1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
SUNDAY, MAY 30, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 13
[ Page 6625 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, our galleries are full today, and I recognize many faces representing provincial and district people -- teachers, trustees and support staff. On behalf of all the House, I would like to welcome those who have come to participate by listening to the debate of the Legislative Assembly this afternoon, in the interests of our children and their education.
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, there are some advantages to meeting on a weekend: my wife is able to come. Will the House welcome Joyce Anderson.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, it was a surprise for me to see a good friend who, in these days of having difficulty finding good care for children, was responsible for taking care of my young son for three years when he was just a baby. He's a very fine man and a good friend of mine: Michael Lechinsky. Please make him welcome.
L. Stephens: My husband is also able to be here today. I'd like the House to please welcome Gordon Gladu.
J. Macphail: Hon. Speaker, I was delighted to look up in the gallery today and see a woman who is a good friend, a concerned parent and an educator: Trish Main. Would the House please make her welcome.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to introduce my wife, Janet, my son Andrew and my daughter Carolyn, who are here visiting today.
Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I notice a number of ministerial assistants in the gallery, and they don't often have a chance to participate in the debate by listening in person. I'd like to make all of them and any other legislative staff welcome.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I was just seeing if any more introductions are going to take place. I don't see any more, so I would like to seek leave to table a document, for the information of members, from the office of the commissioner of conflict of interest, who is with us today in the gallery.
Leave granted.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CONTINUATION ACT
Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Educational Programs Continuation Act.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: The purpose of this bill is to support collective bargaining where it is working and to fix it where it is broken. This bill puts students and teachers back in the classroom in Vancouver and serves notice to those districts still bargaining that it is time to conclude their negotiations expeditiously.
We have reached a critical time in the school year in the Vancouver School District. For those students facing grade 12 provincial examinations and for all students coming to the end of their school year, it's time to get back into the classroom. Collective bargaining in Vancouver has collapsed. Despite repeated and significant efforts of the government to assist and support the bargaining process, the parties in Vancouver have shown that they are unable to resolve their differences and settle their dispute. Regrettably, students are the victims of the inability to conclude negotiations. Clearly, the situation has reached a point where urgent action is required. The government, with this bill, must now support collective bargaining where it is working and fix it where it is broken.
Therefore I ask that this bill be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to advance through all stages this day.
C. Serwa: On the last statement of the Minister of Labour, hon. Speaker, asking you to consider the matter urgent, I rise on a point of order.
The Speaker: I will accept it as a submission on that request, hon. member. Please proceed.
C. Serwa: The matter was considered urgent by both parties of the opposition some months ago. The matter was considered urgent when we debated Bill 84. The matter was considered urgent more than five weeks ago with the North Island strike at that time. No action was taken by this government. In no way can rulings of this Legislature be supported with the concept of urgency.... It's only because of the magnitude of what's happening in the home turf of the government members from the greater Vancouver area that they wish to consider it urgent. It has no support in precedent. We have been told repeatedly when we have brought up matters of urgency and importance that they should have been brought up at the first available opportunity. That moment has passed. In no way may this matter be considered urgent under the standing orders.
The Speaker: The Government House Leader on a submission on the request for urgency.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I just point out that the hon. member pointed to the situation in Vancouver. The government does not rest its case with regard to urgency on that matter, but rather, relies more heavily on the position that we take as a government
[ Page 6626 ]
that it is this time of the year and provincial exams are imminent for all students throughout British Columbia. As a consequence, urgency requires that the bill be dealt with through all stages today in this Legislature.
[2:15]
J. Dalton: I would make two points. Firstly, I'm surprised at the urgency of this matter this afternoon. We've been pressing for many weeks that this is an urgent matter. However, we'll probably deal with that in second reading. I would also point out, hon. Speaker, that in fairness the opposition has to have an opportunity to examine the content of this bill before we can accurately speak to its urgency. But if I am correct in what the Labour minister has stated in first reading, this is only going to apply as an urgent matter to Vancouver. What has happened to the other districts that are still on strike?
Interjections.
The Speaker: I have heard submissions from all three parties on the application for urgency. With the members' indulgence, I'd prefer not to hear further submissions. The Chair has reviewed the provisions of standing order 81, and given the circumstances before us today, the Chair is satisfied that this matter would qualify under standing order 81. Therefore I would suggest that we can proceed as requested.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'm mindful of the comments made by the Opposition House Leader. In furtherance of consultations between leaders, I suggest that it would be appropriate to have the bill distributed to all members of the House at this time and that the House then recess for 30 minutes so as to allow the opposition the opportunity to consider the bill.
The Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House, we will provide for the distribution of the bill at this time. We'll recess for 30 minutes and reconvene after that time.
The House recessed at 2:17 p.m.
The House resumed at 2:52 p.m.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 31.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CONTINUATION ACT
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 31.
With that said, I wish to make a few comments in support of this legislation which is now before the House. Our democratic institutions are predicated on the understanding that we, as individuals in a free society, have both rights and responsibilities. In fact, with all of the rights that are enshrined for us as individuals or as organizations, we also have responsibilities. No right in society is absolute.
The right to free collective bargaining, as a matter of public policy, has been part of our democratic institutions for some time. As a society we have always believed in the freedom to contract and in the freedom of parties to sit down across a table from one another to try to resolve their differences independently and freely as individuals.
It is largely because of the free collective bargaining system that working people have come to realize and enjoy many of the benefits that enhance the quality of life for so many British Columbians. Pensions and pension reform, employment security and health and safety provisions all have their origins within the free collective bargaining system. I think many would argue -- appropriately, in my mind -- that many of the advances in those areas would not have occurred had it not been for the benefits which flow from the free collective bargaining system.
The free collective bargaining system has existed in the public sector for some time. It is, with respect, however, different from free collective bargaining within the private sector. In a recent decision of the B.C. Labour Relations Board dealing with education -- a case involving the Board of School Trustees of School District 54 (Bulkley Valley), the Board of School Trustees of School District 39 (Vancouver) and the teachers' associations in both districts -- Stan Lanyon, chairman of the Labour Relations Board here in British Columbia, looked at public sector disputes. I think what he had to say warrants repeating in this House in the context of public sector disputes. On page 15 of his decision, Mr. Lanyon said:
"Public sector disputes, by their very nature, will affect the services which the citizens of this province hold most dearly. Even a marginal reduction or restriction of those services will attract far greater concern and generate far more pressure than a full-scale withdrawal of services in the private sector. The result, of course, is that public sector unions may assert far greater bargaining power, even in a controlled strike, than most unions can bring to bear in a full-scale dispute."
Later on that same page, he talked about teachers, but I do believe these comments applied equally to trustees. He said: "Teachers must realize that their fundamental right to bargain and engage in labour disputes will be proscribed by the public welfare." Indeed, as I will say in a few minutes, there are occasions when the public interest and the demands of public welfare require action on the part of government.
On page 16 of his decision, if I may quote one more time -- and I think it is particularly poignant with regard to the situation that we find ourselves dealing with today in this Legislature -- he said:
"A lockout or strike in the public sector is primarily an exercise in political influence or impact. In a school dispute, for instance, the elected school board officials are viewed by the union as simply one of the `employers.' The union may in fact view the `true employer' as both the government and the public. These elected officials may or may not suffer the consequences from loss of services which the public feels more acutely. The public therefore puts pressure on elected politicians, and that pressure is voiced through public meetings of
[ Page 6627 ]
parents and children and duly reported by the media. In addition to the reporting of these events by the media, there may well be editorials and additional commentary. Many members of the public feel like innocent bystanders who are unfairly affected or inconvenienced by the dispute."
Hon. Speaker, during the free collective bargaining process, teachers, trustees and legislators must always be cognizant of the various responsibilities of all parties. The desire to conclude an agreement must be reconciled with the need to minimize the impact on those who are "inconvenienced by the dispute," to quote Mr. Lanyon.
In British Columbia this year, through the responsible actions of both teachers and trustees, in a majority of cases the free collective bargaining system has resulted in issues being resolved without any work disruption whatsoever. In fact, the last time I looked -- and as I've indicated several times in this House -- some 43 of the first 50 agreements in this province were negotiated without disruption. For that, the parties must be given some credit.
In other cases there have been disruptions, and in Vancouver the system has broken down. Over the past three weeks a series of efforts have been made by government to try to bring about a resolution of the difficulties in Vancouver. We appointed a mediator to try to assist the parties in resolving their differences when they requested it. We have once again appointed a special mediator to provide the services necessary to assist the parties in trying to resolve the dispute. We have also made provision for public recommendations in the Vancouver dispute. In other disputes throughout the province -- in those few cases where there have been some -- that process has generally assisted the parties in arriving at a conclusion. We have also encouraged the parties to accept voluntary binding arbitration. All of those efforts have failed.
[3:00]
Over the past few days I have commented on the reasons for that occurring. Accordingly, the public welfare demands that government intervene, particularly at this time, with grade 12 examinations on the horizon. As a result, this legislation provides that students in Vancouver must return to the classroom immediately. In other words, schools will reopen within that school district tomorrow, and the parties will immediately commence a process of binding arbitration.
Other districts in this province are, of course, engaged in negotiations. The legislation that is now before the House provides scope for collective bargaining to continue and for the negotiations to be concluded in an orderly fashion. However, with provincial examinations three weeks away, provision is made in the legislation to ensure that the negotiations are concluded with dispatch. Accordingly, this legislation provides for the appointment of a special mediator to make recommendations, and it provides government with the option of deeming the report of the special mediator to be the collective agreement between the parties. The legislation goes further; it makes provision for a special mediator to be appointed under section 76 of the Labour Relations Code and requires the mediator to conclude a collective agreement within 36 hours after appointment. With regard to the dispute in Surrey, I wish to advise all members of the House that this morning I appointed Mr. Cott as the special mediator in Surrey in anticipation of this legislation receiving the assent of the House today. The bill also has a sunset provision: the legislation is deemed, under part 3, to be in full force and effect until March 31, 1994, or an earlier date.
This bill sends a clear message to those currently in bargaining that the government, through this bill, has additional options. Should negotiations not conclude expeditiously, government can move on the options contained in this legislation. It serves notice to all British Columbians that at the first sign that negotiations in a particular district have become dysfunctional, the options within this legislation will be exercised and utilized.
The decision to bring this legislation before the House has not been arrived at lightly. It is our firm view as a government, in keeping with my comments at the outset, that the free collective bargaining process should be afforded every opportunity to work. Regrettably, this hasn't happened. The public rightfully turns to government to intercede and protect the public interest. That is why this bill is before the House.
G. Farrell-Collins: In response to the Minister of Labour, the reason why we are here and this legislation is being brought forward today is a complete and total lack of competence of the Minister of Labour to deal with these disputes over the last three weeks and longer. That's why we're here today.
The strategy of this Minister of Labour to deal with labour disputes in the last three weeks -- particularly the Vancouver dispute, but others also -- has been to: (1) blame the trustees; (2) blame the opposition; and (3) blame the conflict-of-interest commissioner for tying the hands of the Premier. This minister is the one who has been responsible, and it's this minister and this government, in the next election, who will pay the price for their inaction over the last three weeks.
In preparing for this debate -- which I knew was to come eventually, because eventually the government would have to intervene -- we looked through the past estimates and comments of the New Democratic Party when they were in opposition. It's amazing to hear some of the things they said. In fact, it really highlights where the true responsibility for the province-wide labour disputes in the education field lies. It falls squarely on the shoulders of the NDP government and the litany of raised expectations and broken promises over the last three or four years. It is a tragedy.
If we look back at some of the comments, particularly of the current Minister of Education when she was in opposition.... We have a press release here from the New Democratic Party when they were in opposition. We can see the lead-up to the raised expectations that the NDP had and the fact that they had been priming this pump for a long time. Now it has come back to haunt them. The then-critic for Education said: "Clearly, extra money and the adoption of the Sullivan report is a move in the right direction, given the deteriorating
[ Page 6628 ]
condition of schools, overcrowded classrooms and the extreme difficulty local boards continue to have in meeting budget requirement...." She went on to say: "Underfunded school boards will likely have no choice but to levy higher taxes to accommodate their budget requirements." This is what they're going to do when they're in government. It goes on, and I think this is most interesting, given the events of the last three weeks: "The Socreds are playing political games with our children's education."
Hon. Speaker, we have seen games being played and foot-dragging by this government for the last three weeks and also for the last six to eight weeks around this province. This Premier went around the province prior to the last election and promised everything to everybody. They promised bridges here; they promised transit there; they promised more money for schools; they promised to get rid of every portable in the province; they promised more money for teachers and for health care workers. And now, when finally the NDP has run smack headlong into the brick wall of reality, they realize that there just isn't any more money and that the taxpayer has had enough. The raised expectations of every single New Democratic member who sits in this House on both sides are the reason that the Vancouver teachers are out today, that schools and students around this province are out of classes and that this House is sitting on a Sunday.
Hon. Speaker, we have seen the most incredible abdication of responsibility that any government in this province has ever perpetrated on the public of British Columbia. We have an amazing chronology of events that have taken place over the last little while. First we had all the strikes that took place around the province. We had the dispute on North Island and the one in Powell River, which, quite frankly, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, through his intervention and activities, did more to settle than this minister did. Perhaps if he had involved some Liberals in the process, he would have settled the Vancouver dispute a long time ago.
If we look at some of the things that have taken place over the last little while, we can see that as early as January 5, teachers in Quesnel began a series of rotating strikes, which disrupted schools in their district. Even before that, teachers were in job action and were not filling out report cards, not marking, etc. So this dispute isn't something new that has sort of cropped up on the government all of a sudden. These teachers have been without contracts for almost a year in many cases. The Education minister knew that we were headed for a difficult time; the Labour minister knew that we were headed for a difficult time. And I sure hope, although I'm not convinced, that the Premier knew we were headed for a difficult time in this province.
We had the obscene comments made in this House, and it's absolutely incredible that we would hear them. Once the teachers in Vancouver had been out on strike for a whole week -- a week and a half, actually, I think it was -- the Minister of Education said.... Do you know what her answer to the problem was? She stood up in this House -- or through the media -- and said: "This week we'll be developing an action plan to deal with the problem." Twelve months after the problem was on the horizon, finally the government gets around to developing an action plan. I consider that to be gross incompetence, and I'm sure most students, teachers and parents in this province think exactly the same way.
Hon. Speaker, we had the ridiculous actions of the Minister of Labour last week. On Thursday the minister said: "We'll give them 24 hours and then we'll act." Finally, after three weeks, we're going to see something come out of this government. The media set their stopwatches, and the rest of us knew full well that nothing was going to happen in that time. Then as the next day progressed, we found that in fact the deadline of this minister was getting longer and longer and longer, to the point that this minister called an emergency meeting of the NDP cabinet. They all got together in a room or over the phone -- except, of course, those who abdicated themselves from the debate. The Minister of Labour came into a cabinet meeting and said: "We want some action; I have to take some action on this dispute." But he came unprepared. After a year, knowing this problem was on the horizon, and after three weeks of a strike, with everybody, including the opposition, prodding the minister to finally take some action, he shows up at a cabinet meeting without being prepared. His fellow cabinet ministers have to send him outside to face the media so that he can tell them: "They told me to go back and get them more information so that I can make a decision."
An Hon. Member: Were you there?
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, those are the words of the Minister of Labour.
So how can the public have any confidence whatsoever in this Minister of Labour, who has proven his incompetence time after time over the last year and a half? How can they possibly have any confidence in this minister when, after three weeks of a dispute, he shows up unprepared at an emergency cabinet meeting that he called? That is a shame.
This piece of legislation is fundamentally flawed. But I will say from the start, and I will give the commitment to the people of this province on behalf of the Liberal opposition, that despite the errors in this legislation we will put forth amendments that I'm sure the Premier, at least, will agree to, given his recent comments. But we give our assurance that this piece of legislation will pass, so that the students of British Columbia, despite the incompetence of the Minister of Labour and despite the gross negligence of this government, will be back in school tomorrow.
I don't know where the big surprise came from for this government. I don't know how, all of a sudden, we're here on a Sunday. Why couldn't this legislation have been dealt with on Friday? Why couldn't it have been dealt with on Thursday, or Wednesday, or Tuesday, or Monday, or last Friday when this House adjourned, so that these people could go home for the weekend? Why didn't we stay here on Thursday afternoon and Friday and deal with this type of legislation then?
It's very interesting to note again the press clippings.... And Hansard is always a wonderful thing,
[ Page 6629 ]
particularly a year ago, when, because of the profligate spending of this NDP government, this House sat through the evening in order to debate the special warrants that this government brought in during their first six months of government. The NDP howled that it was costing us $20,000 to $30,000 in overtime and satellite time to have the House sitting overnight because the opposition wouldn't let this stuff go through. How much is it costing the taxpayers of British Columbia to have the staff in on a Sunday at double time to deal with this issue? Where are the howls of protest from the NDP now? We could have dealt with this legislation on Friday afternoon, on Thursday or at any time in the past three weeks. The additional cost that this government howled about so much 12 months ago is now mere pocket change to them. The perspective of this government is amazing.
[3:15]
The Labour minister stood up and told about all the wonderful things the NDP government has been doing to try to settle this dispute over the last little while. The fact of the matter is that everybody in this House, everybody in the public, everybody in the media and everybody not in class on Friday or tomorrow knows that the Liberal opposition brought up this very scenario last December during the debate on Bill 84. Had this government and this incompetent Minister of Labour taken the advice and the amendments of the Liberal opposition at that time, we wouldn't be where we are today, and in particular, the grade 11 and 12 students of this province would be back in school where they belong.
We saw the most amazing amount of arrogance and smugness on behalf of the Minister of Labour during the debate on Bill 84. He knew everything. He knew that this was good legislation. He knew that it was going to serve the educators and the students of this province well. He knew that there weren't going to be any labour disruptions. But we see, once again, the fact that this Minister of Labour really isn't quite as smart as he thinks he is.
Some Hon. Members: And you are.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Speaker, I think I've been proven correct, and the Minister of Labour has been proven wrong.
Had the government and this Minister of Labour accepted the constructive opposition that was given to him, the amendments that were put forward by the opposition last December, we would not be in this situation we are in today -- and that's just a start.
But we knew that perhaps we should give them a second chance. Sometimes things are slow to sink in on the other side, as we've seen particularly in the last three weeks. So we gave them another chance. At the beginning of this session I tabled a piece of legislation, an Essential Services Act, which would have made education an essential service. Given what we saw on the horizon, it would have given the Minister of Labour and the government the ability to deal with this and other disputes that were on the way. Again, the Minister of Labour, in his arrogance and smugness, shrugged it off and refused to bring that legislation forward. I think that is a shame. Now here we have the third chance for the minister to do it right, and he's blown it again. All you have to do is read the legislation.
Weeks ago the Liberal opposition called for a cooling-off period -- another possibility to solve the dispute and get the students back into the classroom. The minister shrugged his shoulders and gave his sly little smile and said: "No, no, we don't need to do that; I know better. I'm going to appoint a special mediator. I'm going to go through all of this process. I'm going to do all of this song and dance. I, the Minister of Labour, in my wisdom, in my extreme ability, am going to solve this dispute single-handedly, all on my own." Well, hon. Speaker, look where we are today.
There was another option that was put forward to the government. The Leader of the Third Party asked the Premier to finally take some responsibility for what's going on in this province, to finally take some responsibility for the students in this province, and to ask -- do nothing more than ask -- the teachers not to go on strike until the end of June, much like the teachers in Kamloops did voluntarily. He asked the Premier to show some leadership, to give some guidance, by asking the teachers not to go on strike. Hon. Speaker, the Premier refused.
Where has been the leadership from this Premier? Where has been the leadership from the Minister of Labour? Where has been the leadership from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Economic Development? Where has been the leadership of any of these people in the NDP cabinet over the last three weeks, the last eight weeks, the last year? It has been nowhere. But the blame doesn't just lie with the members of the cabinet. It lies with every single New Democratic MLA who sits in this House today. They were part and parcel of the show that toured around this province prior to the last election promising everything to everybody. I've looked through their campaign literature, and it's amazing what they offered people. They offered everything to everybody, and they told them that there was going to be money from heaven for education. The teachers of the province were going to get paid more, and the support workers were going to get paid more. Everybody would have new schools; there would be no portables. All it would take would be one X on the ballot from the people of British Columbia, and all the problems in education would be solved.
Every single one of the 51 MLAs from the New Democratic caucus in this House today engaged in that same type of political deception. They made promises that they knew they couldn't keep. It is precisely because of that lack of responsibility and those broken promises that we are here today debating this piece of legislation. Quite frankly, the students of British Columbia have been out -- particularly those in Vancouver, who have been out for three weeks, though many of them have been out for as much as six weeks -- because of the deception and misleading comments in the stuff that the NDP put out in the last election.
One of the other interesting things that we saw develop over the last little while, as this legislation was
[ Page 6630 ]
being developed -- or so we were told.... The Minister of Labour told us he was developing legislation; he had a galaxy of options and this was one that he was preparing for. We saw once again the total ineptness -- I don't know how else you would describe it -- of this government, particularly the Premier, in setting a deadline to settle this dispute. One morning the Premier said that he had a deadline in mind but he wasn't going to tell anybody what it was -- his imaginary deadline with his imaginary friends.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Peace River North says that nobody had told him yet. It reminds me of last fall when nobody told the Premier when the House was going to sit, and the Minister of Finance had to call a press conference in order to set the record straight for the Premier.
As we look at the lead-up to this piece of legislation and what's included in it and why we're at the stage we are today.... An incredible process took place over the last 72 hours. The Minister of Labour adjourned the House so that we could call the House back during the weekend if it was necessary. A few hours later -- after he had been chastised by his cabinet colleagues -- he said that nothing would be happening until Monday, and the House wouldn't be sitting until Monday. The next day we hear on the radio that the Premier has stepped in and decided that the House will sit on Sunday, and the Minister of Labour was wrong all along.
This is exactly the type of dithering and administrative incompetence that we've seen out of this government -- not just in education, but in a wide range of things, including the last budget, which the Minister of Finance had to backtrack on. Quite clearly, this government can't manage, not only the economy of this province, but education, and that is why we have got this bill in front of us. As we go through the bill clause by clause we'll see that the government can't even manage that. It couldn't even put together a piece of legislation that's going to work.
I have grave concern about the section in this bill which allows the Minister of Labour to appoint the arbitrator, because of the blatant prejudice and bias shown by him over the last week and a half. Time after time we have had examples of the Minister of Labour saying to the media that it's all because of the trustees: those incompetent, irresponsible trustees out there are causing this whole dispute. He has blamed the trustees for this dispute, and all the trustees were trying to do was fall within the budget guidelines that the Minister of Finance and the other hon. member sitting beside the Premier gave them in the form of a budget. That's what they were elected to do.
The fact that this minister has shown his bias in favour of the teachers and against the boards indicates that he is not competent to appoint the arbitrator. It indicates that not only does the public not have any confidence in him and his ability, but his own cabinet doesn't have any confidence in him and his ability. Given the past history in this province and in jurisprudence that took place during the previous disastrous administration that the NDP government had, the Liberal opposition will be calling for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appoint that arbitrator, not the biased Minister of Labour.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: We hear laughter from the members opposite. The fact is that there is significant jurisprudence to allow for that, and quite clearly in this case it is required, given the comments of the Minister of Labour over the last little while. I find it amazing that the members of the New Democratic Party would find that somehow that is news to them, given the number of them who are currently -- or in the past have been -- active in the trade union movement, particularly in the field of education. I've got pages and pages describing their activities in the trade union movement in this province, so I would think that those members would be aware of that precedent and would be aware that that's a legitimate thing for the people of this province to seek from their government.
One of the other things I want to talk about -- and perhaps it's unfortunate -- is the similarities between this piece of legislation and the legislation that was brought out by the last NDP government we had in this province. Quite clearly, as they say, it's d�j� vu all over again. We are in a situation now, after 18 months, where this government has fallen to exactly the same position they were in in 1974-75: totally unable to manage the economy or labour relations in this province. If the members look back in Hansard, they will find comments made by the opposition parties when this government was last in power. It's amazing; I wish I had the quote handy. I would love to read it to them, hon. Speaker, because it was made by a member of the opposition to the then-Minister of Labour for the NDP government when they had to legislate workers back to work. It was that quite clearly the government at that time had brought in labour legislation that simply didn't work. Their bias permeated that legislation just as their bias permeated the legislation in Bill 84. As a result, this Minister of Labour passed a piece of legislation which, as the Liberal opposition said in December, clearly doesn't work. We have another piece of legislation that clearly doesn't work.
Hon. Speaker, one of the other areas that the opposition is very concerned about -- and it deals with Bill 84, which the Minister of Labour brought in last fall -- is the taxpayers' ability to pay. We are now in a situation where the budget crunch in every single school district in this province has put severe crimps on the boards' ability to settle disputes and to offer....
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm telling the Minister of Finance what the reality is and what....
[3:30]
Interjections.
[ Page 6631 ]
The Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I would call the House to order and caution the member to address the second reading of Bill 31, which is before us.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the reason for bringing that up is the reality that this government raised expectations beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay, and now they have to deal with it. The Minister of Labour has stood up in this House time and time again in question period and said that there's no more money. The Premier has stood up and said that in binding arbitration it's the taxpayer who gets hosed. That's what he said in this House. As late as this afternoon in the hallways, the Premier said that there will be no more money for the Vancouver School District -- and that's fine.
What is lacking in this piece of legislation, which the Minister of Labour has hastily thrown together, is any mention of that. The arbitrator has no clear instruction in his or her terms of reference as to what limits there are. Had the minister taken the advice of the opposition during Bill 84, he would not have removed section 137.96, which stated that the taxpayers' ability to pay must be a part of the legislation. That is what this piece of legislation is missing, and again it shows that this government brought in a piece of legislation that simply does not work.
The Liberal opposition will be putting forth an amendment in committee stage that will reintroduce sections of the old section 137.96, which will ensure that the arbitrator will take into consideration the taxpayers' ability to pay and the fact that there is no more money. I'm sure the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and the Premier will all stand up and support that amendment.
H. Lali: Dream on.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hear "Dream on from" the member for Yale-Lillooet. The other member says this is Socred legislation. The Premier said it in the hallway today, so he must be a Socred too, I guess.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I've asked the member to address his comments to the Chair.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. In closing, I want to....
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the members opposite want, I've got another hour and a half. I'd be glad to continue.
With regard to the amendment that we will put forth in forwarding committee stage of this bill, I assume that the Premier will stand by his election pamphlet, where he says: "I've consistently said we can only do what we can afford." I hope that at least one promise this Premier made during the last election will be kept. I hope that today, when we move into committee stage of this bill and the Liberal opposition puts forth that amendment on the taxpayers' ability to pay, the Premier -- keeping in mind his words, "I've consistently said that we can only do what we can afford" -- will stand up and vote in favour of that amendment to make it clear to whoever the arbitrator is that they have a duty to look at the taxpayers' ability to pay when coming to a conclusion.
We are in a situation today where education in this province is in crisis. The blame for that clearly rests with the Minister of Education, certainly with the Minister of Labour and, more importantly, with the Premier of this province, who has failed -- time after time -- to take a leadership role in British Columbia and show what he was elected for: to be the Premier of British Columbia.
We will be amending this bill. I hope that the Minister of Labour will see the errors of his legislation and that the Premier will stand up, show some leadership and support those amendments so that once and for all, we can finally get the students of British Columbia back into classes -- and not just the students in Vancouver. We will be making amendments to ensure that this legislation applies to every student in British Columbia. We will not discriminate against them just because they happen to come from outside the lower mainland.
With those remarks, I hope that the members of the New Democratic caucus, cabinet and particularly the Premier will finally show some backbone, stand up and pass some legislation for the betterment of all students in British Columbia.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to say it's a pleasure to rise on this Sunday afternoon and debate Bill 31. The reality is it should have been done one or two weeks ago. This government and cabinet should hang their collective head in shame for the lack of action, the delay and the procrastination that we've seen in this House. The Social Credit caucus and the opposition have been demanding for weeks that the government take action to get teachers back to work. We've seen the Premier, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour paralyzed by their fear of the BCTF; they've been so fearful of angering their political supporters that they've sat paralyzed; they're unwilling to take any action and unable to find any consensus in their cabinet or courage to deal with this issue in a timely and reasonable way.
On top of that, we've seen the Premier, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance hide behind the conflict-of-interest commissioner, saying: "No, we're not sure. In the abundance of caution, we're not going to deal with this." What in the world did we -- we in the broadest sense -- elect these people for? I sure as heck didn't have any part of it. These cabinet ministers brag about taking a 5 percent cut in pay. They should have turned back their paycheques on those days that they walked out of cabinet and couldn't deal
[ Page 6632 ]
with the issue. Clearly, the conflict of interest was an imaginary and a convenient one that allowed the Premier to duck and hide from an issue that was critical to British Columbians, and one in which he should have taken a leadership role. Surely the Minister of Education -- in those times that she nipped out of cabinet because of the conflict -- could have thought of something a bit more imaginative than to say that the students would probably be better off at home studying rather than in the classroom. The ministers we would have expected to take a lead role in this issue have run away and hid from it -- duck and hide. That is an absolute disgrace to the cabinet, to the Premier and particularly to the Minister of Education. They had a responsibility and they failed to act on it; they failed to live up to it.
After two weeks of neglect of duty, the government calls an extraordinary session of the Legislature in a futile attempt to try to convince British Columbians that they're showing some leadership on this issue. The fact is that they have allowed this issue to drag on so long that their opinion polls are telling them they better get the kids back in the classrooms or there is going to be serious trouble with the voters in this province. That's why we're back here today -- not because this government suddenly saw the light, but because one of their pollsters told them that public opinion suggested they had better take some action, and they had better take it quickly. That's why we've got this extraordinary session of the Legislature and that's why we have the extraordinary expense that goes with it.
I'd like to see the number of jet rides that were scheduled over the weekend to ensure that the cabinet was back here today -- this government that brags about its management of the financial affairs of this province. If they were on the ball and doing their job, we would have been dealing with this issue last week when the ministers, the cabinet and the opposition were here. But no, we dither through Friday afternoon and Saturday morning; still can't make up our minds; then we are called back to an extraordinary session of the Legislature. We are here because students and parents finally got so angry with this government that it didn't have the courage to hold out any longer. The government's fear of the voters finally overcame their fear of the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Teachers' Federation.
The responsibility for this crisis in our education system rests clearly with the government, the NDP caucus and the party. It started in opposition and it went through the election campaign. It started in the raising of expectations....
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The Minister of Finance asked if we exchange notes. Some things, Mr. Member, are so apparent and so obviously true that anyone considering them would come to the same conclusion.
It started in opposition, with the unrealistic expectations that were raised. It went on through the campaign. The promises that were made to people -- perhaps out of sheer ignorance, perhaps out of a sheer lack of understanding of what was involved in government, or failing that, a willing misleading of the people they were making the promises to.... There can only be two reasons that the government misled people and raised their expectations: one is that they didn't know any better, despite having sat over on this side of the House for 20 years; or secondly, they simply and deliberately set out to mislead people. I started out today by saying that the members should hang their heads in shame. I would ask those in the House to look over at the government benches, because their heads are hung -- and so they should be.
But it was much more than simply the actions of a party desperate to be elected. It spilled over into the term of their government. We saw it early on with the granting of the 7 percent retroactive pay increase to teachers, which led to the expectations that necessitated, at the last hour, the introduction of this bill today. We saw a decision by the Premier and the Minister of Education to allow school boards to run deficits, suggesting that whatever teachers wanted, school boards should find the money to accommodate them, even if they had to run deficits. Then in its first session the government repealed the Compensation Fairness Act. Again the government was saying to public sector workers: "Don't worry about settlements in the private sector. Don't worry about the taxpayer's ability to pay. Ask and ye shall receive; ask and we will only say, `How much?'"
Those are the actions that led us to be here, on a Sunday afternoon, considering a crisis in education -- and it truly is one. But the government didn't stop there. They then lifted the freeze on salaries over $70,000 for administrators in government and education, only to hear it bemoaned by one of the government members from North Vancouver. Oh, what a travesty it was that these folks were giving themselves raises, when they were making much more than the poor folks who were unemployed. The government was already reaping what it had sown. The government rejected our call for a two-year wage freeze, raising expectations which the taxpayer simply can't afford to fulfil.
[3:45]
By its every action, the government has sent the message out to public sector workers that the money is there. Look at the bureaucracies, the patronage appointments and the hiring of people like Bob Williams and Tom Gunton and Maureen Maloney at $100,000 salaries. Those expenditures suggested to teachers and public sector workers all over the province that the money is there. Those actions led us directly to the crisis that we're facing here today. This government, this Premier, this Minister of Education, this Minister of Labour -- the whole works of them -- have to accept responsibility for the situation today.
We too are going to accommodate the passage of this legislation, because we believe it's essential that the students get back to school. But we have serious reservations about sections of the act. Sections 4 and 11 dealing with arbitration and mediation, as they are crafted in this bill, are a recipe for disaster. They are a recipe for abuse of the taxpayer and abuse of the system. The Minister of Labour has demonstrated by
[ Page 6633 ]
his actions on this issue that he's not capable of selecting an independent and unbiased arbitrator to rule over these decisions. The minister has clearly demonstrated that he's on the side of the BCTF, that he's opposed to the B.C. and Vancouver trustees and that he hangs out those trustees who have the courage to stand up for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's ability to pay. He doesn't have a whit of good sense when it comes to that. We too will be introducing amendments that will change the way in which arbitrators are to be selected and appointed. If this legislation is going to be acceptable, then taxpayers, students, teachers and everyone in the province has to have a sense that at least the arbitrator is going to be an unbiased and neutral party who can come in, assess the situation and come up with a fair ruling.
What we're going to get, if the government insists on ramming this legislation through, is Brian Foley appointed as the arbitrator, and he's going to repeat the recommendations that were accepted by the teachers and rejected by the school board. And the minister will once again be demonstrating the bias that he has on this issue. But perhaps the minister will, in his comments, or the government.... Even the Premier may be involved in this at some point. Who knows? If they can get a note over to him quickly enough, he may well respond and say that Brian Foley won't be the arbitrator in the Vancouver School Board dispute.
We are determined to see the kids back to work. We are also determined to see this legislation amended in a way that makes it acceptable. We've been brought back here on a Sunday afternoon, without even the courtesy of knowing whether we were coming back for legislation or a resolution, or knowing whether it was going to be legislation brought in by the Minister of Education or the Minister of Labour. The government has expected us to come back here and cooperate with them in passing a bill. So I'm going to throw the challenge back to the government, back to the Premier and back to the Minister of Labour: show that same cooperation, that same willingness to accomplish a goal, and consider and accept the reasonable amendments that we put forward to this bill -- because this bill should be amended.
I'm going to join with the speaker from the Liberal caucus in saying that we're not going to hold this legislation up. We're going to make sure that the kids go back to school tomorrow. But we're going to stay here as long as we have to to debate amendments to this bill. So if the government wants this bill dealt with today -- and I assume they do by their application to you, hon. Speaker, that this be considered urgent -- then deal with us in the same way that we're dealing with you.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Weisgerber: They should be so courageous as to stand up and accept amendments. They drafted this bill on the back of an envelope somewhere. It was clearly done in a rush. It was clearly done to try and jam it in here on Sunday. It clearly wasn't ready on Friday. Legislation that's drafted that quickly and with the kind of bias that the Minister of Labour demonstrates time and time again in this House and in his dealings with his responsibility would, one would expect, need amendment to make it fair and reasonable for all of the parties concerned.
So we're going to go along with the intent of the legislation, which is, in case nobody has said it, to order teachers back to work. You will recall, hon. Speaker, that this has been the primary focus of question period for the last two weeks: will the government order teachers back to work?
We recognize today that Bill 31 orders teachers back to work. That's what it's all about. What we don't like is the arbitration part of it. As the Premier has said, in binding arbitration the taxpayer gets hosed. We won't stand for a biased arbitrator, or someone who hasn't clearly been accepted by both sides as a fair and unbiased arbitrator, coming in and imposing a settlement that's been dictated and mandated by the BCTF. We're not going to have that, and that's what we're going to get if the arbitrator is appointed by the Minister of Labour. We're not going to stand for that. We want arbitrators, if they have to be, who are clearly acceptable to both parties. There should be a list, agreed to by both parties, from which the Minister of Labour might reasonably make a selection. We want to be sure that taxpayers, as well as students and parents, are protected.
With that, I'll conclude my remarks and listen with interest to the defence that we might hear from people like the Minister of Education, who has been so silent on this issue so far, and the Premier, who has for so long hidden behind the conflict-of-interest commissioner. If those folks will come out and speak on behalf of the government, as they are mandated to do, I will listen with the same intent interest that they've been so kind as to accord me.
Hon. A. Hagen: In the interests of my support for this bill, the first thing I want to note is that I will try to be brief and speak to both the principles of this bill and the context in which it comes before us today. It is important for us to use our time here in this exceptional sitting and debate to really focus on the legislation before us.
I also want to take just a moment to provide a bit of a lesson to the Leader of the Third Party, because he doesn't always do his homework, and to note that I'm proud of my background in teaching. But just to remind that member -- pointing my finger....
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan West on a point of order?
C. Serwa: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Often the Chair is very quick to remind members of the opposition to whom they should be addressing the conversation. Perhaps the Minister of Education would refer her debate to yourself, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, for that point of order.
[ Page 6634 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. From time to time the Chair has found it necessary to remind members to address their comments to the Chair. I would hope that all members will remember that in debate this afternoon.
Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's always my pleasure to address my remarks to you and through you, for your fair and equitable chairing. I might -- through you -- just note to the hon. member that yes, I am proud of my teaching background, but the last time I taught in a public school in the K-to-12 system in British Columbia was 31 years ago. It is a long time ago, but it was still a very important part of my life and a very important perception in terms of the children of the province.
I think it's important to put the debate into context. I just remind that member that in 1991, in the last session of his government, we did deal with a very long labour dispute -- the longest one, I believe -- affecting education in the northern part of the province, which he represents. It went on for six and a half weeks and through the whole summer, and was not settled for sure until the teachers and boards arrived at a settlement in September. It was a very long strike. I don't believe that at that time either the legislation of the day or the actions of the former government reflected the concerns that he has expressed today. Actions do speak louder than words -- quite often, hon. Speaker.
We are, in looking at this debate today on Bill 31, recognizing the very major responsibilities that all parties in education hold, whether we're speaking about school boards, the trustees elected to be responsible for schools in the 75 districts of the province, whether we're speaking about the people who work with our students, the teachers and the support staff who provide services for our children, or whether we're speaking about the provincial government, which provides the financial resources and direction for education. The context for our debate today is that we have arrived at a point where we believe it is essential for us to take immediate action and to provide the tools to the Minister of Labour for him to take further action if the collective bargaining system -- which is the means by which school boards and their employees come to agreements -- is not working.
Since this House met on Friday, a number of events have come to a point where action by this government was determined to be absolutely necessary. That is why we are here today, and that is why this bill is being debated. Let us look first at the situation in Vancouver, which is addressed as a part of this legislation. Until Friday, the parties to the dispute continued to seek a means whereby they could find a resolution. On Friday it finally became clear that collective bargaining was not going to arrive at a resolution for the students in Vancouver. There was a variety of efforts by those parties -- through mediation and an attempt toward voluntary binding arbitration -- but they failed to arrive at what we could see as a resolution that could assure us that the schools in Vancouver would be opened before the end of the school year.
This legislation addresses a situation where the collective bargaining system has not left us with the assurance that schools can resume. We all know that this is a couple of days before the start of June. It is a little less than three weeks before the start of exams for grade 12 students, and other students are coming to the end of their school year. The public interest for our children now needs to be addressed.
[4:00]
Let's look at other events that occurred over this weekend as well. In another dispute in Bulkley Valley, mediation has -- as it has in 57 districts -- assisted the parties to a resolution. The short work stoppage that took place there is now resolved and those students will be going back to work on Monday. In other areas the collective bargaining system is still at work. But we have to ensure that if that collective bargaining system does not result in a collective agreement, then we will have the tools -- through this legislation -- to take action. Surrey is the largest district still affected by a withdrawal of services by the teachers. The parties in Surrey have agreed to go back to the negotiating table on Monday, with the assistance of a mediator. I believe in that his comments introducing second reading of this bill the Minister of Labour stated that that mediator has now been asked to take on the role of a special mediator, which means that his comments will be made public.
Within this legislation, we have provided the kind of stringent time frames that are saying that at this point the parties must resolve disputes quickly. If they fail to do so, there are tools within this legislation to allow the Minister of Labour to act very quickly to ensure that there will be a resolution. This bill is about the need for us to bring an end -- in this school year -- to the immediate disputes that are affecting not only grade 12 students, whose exams are coming soon, but all students in the districts affected.
This bill also continues to state to all parties that there is isn't a unilateral responsibility for any of these decisions. We all hold responsibilities here. I want to come back to the importance of trustees' responsibilities at the district level, