.

[1605]

S. Simpson: If that's the case — and I appreciate the clarification; I appreciate the minister correcting my view on that — I guess that brings me back a little bit to that other question.

We have here a situation where the School Trustees Association will play, presumably, some kind of coordinating role in terms of its members — I assume in some conversation about this — in terms of if they have a collective response to the question of what should happen in any adjustments to the local versus provincial bargaining structure that this particular process of mediation, under this section, might bring us to.

I'm assuming that they're going to want to have a conversation, and ideally…. They may not be able to find a common position among all the districts, but maybe they can find a consensus on some positions. They're going to have to have a conversation about this, I assume, through whatever avenues that they have available to them in the structure of the association.

So it brings me back, again, to asking the question: has the minister contemplated the time that will be allowed even for that conversation to go on among districts, as to where they might find common ground, what they might agree on and to how the conversation with the school trustees association may go so that, presumably, it allows BCPSEA to come to the table with a clearer position about what its mandate actually is, to be able to negotiate around this or to be able to be part of a mediation process?

What allowances has the minister made for that conversation to go on? Is the ministry playing any role in enabling that?

Hon. G. Abbott: BCPSEA is the association for labour relations matters of the B.C. School Trustees Association. What expressions of interest or what discussions might go on between those two respective organizations would be up to them, but BCPSEA is acknowledged to be their association for the purposes of labour relations of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

[1610]

In terms of the mediator's report and is there sufficient time for discussions in this area, this bill would see the mediator reporting out, at latest, June 30. This is also, I should note, not a new issue.

BCPSEA has been discussing this with their members since, I'm advised, January of 2011. So they've certainly been canvassing their members with views in this regard, and I expect that the mediator will hear the well-articulated position of BCPSEA in these matters.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I know that this is a live discussion among trustees all the time, because they're being pushed and pulled in different ways depending on views.

Now, it's my understanding, and I could be corrected here…. The board of BCPSEA is, I believe, nine trustees from different districts and then four government representatives — is the composition of the board. The minister is acknowledging those numbers are correct. I see pretty quickly how those nine boards that have a trustee who's been fortunate enough to be elected to the BCPSEA board have a direct route in, and they have part of that conversation right now.

I see how the government gets to make sure that its message is delivered, because they have four representatives who will, presumably, bring the views that are discussed within the ministry, as to the objectives of the government. I see how that gets there. But we have a large number of districts, and it's not entirely clear how they become part of that conversation.

I don't want to dwell on that so much. But I guess at the end of the day, if you look at things like (d)(i): "do not affect any other school district…." Well, the minister referenced what would be considered to be, maybe, more direct impacts; i.e., you do something in district A, and it has a very direct impact on the neighbouring district, and that has a financial implication or another implication.

There are also all kinds of things that could be considered indirect impacts of local bargaining as well, and I'm sure those are going on today. Under this, I imagine there are boards that will say: "We will feel affected."

Again, the question is: how do those boards that don't have that place…? How do you get confidence, as the minister, that they're being talked to in this? You don't want them coming back to you later, saying: "We weren't part of the conversation, and we weren't part of what's going on." How do you have confidence that they had a satisfactory role to play in that BCPSEA decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: The important distinction is this: BCPSEA is an association of boards, and 60 boards…. Every board in the province is a member of BCPSEA. BCPSEA has well-defined and regularized mechanisms — including meetings, conference calls and so on — to make sure that all 60 members are aware of important positions that they will be taking.

S. Simpson: I'm absolutely sure that every board is aware of Bill 22. I don't have any question about that, and I'm sure most of those trustees have probably read the legislation. They've probably read it. I'm not suggesting for a minute that there is somebody out there saying: "So
[ Page 10191 ]
what's that all about?"

Could the minister, then, tell us when…? How will…? Maybe the better question is: who will define under (d)(i) what constitutes an effect on a school district? Who's going to make that definition?

[1615]

Is it going to be the mediator? Is it going to be BCPSEA? Is it going to be the ministry? Who is going to make that determination about whether there is a real effect on another district — so, as a consequence, something should or shouldn't be considered a local matter?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it should be noted that sub (2)(d)(i) is a term of reference for the mediator. The mediator will hear representations from both parties, BCPSEA and BCTF, with respect to their views about whether there would be any effect on a change. The mediator would weigh those submissions and make a recommendation in respect of it.

S. Simpson: It says here, of course, under (d)(ii) that those matters "would, in the opinion of the mediator, be more effectively negotiated as local matters." I'm assuming, then — whatever those opinions of the mediator, which they will put in their report that they'll submit to the minister, will say — that they'll recommend that matters X, Y and Z should be added to the list of local bargaining, or subtracted from the list — whatever the mediator decides is appropriate under that section.

But if I look…. It talks about how, then, it will make those recommendations consistent. Under 6(4)(b) it says it will "make recommendations, consistent with the terms of reference referred to in subsection (2), on any outstanding issues that remain in dispute between the parties."

That being the case — and I'm just going to speculate for a minute that there might not be entire agreement on this in this mediation process — if there's not resolve, how does the minister foresee going back and having a conversation once the file is back on his desk after the mediator reports out?

If the mediator doesn't find total resolution on these matters of what's local versus provincial, how does the minister envision being able to consult, to satisfy himself around the mediation, with those parties, like the school boards or the teachers, on matters of what should be local and provincial?

[1620]

Hon. G. Abbott: In the, I'm sure, incredibly dangerous hypothetical situation which the member raises, there will be matters, hypothetically at least, where the parties reach agreement on a set of issues. In those cases, obviously, the outcome is fairly straightforward. They would be changed to reflect the common disposition of the parties, to make a shift one way or another in terms of local or provincial.

In a case where there was partial or no agreement, we would have to first of all look at the mediator's recommendation in respect of that partial or no agreement and then consider the specifics of the issue. It's very difficult to say much more beyond that.

S. Simpson: Just to clarify here, is the minister saying that any matters in this mediation where the mediator is engaged, any matters where the parties reach an agreement…? That's assuming, of course, that that's an agreement that the chief executive officer of the Public Sector Employers Council deems not to increase costs under section 6(5), where it's deemed here whether the "recommendations of the mediator comply with subsection 2(b)" — which talks about not increasing annual costs of the collective agreement.

On any other matters where the parties reach agreement that doesn't run into trouble with the CEO of the Public Sector Employer Council's interpretation, will the minister accept those decisions as they're put forward?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

S. Simpson: I've only got about one or two more questions here, and then I'll be done.

I know the minister is now saying that local districts, and that, will have their own method of conversation or discussion, and they'll have to sort that out presumably with BCPSEA in terms of that, because there's clearly not a direction here that lays out how that might occur.

I'm assuming, then, that it will be the view that the BCTF will also play the same role in terms of local school districts and teachers associations, that that will all be driven through the BCTF. Or is it the intention here that the mediator may be having conversations with individual teachers associations in districts? Or will they stay directly dealing with the BCTF as a body, much in the same way that we talked about districts versus BCPSEA?

[1625]

Hon. G. Abbott: General guidance with respect to how this discussion would be managed can be found in PELRA, which does set out the BCTF as the official bargaining agent with respect to the issues that would be engaged here. How the BCTF chooses to engage its local associations in that process will be up to the BCTF to determine. It is BCPSEA and the BCTF who are the bodies with authority in respect of the local-provincial split.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I know that in more conventional bargaining, that's all pretty clear as to who's talking to who when it comes to collective bargaining. Clearly, though, we have a unique situation here where we have the minister appointing a mediator who has some particular authorities and directions provided by
[ Page 10192 ]
the minister as to what they're doing.

The question here really is — I'm just trying to clarify — whether this mediator may be taking a different or a more unique route to get to the resolve of their work, to be able to do their job and get back to the minister. I didn't quite get what I thought was a clear answer here, so maybe I'll just check with the minister again — through you, hon. Chair.

Under the Public Education Labour Relations Act, it's very clear that a mediator would largely be talking to the B.C. Teachers Federation and talking to the Public School Employers Association as the two bodies at the table and trying to figure out where the ground was for whatever they could do.

This is a little unique because of the nature of this, so the question again is: as it relates to what's local and what's provincial, is there any contemplation that the mediator will go and choose to talk to local teachers' associations separate from the B.C. Teachers Federation as a federation — meet with or talk to them or contemplate subpoenaing them?

I know we've got subpoena. I believe you have the ability to subpoena in here as well, and the powers of hearing commission as well. Is that going to happen, or is the direction going to stay with the major bodies, the TF as an entity and BCPSEA as an entity?

[1630]

Hon. G. Abbott: My previous comments would still apply, which is that the BCTF on the employee side is the bargaining agent. Any additional discussion that occurred with local associations would be as a product of a discussion between the mediator and BCTF. This act does not change the bargaining structure established in PELRA or the responsibility of the parties under that act.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for being here and going through this.

I've got some questions about section 6. There are major concerns representing school district 49, the Bella Coola Valley; school district 50, which is Haida Gwaii; and school district 52, which is Prince Rupert. I'm talking to parents, teachers, school boards, trustees, constituents who have questions about the new contract and how it's going to impact their schools and the students in the regions. And especially, they're concerned with the minister having the power to appoint the mediator when there are many options available.

The fear that I'm hearing from many of my ex-colleagues…. I taught for many years and was a president of a teachers union and bargained some contracts. The concern is how the contracts are going to be melded into this new contract, the new collective agreement. It's a real concern, especially with the mediation process.

I'm just wondering: how does the minister envision the new collective agreement and how it may impact the 60 other negotiated agreements with school districts throughout the province?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question.

The first important point for the member to note is that there is no new contract here. What this bill does is extend the existing contract through a cooling-off period. It also puts in place a mediator to work with the parties through the period ending June 30 — hopefully, concluding with a mediated settlement between the parties which would reflect a resolution of the issues that have been discussed but not resolved at the bargaining table to date.

G. Coons: I guess my question that I asked was: once the mediator comes to some recommendations, how will that impact, or will it impact, any of the 60 negotiated agreements that the school districts have with their teachers unions and associations?

[1635]

Hon. G. Abbott: We think we understand the member's question. With the processes that are engaged in this bill, there will be a mediator appointed. The mediator will have until June 30 to work with the parties.

It may be that the parties can reach agreement on the substantive matters, which would lead to a mediated settlement. Or it is possible that the parties are not able to reach agreement. They may reach agreement on some matters, not others, but overall, not reach a full agreement. It is there that the mediator will make recommendations on those issues that have not been the subject of agreement between the parties.

From the period at which the mediation ends, on June 30, through to August 30 — which is the end of the cooling-off period — government will consider the recommendations that may be made by the mediator and may look at what would be appropriate in terms of constituting an agreement that would continue through to July 1 of 2013.

G. Coons: Thank you, I guess, Minister.

Yesterday we spent considerable time looking at section 6 and bumping forward to section 13, talking about replacing section 27, where it's "repealed and the following substituted." Again, I was here yesterday, trying to follow along, and I guess my questions are sort of going back to the conversation or debate yesterday.

In 13 — I guess I'll call it 27(3) — it says: "There must not be included in a teachers' collective agreement any provision (a) regulating the selection and appointment of teachers under this Act." So when this becomes a bill, if and when this becomes a bill, does that mean that the selection and appointment of teachers in every teachers collective agreement — local — that has been negotiated will not exist in there and will somehow transfer to the provincial agreement or the new collective agreement?
[ Page 10193 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, if I may seek your guidance with respect to this. Yesterday, as part of the process of understanding section 6, on mediation, both the Chair and certainly the minister and staff were very liberal — if we may use that term — in terms of referencing both the new section 27 and its relationship to 6. I think this question is one that we had better address when we actually get to the new section 27. The new section 13, I should say — the old section 27. But I seek your guidance on how to deal with that.

The Chair: Your point is well taken, Minister.

Could we continue on section 6, please?

G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Chair.

My question — I just have a couple more before I pass it on to another colleague. I guess the question I've got is about the powers of the hearing commission in section (3). I'm just wondering what…. That's under the Public Inquiry Act. I'm not quite too sure of the mandate of the hearing commissioner under the Public Inquiry Act, so could you explain that, please?

[1640]

Hon. G. Abbott: What this section does is align this bill with the power given to a special mediator under the Labour Code sections 144 and 145. So that engages the provisions 22 and 23 of the Public Inquiry Act, which includes: "may serve a summons" to require persons to attend a meeting, to give evidence, to produce information; "may apply to the court" for an order directing a person to comply with attending a meeting or providing information, etc. So that's the alignment.

G. Coons: Yesterday there was talk about teachers' professional autonomy and going towards whether or not this section is going to replace language, and the minister said: "…this is not an attempt to replace language. That is not prohibited by the act. That's not the intention." So I take it that yes, language can be replaced. It's not the intention, supposedly, of the minister, but that could happen.

I'm wondering, especially when the minister talked about professional autonomy…. It's recognized in the provincial agreement, but also, 95 percent of teacher collective agreements contain clauses that define the limits of a teacher's professional autonomy.

An example might be: "While it is recognized that the board has the responsibility to exercise instructional leadership through its administrative officers in order to promote effective educational practice, teachers shall, within the bounds of the prescribed and locally developed curriculum and consistent with effective educational practice, have individual professional autonomy in determining the methods of instruction, evaluation and the planning and presentation of course materials in the classes of pupils to which they are assigned."

That comes from an example from a teachers' contract, and 95 percent of teachers' contracts, locally negotiated contracts, have definitions and agreements on professional autonomy, where under the provincial contract, basically….

It's under "Teacher professional rights" — 6.11. This is article 6 in the provincial contract that says: "Within the bounds of effective educational practice and prescribed provincial and locally developed curricula, teachers shall have individual professional autonomy and responsibility in the planning and presentation of course materials in the classes to which they are assigned."

Coming from a background of understanding the process over the last 20 or 30 years of working at trying to negotiate with your local school board — you know, many clauses dealing with due process, discipline, dismissal, seniority, post and fill and professional autonomy — it's a real concern that even though the minister says that it's not an attempt to replace language…. But the minister has said that there are 60 districts with, perhaps, 50 or 60 different language clauses, or clauses that are not consistent.

Is there a possibility that with this legislation, professional autonomy will be defined another way in the…? I'm going to say "new" provincial agreement because that is what it says in section 6.

[1645]

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to, I'm sure, make the member's current understanding of this complex issue an even more complex one, the provincial contract in a variety of areas, including professional autonomy, is an amalgam of what has been concluded in 60 districts in the province. There will be some districts that have identical language, but there will be up to 60 expressions of professional autonomy listed in the provincial contract, because it is an amalgam of 60 district contracts.

[1650]

So I would note that there is nothing in the terms of reference here in section 6, nor anywhere else in the legislation, that requests or directs the mediator to look at the issue of professional autonomy. There's nothing that says it can't be looked at, either, but it is not within the terms of reference.

Again, we're into the realm of the hypothetical, but in theory, the parties could agree to replace or amend language around professional autonomy if that was their wish. Or if it was the wish and direction of the mediator, he or she could make recommendations to government in respect of that.

G. Coons: I guess, again, there are interpretations when the minister talks about the terms of reference in (2)(c)(i): "effective feedback and evaluation of teachers… improvement." Being involved in bargaining and
[ Page 10194 ]
grievance procedures and arbitrations, what pops up there is due process and dismissal factors in contracts. "Alignment of professional development with teaching needs" — I somewhere look at that as professional autonomy. "Scheduling and selection of teachers suited to student needs" — again, maybe post and fill in seniority and maybe professional autonomy.

I did find it interesting. I mentioned the new contract and sort of got the interpretation of it. BCPSEA, previously in one of their reports out to their members…. This is a quote from their website:

"BCPSEA put forward its own proposals defining a new collective agreement. The proposals also attempt to modernize employment practices in the public education sector so they reflect best practices in terms of professional growth, professional review and hiring. The package proposed for discussion covers posting and filling, employee assignment, transfer, layoff recall, performance review, professional growth plans, mentorship, grievance procedure" — and some other listed proposals they've put forward.

The concern here, especially from people that I've been listening to and talking to and receiving communications from, is the procedure of the minister appointing the mediator with the terms of reference fairly tight. That, in lots of people's minds, should be broadened to include, perhaps, other proposals.

But I do want to say this in my last question. Just recently the minister received this from school district 49 on the central coast, where they talk about a long history of collaborative working relationships with its education partners and the board of education, and they value that.

They're talking about the implications of this bill. "It should be a fairly negotiated collective agreement, and the board of education respectfully asks the minister to remove restrictions introduced in Bill 22 that limit the mediator's ability to engage both parties in thoughtful and constructive negotiations and that an independent mediator mutually agreed to by both parties be appointed." That was yesterday from one of the school districts I represent. Russ Hilland, the board chair, sent this.

The question I have relates to the very last sentence here: "Our organization is strongest when all educational partners are working together to address educational challenges and to meet the needs of our students." Does the minister believe that the bill before us and this section, where there has been lots of debate…? I'm sure the minister has heard lots of issues about the appointment of a mediator by himself, versus an independent one, from parent associations and school boards and the BCTF and BCPSEA and most of the province.

Does he think that this bill before us will bring together all educational partners and that it will address educational challenges and meet the needs of our students?

[1655]

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's important question, Madam Chair, is yes. We do have that confidence. Again, just to reiterate a point that was debated at great length yesterday, the mediator will be independent, will come equipped with skills in education, in dispute resolution and be of impeccable quality and character. So we are confident that this bill will achieve the objectives that are set out for it.

Again, the member said something about a very tight mandate. In fact, while the mediator is being asked to comment on specific areas that are outlined in the bill, the mediator will have full scope in respect of looking at issues which he believes can help bring the parties together.

B. Simpson: I have a man cold, as my wife tells me. Now I have empathy with the guy in the NyQuil commercials. I'm not quite at the stage where I'm calling for my mother yet, but hopefully, I won't have a coughing fit.

I want to start off with my personal thanks to the minister. I said it in my speech. I did appreciate that the other independent MLA and I had time to walk this through and give it some forethought before we came into the House. I think the minister was hoping that that may lead us to similar conclusions to his. Unfortunately, as the minister is well aware, in my case it did not lead there. But it was, nevertheless, very meaningful.

I mean, in terms of hopefulness, the B.C. Teachers Federation, I think, was also hopeful when the minister was appointed to the file, and particularly when he spoke at their AGM and the applause and recognition he got there. I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth, but I'm sure there must be aspects of this current dispute that are just as disappointing to the minister and his staff as they are to everybody else involved.

Now, because of some negotiations that went on around the amendment, I wasn't able to speak to the amendment directly. But with respect to section 6, it seems to me that section 6, presuming that somehow this dispute can be resolved by mediation, is minimizing or diminishing the extent of the dispute that we have in front of us. It's a longstanding one, going back to the 1980s.

There's the 1994 separation of tables issue with the provincial bargaining that the BCTF comes to every table with, wanting to go back to district bargaining and remove that unilateral decision that was made by a former government. Class-size and composition — which are in this collective agreement that's going to be negotiated and in this bill — remain a fiat of government, not to be brought into collective bargaining until the next round of bargaining.

Of course, the minister is well apprised that the BCTF disputes and wants that in because, as the judge indicated, it's a working conditions issue. And, of course, there's the net zero mandate, which is infused in the bill and the government's position.

We have a longstanding intractability in collective bar-
[ Page 10195 ]
gaining with teachers, as well as, I think, a deepening of the positions and the entrenchment of the positions during this dispute for a variety of reasons.

My question to the minister is…. This government in 2004 had Don Wright act as a commissioner and go out and look at collective bargaining writ large. That was looked at by the education community. According to Vince Ready…. He looked at Don Wright's report in 2007 and said that may be a way forward. But, of course, there was a negotiated settlement, and he said you may want to allow it to give one more kick at the can.

[1700]

So my question with respect to section 6 is: was there any dialogue leading up to the decision to go to Bill 22 and to go to mediation? Was there any dialogue between the government and the parties about: "Maybe this is a time for an alternate bargaining structure for bargaining with our teachers?"

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. In terms of the current bargaining processes — which began on March 1, 2011, actually in advance of the expiration of the contract…. BCPSEA offered at that juncture to utilize the recommendations of Commissioner Ready in the bargaining processes that were to follow. That was rejected by the B.C. Teachers Federation. I'm advised that at other points since March 2011 the Ready processes were again offered but were again rejected by the B.C. Teachers Federation.

B. Simpson: The minister is well aware that the Vince Ready report suggested that was a way to try and take advantage of the last negotiations. It did lead to a negotiated settlement, although Mr. Ready had intervened on certain aspects of that and made recommendations to government on certain aspects of that.

It did involve a strike. It did involve a fine for the BCTF. So it was still a very difficult collective bargaining process, but it did end up in a technically negotiated agreement with some fixes. Mr. Ready did point backwards to Don Wright.

I guess what I'm interested in, because of the minister's original relationship with the BCTF and the teachers — the hopeful nature of that…. I'm trying to understand: is there any opportunity…?

We'll get into the mediator and whether it can fix this situation. Again, I can't put words in the minister's mouth, but there's an issue at stake here about trying to figure out how to resolve some of the longstanding issues in this collective bargaining process writ large.

Are there discussions? Is there an openness? Has there been any dialogue about getting at some of the systemic causes of the failure of this collective bargaining process, and is that still an opportunity for the parties in this process?

[1705]

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate now that the member was asking a broader question than I'd originally anticipated. So I guess I'd begin by saying this. It is no great thrill in my political career to be standing here as the latest in a very long line of Education Ministers over the last 40 years that have had to stand in their place and, as part of government, legislate solutions to issues which in many other public sector bargaining areas are resolved through collective bargaining processes.

It is a commonplace to say and also accurate to say that over the past 30 years we have had one successful round of collective bargaining. That was in 2006, where a 16 percent agreement over five years and a $3,700 signing bonus was narrowly accepted by the membership of the Teachers Federation. It was accepted and provided for five years of relative stability in this area.

Apart from 2006, we have seen — whether it's a Social Credit, a New Democratic Party or a B.C. Liberal government — a quite tortured history of labour relations between these parties. We see, probably, the best analysis and documentation of that tortured history in a book by a professor emeritus of history at the University of Victoria, Thomas Fleming, called Worlds Apart, which documents this challenge, I think, very, very effectively.

In answer to the member's question, I'd say that in the period between…. I guess about a year ago I had the honour of attending the B.C. Teachers Federation annual convention. Between that time and the introduction of the bill, which gave rise to the B.C. Teachers Council, we had some very good discussions around the provisions of the Teachers Council. We probably spent about 35 hours in face-to-face discussions, and I thought that we had both a cordial and constructive relationship as we worked through the issues there.

I can't say that since that time there has been any engagement — at least, certainly not at the political level, and I don't believe there has been at the labour relations level either — about how to improve bargaining structures in this province. There was, as I had noted in my previous answer, the offer by BCPSEA to utilize the Vince Ready report and recommendations as a basis for how to proceed with the 2011-2012 discussions, but again, that was rejected.

That brought us to March 1, which was the one-year anniversary of negotiations. It also brought us very close to the six-month anniversary of phase 1. The impact of phase 1 was no report cards and no collaborative meetings, both of which, as I submitted at some length yesterday, had a considerable impact on vulnerable kids — kids who were in some danger of failing either courses or grades.

In some cases their parents weren't aware of the challenges they were facing in school, and in some cases there were not remedial strategies developed to ensure that the students were successful. Hence, the decision of government and my decision to proceed with Bill 22,
[ Page 10196 ]
which brings an end, with the adoption of this bill, to the phase 1 strike action.

[1710]

The member's important question, which flows from all of this, is: how can bargaining processes be improved in the future? I totally agree with the sentiment that the member is expressing. For whatever reason, this bargaining area stands out as a trouble spot in terms of labour relations in the province. Whether it's the BCNU, the HEU, the BCGEU, pretty much across the board in terms of public sector or public service unions, there's a pretty good track record in terms of settlements, but here not so.

So how do we get to that better place? "I don't know" is the honest answer to the question. I don't know. I think there are issues around the political culture and the labour relations culture of BCTF particularly, and perhaps other parties as well. I don't have an answer to the member's question, but if the member has, tucked in his binder, a solution, believe me, we would welcome it.

B. Simpson: There is much that the minister has indicated. One teacher reflected to me, with respect to reporting, the responsibility of parents to engage in their education as well. I don't believe there's an instance of a parent that stepped into a school that did not get the information they needed from a teacher about the status of their children.

While formal reports were not necessarily going out, there were informal relationships, and certainly, I think, every parent that queried about the progress of their child got the information they needed to be engaged in the progress of that child. That's part of the debate and the political noise that's going around just now, and I think the minister has got the sense of what I'm getting at.

The minister's comments…. One of the things I did in trying to find my own way through this…. To the minister's point, I do think there is additional money that could be put to this by restoring the industrial school tax. There is a way to resolve this. Rather than imposing a collective agreement, I would suggest imposing the Don Wright process. There are ways through this.

But to the minister's point, I looked at the Hansard debates on most of these disputable teacher bills from 1987 forward. What I saw was that there was a language of government and a language of opposition for this. You could change the players out, but when you're in government you use a certain kind of language and rationale for what you're doing, and when you're in opposition you use that, too, regardless of the political affiliation. So this dispute has gone across that. I'm not pinning this dispute on the minister by any stretch of the imagination.

But the idea that a mediator…. The minister claims that this mediation process would be independent. The opposition put forward a kind of a call-the-bluff, if you will, on how to make it more independent. I guess my sense is that both Don Wright and Vince Ready said there's an immaturity in the collective bargaining process around the BCTF and BCPSEA and the government.

That is in part a result of longstanding unresolved issues that always come to the table; in part a result of education funding, the fact that education funding controlled by government impinges on the largest portion of the budget going to salaries and working conditions; and in part because the government, in order to control that cost, has the ability to default to legislation on that.

That's why Don Wright, I'm sure the minister knows, said that maybe you've got to look at binding arbitration for this one particular collective bargaining.

I voted against the amendment put forward by the opposition just simply because I think the bill in toto does nothing, and changing how you appoint a mediator is not going to change the outcome. The outcome will remain the same. My question to the minister is this. If the BCTF…? I know the minister sometimes doesn't like these theoretical things.

[1715]

But if the BCTF, as a result of this dispute, either during the dispute or now, came and said, "BCPSEA, BCTF, we're willing to engage in using the cooling-off period as an opportunity to get at some of these systemic issues," would the government be willing to have a cooling-off period for Bill 22, pull it back and allow some of that dialogue to occur?

The Chair: I'd just remind all members of the House that we are on section 6 of the bill. This is not second reading debate. Thank you.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm mindful of your advice, Madam Chair. I'll be brief here.

First of all, just to reiterate a point I made yesterday, which is that teachers, many teachers, deserve credit for reaching out effectively to parents about how their kids are doing in school. Many parents did it through phone calls, face-to-face meetings, typically in school hours, and through the Internet. I salute them for doing that.

It is also fair to say, though, and we know this from the correspondence we've received, that not all teachers reached out. Most of them did. Many of them did, but not all of them did. Similarly, parents deserve credit. Many of them reached out to teachers to try to find out how their kids were doing, even though they didn't receive a report card with the traditional marks. But again, not all parents reached out.

We know that there are multiple instances — it would be impossible to document the number — where parents found out very late that their child was failing a course or failing a grade, and as a consequence of no report card, no collaborative meetings, there was not a remedial strategy developed which might have assisted that child on the bubble from failing. I just wanted to make
[ Page 10197 ]
that point clear.

Second, I guess to the member's hypothetical scenario, there is nothing in that hypothetical scenario that would have brought an end to phase 1, and I think that's an important point from our perspective.

And a final point, again bearing the Chair's advice here: there is nothing in this legislation which would preclude a mediator from bringing us advice in respect of the broader areas which the member has referenced.

B. Simpson: Not to appear like I'm chafing under the Chair's direction, but in Bill 22, section 6, there's a presumption that mediation is the only way to resolve this dispute. I think it's fair to find out and test that that presumption is valid, that there were not alternatives available to the government. That's the substance of what I'm testing with the minister: whether or not there are alternate mechanisms to mediation, and especially in the terms of reference.

I appreciate the minister's comments about nothing precluding this and the point about: it doesn't address what government feels it needs to do, which is to stop the strike action, make sure reports are issued and so on.

I want to go to section 6(3). I know some of this was canvassed in a previous debate. This section, for Hansard and anybody who's paying attention to this, says: "The mediator or a person designated by the mediator has the powers of a hearing commission under sections 22 (1) and 23 (a), (b) and (d) of the Public Inquiry Act."

My question is: what powers does that give the mediator or the mediator's designate to compel participation by the parties?

[1720]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member's question is identical to the one that was posed and answered previously, which is: it does confer the powers of the Public Inquiry Act onto the mediator, and it is consistent with the powers as given to a special mediator under the Labour Code, sections 144 and 145. I actually read that section into the record in the last exchange.

B. Simpson: I ask the minister's forbearance. There's one aspect to it, and I can go back and look at Hansard, but I just want to be clear for myself in this. When you appoint a mediator by agreement, that agreement invites the participation because the parties have agreed to a mediated process. In general, they're also involved in the appointment or agreement on who the mediator should be, so there's no need to compel any of the parties in that circumstance to play with the mediator.

So just on the point of clarification. Is this to ensure that the B.C. Teachers Federation actually meets with the mediator, or am I reading too much into it? If the BCTF doesn't want to meet with the mediator, does this section give the mediator power to compel them to meet with him?

Hon. G. Abbott: We think we understand the member's question. The powers conferred by this act are consistent with the powers that are provided to a special mediator under the Labour Code. In such a case, the Labour Minister may well appoint a mediator without the consent of the parties, and often that is the case. Whether a mediator would use those powers is, I guess, to be seen.

B. Simpson: It is an important point, and I don't believe that this point was canvassed yesterday. I scanned it, and I stand to be corrected, but this particular aspect I don't believe was canvassed in the discussion about this subsection. So for clarity, because it is what I'm being asked by teachers and by people who are advising me on how to understand this bill…. This mediator, of course, and the government's entire bill, is being disputed and rejected, if you will, by one of the parties to the dispute — the B.C. Teachers Federation.

Once the mediator is appointed, it is conceivable and entirely possible that the B.C. Teachers Federation rejects the mediator outright and rejects the process that the mediator is a part of and refuses to engage in a discussion with the mediator because they reject the government's approach to this whole thing.

Under these inquiry act provisions, can the mediator at that time compel BCTF to meet with the mediator and bring forward their bargaining position?

[1725]

Hon. G. Abbott: The bill gets to the member's question at a couple of points — one in section 5, as I'm sure the member has noted. Section 5 is: "Within 72 hours after the coming into force of this section, the parties must continue or commence to bargain collectively in good faith and must make every reasonable effort to conclude a new collective agreement that is consistent with this Division." So that is one area.

The second area is that should a mediator choose to utilize it or should it be necessary for the mediator to utilize it, there is an extension of powers consistent with those of a special mediator under the Labour Code, sections 144 and 145, which draws on the powers of the Public Inquiry Act.

B. Simpson: I know that section 5 of this bill is closed for debate, but it does presume again that good-faith bargaining is possible. That's not necessarily a valid presumption, given the facts in this particular dispute and, particularly, what Bill 22 will do to exacerbate the situation. Bill 22 in its two parts is, one, speaking to collective bargaining and, two, either, as far as the government is concerned, redressing the class-size-composition ruling or, in the BCTF's case, not redressing that and not allowing it to become part of the collective bargaining
[ Page 10198 ]
process.

So that's why I'm getting…. And the minister is not answering the question. By referring to the inquiry, the question is just simply straight up: does that section of the inquiry act allow the mediator to compel BCTF to meet with the mediator? Just straight up: can the mediator say, "You'll meet with me on such-and-such a date," and have the power and authority to make sure that meeting occurs?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, if he or she chooses.

B. Simpson: I've got two more points here that I would like clarification on. But it goes to the point, I think, that really that clause is in there because of a concern that a mediator is appointed by the minister. The bill in its total just simply drives BCTF away from the whole process, and it gives that compulsion to make them participate so the due diligence is done to give the mediator the best opportunity.

Let me just go to clause (5), and then I'll come back to (4) to close off some of the questions I've got. In clause (5) it says that the mediator is going to be appointed by the minister. There's a terms of reference there that the minister indicates doesn't circumscribe but gives some highlights to the work that the mediator is going to do.

But in section 5 it says that at the end of the day if the mediator is able to come up with some sort of new collective agreement, it goes to the chief executive officer of the Public Sector Employers Council. Just a simple question: is that the sort of standard practice for public sector collective agreements — that it goes to the chief executive officer of the Public Sector Employers Council?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: To reiterate a point which I made earlier. Because the member suggested that it was unusual that the mediator be given the powers of the Public Inquiry Act, again, I want to clarify for the record that that power is entirely consistent with the power given to special mediators under the Labour Code sections 144 and 145. So this is not unusual. This is what a Labour Minister, whether with consent or without consent, might undertake in the appointment of a mediator.

[1730]

The answer to the member's second question is yes. It is normal that that would be the routing. The chief executive officer has to ensure that the settlement is consistent with the net zero mandate.

B. Simpson: A point of clarification. The minister keeps referring to a special mediator. If this went through what should be the next step — a fact-finder was appointed, not through the Labour Relations process but was appointed — the next step is mediation. If it went through the Labour Relations mediation process, as the NDP attempted to effect, would a Labour Relations agreed-upon mediator have these powers under the Public Inquiry Act? Or is it just a special mediator?

The minister is distinguishing between these two by saying that a Labour Minister–appointed special mediator…. It's normal for that mediator to have this power. But, of course, that's because the special mediator is being appointed because the dispute has come to a point where there has to be an intervention and, therefore, compulsion.

The minister is indicating that this is an independent mediator who will have the ability to go in and deal with all of these disputes, but they're giving them the powers of a special mediator to compel. So I just want to clarify. The minister is trying to indicate that this is normative practice. I want to clarify that if we went through the process of a Labour Relations Board–appointed mediator, would that mediator have these powers?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may get a more complex answer than he ever dreamed of to the important question that he's raised. First of all, he suggests that it would have been better to have a mediator under section 74 of the Labour Relations Code appointed through the Labour Relations Board. Again, we had an extensive discussion of this yesterday.

I won't read all of the notes into the record again, but it is important to note that the BCTF requested a mediator under section 74 of the Labour Relations Code. The associate chair for mediation of the LRB noted in a letter of March 12, 2012: "As noted in my letter, the bargaining position of the parties and the difficult nature of this bargaining dispute are well known. Based on Ms. Cameron's report to me, I am unable to conclude that at this juncture the appointment of a mediator under section 74 would be of any actual assistance in helping the parties to achieve a collective agreement."

Again, we canvassed this at length, so I'll just summarize. The core of the challenge here, for better or worse, is that the net zero mandate, which would be a part of any mediation under section 74, would be a mandate that is unacceptable to the BCTF. So again, we're in a conundrum around this point. But essentially they have the same powers.

I hope this is permitted, Madam Chair, to do this — looking at an act scrolling on an iPad. Maybe we're making new grounds here in parliamentary history. Fascinating.

[1735]

Subsection 74(6) reads: "Parties conferring with a mediation officer under this section must provide the information that the mediation officer requests concerning their collective bargaining." As compared to the special mediator under subsection 76(4): "The special mediator, in carrying out his or her duties under this Code,
[ Page 10199 ]
has the powers and protection set out in sections 145.1 to 145.4." Again, referencing the Labour Code and the Public Inquiry Act's application to that.

B. Simpson: I hope we have set a precedent so that I don't have to keep hauling all kinds of documents. I would like that opportunity. I think it doesn't serve our pulp industry well, but it serves the environment well that we don't have all of these papers kicking around.

I don't want to belabour the point, and I didn't want to get into the discussion of a special mediator again. I voted against the well-meaning and well-intended amendment by the opposition because I don't think mediation is going to resolve this dispute, regardless of how that mediator is appointed.

All I'm trying to clarify is the differential powers between a special mediator — which is presumptive of an intractable situation, and therefore you have to give that mediator the ability to compel participation — versus one where there has been an agreement that we want to go to mediation, and therefore the need to compel wouldn't be there and the power to compel is not necessary.

Having said that, let's go back to (5), then. I appreciate the minister being patient with me as I try to understand that. To go back to (5), then. I asked if it's standard practice for the chief executive officer of the Public Sector Employers Council to look at collective bargaining. The minister's response was yes, because of the net zero mandate. So was that a standard of practice prior to the government putting in the net zero mandate?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

B. Simpson: Really, the rub here is that…. As I said in my second reading of Bill 22, I think this is more a stalling tactic to get a cooling-off period imposed and to avert a strike and to redress the issue of the reporting out to parents that will get us through the June 30 period until the report comes.

My question to the minister is: why wouldn't the minister want to use July and August for the mediator to do more due diligence and get the mediator's report in August, not June 30?

Hon. G. Abbott: The bill provides four months — actually three months — for the mediator to do his or her important work and then provides an additional two months for government, hypothetically, to contemplate the results or the recommendations of the mediation, bearing in mind that there may be a mediated settlement reached, which would bring an end to that need.

B. Simpson: There's going to be a delay of some kind. That's already out in the ether or Twittersphere or blogosphere or whatever because of the minister's own travel arrangements of having to take a look at what's going on. Meanwhile, there's an expectation that these parties come together within 72 hours. So, you know, whether it's three months, 3½ months, what's…?

I mean, what is the minister's gut reaction to the possibility of a mediated settlement coming as a result of the structure of Bill 22 and the appointment of this mediator? Does the minister believe that there is any opportunity in this and maybe…? I don't know if the minister is a betting man, but what are the chances that this is going to lead to a negotiated agreement between the parties?

Hon. G. Abbott: My optimism is boundless. At every turn, for me, the cup is always half full, particularly if the liquid in the cup is wine. So here I'd want to say that, you know, the commitment of the parties is going to be important, but again, I believe they can do it.

[1740]

B. Simpson: We've all had our chance in second reading of this to say our two bits' worth. I don't think…. My preference would be that the government withdraws Bill 22 in its entirety and finds a different mechanism. That mechanism is possible and is out there.

I believe that the June 30 deadline is so that July and August can be provided to the government to recall this House in August and to impose a legislated agreement before September 1. That's really what the agenda is here. So my final question to the minister is: in the absence of all of this, if this does not work, will the government's final response be an imposed collective agreement before the next school year?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, we hope that the parties will come to an agreement. We hope, in the absence of the parties through their engagement under section 5, that the mediator is able to assist the parties to reach a mediated settlement. I can tell the member, though, that I would not be prepared, as Minister of Education, to see the same challenges imposed on the class of 2012-2013 in terms of labour disruption of their school year as has been imposed on the class of 2011-2012.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

R. Austin: That was an exhaustive debate on section 6, and now we will move on to section 7. Could the minister please begin by giving us an overview of this section and its purpose?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is important, first of all, to note this: section 7 will only be proclaimed in the event of an illegal strike.

[1745]
[ Page 10200 ]

So it is our hope that there will never be a necessity for the proclamation of section 7. In the unlikely circumstances that would lead to proclamation, this section sets out the penalties that all parties would be subject to, whether they be employers or employees, in the event of an illegal walkout — or lockout, in the other instance.

R. Austin: Yes, I do understand that this won't be proclaimed unless there is the event of an illegal strike. Presumably, as we go through looking at the details of this section, I suspect that it is such a potentially big stick that that will weigh heavily on the minds of the various parties in terms of them ever coming to a decision as to whether to move to an illegal strike position.

In terms of the fines in subsection (a) for individual employees of the BCTF, the figure chosen is $475 per day. Could the minister tell the House why that amount was arrived at — that specific amount?

Hon. G. Abbott: The $475 is generated by taking the average compensation and dividing it by 193 school days, yielding $475.

R. Austin: Did the minister or his staff look at similar fines in other jurisdictions across Canada for similar events such as an illegal strike?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes we did, and we have some detail on that, but it'll take a little bit of time to dig it out. So perhaps we can proceed with other questions, and I'll advise the House of that when we have that info.

R. Austin: Once the figure of $475 a day for a teacher was arrived at, prior to bringing in this legislation did the minister discuss this with BCPSEA or with any other of the education stakeholders?

Hon. G. Abbott: No.

R. Austin: Could I ask why the minister didn't feel it was important to have the support of other education stakeholders?

[1750]

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to respond to the earlier question, and then we'll address the most recent question from the critic.

The recent issues we've looked at — Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, 2011; Railway Continuation Act, 2009; Railway Continuation Act, 2007; and the dispute in the province of Ontario, 2009…. Ontario imposed penalties for workers at York University in 2009 of $2,000 per person. In the case of the federal government on mail delivery, etc., it was $1,000 per employee per day.

Sorry, could I get the member to repeat his latter question?

R. Austin: Yes, the other question was whether these fines or the rates of these fines were canvassed with other education stakeholders. And if not, why not?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no. It would have been inappropriate to consult them, given that it may apply to them.

R. Austin: Is it possible for us to get a copy of the paper with all the information that the minister just cited in terms of the other fines around different jurisdictions in Canada? And in respect to the fines that would be imposed on the BCTF in the event of an illegal strike, the figure here in subsection (b) is $1.3 million per day. Could the minister let us know how that figure was arrived at?

[1755]

Hon. G. Abbott: In the first instance, the figure is representative of the equivalent of two weeks of union dues from BCTF members to the union. It also would represent a small fraction of the real-world cost which parents of 520,000 public school students would be exposed to as a consequence of an illegal walkout.

Those costs would certainly include the cost of child care, given that one doesn't enjoy the two days' notice in an illegal walkout that one would have had, for example, in the recent LRB-sanctioned strike situation, nor would it include the cost of lost employment, again a consequence of a parent suddenly understanding that their child may or may not have any place to go that day to receive their education. It would certainly be a small fraction of the loss of productivity which would be incurred on a provincial basis as a consequence of that, with upwards of 1.2 million parents in British Columbia being exposed to a sudden loss of opportunity.

I guess a final point, which is an important one and I think again underlines the seriousness with which government views this and which we believe all educational partners should view this, is that when thrust into an untenable situation like an unforeseen and without-notice disruption of educational services, it may be that children will be exposed to inadequate supervision.

Again, it is not a cost that one can define very well, but one should view this with the greatest of seriousness. We believe that the figure here of $1.3 million does underline the seriousness with which we believe all the partners, whether they're employers or employees, should take in respect of this.

R. Austin: In respect to the $1.3 million a day, obviously this would not have been discussed with the BCTF. But did the minister take this figure and get any feedback from trustees or BCPSEA? I ask this question simply because part of the challenges of Bill 22….

We've had a lot of discussion around the relationship
[ Page 10201 ]
between the Teachers Federation and the government since Bills 27 and 28 came in ten years ago, and the challenge of trying to negotiate a settlement both to Bills 27, 28 and the collective agreements for this round of bargaining, given the historical context.

I'm just wondering whether this figure was discussed with BCPSEA in terms of how a figure like this might be used or seen by the Teachers Federation and teachers around the province as further sort of inflaming or waving a big stick at them if they were to ever contemplate an illegal strike. That's the purpose of that question.

Hon. G. Abbott: No, the fine in relation to BCTF was not discussed with either BCTF or with BCPSEA, nor was the fine in relation to a potential lockout by BCPSEA discussed with either BCTF or BCPSEA, nor should it properly have been.

R. Austin: Could I ask whether the minister would comment on simply bringing fines of this magnitude into the bill in terms of what kind of display it shows to teachers in terms of potentially exacerbating already a lot of ill feeling on their part.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's the expectation of not only the government of British Columbia but all British Columbians that all British Columbians will observe the law, and again, particularly when non-observance of the law would have all of the huge consequences that it would in terms of an illegal stoppage in relation to child care, in relation to the safety of children, in relation to the opportunity to access employment. All of these things are hugely important to 520,000 students and over a million parents.

Again, I see nothing here that is inflammatory, and the fact that the government will only proclaim this section in the eventuality that it is needed further underlines that point.

[1800]

R. Austin: In respect to subsection (c), the potential fine if they choose to go on a legal strike is $2,500 per day for representatives of the BCTF. Could the minister please inform the House how that amount was arrived at?

Hon. G. Abbott: The $2,500 a day represents approximately five times — as the member can compute, slightly over five times — what it would be for an individual. That is in contrast to the recent federal legislation, which I referenced previously, where the penalty to an individual who is acting in the capacity of an officer or representative — and this is what we're referencing in (c) in Bill 22 — is $50,000 in that case. So the penalty here in Bill 22 is approximately 1/20 of what is being utilized in the federal legislation.

B. Ralston: I'm interested in the reasoning process that the minister has set out here before the House. Back in 2005, as the minister is aware, there was an illegal work stoppage. That matter went before the court. Madam Justice Brown calculated a fine of $500,000. That would be ten days of illegal work stoppage at $50,000 a day. So that's an escalation. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but it's a very dramatic escalation.

Was it the view of the minister, in considering and calculating this particular amount, that there was a serious disagreement with the wisdom of the B.C. Supreme Court on this matter?

Hon. G. Abbott: The fine was not set in reference to earlier judgments by any court. They reflect, first of all…. As I discussed at some length in my response to the Education critic, they were set in reference to the seriousness with which this should be viewed from the perspective of 520,000 public school students and their over one million parents, who would face a far more severe penalty cumulatively as a consequence of an illegal work stoppage. So that is the reason for it.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm sure that the minister is aware — if not, his advisers will tell him — that the B.C. Supreme Court took all of those factors into consideration. So I can assume, just by the way in which the minister has answered the question, that there's a profound disagreement with the B.C. Supreme Court here. But the minister can choose to deny that later if he wishes.

[1805]

In paragraph 30 on page 7 of the judgment of October 21, 2005, the court says the following:

"This court must impose a sanction that recognizes the gravity of the contempt, deters this party from continuing contempt and deters others from similar conduct. The BCTF has approximately 38,000 members. It has net assets of more than $30 million. Its collective bargaining defence fund was $14,644,000 as of June 30, 2005. The teachers were offered two opportunities to comply — October 9, 2005, and October 13, 2005 — yet continued to defy the order and have stated, as recently as October 17, that they will not obey the order, despite my order of October 13 enjoining the BCTF and related entities from using their assets to facilitate the breach of the court order, including payment of strike pay."

Paragraph 31 goes on:

"The number of members and the extent of the assets of BCTF are such that a fine akin to that levied against the HEU" — that's a reference to a previous case — "would be trivial, given the equivalent of approximately $4 per union member."

In calculating, because this appears to be part of the judicial reasoning here…. Presumably, since the minister is lecturing us on the law and the rule of law, he would be guided by a decision of the Supreme Court and the reasoning process in a decision that directly affects this union in a previous dispute.

Were the assets of BCTF, its financial position, considered in calculating this proposed minimum fine of $1.3 million a day?
[ Page 10202 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: As I said in the previous answer, we first looked at what was the equivalent of two weeks of dues submitted to the B.C. Teachers Federation, and secondly and more importantly, we looked at the economic consequences of an illegal walkout or lockout by the parties here and what that would mean to parents and to their children in the province.

As I said to the Education critic when the initial question was posed, in the event of an illegal walkout one doesn't have the benefit of two days' notice and the opportunity to prepare alternative child care, alternative childminding, alternatives to employment, shared management of kids. Parents are thrust into, often, an untenable situation by an illegal walkout, and I think every member of the House should view that with the greatest of seriousness.

Now, if it is the member's suggestion that the Brown decision was the first and last word in this and that really we should be substituting — whatever it was — $50,000 a day or whatever for the $1.3 million, I'm glad to hear that submission.

If it's the view of the opposition that there should be an amendment to this that would strike $1.3 million and substitute $50,000, I'm certain the House would be glad to consider that. But we don't share that view, and I can tell the opposition that right now. We do not share that view. I think that $1.3 million represents a very small percentage of the costs that over one million parents incur as a consequence of any illegal walkout.

If the opposition has a different view — glad to hear it, glad to entertain an amendment to this section if they feel really strongly about it. But I don't think there's an unfairness being imposed here, additionally because this section will only be proclaimed in the instance of an illegal walkout.

B. Ralston: Well, it's interesting to hear the minister say that he doesn't agree with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, expresses some disdain for the finding of the Supreme Court of British Columbia yet proposes here to lecture us about the rule of law. The minister tries to, I think…. I'm not quite sure the reasoning process that he's following here, but he speaks of the cost of child care and lost employment as a small fraction of the real cost, and I think that's well understood.

[1810]

Is it then suggested that this $1.3 million would be distributed by people who would make claims for lost wages or the cost of child care? Or is that simply a deterrent in the typical way that a fine would be in any ordinary criminal case or any other offence under the Offence Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: There's no contemplated scenario of the sort the member mentioned, although if he wants to propose such a thing we certainly would welcome hearing more about it.

In terms of the fine, we set the fine in this legislation. It would be to a court, however, to enforce that fine. Again, the fine, the $1.3 million, is representative of about 1/24 of the annual revenues of the Teachers Federation, or the equivalent of two weeks of union dues.

Again, it is a fraction of the real-world costs that 1.1 million parents would incur as a consequence of an illegal walkout or a lockout. So that would amount to, I guess, just a little bit over $1 per parent. I think that goes to underline the seriousness with which a lockout or a walkout ought to be viewed in this circumstance.

B. Ralston: Well, in subsection (4) of section 7…. It's interesting that the minister uses the term "it would be up to a court" to enforce the legislation. The language used here is "an offence," so presumably it is an offence that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Offence Act.

If a minimum sentence, a fine, is set, as it is here, the court would have no discretion but to levy that amount, at least barring any constitutional challenges of the penalty itself. So it's a curious choice of language, and I'm not quite sure why the minister chose that. But when we look at subsection (4), is the minister…? Is that where his comments about costs are directed to?

[1815]

Subsection (4) says, in subsection (4)(b)…. I presume that for the purposes of this section, and perhaps the minister can correct me, the BCTF is a legal person. The language used is "a person." It says: "When sentencing a person convicted of an offence under this section, in addition to any punishment the court may impose, the court may (a) order the offender to comply with the provisions of this Part, and" — this is the relevant part here — "(b) order the offender to pay compensation or make restitution to a person specified by the court for the actual loss or damage caused by or arising out of the commission of the offence."

If a one-day wildcat strike goes before the court, would it be the position of the minister that one avenue that this subsection could be used for would be to pursue the kinds of remedies that he mentions — in the millions of dollars? Is that what he is proposing?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, what we are doing in division 4, "Offences," is discussing the sanctions and the penalties which this House believes are appropriate should an individual, an officer, an organization willfully or purposefully break the law of the province. I presume that the member is not questioning the right of this House to impose sanctions and to impose penalties.

Further, although the member can certainly speak for himself, I hope he is not saying that the interests of students, the interests of children, the interests of their parents are not issues to be considered in setting out those sanctions and penalties. Again, and I won't repeat the reasons, it is very clear that the consequences for an indi-
[ Page 10203 ]
vidual, an officer or an organization, in breaking the law in respect of this section, are dramatic in terms of its impact on parents and children and should be viewed with the greatest seriousness.

If the member or the opposition believes that the penalty structure set out here is inappropriate or too heavy or whatever they might like to think, we'd be delighted to hear their views on the matter. If they are so bold as to propose an amendment that would provide for lighter penalties, I'm sure the House would give it its full and serious consideration.

[1820]

B. Ralston: Well, I don't think anyone on this side of the House disputes the right of this House to set an amount of a fine. I suppose what the concern here is is its proportionality to the offence itself.

The minister talks about the rule of law, so let's look at something else.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I see the Minister of Health has a view on this. Perhaps he'd like to stand up and intervene in the debate.

Let's have a look at….

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Yeah. "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." I think that was the commercial.

Let's have a look, in the sense of assessing the proportionality of this fine to the seriousness of the offence…. In 2011 Peter Kiewit Infrastructure, for safety violations on the Plutonic Power project in Toba Inlet that resulted in the death of 24-year-old Samuel Joseph Fitzpatrick, was fined $250,000 for committing "high-risk violations knowingly or in reckless disregard of its statutory health and safety obligations," according to WorkSafe B.C.'s inspection report.

That's a serious breach of law. Someone died, and the fine was $250,000. The minister talks, and properly, about the disruption to the education system. Yet here his view is that a $1.3 million fine per day is appropriate.

Can the minister reconcile that consideration of a fine which resulted from the death of a citizen of the province with the calculation of what a one-day wildcat strike here in the province should draw for the BCTF?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think, first of all, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what was obviously a tragic event and to comment further on the court's response to that.

The substance, though, of the member's submission here is that penalties should be proportionate to impact. I've stated on numerous occasions that I believe that the penalty is proportionate to impact, in relation to the penalty that is contemplated here for employers and employees around this.

But if the member believes that there is a lack of proportionality, he is entirely free to propose an amendment which would reduce, presumably, that $1.3 million down to some lesser fund, reflective of his view that somehow an illegal stoppage that threw the lives of over 1.1 million British Columbians into turmoil is somehow inappropriate or out of proportion to the impact.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister was apparently dismissive of the B.C. Supreme Court when a dispassionate, neutral judge assessed the proportionality of the conduct and the disruption and all the other factors that the minister cites and imposed a fine of $500,000 for a two-week work stoppage.

Here he's chosen in the legislation to take that discretion away from the court. I suppose that's the influence of Tory Ottawa in the minister's legislative drafting these days. Minimum fines and minimum penalties seem to be the order of the day. So the one avenue to assessing proportionality is to have a judge decide it and not fetter the judge in advance by setting a minimum fine of $1.3 million. Does the minister care to respond to that?

Hon. G. Abbott: Given the proximity to the dinner hour, let me just say that the member is always a persuasive member of this House. He should test his proposition here by directly addressing the issue of proportionality, if he believes that the proportionality in this legislation is inappropriate, by producing an amendment which presumably would see that $1.3 million penalty reduced. I'd welcome that now if the member wishes.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Apparently, he does wish.

The opposition doesn't appear to have an amendment in store for us.

In respect of this, Madam Chair, I move the committee recess for 30 minutes. By agreement, the committee will sit until nine this evening.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is in recess for 30 minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:25 p.m. to 7:03 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

B. Ralston: In an earlier question, just before the break, I asked the minister…. In subsection 7(4) the words are: "When sentencing a person…." What would be the definition of "person" in this context? Would that include the
[ Page 10204 ]
employer association or the employee association? The minister, I think — in his haste to solicit an amendment from me, which he had absolutely no intention of supporting — didn't answer the question.

[1905]

Hon. G. Abbott: Being a non-lawyerly group here, we've sent, via the fastest method of communication we have, a request out to lawyerly types to give us an answer to the member's important question. We don't have that at the moment. We can wait, if that's the wish of the House, or we could move on and then come back to this at another point.

B. Ralston: Well, I have a couple of other questions on this section, prior to receiving the answer.

Would the minister agree or not that this section ousts the jurisdiction of the B.C. Supreme Court to deal with civil contempt for the same series of events?

[1910]

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

B. Ralston: Then I'll repeat my previous question. Would the minister agree or not that this section ousts the jurisdiction of the B.C. Supreme Court to deal with civil contempt concerning the same events?

Hon. G. Abbott: We'll take that question on notice and endeavour to get back to the member this evening. If not tonight, tomorrow.

B. Ralston: Does this section, section 7, oust the jurisdiction of the B.C. Supreme Court to deal with criminal contempt for the same events?

Hon. G. Abbott: We'll take it on notice and, again, try to get back to the member this evening. If not, tomorrow.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I'll try something a little easier. Does this section permit the labour board to conduct concurrent hearings concerning the same events and proceed with its own remedies up to and including fines of the organization and individuals involved in the dispute?

Hon. G. Abbott: If we understand the member's question correctly, then sub (5) — which reads "This section applies in addition to any other penalty, fine or remedy provided by this Part or the Code" — would appear to answer the member's question.

B. Ralston: Would this section prohibit the employer from engaging in its own separate disciplinary procedure under the act?

[1915]

Hon. G. Abbott: I would refer the member to section 4, which reads: "Nothing in this Part affects the right of an employer to suspend, transfer, lay off, discharge or discipline an employee in accordance with the last collective agreement in force between the parties before the coming into force of this section."

B. Ralston: Would the operation of this section, section 7, prohibit the Ministry of Education teacher regulation branch with engaging in disciplinary proceedings?

Hon. G. Abbott: No.

B. Ralston: Would the operation of this section prohibit the employer from docking pay from any individual teacher who was deemed to have participated in these events?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. But subject to the provisions of the collective agreement.

B. Ralston: Would the operation of this section — and I'm thinking in particular of section 7(4) — bar any person from bringing civil proceedings against one of the bargaining agents, such as the BCTF, by parents or by commercial operators of, whether it be, vending machines or other commercial operations within school premises?

Hon. G. Abbott: No.

B. Ralston: In the research that has been done for the minister in preparing for discussion of this section, would the minister agree that this appears to be — the proposed $1.3 million minimum fine, so a judge could order it higher, presumably — the highest fine proposed in the history of the province for a labour dispute for a single day by an organization?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know.

R. Austin: In respect to section 7. I'm not sure of the procedure, but can we stand down on section 7, and then when we get the answers back tomorrow, we can then revert to this? Okay?

Section 7 stood down.

On section 8.

R. Austin: On section 8. Can the minister explain the purpose of this section?

[1920]

Hon. G. Abbott: Section 8 confirms that class size, composition, etc., as removed originally by Bill 28, re-
[ Page 10205 ]
main deleted from the collective agreement.

R. Austin: Can the minister please explain what was in article D.1, entitled "Staffing Formula — Non-Enrolling/English as a Second Language Teachers," referred to in subsection (A) of section 2 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: D.1, to the best of our knowledge, goes to the ratio of English-as-a-second-language students per teacher, ratio of students per teacher-librarian, students per counsellor, students per learning-assistance teacher and students per special education teacher.

[1925]

R. Austin: Can the minister tell the House what was in article D.2, entitled "K-3 Primary Class Size," referred to in subsection (B) of section 2 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: Article D.2 relates to class-size maximum for kindergarten and grades 1 through 3.

R. Austin: Could the minister tell the House what was in sections D.1, D.2 and D.3 of appendix 1 of "Letter of Understanding No. 1," dated May 31, 1995, referred to in subsection (C) of section 2 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: It represents an agreement made between the union and the employer to operationalize the area of class-size maximums — previously noted.

R. Austin: Could the minister tell the House: what was the effect of deleting the heading "Professional Development and Teacher Assistants" and substituting "Professional Development," and deleting the heading "Teacher Assistants" and the paragraph immediately under that heading, in addendum C to "Letter of Understanding No. 1," dated April 23, 1997, referred to in subsection (D) of section 2 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act?

[1930]

Hon. G. Abbott: The question related to (D). This is an agreement between the union and BCPSEA which amends the agreement to clarify that teaching assistants are not subject to the BCTF agreement.

R. Austin: Could the minister inform the House: what was the effect of "deleting paragraphs 1 to 5 and everything after paragraph 8 of Letter of Understanding No. 3, dated June 4, 1999," referred to in subsection (E) of section 2 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act?

What was the Letter of Understanding No. 4, dated June 22, 1999, referred to in subsection (F) of section 2 of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act?

[1935]

Hon. G. Abbott: All of the clauses, including (E), (F) and (G) in section 8, refer to specific clauses in the BCTF collective agreement that were itemized in Bill 19 of 2004. That bill implemented the direction from Bill 28 that clauses which restricted a board's ability to limit class size, composition, etc., were to be removed from collective agreements.

R. Austin: Could the minister tell the House: what was the Letter of Understanding No. 5, dated June 19, 2000, referred to in subsection (G) of section (2) of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have with us the Letter of Understanding No. 5, dated June 19, 2000. We'll endeavour to get it for the member.

R. Austin: Could the minister tell the House: what was the effect of the changes made in subsection (H) of section (2) of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issues in subsection (H) relate to a variety of articles in local collective agreements that were removed by Bill 19. All of these items were found to be out of scope with Bill 28 by Arbitrator Rice. We do have a document that lists all of those, and we can share that with the member.

R. Austin: I guess I look forward to seeing that document.

Could the minister inform the House what the history is behind the enactment of section 2(1)(a) to (v) of the Education Services Collective Agreement Act in 2002?

[1940]

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, a brief history class here. Bill 28 of 2002 allowed the arbitrator to find parts of collective agreements that were out of scope — the Rice arbitrations as previously mentioned. The findings of Arbitrator Rice were challenged in a further arbitration. In that arbitration, Arbitrator Munroe supported the Rice findings. That was overturned, we believe, on judicial review, but overturned in any event by Justice Shaw. Bill 19 was enacted to provide certainty with respect to the findings of the Rice arbitration.

R. Austin: What this section, then — correct me if I'm wrong — is essentially doing is removing the language that was ruled unconstitutional by Madam Justice Susan Griffin in her ruling of almost a year ago and then reinstating the very same language back into the legisla-
[ Page 10206 ]
tion of Bill 22. Is that correct?

[1945]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question, as we understand it, is: are we redeleting the deletions? The answer is yes. We believe we must do so for certainty.

We do disagree with the member's characterization of the constitutionality of that, and I would refer the member to section 297 of Justice Griffin's judgment, which reads: "If the government prohibited collective bargaining through legislation, but otherwise in the process of implementing the legislation replaced collective bargaining with an equivalent process of good faith consultation or negotiation, then the legislation might not be an interference with freedom of association."

R. Austin: So what good faith consultation has taken place to enable the government to be bringing in Bill 22 with essentially the same language that originally was stripped out?

[1950]

Hon. G. Abbott: The process that was undertaken was very similar to the process undertaken in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision with respect to Bill 29.

In the case of Bill 29, the process engaged involved the B.C. Nurses Union and the Hospital Employees Union. In the case of the Bills 27 and 28 decision by Justice Griffin of the B.C. Supreme Court, that process, again, was similar in terms of the tables that were engaged. The process began in May of 2011. It concluded in November of 2011, and it included the tabling of a learning improvement fund in October of $165 million over three years.

R. Austin: The removal of the language that was ruled unconstitutional and then it being put back, in exactly the same form, would appear to me as a technical way to meet the requirements in Judge Griffin's ruling on Bills 27 and 28. So my question to the minister is: does the minister actually believe that this bill, this section, achieves the spirit of Justice Griffin's ruling?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, absolutely.

B. Simpson: I think it's important for the course of questions I have here to continue from where the minister ended on the Supreme Court justice's decision. The minister ended halfway through section 297, which intimates that all that the government had to do was somehow have a conversation with the BCTF, then they could do whatever they wanted to by way of legislation or enforce collective bargaining or whatever the case may be.

I'm a layman; I'm not a lawyer. But this is in pretty plain English, and this is how it reads. After the end quote that the minister indicated, it continues. These are Justice Griffin's words:

"However, if in the process of legislating limits to collective bargaining the government did not otherwise allow employees to influence the legislative process or outcome in association, then the interference with section 2(d) rights will be considered substantial." So substantial interference in collective bargaining rights.

The 298 clause says:

"Here, the legislative changes were brought about without any consultation with the teachers union.

"In addition, when considering the changes, the government informed and sought the advice of only one side to the bargaining table about its proposed changes, the employers' side, BCPSEA. This occurred in the midst of collective bargaining, distorting the balance of power at the negotiating table and giving the BCTF a distinct disadvantage in the bargaining."

The judge goes on to say:

"It's worth noting that it is likely that including these working conditions in their past collective agreements, prior to the impugned legislation, that teachers made trade-offs of other demands in collective bargaining. The lack of consultation in the legislative process sent the message to teachers that whatever time and effort and sacrifices they might put into the collective bargaining process, it was all subject to the government overriding the process without any consultation. This seriously undercut the utility of the collective bargaining."

And 301:

"The historical evolution of collective bargaining as a protected right recognizes that there is a psychological benefit to workers to be able to collectively bargain over their working conditions — a benefit that goes beyond the economic benefits they might obtain. As held in Health Services…" — a decision that had influenced this —"recognition of the right to collectively bargain as a part of the freedom to associate 'reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter.'

"Allowing the workers a process to have a voice in their working conditions, regardless of the outcome, is thought to have a mediating or therapeutic impact on industrial conflict. It has been regarded as a form of industrial democracy, where the worker gains a sense of worth and freedom by the ability to participate."

[1955]

I could go on, but the remainder of the judge's comment leads me — after what the minister has indicated, as the members of the opposition have indicated — to really be astounded that the government believes that somehow doing the exact same things that the judge said were inappropriate to do, that basically rendered previous collective agreements null and void in order to remove class-size composition from collective bargaining, which the judge clearly indicated were working conditions that were part of collective bargaining…. The judge's ruling in this is again being undermined and poorly reflected in what the government is doing here now.

So my question to the minister is this. Are the same lawyers that said Bill 28 was constitutional advising the minister just now that Bill 22 is constitutional?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member reading from some of the sections of the decision of 2002. First, I want to note that government has learned from the way in which Bills 27 and 28 were undertaken.
[ Page 10207 ]

The member asked a question about counsel. Our counsel in this matter has interpreted the decision in its entirety, not just on a few of the sections. They have looked at it in its entirety.

Indeed, the response which is contained in Bill 22 is, again, carefully considered to meet the concerns which are expressed in Justice Griffin's decision. That includes a full consultation process, which I outlined to the opposition Education critic. Again, we believe both the reading by our counsel and the response as articulated in Bill 22 is appropriate.

B. Simpson: Again, even though I had a long preamble to it from the justice's decision, my question was: is it the same lawyers advising the minister who advised him that Bill 28 was constitutional and who took the BCTF on in the court case? Is it the same lawyers giving him advice that Bill 22 now meets the test that Bill 28 did not?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: The Ministry of Attorney General is counsel to government, always has been counsel to government and continues to be counsel to government.

B. Simpson: I take that as a yes.

The minister may want to go back to the Attorney General's office and ask for a change of team, because in section 146 of the judge's ruling…. The judge's ruling is critical. This is the law-making chamber of the land. That's what we're doing here. Bill 22 is supposed to be law that reflects jurisprudence that has gone before it.

[2000]

It's supposed to be law that helps us to get a better education system and to get a better relationship with the teachers, not a stalling tactic to get a government past the by-elections and into a summer where they can actually impose what their agenda is, which is an imposed collective agreement without class size and composition duly bargained with teachers.

So here's this star team that the government had, going to the justice, and here's what the justice had to say about the evidence put before her. Section 146 of the ruling said:

"The evidence that the government relied on in the hearing before me, to support its assertion that class size limits were causing hardships to students and parents, was anecdotal hearsay. It was so vague and unsubstantiated that it was impossible for BCTF to challenge it meaningfully. It would be unfair to give it any weight for the truth of its contents. However, members of government were told of these stories by BCPSEA in 2001 and may have believed them, and so it has become relevant as potentially informing the government objective of the challenged legislation.

"But it is also clear from the government's own evidence that a clear reason that school administrators and the government did not like to have class size and composition limits included in the collective agreements was the fact that these limits increased costs to school districts."

So my question to the minister is: is the government, once again, attempting to strip teachers of their historical collective bargaining rights as a cost imposition on the system? Is that what Bill 22 is, once again, doing — what Bill 28 attempted to do and was struck down?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member wants to jump ahead slightly to section 13, 27(7). It is in that section that the right to bargain class size and composition is restored, effective July 2013.

B. Simpson: I mean, if that answer doesn't show the insidious nature of this bill, I don't know what does. What this bill is, in effect, doing is it is, No. 1, attempting to impose a collective agreement that has class size and composition imposed by legislation and trying to suggest that the BCTF may agree to that, when the minister has to know, with that star team of lawyers, that what that does is set the BCTF to lose any attempt to challenge that in the future.

By conceding to a collective agreement in this collective bargaining process that has class size and composition imposed on them by law, it negates the BCTF's argument before Justice Griffin that it has always been a collective agreement issue. So that proves that this is not a serious attempt to mediate this dispute. It's a serious attempt to avoid anything and to pass on to the next government — which I can guarantee won't be this government — the problems that this government won't address.

[2005]

What this is doing, quite frankly, is that by going through these deletions — and I'll come to…. The judge actually ruled specifically on previous deletions that are being affected again in this clause. What the government is doing is actually trying to impose a collective agreement that negates a future court challenge, because it takes the argument away. If they can get a collective agreement under those auspices, then basically they win the battle that they didn't win in the courts.

Secondly, by starting to do this work in future clauses from here, it moves collective bargaining away from the bargaining table to individual teachers. Now we're going to go to individual teachers and negotiate their class sizes and remuneration individually, because we can't do it through the bargaining process.

This is an insidious piece of legislation. It ought not to be passed, and it ought to be withdrawn.

The minister is indicating that this is going to be restored in 2013. Of course, time in the court system is different than time in most other places, so we're probably not going to get a ruling before 2013. I would be very curious to know how this is different than what the government attempted to do in the court system.

What the government attempted to do in the court system was make two arguments. The first argument was that the collective bargaining that occurred from 1994 on was coerced. That was the first argument. They weren't
[ Page 10208 ]
freely negotiated; it was coerced. Well, I'm not quite sure what it is we're doing now if we're not attempting to coerce, and the minister has already indicated we're going to coerce one, if that's the language that the government wants to do.

The judge said clearly that collective bargaining, while it may have been imposed through legislation, was certainly not coerced, because there was a process of bargaining going on.

Secondly, the government attempted to argue that it was education policy. What the judge said was that it's not education policy; it's cost control on the part of the government. All they're trying to do is control costs by removing this.

More pertinent to what we have in front of us is that the judge actually ruled on what the government attempted to do in Bill 28, and it's pertinent to this bill.

"The impact of the combined legislation of the different sections of Bill 28 and section 5 of the amendment act was to

"(a) delete hundreds of provisions of existing collective agreement."

That's what we're trying to do in this section.

"(b) prohibit BCTF from negotiating or including in a future collective agreement terms that offended" provisions in the School Act, "restricting or regulating a school board's power to establish or determine class size limits, class composition, staffing ratios, minimum number of teachers or other staff, number of students assigned to a teacher and teaching loads;

"(c) however, the BCTF could attempt to negotiate in the future a very limited and undefined scope of 'manner and consequences' of some school board determinations of the above matters…."

That is what this bill is doing. It's giving the superintendents the vehicle for the school board to make the determinations that are not being determined at the collective bargaining table.

My question to the minister…. Again, he says that all of this is going to go back in 2013. Why isn't it going back now? Why isn't this collective bargaining window adhering to the spirit and intent of the judge, who already said you can't delete past collective agreements and then make the argument that it was never part of collective bargaining?

You can't strip teachers of working conditions and impose it on them. The judge has ruled on this already, as far as I'm concerned. Why are we not addressing this issue in this collective bargaining window? Why the stall to 2013?

[2010]

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, the member had many things to say in his comments. I want to note, first of all, that I disagree with many of the assertions as well as his overall assessment of the bill. I simply do not share that.

Further, I think that it is hugely unfortunate that he should disparage and insult the very capable and hard-working lawyers, both working in and engaged by the Ministry of Attorney General with respect to this file. Again, I think the member observed that he was not a lawyer, as I am not a lawyer. I'm impressed that, given that basis, he would so readily dismiss the knowledge and dedication of those who serve the province in that capacity.

The member suggested that this legislation imposes a contract. It does not. That is clear. Further, there is nothing in this bill that would abrogate the right of the Teachers Federation to challenge this in a court of law. There is absolutely nothing that would prevent that.

The issue of class size is an issue that we will be debating in a later section of this bill, so I won't go into that now, because I expect there will be a full debate on that later on. But the issue of: why not restore it now…? First off, the answer is that the agreement between the Teachers Federation, BCPSEA and the province expired in June 2011.

[2015]

By the time the processes engaged in this bill are completed, whether it's a mediated settlement or a legislated settlement, we will be well into the second year, and we will be very close to beginning the negotiation for the collective agreement commencing in July of 2013.

Further, it's important to note that schools will very soon begin organizing classes for this coming September.

The final point, I think, that is very important here is that while collective bargaining on class size and composition is restored on July 1, 2013, "manner and consequences," or impact related to class size and consequence, is an issue that is within the mandate of the mediator and within the scope of collective bargaining — manner and consequences.

B. Simpson: I have just a couple more here, but I do apologize if I gave the suggestion that this bill imposes a contract. We already canvassed that earlier, and the minister all but admitted that it's going to lead to an imposed contract and that we'll probably be back here in the summer to do that.

You know, it's an easy out on both sides to go to: "Oh, the poor lawyers, or the poor bureaucrats, or whatever. We're maligning these individuals." I am calling into question their professional judgment in this case. I am calling into question the waste of taxpayers' dollars in fighting with our teachers in the court system. The minister is even admitting that the most likely aspect of this bill and outcome of this bill is to yet again go back into the court system and waste more money on lawyers' fees, fighting what the government is failing to address in a more reasoned fashion.

Section 276. Again, it was not my comments about the nature of the evidence the government put forward. Those were not my comments about the nature of the evidence that the government put forward. It was the judge's comments on the nature of the evidence that was put forward. And the circumstances have not changed. This bill does not render the government's case any better. In fact, it renders it worse. The same anecdotal evidence is
[ Page 10209 ]
still going to have to be used to prove the case yet again.

That's what I don't understand. Yeah, I may be a layman, but I can read, and the judge's decision on this is in pretty plain English.

On 276 in the judge's conclusion — and again, it goes to this section — it says: "At the first stage of analysis of the legislation, I have concluded" — this is the judge — "that the impugned legislation…interfered with the process of collective bargaining, by voiding previously negotiated terms of collective agreements" — which the government is doing yet again — "or prohibiting collective bargaining on matters that had previously been the subject of bargaining, or both."

I just don't see what the difference is. The minister is not making the case that this is any different, and the minister's argument — that we should wait until 2013 to address this — is specious. What it means is that the government is trying to position itself in advance of a court case: "See, Judge. Look. We imposed a collective agreement that had all of this in it."

In section 298 of the court's judgment, her ruling, it said that this was substantive. Remember, the judge said these were unconstitutional. This is not some light ruling. It was an unconstitutional act on the part of this Legislature. In section 298 of the judge's ruling it said, "The legislative changes were brought about without any consultation with the teachers union" — the legislative changes, i.e., Bill 28, the substance of the bill itself. It was not the collective bargaining issues, not any of the other things, but the substance of the bill itself.

So my question to the minister is this: what consultation did the government have with the B.C. Teachers Federation on the substance of this portion of Bill 22?

[2020]

Hon. G. Abbott: The government's consultations, which extended over a period of six months, as I noted earlier, began in May with the construction of the tables and extended through November. So there were six months of consultations. There were dozens of letters exchanged during the period as well as face-to-face discussions at that table, in which government noted its policy interests in all of the areas that are referenced in this legislation. They were specifically advised of the government and BCPSEA's interest on class size and composition.

B. Simpson: It is common practice on the part of government when they're working closely with stakeholder groups to give draft legislation to those stakeholder groups for comment. Did the BCTF get a draft portion, at least part 2 of this, so they actually saw the draft language of the bill?

Hon. G. Abbott: The BCTF was offered both a briefing and the language but declined both, based on unwillingness to offer confidentiality.

B. Simpson: I've stated elsewhere that I agree with Vince Ready and Don Wright and others that the BCTF owns a part of this, that every player to this owns a part of it. I think that anybody who's engaged in this process has been clear that all parties need to change their behaviours if we're going to move forward on this. So I've made my comments on that, but the fact remains that there are….

I believe that the judge is clear. I think the intention of government in this case was clear from the beginning. So I can't blame the BCTF, given what the government did in this case and the fact that, really, what the government is attempting to do is to control the costs.

My final comments on this and question to the minister. In section 308 of the ruling — which, again, the government is attempting and starting to do with part 2 of this bill — the judge said, and this is a direct quote:

"Legislation that is enacted without consultation with employees, which invalidates collective agreement terms and prohibits future collective bargaining on subjects that were previously the subject of collective bargaining, clearly infringes on section 2(d) of the Charter…. I am persuaded that in enacting the various sections of Bill 28, etc., and the amendment act" — which I believe we're now embarking on again in Bill 22; my words, not the judge's — "the government did all these things."

That is, it did not consult, invalidated the collective agreement, etc.

"This constituted a violation of the teachers' freedom of association…granted in the Charter."

[2025]

I guess the reason I get animated around this, and I think the minister shares some of these concerns…. Until we get a different relationship with teachers, I don't believe education reform is possible. I believe we diminish the role that the education system can play in our society. As one student said that was interviewed in one of the student protests, whatever the government or others do to our teachers, they do to us.

Don Wright, in his report, put it very eloquently — that the more we diminish this process and the more we fail to get to mature bargaining of all parties, the more we take the magic out of our classrooms, which then negatively impacts our entire society.

My question to the minister is this. I get that the minister has got a rationale for the front end of this and believes that legislation is required to stop a strike, to get report cards and to stop further action on that side. The minister may feel justified in taking that step, but clearly the minister has already indicated part 2 is likely going to lead to a court challenge.

Does the minister believe he has exhausted all possible avenues other than to go down the same path that the judge last time ruled was unconstitutional?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't agree that we're going down the same path. There has been extensive consultation prior to the introduction of this bill. So we believe we have exhausted any alternative paths.
[ Page 10210 ]

K. Corrigan: I just want to ask a couple of questions, although much of what I was going to ask has been canvassed by the member for Cariboo North.

But I do want to ask a bit more about that. I just want to clarify. The minister is saying that the minister believes that the requirements or the roadblocks that were put in the way, the reasons for finding the previous actions of the government in the case of the BCTF versus the province have been satisfied by what the government has done in this round of bargaining.

Does the minister believe that part of that was satisfied by the fact that the minister or government has offered a settlement, essentially a package of money to the education system?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, the learning improvement fund is part of it, but only part of it, and it's important to note that the table was in place for five months before the tendering of the learning improvement fund and the $165 million that was associated with that fund during those five months. There was both a giving and taking in terms of ideas at that table.

[2030]

For example, we did recognize the concern that the voice of teachers be heard in class composition, and indeed, the model we're proposing is one where teachers are very much a part of a collaborative process — in partnership with principals, vice-principals, superintendents and, where appropriate, educational assistants — to look at all of the issues around class size and around the class organization issues.

K. Corrigan: Prior to getting into the negotiations that were directly relevant to the sections that we're talking about, did the minister receive legal advice as to how long and to what depth negotiations would have to take place in order to satisfy the problems that were brought up and the reasons for Justice Griffin's decision, saying that negotiation hadn't taken place?

Hon. G. Abbott: The government enjoyed a comprehensive legal analysis of the important decision rendered by Justice Griffin on April 13, 2011. The government, in response to that advice, set out a structure — again, consistent with what we had done on Bill 29 with the HEU and the BCNU. Like that process, there were, over a period of six months, many meetings, many interactions, many letters in which ideas were exchanged between the parties.

Unfortunately, in the case of the BCTF discussions, they did not conclude, as they had with the BCNU and with the HEU, in a collaborative and consensual agreement. That's not to say that the process wasn't as strong. It certainly was. The fact that the government put $165 million on the table over a period of three years at a time of economic challenge underlines how important we believe those discussions to be.

K. Corrigan: I asked a pretty specific question. The minister may choose not to answer it, but the question was: did the minister receive legal advice as to the amount of time and the depth and what had to take place in order to satisfy the concerns in Madam Justice Griffin's decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question, as I understand it, is: "Did the legal advice say you had to have X block of time in order to satisfy that?" No, we did not.

[2035]

K. Corrigan: Paragraph 297 of Madam Justice Griffin's decision says that "if the government prohibited collective bargaining through legislation but otherwise in the process of implementing the legislation replaced collective bargaining with an equivalent process of good faith consultation or negotiation, then the legislation might not be an interference with freedom of association."

I'm wondering if the minister has received advice or has comment on the fact that Madam Justice Griffin did not say that it "would not" but said that it "might not" be an interference.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have received legal advice on this decision in its entirety. We're not aware of any clause-by-clause advice. We receive advice based on a reading of it in its entirety.

K. Corrigan: I have one more question in this area. That is: given that the minister has talked about negotiations that have happened and money that was offered, but it has resulted in the same restrictions being included in this bill, does the minister not think that if there is another legal challenge and as a result, after all of the discussion that the minister said happened, the government has still come back with exactly the same conditions imposed, that there will be some concern about whether or not in fact it was good-faith bargaining that was going on?

Hon. G. Abbott: So again, not to try to shorten up the opportunity for the member to ask questions, but this question was pretty much precisely asked by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin a little while ago, so I'll give the same answer, but shorter.

We don't share the view that this
[ Page 10211 ]
is the same response. We know, assuming that we can move forward at some point, that when we get to section 13, there will actually be considerable light cast on how we move to, effective July 2013, a restoration of collective bargaining rights around class-size and composition.

In the interim there is a collective bargaining right around manner and consequence related to class-size and composition, but we don't share the view that this either process-wise or content-wise is the same as in 2002.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

R. Austin: I know he was just speaking about section 13. Can the minister explain the purpose of section 13?

[2040]

Hon. G. Abbott: Section 13 will repeal and re-enact section 27 but will include a sunset clause so that class size and composition and related matters will return to the scope of collective bargaining at the end of the next teachers collective agreement, and that is July 1, 2013.

R. Austin: Could the minister explain to the House: what's the difference between manner and consequence and allowing us to go back, come July 1, 2013, to full collective bargaining on class size and composition?

[2045]

Hon. G. Abbott: To the opposition Education critic in response to the question of what is "manner and consequence." Manner is the processes that are engaged around the actual organization of a classroom. An example here of process, or manner, would be the consultation required with school-based teams, which include teachers, about how classes are put together. That's manner. It's the process side.

Consequence is the impact side of the classroom organization — so issues raised by class organization; for example, a student with a specific special need, perhaps autism spectrum disorder or the like. A consequence would be that the teacher may require additional training to deal with that challenge or other remedy that was appropriate to the challenge.

That's what one could do in terms of manner and consequence as elements in collective bargaining.

R. Austin: In Judge Griffin's ruling last April she said: "I conclude that the preserved ability to bargain over 'manner and consequences' was, for practical purposes, insignificant with respect to manner, and limited with respect to consequences, given the broad scope of section 27(3)(d), (f), (g) and (i)."

My question is: how is this different this time around?

Hon. G. Abbott: Our understanding of the section cited by the opposition Education critic from Justice Griffin's decision, we believe, points to manner and consequence on its own not being enough. That is why the ability to negotiate, as a collective bargaining right, class size and composition is being restored, effective July 1, 2013.

R. Austin: In regards to consequence, if one is looking at a school district that is far from an urban centre and doesn't necessarily have the specialists at hand to take care of the consequences….

[2050]

The minister used the example of, say, a child that is assessed with autism, and of course, that's a broad-spectrum disorder. But say it's autism that results in a fairly low-functioning adult, and yet that school district doesn't have the specialized skills to help that teacher.

How does this bill help? In that example, how would that school district address this as a consequence?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's important question is that they would address these issues in the same way they would the same challenges with or without Bill 22. That is why, as part of our effort around the remediation of Bills 27 and 28, we put on the table a $165 million learning improvement fund.

That fund is aimed at building capacity, in respect of the management and allocation of special needs dollars in the education system in British Columbia. We're hoping to see an additional $30 million that has been saved as a consequence of the three days of service withdrawal by the B.C. Teachers Federation also added to that fund. And, the fund in itself will, we hope, help us to make better use of the existing $866 million that is in the block of funds that goes out to the 60 school districts. We believe that there is capacity there now, but we believe we can build on that capacity.

I have been much heartened by the discussions that we've had around the learning improvement fund with the Canadian Union of Public Employees of B.C., who represent the educational assistants in the province. Not only have we been able to conclude now over 40 collective agreements, and I think soon to be 60 collective agreements, with CUPE, but they are very excited about the possibilities that will arise not only from expansion of their contact hours with the students that they serve but, also, the building of programs to strengthen the skills that they bring to the classroom.

For us, that's hugely exciting. We would have loved to have had that same discussion with the B.C. Teachers Federation, but to date that has not been possible. I do hope that sometime in the weeks ahead we are able to move on and have that discussion, but that remains to be seen.

Noting the hour, Madam Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 10212 ]

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. B. Lekstrom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 8:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LABOUR, CITIZENS' SERVICES
AND OPEN GOVERNMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. van Dongen in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $66,974,000 (continued).

The Chair: We are currently considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

R. Chouhan: Yesterday, when we finished the day, we were talking about Khaira Enterprises and the silviculture workers. Before I continue, I want to just have one question about the LRB. I forgot to ask yesterday about the term of the LRB chair's contract — how long, when it expires. And is that contract, signed with the chair, available publicly?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's an OIC appointment, so there is a signed OIC. It was signed in the fall of 2011. It's a three-year term, and there is nothing beyond that in terms of contracts or anything like that. It's a signed OIC.

R. Chouhan: Thanks to the minister for providing that information.

I'll carry on with Khaira Enterprises. The situation with that company…. As we all are aware and have come to know, the working conditions were really bad. The ministry had to be involved. The Ministry of Forests had to be involved.

Is there any requirement by the B.C. government to have a bond, like we have seen in some of the different states in the U.S.A., to make sure that if a company behaves like what we have seen in the example of Khaira, workers cannot be shortchanged? If the company goes bankrupt, money could be paid out to the workers out of that bond.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I believe this is the question that the member opposite asked last — the last question that he asked yesterday. The answer is the same today. There is not currently the requirement for a bond in the area of silviculture. Through the Employment Standards Act, there is the requirement for a bond for farm labour contractors.

R. Chouhan: The minister has talked about the farm industry, similar to the existing employment standards requirement for farm labour contractors. Will the minister, then, agree to establish a similar registry of silviculture companies and operators qualified to work in B.C.?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is not something that we are currently contemplating.

[1440]

R. Chouhan: Could the minister explain why not? Why are we not treating the workers in the silviculture industry in the same way as other workers? Why are they being left out from any such protections?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Sorry for the delay. I was looking for some information I wanted to share with the member opposite, because I think this is important. I certainly concur with the member that the conditions these workers were subjected to are, clearly, completely unacceptable.

There were a number of recommendations that were made by the forest safety ombudsman at the time. The goal was to make sure that we took every step we could to make sure that this type of instance didn't happen again.

At the time, we took the step of coordinating an interagency group to come up with solutions, to provide information-sharing and to make sure that something like this would not happen again.

There has been a change. Government-contracted silviculture employers must provide a start-of-work notice to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and to the local employment standards branch. Inspections of silviculture camps are required, and they're mandatory in the first 48 hours of a camp being established.

B.C. Timber Sales silviculture contractors are required now to provide 72 hours' notice to B.C. Timber Sales, the
[ Page 10213 ]
local health authority and WorkSafe B.C. prior to any camp being established, and WorkSafe B.C. officers will review safety requirements with B.C. Timber Sales and silviculture contractors as necessary.

This is something that we continue to work on, but a number of changes have been made. I certainly want to say to the member opposite, again, how much I concur with him that the situation was unacceptable. Further, and we did canvass this yesterday, employment standards pursued every possible avenue in order to make sure that these employees received as much as possible of the wages they were owed.

[1445]

Now, specific to the question that the member has raised with me, in the case of farm labour contractors, the workers that are in a temporary help style of agency, it's different. It is actually the only area currently that employment standards requires a bond to be posted. It's a different kind of work.

As I've said, we're not contemplating making a change in the area of silviculture. We did make substantial changes to try to protect workers and to make sure that a situation like this one did not occur and does not occur again.

R. Chouhan: I have some questions which I thought I would be asking under the WCB file, but let me ask now, as the minister has mentioned it.

B.C. Timber Sales is not assuming its health and safety obligation as an owner or prime contractor subject to the Workers Compensation Act. All silviculture and forestry companies, along with all private forest landholders, Crown licence holders and Crown representatives, need urgent education regarding their WCB responsibilities.

Also, in 2007 the WCB chair at that time, Doug Enns, issued a statement reminding all the companies and the silviculture operators that they must assume the responsibilities to make sure the workers were safe. However, until now I haven't seen any indication or recommendation that that was enforced.

It's good to hear what the minister is saying, that certain steps have been taken. What I would like to see are some concrete steps, that they were taken after that incident, what we have seen in Golden, rather than simply saying: "Yes, we are going to do it." The workers are waiting. The industry is waiting to see.

There are some good operators out there. They don't want to see bad apples amongst themselves. So we would like to see some concrete steps taken to stop it.

[1450]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think the member opposite is probably aware that WorkSafe B.C. imposed a penalty on Khaira Enterprises, but he's also aware that the company is out of business. I understand that some members from this company tried to re-establish a company and that they were not successful in doing that.

Certainly, this incident was taken very seriously. One thing that I can point to that's very encouraging is that there's been a significant improvement in the safety of forestry operations. If we look at 2008, there were actually, tragically, 17 fatal claims. In 2011 there were only five. This is improvement in safety, which is certainly a very encouraging thing.

WorkSafe continues to do regular inspections, to write orders and to do the diligence that we would expect in this area.

R. Chouhan: Now let's just continue, then, with the safety issues rather than waiting until we carry on with the WCB file.

Speaking of safety with the workers in the silviculture industry, the B.C. Forest Safety Council certification that they issue is basically meaningless. Currently the B.C. Forest Safety Council provides forest companies with SAFE certification. Designations are made based on the number of employees that the company has. B.C. Timber Sales and other forestry operations require contractors to be certified by the safety council.

In the case of Khaira Enterprises, Khaira was certified under the category SEBASE. It's this long term — an audit designation for small employers. That means that employers with six to 19 employees would receive that kind of designation. In fact, Khaira's operation was much larger. They had more than 20 employees working for this company.

So the question is: will the minister, then, make sure that B.C. Timber Sales and other licensee operators should not award silviculture contracts to a company that has Forest Safety Council certification below operational requirements to fulfil their contract? Likewise, sufficient certifications for the contract or subcontract should be the prequalification consideration in any bid process.

We have to make sure that those steps are there. Will the minister agree that they should not be awarding a licence to companies like Khaira in silviculture?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am pleased that in an earlier question or statement the member acknowledged that most silviculture operators are good. They're honest people. Occasionally there is a company that is operating very dishonestly, and this would be an example of that.

[1455]

With respect to the question the member has asked, that's a question that should be directed to a different ministry. The awarding of licences falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I'd ask him to direct that question, hon. Chair, to the appropriate minister.

R. Chouhan: Yes, we will be doing it. I thought you might also answer that question, so I tried.

My next question is: are there any inspections of work-
[ Page 10214 ]
sites in the silviculture industry? There are quite a few. Are there any regular random inspections of the worksites throughout British Columbia?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The answer is yes. WorkSafe does conduct inspections. They inspect forestry camps, silviculture operations, logging operations, as well as camps for both silviculture and logging. As well, the Ministry of Forests, I understand, does some inspections. The member may wish to canvass that with the minister.

R. Chouhan: When the ministry or WorkSafe B.C. finds any operation in violation of these safety rules, do they have the authority to shut these operations?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, under the act the inspectors have the authority. If either the working conditions or the equipment are deemed unsafe, they have the ability to stop the work.

R. Chouhan: Now let's move from silviculture to agriculture. Let's start with the issue of piece rate, being that we have heard a couple of days ago that the ministry decided not to increase the piece rate in 2012. I would like to ask the minister about the rationale.

We heard from the minister, in the media, that it wasn't profitable. If that's the case, if it's not profitable for the owners, why are we asking the farmworkers to compensate the owners so that they have a good profit? Why don't we…? Why is the Minister of Labour not looking after the interests of farmworkers?

[1500]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I know the member is aware that in May of last year, along with the minimum wage, the piece rate was increased by 9.375 percent. Actually a little bit before that, there had been a stakeholder engagement process, where we discussed the Employment Standards Act, and we had representatives from agricultural producers and worker advocates. At that time the strong recommendation on both sides was that piece rates for hand-harvesters should be reviewed.

The ministry commissioned a study, which went ahead. The study took longer than we had anticipated, because the harvest was quite late last year. As well, the contractor who worked for us and who did the study had some difficulty obtaining information. It was voluntary on the part of anyone who participated, so there were some difficulties.

The review concluded, and what we found in the review is that many hand-harvesters of crops who are currently operating with piece rates are earning well above the general minimum hourly wage. What we were looking at was to compare with the current minimum wage. We looked at that, or the contractor on our behalf looked at that. What we found is, for example, that the average wage for cherry harvesters was $18.50 an hour. For apple harvesters, it was $15.43 an hour.

Now, the member opposite has mentioned one of the sectors, which is the blueberry sector. It is different. The average wage that was noted there was $9.91 an hour. We had conversations with the operators, and those that happened before as well, both with myself and the Minister of Agriculture. What we heard, and there is some evidence of that in the study as well, is that the profit margins were very narrow.

What was brought forward to us by the employers was the unintended consequence we could have if we increase the piece rate again — that they are already pursuing mechanization and that they would go further down that road. As we try to increase the wage for these farmworkers, we have the unintended consequence of actually either putting the farm out of business or having the workers themselves no longer have work.

I think the member would agree with me that it's not something we would want to do. We would not want to put people out of work — either the farmers, so that the workers have no work, or by leading to further mechanization.

What we have committed to do is to review the minimum wage. Prior to the last increase in the minimum wage it hadn't been increased for a number of years. We've made a commitment, starting this year and every two years thereafter, to review the policy. We've said that we'll review this, as well, at the same time and have a look at it again.

One of the things that we strive to do in the ministry is to have a balance in our policy. It's the same thing as when we increased the minimum wage. The recommendation from some of the small businesses was that we do it in a stepwise fashion — that rather than doing the increase all at once, we phase it in gradually. Again, we did not want to have the unintended consequence of having people have their hours reduced or lose their jobs altogether.

R. Chouhan: Unfortunately, I do not agree with any rationale or logic provided by the minister. Let me take it through one step at a time. The minister said that there was a difficulty in finding out…. Could the minister tell me what those difficulties were that that individual was not able to talk to a larger number of people to find out more about the piece rate? What were those difficulties?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the first instance, because the harvest was late, people were tied up and not available. It was voluntary. As the research was being done, people could either choose to participate or not. It was completely voluntary.

R. Chouhan: Well, in order to conduct a proper investigation, the government should have made sure that all
[ Page 10215 ]
stakeholders had been contacted — like the farmworkers. Even if the harvest season was late, they were still in the city. They were still in the town. They were all over. They could have been reached, and they could have been talked to.

There are so many other agencies in the Lower Mainland that have been working with the farmworkers for a long time. I'm sure that if they had been contacted, they would have provided the minister really good feedback as to how and what should have been done.

[1505]

I don't understand this rationale the minister is trying to provide us. It doesn't wash.

Now, the next comment the minister has made — that earnings were well above the general minimum wage. How did the minister reach that conclusion? What formula was used to understand or to decide that farmworkers are making well above the hourly minimum wage?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This was something government requested. This was a comprehensive report that was done by independent consultants. What we asked them to do was to gather data. We were not asking them to advise us on policy going forward but just to give us data, which is what they did. The numbers I quoted for the average wage for apple harvesters and cherry harvesters came from that data, from work that they did in the field.

As I said, this is the first time we've done this since 1995, so it hadn't been reviewed for quite some time. I don't know if the member has had a chance to read the report, but it's an in-depth report. There is written information — there are graphs — about various different hand-harvesters.

What we found was that in many cases, the average was well above minimum wage. But there were actually some hand-harvesters that were generating far more than minimum wage in terms of their ability to generate income. By doing it on a piece rate, people were able to…. Actually, there was an incentive for them to be more efficient. Those who were more efficient were able to generate more income. That was certainly quite clearly demonstrated in the data.

R. Chouhan: Yes, I have seen the report and read it. Though one important factor missing from the report is talking with farmworkers — the hand-harvesters. This data which the minister is talking about is incomplete. It's not really reflecting the true picture out there in the fields.

Now, blueberries are not the only fruit that people pick. There are so many other fruits and vegetables that also are hand-harvested. Their rates are also in the report, which talks about reflecting that farmworkers were making more above the minimum wage rate, and therefore there was no need for adjusting the piece rate — which again is incorrect.

Let me give the minister the reality of what's happening in the fields out there. People who work in hand-harvesting, in the agriculture industry, go through labour contractors. Many times these people work 12 hours a day or more. They may earn $60 in one day. But at the end of the season when they're issued their employment insurance stamps — so they call it, the record — these labour contractors do not issue the true employment record information.

[1510]

What they do, instead of putting down the total income that they have earned, is reduce 12 hours' income to six hours. So it shows a $5 per hour income that they had made was turned into $10 an hour. That's what it is.

It's a fraud going on in the agriculture industry. We have pointed that out many times in the past. The Progressive Intercultural Society has also pointed that out in the past. The ministry has to go out and look at what is actually happening. It should be stopped.

As a result of that, you have false figures, Minister. You know, we need to look at the real picture. That shows the farmworkers, when they work on piece rate, make close to $5, $6 at best. That is the true picture.

I'm asking the minister again: could the minister speak with the stakeholders, the agencies who are helping farmworkers in the last many years and the actual farmworkers and find out the real picture out there about the piece rate?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: So if I understand the member opposite correctly, what he's saying is that there is rife, fraudulent behaviour, which is fraudulent collection of EI, which is a federally administered program. If the member opposite or anyone has evidence of fraud on small or large scale with respect to a federal government program, they need to let the federal government know about that.

R. Chouhan: Yes, we have informed the federal government. Yes, there was an investigation done. That's why I'm saying all of the information is out there in the public, is available. Yet the minister came here again talking about justifying their rationale not to increase the piece rate.

It doesn't make any sense. All the information is out there available, but the so-called investigation and so-called report that the minister has referred to does not justify the piece-rate system that we have here.

So again, will the minister take any concrete steps to make sure to get the real picture out there about the wages farmworkers make and take steps to increase it?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just to reiterate, the report we obtained is a report done by independent consultants providing us with data that shows in the majority of cases workers who are hand-harvesters for various different crops earning well above minimum wage.
[ Page 10216 ]

[1515]

With respect to supports, though, that are in place for vulnerable workers in British Columbians, especially farmworkers…. I want to talk specifically about farmworkers.

Employment standards branch does site visits. Any time there would be any complaints from these workers, the employment standards branch would act upon them, but they don't receive complaints. What they do is maintain a farm compliance team of four staff who conduct site visits and payroll audits. They participate in roadside vehicle inspections, and they also conduct education sessions with employers and employees.

There are some requirements for farm labour contractors. The Employment Standards Act requires them to be licensed by the director of employment standards. Applicants have to pass a written test that shows they understand the Employment Standards Act and the regulation. They have to post security for wages in the form of a bond equal to 80 hours at minimum wage for each employee. In addition, a WorkSafe B.C. clearance letter must be provided that shows the employer to be registered and in good standing.

The licence can be cancelled or suspended should it be found that the contractor is in contravention of the Employment Standards Act or regulation, or certain provisions of the occupational health and safety regulations under the Workers Compensation Act, or under provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act regulations.

Farm labour contractors are required to deposit wages directly to the worker's bank account.

There are some other things — an interagency committee — but I wanted to give some highlights for the member opposite about supports that are in place for what we would acknowledge are some of the vulnerable workers in the province.

R. Chouhan: All that the minister has stated sounds good on paper, but the reality is totally different. The reality out there is that the employment standards branch might have said that they have the authority to go do it, but what is done is not what we have seen.

Let me just carry on with some other statements the minister had made earlier before I come back to the employment standards branch issues.

The minister also stated that because the profit margin was not that much, therefore they had to keep the piece rate as is. Is the minister saying that to protect the profit margin of the growers, the farmworkers will continue to be exploited? Is the ministry condoning that exploitation?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I actually find it deeply regretful that the member opposite actually states that what I've described as the activities of the employment branch…. He says it doesn't happen. This is very difficult for me to hear.

I'm supported by someone from the employment standards branch, but I know that there is a farm compliance team of four staff who are deeply concerned about vulnerable workers, who want to make sure that standards are upheld. They are doing this work. They are doing these audits and site visits. They are participating in the roadside vehicle inspections, and they do conduct education sessions with employers and employees.

Not only that, I've had recent conversations was them as they talk about other ways that they could provide support for vulnerable workers who, in some cases, don't have English as a first language, and to make sure we're doing the very best that we can.

So I do find it very difficult, especially on behalf of the people who are doing this work, to have the member opposite challenge, be dismissive and say that it's not happening. But I obviously don't have control over what the member says.

[1520]

Certainly with respect to the study and what it was that I specifically said about the blueberry harvesters, the issue here is not a simple one. It's not a black and white one. It's certainly true that, immediately, hand-harvest rates for them…. If it's true what the member opposite says, that some of them are generating $2 or $3 per hour, the wage could be tripled, quadrupled, multiplied by five. Steps like that could be taken, but what we are really trying to do here is have a balance.

The last thing that we would want to do is to take steps, with our actions as government, that would cause vulnerable workers to have no work, to lose their work — and likewise, to take employers, sometimes small family businesses, and put them out of work.

What we're striving to do is take a balanced approach. That is what we have tried to do as we've made this decision. We have made a definite commitment to review this area, and the piece rate generally, as part of our regular reviews of the minimum wage so that we can continue to try to find that balance between fairness to the employer, fairness to the employee, making sure that small businesses can continue to operate.

They're family businesses, in many cases. They provide employment. Also, for the workers — that we don't inadvertently cause people who are currently employed to have no employment opportunities at all.

R. Chouhan: I find it hilarious that the minister is trying to justify something which cannot be justified. I'll come back to the site inspections in a minute. Let me continue with this whole piece-rate system — the consequences that the minister is talking about.

If that's the case, then why do we have a system in the agriculture industry where temporary farmworkers are allowed to come here and work, and they're paid at an hourly rate? Working side by side, doing the same kind
[ Page 10217 ]
of job, and the growers can afford to pay an hourly rate to those workers that come under that program, and yet the local workers are denied that, and they can only be paid piece rate.

The government is telling me: "Sorry, if they do it, the employers, the growers, will go out of business." How could that be justified? Is the minister aware of that dual system that we have here — that some workers are paid an hourly rate, doing the same work, and others are not?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite says that he's read the report. Certainly I've read the report. I'm well aware of the seasonal agricultural workers program. It is referred to in the report. The report that we have received, the data, clearly talks about that it is a mixed model. In some cases workers are paid a piece rate — hand-harvesters — and in other cases they're paid an hourly rate. It is the choice of the employer.

The seasonal agricultural workers program is a partnership between the federal Canadian government and the Mexican government. We do certainly have jurisdiction over the employment standards part, but the program itself is a federal program. What we know about these workers…. This is speaking generally, but they're often younger workers and highly productive workers.

If we move to a model — such as I think the member opposite would be suggesting, or his colleagues have suggested in the past — that everyone should receive a minimum hourly wage, again, I would be very afraid that there would be that same unintended consequence — that workers who may not be as productive will be put out of work by those who are more productive. That is something that we don't want to do.

We do not want to have people who are currently employed — who, I believe, wish to be employed — no longer employable because of something that we've imposed on the system.

[1525]

R. Chouhan: I really don't understand how the minister can stand up here and justify…. I'm pretty sure, knowing the minister, that deep down in her heart she knows the contradiction. The contradiction is there.

If the growers can afford to pay some workers doing the same work the hourly minimum-wage rate, they can surely afford to pay either more piece rate, which is comparable to the hourly minimum wage, or pay them all the hourly minimum rate.

It is not washing. It just doesn't make any sense, what the government is trying to justify here today. It's just unbelievable.

Now, let me ask another question about the farmworkers. The farmworkers are not covered under the overtime pay, statutory holidays, annual vacations. Will the minister agree that that discrepancy has been there for the last several years and the time has come to remove those discrepancies and treat every worker the same way in British Columbia?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I want to give the member opposite a bit of information about farmworkers in British Columbia. They are entitled to employment standards that generally meet or exceed those in other provinces.

If we look at other provinces, for example Saskatchewan, many farmworkers in Saskatchewan have no employment standards coverage at all. Farmworkers in Alberta are excluded from provisions governing minimum wage, hours of work, rest periods, days of work, overtime, vacation, vacation pay, holidays, employment of youth. Many of those same exclusions apply to farmworkers in other jurisdictions. We certainly meet or exceed the standards of other Canadian provinces.

The other thing I'd say to the member opposite is it's difficult to find a one-size-fits-all. This is a unique area of employment where we have a very short growing season. We have a number of workers who are highly productive. In fact, if we imposed a minimum wage, we would actually be penalizing a number of the workers who are currently generating amounts such as, for the cherry harvesters an average of $18.50 per hour and for apple growers an average of $15 per hour, with many — because it's an average — receiving substantially more than that. It's partly because of productivity and partly because of the longer hours they choose to work in a very short growing season.

R. Chouhan: I'm sorry to say that I find the minister's comments are nothing but condescending. It's just unbelievable. The minister talked about standards in other provinces. Are we now joining the race to the bottom? If other provinces don't have those standards, are we justifying that because they don't have it, we don't have to have it here?

Let's talk about the piece-rate system again. In Ontario they have a system that will make sure that the people who work in that industry can at least earn the equivalent to minimum wage for all the hours that they have worked. Why don't we adopt the same standard as they have in Ontario regarding the piece rate?

[1530]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First of all, I'm not sure that the member opposite heard what I said the first time, so I'll just say it again. Farmworkers in British Columbia are entitled to employment standards that generally meet or exceed those in other provinces. It's certainly nothing like what the member opposite has restated that I said.

With respect to his understanding of the situation in Ontario, the member is incorrect. I'm informed that the way it works is that a producer has to demonstrate that a reasonably diligent worker can earn minimum wage. That is the standard in Ontario. There's not a blanket
[ Page 10218 ]
minimum-wage policy in Ontario.

R. Chouhan: I never said that there's a blanket policy in Ontario. What I was saying, and I'll repeat, is if farmworkers are paid a piece rate, it must be set at a level, as in Ontario, so that with reasonable effort they can earn at least the minimum wage for all the hours they work. That's what I was saying. They have some mechanism in place so they can earn equivalent to minimum wage there.

Let me ask a question. We're talking about the Employment Standards Act in British Columbia, about the rights of farmworkers. Could the minister tell me if the farmworkers are entitled to overtime pay, statutory holidays and annual vacations under the Employment Standards Act?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Committee A will recess to allow members time to respond to the division in the big House.

The committee recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:42 p.m.

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

The Chair: We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. I think we were with the minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Before the recess the member opposite asked me a question, and the answer is no.

R. Chouhan: So if the farmworkers are not covered under those basic protections, the basic rights that other workers have, is the minister considering to bring the farmworkers to the same level as any other workers in B.C.?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: No, we're not contemplating that at this time.

R. Chouhan: Could I ask the minister: why such discrimination against one segment of workers in British Columbia?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: To the member opposite, I'd like to discuss with him, give him some information about what the employment standards branch is doing.

The branch works to ensure that workers, regardless of their nationality or immigration status, receive the basic standards of compensation and conditions of employment provided for in the Employment Standards Act. There's help available in person, on line or through a toll-free number.

There's information about employee rights, which is available in ten languages — English; French; Chinese; both simplified and traditional; Punjabi; Hindi; Filipino; Korean; Japanese; Vietnamese; and Spanish.

[1545]

Staff from the branch conduct education and outreach programs to inform workers and employers about employment standards, particularly immigrant workers and employers who may not be aware of British Columbia standards, which would apply. This includes education seminars, presentations in schools and, also, presentations to groups of workers and employer associations, networking through community agencies and contact with immigrant settlement groups.

Since 2007 the employment standards branch has conducted approximately 75 guest appearances on Punjabi, Mandarin, Cantonese and English-speaking radio and television programs to answer questions about employment standards and employee rights. The branch has also partnered with the public legal education and information consortium project to provide information and education seminars to new immigrants regarding their rights.

R. Chouhan: I didn't ask that question. My question was very simple. The question was: why are farmworkers in British Columbia not covered under the provisions of Employment Standards Act on overtime pay, statutory holidays and annual vacations? Why are farmworkers treated differently? Why such discrimination against that segment of employees in British Columbia?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I believe the member has asked me this question in a number of different ways, and I've answered it. Certainly, what I would reiterate is that this is a different kind of work and very seasonal, with a short season. The seasonal nature of the work does make a difference.

R. Chouhan: Again, the rationale provided by the minister is not acceptable, because we have fish workers that also in some ways work under similar conditions, but they are covered. Anyhow, let's move on. I understand that this government, the B.C. Liberal government, will never, ever provide the same rights to farmworkers as other workers in British Columbia.

Now, speaking of the site visits by the employment standards branch, could the minister tell me how many site visits were done last year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite was speaking about employment standards and the fact that farmworkers are treated differently than anyone else.

I won't go through the whole list, but there are a number of different professions and occupations that are excluded from the act. Those would include fishers, logging truck drivers, oil and gas workers paid by an hourly rate, loggers working in the Interior, high-technology com-
[ Page 10219 ]
panies, construction workers, municipal police recruits, aquaculture finfish workers. So there are a number of areas where there are some exclusions.

With respect to the question that the member has asked about the number of inspections for farms, for farmworkers, there were 74 in the calendar year 2011.

R. Chouhan: How many officers are involved in that site inspection team?

[1550]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are four staff who are involved in these inspections.

R. Chouhan: What is the makeup of this site inspection team? Are there other agencies involved along with the employment standards branch?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: These are people from the employment standards branch.

R. Chouhan: When they inspect, could the minister tell me exactly what they look for? Do they check just the general working conditions or weighing scales, transportation, vehicles? What do they inspect?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The description of what an employment standards branch farmsite visit would look like…. They're unannounced. They're random. The person who operates the site does not know that they are coming.

The team that goes out — they don't speak all the ten languages that we provide service in, but they do all speak Punjabi. They actually go into the fields and talk with the workers. What they're looking for in these unannounced, random visits is for compliance with the Employment Standards Act.

R. Chouhan: Did the team find any violations during their 75 visits last year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I don't have the information currently as to how many, if any, of the 74 site visits led to a finding of a contravention. We will get that. I'm not sure how long it will take, but I don't have that information. We don't have that with us today.

[1555]

R. Chouhan: During the harvest season there are a number of farmworkers who live at the farm. Their so-called housing is provided by the employer. Does this team also inspect the housing conditions that the farmworkers live in?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The answer to the question is no, that is not part of employment standards.

R. Chouhan: That may not be part of the employment standards; however, if the ministry is concerned about bad living conditions that farmworkers are subject to, is the ministry taking any steps to make sure that is also being looked at?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The employment standards branch is responsible for the act, and it's with respect to working conditions. This is not part of what the branch does. What I can tell the member opposite is that the Agriculture Council does some work in the area that he's speaking of.

R. Chouhan: Now, we all know and are aware of the accident that occurred on March 7, 2007, killing three female farmworkers and injuring many others, and the accident that we have seen at a mushroom farm, killing three workers and injuring others.

In this segment of my questioning I want to focus on the transportation of the farmworkers. Now, after that accident in 2007 the coroner's inquest occurred, and the jury made 18 different recommendations.

Could the minister again confirm…? I know they have said that in the past, in response to my question that I have asked in the House…. Could the minister please tell me how many out of those 18 recommendations have been accepted and implemented?

[1600]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite is talking about a very tragic accident that happened in 2007 and refers to a set of coroner's recommendations. They were not all directed toward government, but for the ones that were directed toward government, action has been taken on all of them.

R. Chouhan: That's a surprise. My understanding is there are quite a few that were not implemented. Let me go through some of them.

One of the recommendations was that random on-site inspection of all vehicles — not some vehicles — used by the current 92 labour contractors be conducted. Has that happened?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That recommendation was that random on-site inspections of all vehicles used by the current 92 labour contractors be conducted. That has been carried out. Random roadside inspections, with other agencies, of all recognized worker transport vehicles will be continued, as will random on-farm inspections where worker transport vehicles are present.

So that's being done and continues to be done.

R. Chouhan: The inspection of these vehicles. Who conducts those inspections? Are they done by the company which repairs them or by an independent inspec-
[ Page 10220 ]
tion agency?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is an interagency agriculture compliance committee. It's an interagency committee that's been conducting vehicle inspections, including random roadside inspections, every year since 2007.

The committee includes representatives from the employment standards branch, WorkSafe B.C., commercial vehicle safety and enforcement from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the superintendent of motor vehicles and the RCMP.

I can tell the member that in 2007 there was a high number of vehicles not passing inspection — 32 percent. Since then the percent of vehicles failing inspection in recent years has been between 10 and 13 percent — so much lower.

Responsible for the inspections, as part of this interagency committee, is the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement, and that's through the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

R. Chouhan: Can the minister assure me that there's no repair facility conducting those inspections and providing the certificate that they pass?

[1605]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is under the jurisdiction of a different ministry. The group that I had previously mentioned has the responsibility.

I did want to address an outstanding question from last evening, if I could. Of the 5,515 complaints in 2011-12, there were 1,786 cases that resulted in settlement agreements, corporate or director determinations. Of these, 13 percent resulted in a collection activity, which can include third-party demands through banks and court bailiffs. That's information we didn't have yesterday.

R. Chouhan: Is the minister saying that the Ministry of Labour has no responsibility in conducting or being part of any roadside checks and making sure that the workers' transportation vehicles are safe?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is an interagency agriculture compliance committee. The members, again, include representatives from the employment standards branch, WorkSafe B.C., commercial vehicle safety and enforcement from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the superintendent of motor vehicles and the RCMP.

The inspection falls under the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

With respect to this tragic accident, one of the steps forward that was taken was actually to have this interagency committee so that we could work across government to do the very best that we could to ensure that this sort of tragedy did not happen again.

R. Chouhan: Now that we have heard that the interagency has some participation from the employment standards branch, could the minister tell me how many roadside inspections were conducted by this interagency last year?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In 2011 there was a total of 209 vehicles that were inspected.

R. Chouhan: Were there any violations or fines levied against any of those operators?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the 2011 calendar year there were 17 violation tickets issued.

R. Chouhan: Now, as we have seen from that accident in 2007 and also a recent accident which has occurred in Ontario…. The same type of vehicle was used there, killing 11 workers. Many experts have said that these vehicles are not safe to transport humans. They're meant to transport only cargo. Are there any steps the Ministry of Labour is taking to make sure that these unsafe vehicles are not used to carry farmworkers to their work?

[1610]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Since this tragic van accident in 2007 we have as a government changed the laws to require a seatbelt for every passenger transported in a van or other passenger vehicle. With respect to the jurisdiction, though, that the member has asked about, about policy around 15-passenger vans, the jurisdiction for that is with the Ministry of Justice.

R. Chouhan: These 15-passenger vans now cannot be used for school transport, for transporting children, in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and many other school boards throughout Canada. Also, the U.S. has outlawed the sale of these vans to schools and daycares. Is there any plan to ban these vans in British Columbia from carrying humans to work?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is not an area that's under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. The member could canvass this with the appropriate minister if he wished to.

R. Chouhan: I'm sure this next question is under the jurisdiction of the employment standards branch.

Let me talk about mushroom workers in Langley. When that accident happened in 2009, it killed three farmworkers, and two are still in a critical stage. The families are devastated, ruined. What we have seen there is
[ Page 10221 ]
the mushroom farm operators without any safety plan or safety training for the workers, despite the laws requiring them.

What steps has the Ministry of Labour taken to make sure that not only that employer — which already has declared bankruptcy; we know that — but other employers in similar situations have a safety committee there and that they go through proper training?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I just would like to take a moment to acknowledge what a profound tragedy this was with three workers having lost their lives and two very seriously injured workers. I know that this is still an ongoing problem for the families, just a devastating event that happened in their lives. It's certainly my understanding that these deaths were tragic, and they were preventable deaths.

Going forward, what has happened since this terrible accident is that WorkSafe B.C. has inspected every mushroom farm after the incident. WorkSafe B.C. farm inspections have increased by 50 percent since this accident. What has happened is that in each case WorkSafe looks to ensure that each of these farms has safety plans in place as well as personal protective equipment for the workers where it's appropriate.

[1615]

R. Chouhan: We might have more questions about this tragedy when we deal with workers compensation issues later on.

Now let me ask some questions about temporary foreign workers who come to British Columbia. We have several questions about the kind of agreement that we have between the B.C. government and foreign workers. We want to talk about conditions in general.

But before I ask my question, my colleague has some questions to ask. I'll continue after that.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the opportunity to pose some questions on the issue of the temporary foreign worker program. To the minister: I'm just wondering if you can comment. We've seen a rising number of temporary foreign workers coming into Canada and British Columbia. From 2005 to 2009 we've seen an increase of 120 percent of folks coming in as temporary residents and a decline in permanent residents.

Generally, the shift from permanent residency to temporary migration of foreign workers…. Often we see that permanent residency provides access to legal rights and pathways to citizenship, while the pool of folks coming in with temporary status — often they're exposed. They have precarious status and limited access to legal rights.

Under temporary foreign workers there are the high-skilled, the low-skilled, the seasonal. And under low-skilled are seasonal agricultural workers, live-in caregivers and also low-skilled areas.

My question to the minister is: do you know what the numbers are, coming in as temporary foreign workers to B.C.? Also, is there a program in place to track employers that have had a bad record or of not honouring the contracts of temporary foreign workers in B.C.?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In 2010 — that's the last year we have numbers for — there were 67,755 such workers. I think the member opposite is aware that this is a federal program under federal jurisdiction. But when these workers come to British Columbia, all the standards from the Employment Standards Act…. They work under those, just as any other worker would.

If there is a complaint, they can file that complaint with the employment standards branch. They can use the 1-800 number. They can file a complaint at an office or in person. Likewise, the legislation under WorkSafe applies to these workers.

[1620]

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response. I'm just wondering. Often when employees have difficulties, employers are identified as violating contracts of temporary foreign workers. Are there plans to track those employers and to create a registry of, basically, bad employers?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are finalizing an information-sharing agreement with Service Canada, with the federal government. That will enable the federal government to provide employment standards branch with a list of employers who are hiring foreign workers. Then the employment standards branch will be able to provide federal officials with a list of those employers who've had a complaint filed against them by a temporary foreign worker. We're actually moving into implementation of this over the next year.

If I may, there was a question from the previous interaction with a member about the number of violations from farmsite visits. There were 11 of those last year.

M. Elmore: Often it's the temporary foreign workers who don't have their rights fully protected. This is the challenge. They take jobs that Canadians aren't willing to take here, and often they are vulnerable to exploitation.

We hear stories. They often receive low wages, no benefits, poor working conditions, fewer workplace protections. The challenge is that these workers, individuals, don't have access to settlement services and other social benefits. They'll pay into, for example, the pension plan, employment insurance, but they're not able to access that because of their status.

The question to the minister is: are there other jurisdictions that do provide services for these workers? And are there plans, for example, to allow temporary foreign workers to access settlement services in British Columbia?
[ Page 10222 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The settlement program the member opposite has asked about is under the jurisdiction of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. I did want to just…. The member would find this interesting. There is some collaboration between WorkSafe B.C and employment standards, and one of the things that they're doing they started to do in 2011.

WorkSafe B.C. developed a safety and health education program in partnership with the Mexican government for seasonal agricultural workers who are coming to B.C. from Mexico. The program is actually being delivered in Mexico to approximately 3,500 workers annually. The employment standards branch conducts education and outreach programs to inform immigrant workers and employees about employment standards.

As I'm sure the member opposite would be aware, workers may come here from a country that has very different or limited employment standards and not realize that once they're in British Columbia our employment standards apply to them in their work.

M. Elmore: I'm also sure that the minister can appreciate that workers coming here under temporary status are very vulnerable. It's difficult to access services, and often there is a reluctance to come forward if they have complaints for fear of reprisals or being deported and facing threats.

[1625]

My next question has to do with whether there are plans to regulate. It is a federal program, but we do have provincial jurisdiction in terms of regulating brokers and recruitment agencies.

Often that is an area that's a very common complaint for temporary foreign workers. It's illegal to charge them recruitment fees to work in British Columbia and in Canada, but often they are charged to come and work. Are there plans to regulate that — basically, recruitment agencies and brokerage agencies?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Employment Standards Act provides that persons who are seeking employment, as the member is aware, cannot be charged fees to be placed in any job. In the event that any fees are charged, they can be recovered as wages under the act.

What the employment standards branch does to enforce this law is investigate complaints that are received by an individual who has been charged fees. They also act on information provided by individuals or third parties. They will conduct investigations into these issues.

The other thing that's done is that information on these key issues is included on the temporary foreign worker and employment agency's fact sheets. This information is reviewed with employment agencies when their licences are renewed. I certainly think the member opposite would agree with me that education is one of the most powerful tools we have here, because we do have high standards and they do apply to these workers. It's getting that information to them so that they understand that there are various ways that a complaint can be made, including through a third party.

M. Elmore: It often is the disconnect between the workers being able to access and avail of the resources and services if they're in a difficult situation. It's often their temporary status that leads to a lot of the other vulnerability and exploitation.

My question to the minister is whether you're in support of efforts to lobby the federal government and to advocate to allow all workers who come in — high-skilled or low-skilled, in each of those areas — to have a pathway available for permanent residency. That has been shown to be a remedy to address issues around exploitation so that workers can feel comfortable and confident to come forward if they have issues or concerns.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, it's important — we believe that it's important — for us to continue to have a close working relationship with the federal government. The employment standards branch is part of a federal-provincial working group that's looking at the various issues around foreign workers in B.C.

We're working collaboratively to ensure that the integrity of the program and the rights of workers are protected. There are some new federal rules that have come into place for the temporary foreign worker programs that may restrict the ability of employers to access the program if they violate the terms of the program agreement or provincial legislation. We're certainly going to continue to work with the federal government.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response. I guess just my request is for your office, in your negotiations and dealings and discussions with the federal government, to make the case for allowing temporary foreign workers the opportunity and the option to have a pathway to apply for permanent residency and citizenship.

We're seeing that shift nationally in Canada. Certainly, it's a fundamental shift in our immigration policy. I think it will have profound impacts for us here in British Columbia and what we commonly regard as values that we hold dear as Canadians — respecting everyone as equals. We're seeing now more of a two-tiered system. I think we'll be seeing more of that in the future.

[1630]

I know when I've travelled across B.C…. I'll just mention and encourage the minister that if you're travelling and you're stopping at restaurants, strike up a conversation with folks across B.C. Get to know them and their background. I think you'll be surprised, as I was, to meet so many temporary foreign workers at many gas stations and fast-food outlets pretty much right across the province, particularly in the north.
[ Page 10223 ]

I'll just share this story as my last comment. I was having breakfast in Denny's one day, and I struck up a conversation with my server. To my surprise, I learned that he was a temporary foreign worker from the Philippines, and many staff members were from the Philippines. I said: "Well, if you have any questions, feel free to contact me, and we'll answer questions."

Sure enough, he came into my office for an appointment. We sat down. He had a number of concerns around his contract. It was violated, so we encouraged him to pursue that through employment standards. The company was found to be in violation. He was fired as a result of that, and now this individual, with his workmates, has successfully filed, and the first class action lawsuit is being brought against Denny's for these temporary foreign workers.

It's an issue. I've talked to consulates — the Philippine consulate and other consulates. They receive many complaints. Toronto, Ontario, has had a number of class action lawsuits come forward. This is the first in British Columbia, but I think it just reflects the reality of the experience of folks who come here from around the world looking to make a living and support their families. I think that as British Columbians, we can certainly do more to ensure that they're treated fairly and valued for their contributions here in British Columbia.

R. Chouhan: I'll continue with this same theme. As we know, the temporary migrant workers are one of the most vulnerable segments of workers. They're often unwilling to report labour violations and may accept unsafe working conditions for fear of being returned to their home countries.

So the question that I have for the minister is: is there any program in place where the Ministry of Labour, employment standards branch, would go and conduct, unannounced, an investigation of working conditions where workers from foreign countries are working?

[1635]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The inspections that the member asked about are not being done.

What government is doing is…. There are some initiatives from the employment standards branch which are currently underway or have already happened. There's been an upgrade of the complaint form and computer system so that we can identify and track complaints involving foreign workers. This helps us to assess the need for targeted education or enforcement activities.

I've already mentioned about the information-sharing agreement with Service Canada, with the federal government. That has just been finalized and, I think, will be very helpful — that information-sharing back and forth.

R. Chouhan: Those inspections are not conducted because the branch doesn't have the staff resources, or is it a policy decision?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's a complaints-driven process. When there are complaints, they're certainly followed up on. We do understand that these are vulnerable workers, and considerable efforts are made to provide education and outreach and to be available in multiple languages, because we understand that these are some vulnerable workers in British Columbia.

R. Chouhan: If we recognize that they are vulnerable workers, why don't we become proactive? Why don't we take those actions before somebody files a complaint? As I said, many of these workers are not willing to come out for fear of being sent back to Mexico, for example, or the Philippines or somewhere — the country they came from.

In order to protect them, why is the ministry not being proactive to go out and inspect these workplaces and make sure that they're not taken advantage of?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member has been asking about employment standards branch, but there is work both on the part of employment standards branch and also WorkSafe B.C. in a collaborative working relationship.

In the event, when they're doing inspections or out in the field, that WorkSafe encounters a situation where they believe that the Employment Standards Act may be being violated, they certainly would contact the branch and action would be taken.

In terms of WorkSafe B.C.'s initiatives with respect to vulnerable workers, there are actually many, many of them.

One of the things that has been done is to have multi-language portals on the WorkSafe B.C. website really targeting non-English-speaking workers and employers. There are condensed content mirror sites of the WorkSafe B.C. website in seven languages, including Chinese, traditional and simplified; French; Korean; Punjabi; Spanish; and Vietnamese.

[1640]

There's a video welcome message providing non-English-speaking workers with basic information about their rights, including their occupational health and safety rights. The data monitoring shows that this is a well-used site, and further developments and further enhancements are being considered.

Publications are translated as well. Many publications have been translated into other languages, really to try to make sure that we get resources to people speaking various languages so that people will understand their occupational health and safety rights and responsibilities.

There are other steps that have been taken, including some research initiatives that I think the member opposite will actually find very interesting. Each year the research secretariat within WorkSafe B.C. establishes a
[ Page 10224 ]
priority list for projects.

In 2011 there were two research priorities relating to vulnerable workers, the first, to determine whether vulnerable workers are aware of and are acting on their rights and responsibilities under the act as well as occupational health and safety regulation; and then secondly, to determine the extent that under-reporting of injuries and exposures exists for particular groups of workers, occupations, industries and illnesses.

There's work underway in a number of areas, both with WorkSafe B.C. and the employment standards branch specifically looking at workers who may be vulnerable.

R. Chouhan: I am sure these websites look beautiful, but the problem is that many of these workers that I have spoken with through their organizations have no access to a computer, let alone have time to watch or get on any website. So the question remains.

The workers in a situation like that have no access to computers, no access to websites, and some of them may not even have cell phones. Why is the government not proactive and send some officers to these worksites and conduct inspections and make sure that all British Columbia laws are adhered to?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite may not have heard some of the information I provided other than the website. There's, as I mentioned, publications that have been translated. I actually didn't mention that there's a language line service, so all departments and offices within WorkSafe B.C. have access to translation services through a U.S.-based company offering third-party interpretation in over 170 languages. If people can call in, then they're able to receive service in their own language.

Another thing that WorkSafe B.C. has done is to work cooperatively with the B.C. Federation of Labour. There is funding provided for the B.C. Federation of Labour to conduct English-as-a-second-language classes on occupational health and safety matters. The B.C. Fed also provides training for up to 40 migrant workers per year in the migrant workers' own language.

With respect to seasonal workers from Mexico, we have a liaison with the Mexican consulate to provide Mexican workers in that program with information about their rights and responsibilities while they're working here. They receive a brochure, a wallet welcome card, and there's also a training tool to help educate and orient Mexican workers even before they arrive in British Columbia.

These are a number of services, some of them certainly delivered in person and a number of them that don't require any access to a computer.

R. Chouhan: That's a nice segue into my next question. The minister mentioned about the Mexican Consulate General office. The minister is aware that the Mexican consulate office in Vancouver was involved in a complaint that was filed against the consulate at the LRB by some of these workers, because the Mexican consulate was blacklisting these employees who raised their concerns. They had a dispute at a workplace, and the employer obviously provided information to the Mexican government. They were blacklisted. They were not allowed to come back to Canada.

[1645]

So that is no help. The services provided by the consulate office in Vancouver…. Maybe in Ontario it's the same situation. Certainly, here it's no help to the people who come here from Mexico and work on a temporary work permit.

Just staying on this situation for a while, what is the government doing to address the blacklisting of foreign workers by the Consulate General?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm not sure if I'm understanding the member correctly, but I believe what he's referring to is some migrant farmworkers who tried to unionize. What I would say to the member, and I know he's aware of this, is that workers in all provincially regulated sectors in British Columbia, including migrant farmworkers, do have the right to unionize under the Labour Relations Code.

Now, my understanding is that this is currently before the Labour Relations Board, this matter, and that the complaint is going to be heard by the board, which will then render a final and binding decision.

R. Chouhan: My understanding is that the hearing is over, and the LRB has taken a position that they can't do anything. It's out of their hands. It's between the Mexican government and the workers. They can't direct or instruct the Consulate General.

So then it comes back to the government of B.C. What steps will the government of B.C. take to ensure that these workers are protected when they have a dispute at the workplace or when they take certain actions so that they're not penalized?

[1650]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm sorry for the delay. We do have information that there has been a preliminary ruling in one area, but this matter is still before the Labour Relations Board.

R. Chouhan: Okay, let's move on.

Under the constitution the federal and the provincial governments have concurrent jurisdiction over immigration matters when we're talking about temporary foreign workers. I think in 2010 the B.C. government and the federal government signed the Canada–British Columbia immigration agreement. This agreement includes a series of provisions to further define the provincial roles
[ Page 10225 ]
and responsibilities in applicable policy program areas.

Could the minister tell me: under that agreement, what are the policy changes, and what areas are there now which will enhance the workers' protection when they come to British Columbia to work for an employer of any kind?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We believe the agreement that the member is referencing is under the jurisdiction of the JTI Ministry, but we're going to confirm that. We should be able to do that.

R. Chouhan: Are there any agreements available that are in place between the B.C. government and the temporary foreign workers?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: No.

R. Chouhan: I'm sure there is one. When workers come to British Columbia, there is an agreement…. I forget the name. I'm sure the minister, or deputy minister, has that in her magic binder somewhere.

It outlines the mechanism of where they would be working, the kind of employment relationship they have and, if there's a dispute resolution, how that would be resolved. I'm sure there's one agreement there. Could the minister check into that and see if it does exist?

[1655]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: My understanding of the question the member opposite is asking is: does the provincial government have any direct agreement with temporary foreign workers? The answer to that is no. But we're wondering if the member opposite may be talking about the labour market opinion — if that may be the issue that he's asking about.

R. Chouhan: No, I wasn't asking about that.

Let's say there's no agreement that exists, but how about some kind of resolution mechanism to deal with dispute resolutions? Like if a dispute arises between the temporary foreign workers and their employer, is there any mechanism in place to resolve those disputes?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I do want to say to the member opposite that regrettably, the binders are not magic. Having said that, although I know I was not asked…. I've lost my train of thought completely. It's because the binders are not magic. If you could ask me that again.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

The Chair: We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

R. Chouhan: Given that we don't have…. My understanding from our House Leader was that we can go until nine o'clock today on this file, Ministry of Labour. That's why I haven't even started the work on the WCB file, which itself takes several hours to go through.

[1705]

I have more questions about employment standards, such as youth workers, that we haven't even touched. I can wait. We can start WCB now and see how much time we have at the end. Then we can come back to some of these questions about the Employment Standards Act later on — okay? All right.

Then let's move on to workers compensation issues. For last year, 2011 — maybe from 2008 onwards — could the minister tell me the number of injuries sustained and of claims that were filed regarding both minor and serious injuries in British Columbia?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I just want to start by saying to the member opposite that the injury rate in British Columbia has been reduced by 45 percent since 1999. If we think about what that means in terms of numbers, it means that 37,000 workers avoided injury and death and went home safe to their families. It's a really remarkable change and an improvement, and we're certainly proud that this has happened.

In terms of the injuries reported…. This is from 2010. We don't have the complete statistics from 2011 as yet. In 2010 the number of injuries reported was 136,742.

R. Chouhan: The claims regarding minor injuries, in my understanding, might have gone down, but the claims respecting serious injuries have gone up. Could the minister confirm that, please?

[1710]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The serious-injury rate has remained about the same. It has remained roughly stable. It has not declined as much as the overall injury rate since 1999.

R. Chouhan: What's the data about serious-injury claims? How many of those serious injuries are reported to the Workers Compensation Board?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That's not information that we have with us, but it is available, and we'll provide it to the member.

R. Chouhan: I'm also made aware — by many of the workers in various different industries over the last several months, in my conversations with them — that
[ Page 10226 ]
employers now actively discourage employees from reporting injuries. Does the ministry have any information regarding that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Failure to report an injury is illegal. When that would come to the attention of WorkSafe, they would pursue it actively.

R. Chouhan: In that situation were there any fines levied against such employers who were found violating the act? How many such violations occurred?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We don't have exact numbers with us. We'll get those for the member opposite. My understanding is that it's a relatively unusual circumstance, and there are a relatively small number of cases.

What WorkSafe will do, where appropriate, is pursue this in the courts and, as well, pursue it with employers. If they find that an employer is under-reporting injuries, this will be pursued, and the employer's assessment will be increased. So there is a cost to the employer.

R. Chouhan: What is the board makeup? How many directors are there? How many from the employer side? How many from the labour side? How many appointed by the government? What's the makeup of the current board we have?

[1715]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The governance of WorkSafe B.C., the board of directors, has on it one representative from the employer community and one representative from labour. One member has to be an actuary, and there has to be one representative who's familiar with disability matters. They call it a health care and rehabilitation representative. The rest of the appointments are public interest representatives on the board.

R. Chouhan: Is it correct that there are nine board members there now and that there's one representing labour?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are seven board members.

R. Chouhan: The feedback we are getting from the stakeholders is that there's a huge amount of imbalance there. The people who are the majority of the board of directors have the employers' interests. There's only one person who can advocate for employees' issues. It seems like the board has become, more or less, the employers' insurance company.

In order to create that balance, is the minister monitoring the Workers Compensation Board's activities there to make sure that all sides are equally represented and nobody is left out?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're not contemplating a change to the composition of the board at this time. I would like to say to the member opposite that last year the worker satisfaction survey results reached a new all-time high, in that 74 percent judged the service good or very good, and 16 percent judged it average. Altogether, 90 percent of the workers found the service to be good, very good or average.

R. Chouhan: Who conducted that survey, and what were the questions asked?

[1720]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The survey is done by an independent external company. We don't have the questions with us. It's quite an in-depth survey, and it's an annual random survey of about 400 injured workers.

R. Chouhan: We have several divisions of the Workers Compensation Board. Obviously, one is the claims division, or adjudication, and there's the appeals division. How much freedom does the appeals division have? Are they bound by board policies, or do they still have some freedom to conduct a fair and reasonable investigation based on facts?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The review division officers function independently. The Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal is an entirely independent tribunal. They're bound by and must follow existing law and policy. But they're authorized, and they do give a full hearing to workers and employers. Among the things they can do…. They are able to hear new evidence, and they're also able to reconsider existing evidence if they believe that that's appropriate to their deliberations.

R. Chouhan: I'll come back to that.

Let me first explore another area — the safety committees. I understand that all large employers are required to have a safety committee at the workplace. I don't know what the threshold is for smaller employers, which may or may not be required to have this safety committee. Could the minister tell me what the requirements are to have a safety committee for all these employers?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Employers who have 20 or more employees are required to have a joint occupational health and safety committee. Employers who have between one and 19 employees are required to appoint a safety representative.

[1725]

R. Chouhan: For the smaller employers up to the number of 19, it's not mandatory for them to have an occupational health and safety committee. How does the Workers Compensation Board monitor the safety situa-
[ Page 10227 ]
tion at those workplaces? What's the monitoring system?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite, I'm sure, is aware that the act we're operating under came into effect in 1999. The enforcement for the smaller employers that the member opposite is talking about would be under the jurisdiction. There would be inspections done — so the inspectional activity of officers from WorkSafe.

R. Chouhan: So how would the minister or Workers Compensation Board assure us — you know, the balance — that the committees are not dominated by the employer at these smaller facilities?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I may not have been clear before. For the employers where there are one to 19 employees, there's no obligation for them to have a committee. They have to appoint a safety officer.

R. Chouhan: I understand they're not obliged to have a joint occupational health and safety committee, but their safety concerns are still there. Workers who work, up to 19, for these employers…. How does the Workers Compensation Board, then, monitor?

They can appoint a safety inspector. I think it's appointed by the employer. Is there any monitoring mechanism there to make sure that all of the safety precautions are taken?

[1730]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're talking about small employers that would have between one and 19 employees, and under the legislation they are required to have a safety representative. So they have to appoint a safety representative.

With respect to the officers that do inspections, about half of the work they would do in terms of inspections would be planned. Those could be targeted, or they could be random. But when one of those planned inspections happened, one of the things that the officer would do is actually satisfy themselves that there was a safety representative, find out who it was, find out what the plans are. That would be part of the work that they would do.

R. Chouhan: That safety officer who would then go to these small employers — were there any orders written last year for the small employers that may have violated the act?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There were about 60,000 orders written last year by WorkSafe. We do not have the breakdown — not with us — as to whether they were for a safety violation or for not having a safety plan. We can obtain that information and get that to the member.

R. Chouhan: For the larger employers where they must have a joint occupational health and safety committee, how much training is provided to those safety committee members?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The act states that the committee members are required to have eight hours of occupational health and safety training.

R. Chouhan: Are those committee members certified by the Workers Compensation Board to be members?

[1735]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: They are appointed, and they are not certified by WorkSafe.

R. Chouhan: Mr. Chair, 75 percent of the employers in the forest industry, I understand, don't even have a safety committee. Can the minister provide us information to confirm that assertion that 75 percent of these employers don't have a safety committee, and why not?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly are not able to confirm the claim that the member opposite has made. What I can say is that in this particular industry work would often be done by contractors and subcontractors who might well have less than that 20-plus number of employees. It's possible for WorkSafe to try to get information for the member as to the details that he's asked for, but certainly we can't confirm.

It's not our belief that that's factual, but we don't have that detailed information with us.

R. Chouhan: Forget about the high percentage number that I have stated. There ought to be some employers out there that Workers Compensation Board is aware of that still don't have any occupational health and safety committee.

In those circumstances, what steps has the board taken to correct that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: If WorkSafe became aware that an employer who had 20 or more employees did not have the appropriate committee, an order would be written, and compliance would be mandatory.

What I would like to say to the member opposite, just in terms of forestry claims and injury rates…. All the claims accepted in 2007 — there were 4,779. This had gone down steadily every single year until 2011. Actually, I shouldn't say that. The number was 4,779 in 2007. It was 2,786 in 2011, so a substantial decline in the injury rate.

R. Chouhan: Who conducts the safety auditing at the workplace? Who are those auditors? Are they appointed
[ Page 10228 ]
by the employer, or are they appointed by the Workers Compensation Board? Could you please give us information on that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I wonder — we're not clear on exactly what the member is asking — if he could amplify on what he means by a safety audit.

R. Chouhan: At any workplace there must be some requirement by the Workers Compensation Board that it's a safe workplace, so there must be some auditing conducted into that relation.

I'm wondering if those auditings are done on a regular basis. Who conducts those auditings?

[1740]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The act requires employers to have a safe workplace. That's the law. We've talked already about the fact that there are officers who do inspections. If there are any issues that are found, they would write orders, and it would be necessary for that employer to comply with the law.

I wonder if the member opposite may be talking about a program which is called the certificate of recognition program. This is something that employers can choose to belong to. If they do, the employer would have their safety association conduct a safety audit. That's done by an independent association that might be unique, say, to forestry or some other industry. Those are not done by WorkSafe.

R. Chouhan: Yes, I will talk about COR benefits and auditing in a second, but let me continue with this whole thing for a while.

My understanding is…. I'm told that some employers are allowed to conduct their own safety auditing, and they can provide some sort of a report to the Workers Compensation Board. When they pass it — you know, most of them pass that test with flying colours — they get a rebate on their premiums. Is it happening on a regular basis? That's my question.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is the certificate of recognition program that the member is talking about. This is a program that's funded by WorkSafe through health and safety associations. It's managed through industry health and safety associations. In the event that one of these safety audits is done and the employer can demonstrate that they have a safe workplace according to the audit, it is possible that their assessment rates could go down.

[1745]

R. Chouhan: Okay, let's talk about this COR benefit so everybody is clear about it.

In the labour relations community and the workers compensation area people understand that the focus of the board, instead of being prevention, is now…. Quality of work doesn't seem to be the focus as long as the customers are happy. That's what I'm told over and over again.

So that means that when workers know that if they're being inspected or audited and they're not getting a favourable report, the officer who goes there, who does it — they can then report him to the board, and the board can remove that officer. And the concern is these employers who become savvy about this. There is potential for abuse.

So my question is: how much leverage do these officers have who go to these worksites and conduct those inspections? Can they write independent reports without any fear of being removed from that job?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The officers are completely independent, and they function independently under the act. They are able to carry out a number of different things, including closing workplaces, assigning penalties and even recommending criminal charges where it's appropriate.

I'd like to talk a little bit about what the member started out by saying, which is just not accurate. I really wouldn't want to leave anyone with the impression that it was accurate.

More than ten years ago when WorkSafe was only looking at enforcement, the injury rate was actually going up every year. When enforcement continued but, at the same time, WorkSafe began to focus also on education and on consultation, what we have seen is a steady decline in the injury rate. We think that's just incredibly, incredibly good. It's a very powerful thing.

I've said this before, but I will say it again. The injury rate has been reduced by 45 percent since 1999. If we look at actual numbers of people, that would mean that there are 37,000 workers who, under the previous statistics, would have been injured or even suffered fatality, and they haven't. Instead, they've gone home safe to their families.

So it's a really substantial reduction in human suffering, both for the workers and for their families. It has also made the province more productive and cost-effective.

I certainly think I would focus much more on the benefit to the worker and the family. But these are all important things, and it is because of changes that have happened along the way. Certainly there is injury prevention, and fatality prevention is a clear focus for WorkSafe. The statistics would bear out that the change in focus, the change in the way of doing things, has been really a success story in the province.

[1750]

R. Chouhan: Does the board have any record of these audits done? How many employers have given themselves a clean record, and how many were in violation of the Workers Compensation Act?
[ Page 10229 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We do know that there are employers registered in various different industries — for example, agriculture, forestry, construction, oil and gas. We don't have the breakdown with us, but we can get that for the member.

What I can tell the member is that any employer who has a penalty against them would be disqualified from the program for a year.

R. Chouhan: How many employers were disqualified?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We don't have that information with us, but we can find that for the member.

R. Chouhan: When the audits are done, what kind of tools do the auditors have? Are there any standard tools that they utilize in British Columbia, or are they nationally accepted standards? What standards are there available for the auditors?

[1755]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I did mention this before, but I will just say again: the safety audits are not carried out by WorkSafe. The industry in each case will have a safety association, and that will be who will conduct it.

We're not aware of a national standard. In some industries — for example, oil and gas — there may be a common audit, may be a common procedure, say, between Alberta and British Columbia, but we don't know that for certain.

What we do know is that the industry associations will develop standards that are appropriate to their sector, taking into account the hazards in their industry. They would be different depending on whether it was agriculture, versus construction, versus oil and gas.

R. Chouhan: We'll continue with that, but let me ask you this one question. In December 2010 there was a serious accident at a construction site in Vancouver, with a company named Ledcor. My question to the minister is: did Ledcor do its own safety auditing?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Ledcor is a large company and, as such, would be required to have an external auditor for safety, as part of participating in the certificate of recognition program. Like any other company, under the circumstances where there was a penalty, then they would no longer be part of that program. They would be out of that program for a year.

R. Chouhan: Did Ledcor receive any rebate in its premiums in 2010 and also in 2011?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That's not information that we have with us, but we'll get that for the member.

R. Chouhan: In 2002 the B.C. Liberal government made extensive changes to the Workers Compensation Act. Those changes that were made by the government resulted in cost savings for employers at profound costs to the injured workers.

The most extreme consequences of the change are the effective elimination of loss-of-earnings pensions and virtual elimination of vocational rehabilitation services. The changes also made to the WCB pension system have led to the virtual elimination of any need for vocational rehabilitation.

[1800]

As a result, the WCB's rehab budget was slashed from $130 million in 2002 to just $3 million in 2006. Could the minister confirm that, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Addressing the member's…. There are multiple questions and statements in what he had to say, so I'll start at the beginning.

With respect to changes that were made in 2002, compensation benefits that are available through the B.C. workers compensation system continue to be among the most generous in Canada. It's true that changes were made that brought us more into line with other provinces.

Currently there are five provinces and territories, including B.C., that provide compensation rates of 90 percent of the injured workers' net income, with time limits in place in some jurisdictions. After a certain period of time, benefits change to a lower or higher percentage of net. For example, in Manitoba it's 90 percent for the first 24 months and 80 percent after. The other provinces range from 75 percent to 85 percent of net.

What British Columbia does is it provides 90 percent of a worker's net income tax-free, with no time limitations.

The member opposite has talked about the annual spending on vocational rehabilitation. I am actually not going to go into the detailed accounting actuarial explanation, because it's very complicated. I can if the member wants me to.

There's some confusion because the income statement that WorkSafe provides publishes net vocational rehabilitation expense after some actuarial adjustments. WorkSafe has provided me with a table of annual spending on vocational rehabilitation benefits.

In 2002 the benefits paid were $82 million; in 2003 it was $60.1 million. I won't go through all these numbers, but in 2010 it was $86.6 million, and in 2011 the vocational rehabilitation benefits paid totalled $100.2 million. Those are numbers that have been verified by WorkSafe.

Where it is possible, the goal for workers is to return to work. In 2000, jobs were scarcer due to economic circumstances. The vocational rehabilitation payment in 1999 was $75 million, and the return-to-work rate was 60 percent. That had been the norm for the previous ten years. From 2000 onward the economy began to improve,
[ Page 10230 ]
injured workers spent less time in vocational rehabilitation and in job search, and they returned to work.

[1805]

By 2005 the return-to-work rate was approximately 70 percent. In 2007-2008 the return-to-work rate for clients was 82 percent. Then in 2011 the economy had softened and had gone downward somewhat. The return-to-work rate was 72 percent, and the benefits at that time were $100 million. So far in 2011 our return-to-work percentage for workers is the best return rate in the country.

R. Chouhan: I appreciate the minister giving us all the details there, but one thing is for sure. The rehab budget was slashed from $130 million to $3 million in 2006. That is how it was.

Now, maybe the minister can confirm that in B.C. we're one of the two regional jurisdictions that don't have any return-to-work obligation under that. Is that true?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First of all, I'm actually going to explain to the member opposite the details about the accounting. To be clear, the vocational rehabilitation benefits that were paid in 2002 were $82.5 million. In 2011 the vocational rehabilitation benefits paid totalled $100.2 million.

The vocational rehabilitation benefit payments paid to injured workers and training providers are what we're referring to. There is sometimes confusion because WorkSafe B.C.'s income statement publishes net vocational rehabilitation expense after actuarial adjustments and very large reversals. These reversals charge the cost of workers' wage-loss payments paid during vocational rehabilitation into the long-term disability account once the workers' pension is finalized.

The irregularity of the timing of these reversals sometimes produces significant swings in the reported net expense. So these swings in reported net expense are not related to the level of payments actually made to workers in a given year. So again, the actual expenditure for workers in 2002 for vocational rehabilitation benefits was $82.5 million, and there was an increase by 2011 up to $100.2 million.

With respect to the question the member asked, he's correct. While WorkSafe does focus on return to work — and I think the numbers that I provided previously show that our return-to-work rate for workers in British Columbia is the highest in Canada — there isn't a legislative obligation for an employer to take the injured worker back to the original workplace.

R. Chouhan: The minister was saying that our compensation levels are in line with other jurisdictions. Let me just clarify one thing. If I'm not correct, the minister will correct me.

Prior to 2002 the compensation benefit level for injured workers was 75 percent of an injured worker's gross pay. This changed in 2002 to 90 percent of net pay. So this means that injured workers are charged a 10 percent fee. That means that the overall level of compensation premiums that they were getting had come down. They didn't go up. So at the very minimum, the compensation benefits level must be changed to 100 percent of the net pay.

Is the minister contemplating to correct that? Before it was 75 percent of the gross earnings. Now it is only 90 percent of the net pay. Could it not be done 100 percent of the net pay level?

[1810]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The changes that were made in 2002 did make a change that brought us into line with other jurisdictions in Canada. We're not contemplating changing that at this time.

Other changes that were made at the same time were to speed up the review and appeal processes for workers because at that time some of these processes were taking a very long time, and it wasn't in workers' best interests. So improvements have been made there. The changes that were made also ensured the viability of WorkSafe B.C. into the future so that future workers, as well, can benefit from the programs.

R. Chouhan: Let me briefly talk about loss-of-earnings pensions. Then I'll come back to the return to work.

When a worker is injured on the job and is permanently disabled, the worker is awarded a pension. Prior to 2002 the Workers Compensation Act provided a dual system. The amount of the pension was based on permanent functional impairment or the loss of earnings, whichever was more equitable for the worker. It was intended that the worker's permanent partial disability be compensated based on the difference between the pre-injury earnings of the worker and the earnings that the worker was earning or was capable of earning after the injury.

Now, in 2002 changes to the Workers Compensation Act did away with that dual system, for the most part, and severely restricted the number of workers receiving loss-of-earnings pensions. What we have seen…. Under section 23(3.1) of the Workers Compensation Act, which was amended in 2002, it states: "…the worker's disability resulting from the injury is so exceptional that an amount determined under subsection (1) does not appropriately compensate the worker for the injury." That's what the act says now.

As a result of that, Mr. Chair, what we have seen is that for workers the impact has been very devastating. In 2002, still under the old legislation, 927 loss-of-earnings pensions were awarded. In 2006 that number dropped to 39. Furthermore, the average value of the award dropped approximately 30 percent, from $34,000 to $24,000 a year. Will the minister agree with me that those changes have occurred and that it has impacted the workers in a very
[ Page 10231 ]
negative way?

[1815]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Where a worker is left with a permanent physical or psychological impairment as a result of a work-related injury, occupational disease or mental stress, WorkSafe B.C. is required to determine the worker's entitlement to a permanent disability award under section 23 of the act, as the member opposite has referred to.

Section 23 sets out two methods of permanent disability award assessment: section 23(1), the loss-of-function — or LOF — method, and section 23(3), the loss-of-earnings, or LOE, method.

Prior to June 30, 2002, as the member has referenced, the act gave WorkSafe B.C. discretion to determine when the LOE method of assessment should be applied, and a policy directed the disability awards department to assess workers under both the LOF and LOE methods. Then the worker would receive the higher of the two amounts calculated.

Over the years the assessment under both methods resulted in the sharp growth in the number and, more significantly, in the actual dollar value of the LOE reserves. This was raising serious concerns about the long-term viability, the financial viability, of WorkSafe — in other words, concerns that WorkSafe would be there for workers into the future.

Bill 49 came into effect, and there were changes made to the permanent disability award system.

Now, section 23(1) is a mandatory provision that must be applied in the assessment of permanent partial disabilities. The LOF method of assessment set out under section 23(1) requires that if a permanent partial disability results from a worker's injury, the board must estimate the impairment of earning capacity from the nature and degree of the injury. Once a percentage of permanent disability is determined, it's applied to the worker's long-term average net earnings. The permanent partial disability award is 90 percent of the amount.

So this would take into account circumstances where there was loss of function, but a worker still has the ability to work and to earn.

R. Chouhan: I appreciate the minister reading the board policy manual — how it works. We know how it works now. We understand that. The point is that since that change occurred in 2002, 1,000 members, injured workers who used to get loss-of-earnings pensions, are no longer getting it — every year.

That's the net impact of this change in that act in 2002. A thousand people who were injured before and were able to get loss-of-earnings pensions can't get it. So what happens? They end up on welfare.

They go because they're frustrated. They have to make a living. The Workers Compensation Board, which was supposed to be there to take care of them, totally abandoned them. So the taxpayers are now footing the bill for the responsibility that the employer should have had for these employees.

At the same time, the employers' premium was reduced by 33 percent since 2001 — 33 percent — which is the lowest in Canada, according to David Anderson, the CEO of the Workers Compensation Board.

[1820]

Why are we punishing the workers in order to make sure that the employers continue to save $500 million a year? Why do workers have to pay for that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I certainly understand that the member opposite is not in agreement with the changes that were made. I think that it is important to know some things about WorkSafe B.C. I have mentioned these before.

I think it's profoundly important, and possibly one of the most important things, that the injury rate has been reduced by 45 percent since 1999. This is just a remarkable achievement.

It's important that we have injured-worker benefit rates that are among the most generous not only in Canada but in North America. Many other jurisdictions have waiting periods, have lower benefits — and they can be reduced depending on the duration of the claim. None of those things are true here in British Columbia.

The other thing I think that's very important is that WorkSafe B.C. is fully funded. There are many jurisdictions, including here in Canada, where that is not the case — where there are substantial financial liabilities, where their systems are not financially stable and there is real insecurity for workers in the future.

In British Columbia we have a financially stable system that ensures security for our workers and stability for employers. I know that there is a philosophical difference here between the member and government. But I would, again, say that what we're looking at here in terms of the loss of earning versus loss of function is that there are cases where there has been some loss of function but there is still the ability of the worker to earn.

R. Chouhan: It's laudable, appreciated, admired that we have less injured workers in British Columbia. The injury rate has decreased; that's wonderful. But there are some workers who are still being injured. For those who are in that position and who have to file a claim, they are severely impacted by subsection 23.3(1). That amendment took place in 2002.

What about those workers? The injury rate might have decreased, but injured workers today are still not getting the benefits they used to get before. Why have we now punished these workers who need that help?

[1825]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Workers who experience a serious injury in British Columbia do receive assistance of various different kinds, and in some cases they receive pension benefits. Vocational rehabilitation benefits are one of the ways they can be assisted. It's offered to workers who face significant challenges and return to work.

There are about 50,000 time-loss claims that WorkSafe B.C. manages each year. About 10 percent, or 5,000, of those workers will have incurred some level of permanent disability, and they will receive these kinds of services. As I've mentioned to the member opposite previously, for the vocational rehabilitation benefits that were paid, the annual payment in 2011 was $100.2 million.

There are also policies that have been amended to really provide return-to-work assistance, and our return-to-work numbers are much higher than they were in the past. There are various reasons for that, but they're currently at the highest level in the country. I do believe that that's in the best interests of workers. I think most people would much prefer to return to work where that is possible.

The Chair: Pursuant to practice, this committee will now recess for approximately 30 minutes, and we'll reconvene at 7 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:27 p.m. to 7:03 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back, everybody. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. I will start with the member.

R. Chouhan: Could I ask the minister to please repeat the answer that she provided us about injured workers? She said something about 10 percent permanently injured workers. Could you please give me those details again?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I was speaking about vocational rehabilitation benefits, which are discretionary benefits that are offered to workers who face significant challenges in return to work. Of the 50,000 time-loss claims that WorkSafe B.C. manages each year, approximately 10 percent or 5,000 workers who have incurred some level of permanent disability require such services.

R. Chouhan: Those who are permanently injured workers — their pension continues up to what age.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The pension continues to age 65.

[1905]

R. Chouhan: In 2002, when the Workers Compensation Act was amended under section 23(3.1), it not only impacted the loss of earnings pensions; it also affected the lifetime pensions. As the minister had just indicated, these pensions stop at age 65.

Under the old legislation injured workers received their permanent functional impairment pension for life, and the pension was indexed annually. Under the new legislation the pension ends at the age of 65, as the minister has just confirmed, and the worker receives a retirement benefit equal to 5 percent of the total pension amount received prior to retirement plus interest. The fact is the workplace injury stays with the worker for the rest of his or her life.

My question to the minister is: even though the Workers Compensation Board has decided to stop their pension at age 65, what happens after that? Is there a miracle pill the worker is going to take so that they no longer would suffer from that injury? How would they sustain?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The workers compensation is meant to be a wage replacement scheme. We know that most people intend to retire at around age 65, some much before 65. But the intention is to replace wages.

In the event that a worker is able to demonstrate their intention to work after 65 and they're clearly able to demonstrate that, then adjudicators can take that into account and make changes.

R. Chouhan: I understand that under the Liberal regime it is a wage replacement scheme. It's not to take care of the well-being of a worker who got injured at the workplace performing his or her duties. It's a responsibility of society, and that's the historical agreement workers and employers had when the Workers Compensation Board was established — to make sure that an injured worker is taken care of when they are injured. It doesn't look like it's going to be under the Liberal's regime, the scheme that they have brought in.

My question, then, is: at age 65 what happens? Is there any kind of support mechanism in place that workers can rely on? Let me get that answer first, before I ask the next question.

[1910]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, workers anticipate retirement. In most cases, people retire around age 65. The benefits are meant to be a wage replacement, and it's a program that does end at the time of retirement. This change did bring us into line with most, if not all, of the other jurisdictions in Canada.

The workers, when they come to retirement age, would have the same kinds of resources that any other worker would have — Canada Pension Plan and other resources that other people have.
[ Page 10233 ]

R. Chouhan: Is the minister telling me that at the age of 65 the workers compensation simply cuts off its responsibility to take care of the workers — an injured worker who might have lost an arm or a hand or something, unable to work or get any additional earnings to sustain their lifestyle or to help their family?

Could the minister tell me how many threats of suicide or actual suicides occurred last year, the year before — actually, going back to 2001?

[1915]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Work-related injuries can have secondary consequences, including depression and/or chronic pain. In rare instances, these issues can contribute to a worker's decision to harm themselves. Pre-existing physical, psychological or psychosocial issues could play a role in an individual's decision to take his or her own life.

In terms of attempts, obviously when someone attempts suicide, it's a very private thing and quite often would not be known. It's not possible for WorkSafe to collect that kind of information, at least not with any confidence, because of the number of times it could happen where there wouldn't be awareness. But there is some information I can give the member opposite. Over the last 15 years, since 1997, WorkSafe B.C. has accepted 29 claims for suicides relating to a work-related injury.

There is certainly a protocol in place, though, if a worker expresses suicidal ideation to a WorkSafe B.C. staff member. The protocol would include advising a worker that crisis help is available, and in some cases — if someone expresses self-harm — WorkSafe would actually inform authorities, because the person may be of harm to themselves.

In December of 2009 WorkSafe established a 24-7 crisis line. They launched it so that fragile clients would have easier access to professional mental health support anytime, day or night. That's available. There are also six social workers that have been contracted to WorkSafe B.C. to provide support provincewide to injured workers who are experiencing a mental health crisis. Again, that's 24-7 availability. The social workers focus on things like immediate short-term interventions, with a goal of transitioning clients to community services and supports.

When we look at the suicide rate for Canadians, as measured by the World Health Organization, it's 15 per 100,000 people, although there are some groups for whom it may be higher.

R. Chouhan: Madam Chair, I had a very specific question about the number of threats of suicide, attempted suicides and actual suicides that occurred since 2002 until now. I would appreciate it if the minister could provide me with that information.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, WorkSafe would be able to look at the 29 claims for suicides that have happened over the past 15 years, and we could provide the member opposite with information about which of those occurred since 2002.

In terms of people threatening self-harm or of actual attempted suicides, WorkSafe does not believe that they would have…. They don't have data, because of the possibility of those things happening and WorkSafe never hearing about it. That is not information that is available.

R. Chouhan: My understanding is that the board does keep a record of people who are stressed and who threaten to harm themselves or attempt suicide. Would the minister agree with me that in 2002 the total number of attempted suicides or threats to harm themselves was about ten and that in 2009 that number had gone up to 124? Will the minister agree or disagree with that?

[1920]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What is being kept track of by WorkSafe B.C., and they began to pay more careful attention to this and began tracking and recording it in more detail in 2005…. These are not suicide attempts. This is the expression of self-harm or threats to others. The member opposite is correct. Those numbers have gone up.

I would, though, really distinguish very definitely between someone expressing the potential for self-harm or expressing the threat of harm to someone else. There is a clear difference between that and actually harming someone else or attempting suicide and harming oneself.

What is being kept track of is when people express these thoughts. The change in how it was tracked and monitored and attention to detail and doing it much more thoroughly — that change happened in 2005.

R. Chouhan: Thanks to the minister for her answer.

Just for a few minutes, we're going to switch gears. My colleague who has House duty in the bigger House…. We are going to ask questions about the employment standards branch regarding the youth workers.

The B.C. Liberal government has made some substantial changes to the Employment Standards Act, lowering the age of young workers who can work. Before those changes were brought into place, there was a requirement that for a child worker who wanted to work, there were three steps that must be met.

One was a letter from both parents, who would agree that the child would be allowed to work; secondly, a letter from the school principal was also required; thirdly, an approval from the director of the employment standards branch. Now it is just reduced down to only one letter from a parent. When that happens, the child can work.

My question to the minister is: when the children who are underage work under those circumstances in any industry, do we have the rate of injuries available for these
[ Page 10234 ]
workers? Is there any other data that's available to indicate that workers who were forced to work, or who were working under the new amendments of the act, were put in any harm's way?

[1925]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The numbers are very small. They're too small to actually be able to get a per-100-worker number. But what I can tell the member is that in 2002 there were 12 claims accepted for workers under age 15, and in 2011 there were 11 claims, roughly the same number.

R. Chouhan: What we have seen in the last many years is that the young workers who are in those circumstances of working are forced to work and come from a very poor family. Either it's a single-parent family, or both parents are unable to get jobs or are working for minimum wage. The children have to work and subsidize the family income.

Also what we have seen… I believe the United Nations has cautioned the government of B.C. a couple of times that the practice we have adopted is in violation of those rights and universally accepted standards. My question to the minister is: why are we not going with higher standards? Why are we putting young children in the situation where they're forced to work?

Is there any plan that the B.C. Liberal government and the Ministry of Labour have to assist parents to deal with the poverty that they live in, so that their children don't have to work?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I understand that the member opposite is not supportive of the changes that were made. Nevertheless, I would say to him that young people who work are entitled to the same employment standards and occupational health and safety protection as any other worker.

The employment standards regulation that is there for these young workers today establishes conditions of employment for children aged 12 to less than 15. It limits the hours of work. It prohibits work during school hours. It imposes a requirement that their employment be under direct adult supervision at all times.

There are very clear regulations and consistent standards. Children aged 12 to 14 may work with their parents' written consent, and children under 12 require a permit issued by the director of employment standards in order to work.

Now, under the previous system we know that the government was issuing about 400 permits per year on average, but it was obvious that there were many more children than that who were employed in British Columbia. That meant that the children who didn't have that permit in place didn't really have any restrictions. There wasn't anything really at all.

It also meant that if a child wanted to have a paper route after school at age 14, they had to go through a lot of hoops in order to be able to do that. Now we're in a situation where all youth workers are protected by regulations that require parental approval, set strict employment conditions in place and provide penalties for non-compliance.

[1930]

I would also challenge the member opposite. I know we have a philosophical difference here, but I would challenge the member opposite on the notion that children are being forced to work. I think many children choose to work. They want to work, and they have the support of their parents to do so.

C. Trevena: I'm just following on my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds's questions on the young people who are working. As my colleague said, in many instances it's a violation of the UN convention on the rights of the child. It's extremely troubling that young people are working, that there are many people who have no other option — those whose families have no other income. It's oftentimes immigrant families, refugee families.

I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions about a couple of specific cases so that she might be able to elucidate a little about the standards that are there, which she has claimed are there, for young workers.

There was one instance early this year where an employer actually was sentenced to 60 days in jail. He was an owner of an asbestos removal company who was working on demolition and employing workers as young as 14 — without any supervision, as I understand it. At the time of the case, as I say, he got 60 days. A number of people, including WorkSafe B.C., were very critical of what had happened — in fact, would have liked a longer sentence.

WorkSafe B.C. said they'd like a longer sentence, as did the B.C. and Yukon Building and Construction Trades Council. At that time the trades council said that people are going to die as a result of this, and you get 60 days for that. I think that's shameful. We're talking about children as young as 14 working here.

The case was Arthur Moore, who owned an asbestos removal company. It came to the B.C. Supreme Court in January. I'd like to ask the minister two questions. One, was there any inspection of the site beforehand, where it was known that there were people as young as 14 working? And was there any inspection after the case?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In fact, the reason that this was detected in the first place is because it came to the attention of WorkSafe through inspections that were done, and that was what led to the charges and what led to the work stoppage. It was because of a WorkSafe inspection.

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the minister whether this was a specific inspection because there were young
[ Page 10235 ]
people working on the site. The minister has said that there are standards across the board. I want to know that these are standards that relate to industrial circumstances as well as to her type of Leave It to Beaver image, where it's just kids going to do their paper round and have that sort of standard. I'd like to ask the minister if it was because there were young workers working there.

[1935]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The specific reason that this investigation happened, why it came to WorkSafe B.C.'s attention, may have been because of a complaint. We don't have that information, but we will get it for the member. What I can tell you is that WorkSafe has identified some contractors and consultants that have substandard asbestos testing, removal and disposal practices — individuals who move from city to city to avoid detection and falsify documentation.

What WorkSafe B.C. does is target these employers as part of its construction high-risk strategy. For the specific details about this case, we'll get the exact reason, the reason that the inspection happened in the first place, that detected what was going on and caused the workplace to be stopped. We'll get that for the member.

C. Trevena: I'm not sure if the minister is just simply not understanding my question, which I thought was quite straightforward, or she's choosing to focus on a different side here. What my question to the minister was is: are there standards for investigating and inspecting worksites where young people are working? She said earlier that she's quite quite happy with how young people are working. Are there set standards for industrial worksites where it is known young people are working so that young people between the ages of 12 and 15 are protected when they are working?

[1940]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: WorkSafe does not currently do age-specific inspections, but what I can tell the member is that there are some kinds of employment that younger workers are prohibited from participating in.

R. Chouhan: We're going to have more in-depth debate about asbestos later on, after eight o'clock, but in the meantime, let me get back to where we left before. My question to the minister is: what's the total revenue of the Workers Compensation Board?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The revenue that WCB has comes from two sources. One is employers, and in 2010 that was $1.044 billion. The other is dividends and interest, and that was $294 million. So the total is $1.339 billion for 2010.

R. Chouhan: Will the minister agree with me that 17 cents of each dollar earned by the board is from clawbacks — that is, not paying pensions, reducing the injury claim benefits and also reducing the pension, the total number of claims that we have seen in the past? Will the minister agree with me?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: No, I wouldn't agree.

R. Chouhan: I'm surprised. Now, according to Mr. Anderson, the CEO of Workers Compensation Board, the employer's premium is at a 30-year low. In the last 30 years….

[1945]

Actually, he's on record. Mr. Anderson is quoted here in a Vancouver Sun article. It reads: "Anderson also said employers can take solace in the fact that premiums, which total about $1 billion annually, are at a 30-year low. Rates today are, on average, 33 percent lower than they were 15 years ago in the province and second only to Alberta when compared to rates across Canada."

Now, as the result of reduction in the premiums by 33 percent, how much money are the employers saving every year in their premiums paid to Workers Compensation Board?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The low rates are primarily driven by the fact that injury rates are down. Premiums are lower because of safe work practices in the province. In fact, it's a safer place to work than it was in 1999. I will remind the member opposite that the injury rate has been reduced by 45 percent since 1999.

R. Chouhan: The reduction in the premiums was not because of the reduction in injury rate. It was a policy decision made by the B.C. Liberal government. The information that we have — you know, the simple math that one can do…. It's approximately $500 million a year that's taken out of the system, because that's how much less the employers are paying, at the cost of the injured workers.

Yet we have less and less money available for training, injury prevention programs. No lifelong pensions for injured workers. Injured workers' injury claims are suppressed. My question to the minister is: why don't we bring those premiums up so that we have more money available for these programs?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I do have some facts here — some numbers, some things that reflect changes that have happened in WorkSafe B.C. — that really are quite strongly in disagreement with what the member opposite is saying

I've already mentioned that the injury rate has been reduced by 45 percent since 1999. Injured-worker-benefits rates are among the most generous in North America, certainly in Canada. We have shorter waiting periods
[ Page 10236 ]
than many of the other jurisdictions.

It certainly is true that we do have the lowest employer rates in 30 years. We also have the lowest injury rates that we've ever had in this province. WorkSafe B.C. has more enforcement capacity than it ever has before. There are 244 compliance and safety officers. That is a 32 percent increase from 2004, when there were 185 officers.

WorkSafe B.C. is working hard to ensure that all workers understand their right to safe workplaces and their access to benefits, even if their first language is not English. When workers contact WorkSafe B.C., they can receive service in 170 languages, and there are safety officers that can access this interpretation service in the field in the event that they don't speak that language.

We've had people visit from a dozen places around the world every year to examine what we've done to drive down injuries and fatalities. These have included places like China, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Russia and Korea.

[1950]

We know that we can always do better, and we strive to do better. I know the member will agree with me that even one injury is too many. At the same time, we really should be very proud of the accomplishments that we've had, with injury rates down 45 percent since 1999. I want to acknowledge how well things are performing while at the same time acknowledging that we should always strive to improve.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and her staff. That was certainly…. The critic's question was not answered. We got a lot of information there that had nothing to do with anything that he suggested.

B.C. is one of only two provinces — Alberta being the other one — that does not have a return-to-work obligation in law, under WCB — a huge gap. That is something Malaysia has adopted, so we might want to look to Malaysia for advice on how to maybe start to raise our standards. It's nothing to be proud of, as the minister would suggest.

What has happened is that the Liberal government brought in changes in 2002 that allowed a massive drop in premiums for the employer. To facilitate that, a thousand people a year — the bar has been raised — are no longer eligible for loss-of-earnings pensions. That has basically relegated many of those workers that were injured in the workplace to be victimized again. Those workers are often relegated to poverty.

There are 80,000 people with disabilities living on social assistance in this province now. Many of those people in the workplace, that have permanent disabilities, enter that category, so it's a shift. This is to facilitate lower premiums for the companies.

Our vocational rehab benefits are gone. Transitional funding for rehab is gone. Permanent impairment, loss-of-earnings pensions are all but gone. There's a massive increase — over a 1,000-fold increase — in suicides, attempted suicides, self-abuse. The statistics show that people with disabilities have higher rates of suicide, poverty, bankruptcy, family breakup — that sort of thing.

When people are hurt in the workplace, and they run into the frustration of dealing with WCB and WorkSafe, because they have been lawyered up, and things get much more difficult…. Any MLA knows that. They are the worst cases we have to deal with in our offices.

Essentially, you've shifted the tax burden, by cutting premiums, onto, first of all, the hardship of those workers that were already hurt in the workplace, that are no longer going to get hurt, that are going to be cut off at 65, that have had their compensation levels drop dramatically.

It is reflected, I would suggest, in a massive increase — over a 1,000-fold since those changes were made — specifically, in things like attempted suicides, suicides and other terribly tragic reactions to being relegated to poverty for the rest of your life. That's the reality.

Does the minister believe that this is in keeping with the Meredith principle? Essentially, the changes for workers…. They've made workers pay for their injuries again, in the workplace. Those are specifically what the changes are meant to do, and they have facilitated the lowest premiums for companies in the country. That is the reality. Will the minister comment, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I will comment on some of the things that the member has said, although probably not on all of them.

First of all, the member mentioned something about avoiding a tax burden. I would like to point out to the member that there is no tax issues with WorkSafe. This is an employer-pay program. It is funded by the employers.

The member is correct that in British Columbia we don't have a duty to accommodate, but what we, in fact, do have — and I don't think the member was here, unfortunately, for this part of the estimates — is the highest return-to-work rate in Canada.

[1955]

In 2000 the return-to-work rate was 60 percent, which it had been for ten years. By 2005 the return-to-work rate for workers was about 70 percent. In 2011, 72 percent. Last year it was the highest in Canada. So workers are able to return to work.

The member has also spoken about vocational rehabilitation benefits. Again, I have already…. This has been canvassed, but I certainly wouldn't want the member to go away under the mistaken impression that these benefits are not there. In 2002 vocational rehabilitation benefits paid to workers totalled $82.5 million, and in 2011 those benefits had increased up to $100.2 million. Certainly, annual spending on vocational rehabilitation benefits has increased since 2002. It hasn't gone down.

WorkSafe B.C. employs about 105 vocational rehabilitation consultants and 70 nurse advisers to assist workers
[ Page 10237 ]
in returning to employment. Again, I would say to the member opposite that the main driver of the reduction in the amount that employers are paying is the fact that we have driven…. The injury rates have gone down year after year, and great credit should be given to workers and employers for this.

Workplaces are safer. The credit does not all go to WorkSafe. It goes to everyone who's partnering up with this, but the reality is that we are at an all-time low in terms of the injury rate that we have in British Columbia.

H. Bains: My question to the minister is in the same area. The minister has read a number of those facts about voc rehab and how many workers were returned to work. Would she also agree that what we hear in our offices…? And I think you probably have from your side as well. Some of the complaints that we get in our offices are about the WCB and their dealings with WCB cases. They are telling us that they are being pushed to work before they are ready.

And, yes, the minister can actually say: "Yes, we send them back to work. These are the numbers." But they will tell us that they were sent to work…. Without the agreement of their doctors, they were sent to the workplace when they were not ready, and then when they could not perform work, they were cut loose.

And so, sure enough, you know, it will skew the statistics that the minister would like to read here, but those are some of the facts. If you really want to know what's going on with those injured workers, I think we need to spend some time in each of the MLAs' offices and see what those stories are.

I just want to ask about the rehab budget. What is the rehab budget today in this budget compared to 2002?

[2000]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: To the member opposite: the numbers I'm going to give you are the vocational rehabilitation benefit payments paid to injured workers and training providers, as well as the amount spent on administration. In 2002 the total was $82.5 million, and in 2011 it was $100.2 million.

Also, I want to say to the member…. He also wasn't here earlier when we talked about this. Every year WorkSafe has an outside independent firm do a random survey of workers for them. In 2011 worker satisfaction survey results reached a new all-time high. There were 90 percent who were satisfied, and 74 percent of them thought the experience they'd had was either good or very good.

However, I acknowledge that there are times when things don't go well. I expect the member probably knows this, but there are a number of ways that as individual MLAs we can help workers if they're our constituents. They can ask for a review. They can go to the WCAT. They can go to the fair practices office, which is an independent office, and they can go to the workers advisers office. So there are a number of ways that we can assist a worker if they are not satisfied and have had a problem with the system.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

H. Bains: I understand that. I think we've been using many of those services that the minister has listed. But again, they are also constrained with the resources that they have. Workers advisers are so busy. It's very difficult for workers actually to get an appointment or even have them to represent them, because the resources are not what is needed.

Also, I think I want to go back to the side of rehab. The minister had said earlier that the premium for the employers is lower because the injury rate is lower. But is it also not true that the benefit levels are lower? Like 90 percent is lower than 75 percent — what it used to be — of your gross. So 75 percent of your gross used to be your loss of earning, and now it's 90 percent of your net. I'm talking about a typical sawmill worker, for example. That's where my background is. It is lower than what the 75 percent used to represent. So I think….

Also, when you look at all the other benefits that have been cut — lifetime pension is no longer there. Loss of earning pension that used to be there — rarely someone will get that. I think if the minister has some numbers to show me….

Compared to 2002, what were the total benefits paid in loss of earning pensions, and what were the total benefits paid for PPD, partial permanent disability, which used to go for a lifetime? If you could compare those numbers today versus 2001 or 1999, as the minister has used the numbers before. What are the total benefits paid in those two areas?

Also, the benefits, I think, average…. I don't know whether the average person would be the right amount, but I think 90 percent versus 75 percent of gross — if you have some calculation to show me which benefit is lower.

[2005]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite refers to some changes that were made to the system. At the time these changes were made, the long-term financial sustainability of the workers compensation was in question. Benefit levels were much higher than in other Canadian jurisdictions, and of concern, there were workers that were spending years in the system going through multiple levels of appeal. They were not getting their issues dealt with. All of these things were looked at.

The member opposite is correct that the changes did mean that benefit levels for workers did go down. What they went down to is to comparable levels to the rest of Canada. We still have benefits that are among the most generous in Canada after these changes.
[ Page 10238 ]

The member opposite wasn't here when this was canvassed before, so I'll tell him that there are five provinces and territories, including British Columbia, that provide compensation rates of 90 percent of the injured workers' net income. Some of them have time limits in place, so some of them actually reduce it.

For example, in Manitoba after the first 24 months, it goes down to 80 percent. In other provinces it can range from 75 to 80 percent. So with us having that 90 percent, tax-free and with no time limitations, we are actually at the same level as other jurisdictions in Canada and really very comparable to them.

The other thing that I would say to the member opposite is that, really, I think he must acknowledge that when the injury rate has gone down by 45 percent, it obviously completely makes sense that the benefits that are going out overall would go down. We have a 45 percent lower injury rate today than we did in 1999. That's a stunning improvement.

Of course, there are less benefits because there are 45 percent fewer workers who are being injured. I spoke about this before. What that translates into is 37,000 people in the province who previously, under the old numbers, would have been injured or even suffered a fatality, and today they're healthy and safe. Those injuries didn't happen. That is part of the reason for the lower premiums and the lower benefits being paid out.

As to the detailed questions regarding specific numbers, we've taken note of what you're looking for. We don't have them with us, but we'll provide them to the member.

H. Bains: Thank you for that information, Minister.

It's interesting that for the minister's convenience, the minister had the numbers going back to 1999 to make your side look very good — 40 percent lower than 1999. But when we ask some questions about total benefits paid compared to 1999, the minister all of a sudden doesn't have those numbers.

I think that's something that needs to be looked at, if you have those numbers. I suggest to you that the benefits paid in total PPD back in 1999 to today would be much lower today.

There is no lifetime pension anymore. It ends at 65 — if you are lucky enough to qualify and you are awarded that. Also, the lost time earning — if you're lucky enough to get that to 65 — those numbers would be lower as well. So if you take a look at what benefits are paid in those two categories, they would be lower than they were in 1999.

The minister has to admit that yes, if you have those statistics, that is 40 percent lower injury than 1999, but the fact also remains that the benefits are also reduced. That is also another factor — and at the expense of the workers who are injured, workers whose benefits are lowered and whose pensions are no longer lifetime pensions and fewer qualify for loss of earnings to age 65.

[2010]

All of those are the factors. The workers are telling us that yes, the premiums are lower. The minister could brag about that. The injuries are lower. Sure, that's good that injuries are lower. But at the same time the benefits are lower, and that's why the premium for the employer is lower as well. So it is at the expense of the workers, the injured workers, that the premiums are lower for the employers.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We provided the detailed information about vocational rehabilitation benefits because one of the other members was requesting that information. The other information, in fact, the information about loss of earnings and loss of function, the ten-year history, is actually on the website. It's publicly available. The other detailed information that the member has requested — we're certainly pleased to collate that and provide it for the member.

You know, the member is correct. I am absolutely celebrating the reduction of injury rates by 45 percent. I really would have thought that everyone would celebrate that, that we would all be just delighted that there are that many workers who've avoided injuries because of their hard work, because of their employers' hard work and because of the steps that WorkSafe has taken. It's an excellent track record, and I really don't think that being really pleased about that would be an issue that would be in dispute on anyone's part.

The other thing, I think, that is really worth mentioning is that here in British Columbia we have WorkSafe B.C., which is on solid financial footing, that is not in the red, that does not have a whole bunch of unfunded liability such as we see in other provinces.

The real concern about that is that WorkSafe won't be there for the future, that it won't be there for workers in the future. So I certainly do speak strongly in support of that sustainability, which we don't see in all the other provinces in Canada and certainly not in all the states.

R. Chouhan: Let me ask some questions about executive compensation. What is the salary of the CEO of the Workers Compensation Board?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's great that the estimates for the ministry are attracting such an excellent crowd here. Obviously, this is the place to be in terms of everybody who is anybody is here. I think the member opposite would agree with me.

The executive compensation is the question at hand. Reminding the member opposite that this is an employer-funded program. This is all published on the website and in the annual report. The salary of the president and CEO is $270,000. The total compensation is $452,860, and that does include benefits, a bonus and other earnings in that total.
[ Page 10239 ]

[2015]

R. Chouhan: My understanding is that the president and CEO's salary was increased in 2010 to a total of $452,860. Am I incorrect?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That is the exact number that I just stated for the total compensation, $452,860, including all…. That's his total compensation.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister explain this? I understand that in the contract, also, there's a so-called incentive plan. How does it work? What are the criteria to use it?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The performance bonus is based on a series of key performance indicators which, again, are published.

The key performance indicators include reducing the provincial injury rate, reducing the average short-term claim duration, improving return-to-work outcomes for workers in vocational rehabilitation, improving timeliness of initial short-term disability payments, improving injured workers' rating of overall experience, improving employers' rating of overall experience, raising public confidence, achieving 100 percent of the target asset level, attaining an aggregate premium rate between $1.25 and $2.25 per $100 of assessable payroll, controlling administration costs and improving decision-making throughout WorkSafe B.C., ensuring consistency with legislation and policy.

R. Chouhan: I don't know how to react to this — that one of the criteria to get this bonus is reduce the claim duration. Again, if you hurt workers, if you don't pay them for their injuries, if you don't pay them enough for their pension, then you are rewarded. You get an additional bonus.

Is that the criterion? Does the minister agree with that kind of criterion — to justify that the management staff will get more bonuses when the workers are not getting enough money for their disability claims?

[2020]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm advised that WorkSafe has actually entered into discussions and cooperation, working with their union to shorten how long workers are off. What they're going to address are two things. One is to reduce the serious-injury rate, and the other is to focus on healthy, durable return to work for workers.

The other thing that I can actually speak to from my own experience as a family doctor is addressing things like getting people into rehab sooner, getting their injuries dealt with sooner — basically, being more responsive to the injured workers so that they return to health sooner and are able to return to work sooner.

Those are the kinds of things that are being focused on. I certainly think that any worker would support that — anything that can be done that addresses their needs more quickly, is more responsive to their needs and gets them back to feeling better sooner. One of the bonuses is returning to work, but it's also just, as a whole person, their return to health sooner. That's a benefit 24-7, whether you're at work or not.

R. Chouhan: I'm in a kind of shock. Really, I don't know how to describe this. Is the minister telling me that they reached this agreement in conjunction with their union — to set up this bonus system? Is there a bonus system for workers who return to work faster than they're supposed to? You know, is there a bonus for them? Or is it only a bonus available for the managerial staff?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I wanted to make sure that I didn't misspeak. I apologize for the delay to the member opposite.

What has happened is that WorkSafe B.C. recently was in negotiations with their union. They've entered into an agreement, and this is supported by the union. It's a gain-sharing agreement, and there are actually three aspects to it.

The things that the employer and the union are going to work on together are focusing on reduction in serious injury; improving healthy, durable return to work for workers; and, focusing on improvements in customer service. The union is in agreement that that is one of the things that's important and that they, too, want to work on.

The gain-sharing means that the workers can benefit from up to a 2 percent wage increase as a result of this agreement which they entered into. It was negotiated with them, and they've agreed to it.

[2025]

R. Chouhan: Given that we're running out of time, I'm going to ask a series of questions and maybe the minister can answer all of them together to save some time.

First of all, the CEO, president's contract — his salary was increased in 2010. What was the level before? Two, the question is: what's the term of his contract? Is it a fixed-term agreement or is it an open-ended contract? Three, the executive bonus system applies to, I believe, all non-union, management staff there? Also, my fourth question is, is this exact bonus system available for adjudicators and the review officers?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, the compensation for the CEO. The CEO and senior staff salaries have not changed since 2009. Their base salary has remained the same. The bonuses vary depending on the targets that are achieved, so they can vary from year to year.

The term — there is no term. The president serves at
[ Page 10240 ]
the pleasure of the WorkSafe board.

The incentive system, the bonus system, is available for management and exempt staff. They can receive up to 10 percent, and the performance indicators are the same as they are for the CEO.

So that means that review officers could benefit from this. But adjudicators are not…. They are part of the union. However, they can participate in the gainsharing agreement that I described to the member opposite earlier.

R. Chouhan: I have one last question before I ask my colleagues to ask their questions. What's the total cost of the case management system that was installed, including the executive compensation?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The capital cost of the case management system was $87 million.

R. Chouhan: Will the minister agree with me that the CLBC has now eliminated the bonus system? And will the minister instruct the Workers Compensation Board, also, to eliminate the bonus system for the executive members?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I would again refresh the memory of the member opposite that this is different. This is an employer-funded area; it is not taxpayer-funded.

[2030]

WorkSafe is separate from government. They have a board which hires the CEO, and they direct things like compensation and performance bonuses, and so on.

K. Conroy: I'm asking a similar question, which I've asked last year and the year before and the year before that. I've probably been asking it since 2005.

In 2002 legislation was passed here in Victoria. Workers filing claims after turning 65 were denied compensation, not able to get disability payments for any occupational disease.

I had a constituent who was diagnosed with asbestosis and died from mesothelioma just shortly after he retired. Enno and his wife, Loretta, had plans to spend their retirement together. They were very healthy when he retired. They were going to travel, enjoy time with their sons and their grandchildren.

He died an angry man that Loretta, who was only 68 when he passed away, was not going to get any compensation for the asbestosis, and thus for the mesothelioma, that he contracted working at Cominco, which is now Teck.

Asbestosis and mesothelioma are one of the leading causes of death of workers in this province. I want to know, through the Chair to the minister, if they know the number of workers who have actually died from asbestosis or mesothelioma since 2002.

[2035]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: My understanding is that 50 percent of all the fatalities that are reported are from asbestosis. The member has alluded to the significance of this, and it's true. This is a very high proportion of the fatalities in the province.

I'm told that if the individual is diagnosed before they are at age 65, then their spouse would qualify for survivor benefits. They would be available. However — and this was canvassed before; we discussed this, but I don't believe the member was here — the compensation is seen as wage replacement, with an assumption that people would retire, on average, at around age 65, and the wage replacement program does end at retirement.

K. Conroy: The reality is, though, that people get the disease, get mesothelioma or asbestosis when they're working. There's no compensation for them after they're 65, but there should be. There used to be in 2002. In the '90s there was compensation, and now we have widows and families who are suffering because there isn't.

So I will continue to ask: when is there going to be compensation reinstated for these people who are obviously becoming ill and dying because of work-related injury? I think that it's unfortunate that it continues to happen. I hope the minister will consider that this really needs to be taken into consideration, that people need to be compensated for work-related injuries and work-related death.

I know this isn't something that the minister can answer tonight. I would appreciate it if we could get the information in the near future on how many people actually died and the numbers of people that received compensation. I'm going to ask again if there is any chance that regulations will be changed so that people who die from mesothelioma, who obviously have a work-related injury, can be compensated, or their families can be compensated, even if it's not diagnosed until after they have retired.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We'll certainly endeavour to get the numbers that the member opposite has requested.

R. Chouhan: Just continuing with this asbestos issue — just one question on that, and then I'm going to conclude after that. Will the minister agree to create a centralized registry database for all public buildings and all workplaces with potential asbestos-containing materials to eliminate risk from future disturbance?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: To the member opposite: I certainly have heard what you've had to say. I think the member will understand when I say that I would not be prepared to create policy here in the House.
[ Page 10241 ]

G. Gentner: Just one quick question on asbestos. What's happened as of March 1 is an order from WorkSafe B.C. means that all drywall that has asbestos in it — and most drywall that's in the '80s and earlier has asbestos in it — has got to be certified and tested by laboratories at an expense of $20 to $80 to $100, whether you're an improvement person or not. That's the order of WorkSafe B.C.

Will the minister not agree with me that with this new type of order there will be new disposition or dumpster disposal on streets everywhere else — in the city of Vancouver and the Lower Mainland? The city of Surrey spent $800,000 just picking up garbage on the streets. I understand the intent of the order, but will the minister be positive and suggest to this forum that this new order will not create new dumpster sites of asbestos-lined drywall in the Lower Mainland?

[2040]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, a number of the members opposite have articulated clear concerns about asbestos, which I would share. What this has done is to strengthen the regulations regarding the removal and disposal of asbestos, which I would have thought the members opposite would have been very supportive of.

R. Chouhan: We don't have much time to ask many more questions, or any question anyway. I have on my list a question that I wanted to ask about mental stress injuries, the relief of cost, section 39(1)(e) — a question that I needed to ask. I had questions about Burns Lake, Babine Forest Products, WorkSafe, mushroom compensation deaths and Grant's law. All those questions are important questions that we need to explore. Hopefully, in the near future we will have another forum where we can continue to discuss it.

Given the time that we're now reaching, a quarter to nine, I just want to say thanks to the minister and to staff for participating in these budget estimates and for the answers you have provided. I will be waiting to get all the information that you did not have today, but you will send it to me so we can look at it. If there are any further questions that need to be asked, we'll contact the minister's office. Thank you very much.

Vote 38: ministry operations, $66,974,000 — approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just before I continue, very quickly I would like to thank the members opposite for their questions and express my gratitude to the senior staff who have assisted me very capably.

Vote 39: Shared Services B.C., $439,744,000 — approved.

Vote 40: government communications and public engagement, $26,155,000 — approved.

Vote 41: labour programs, $15,713,000 — approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:44 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada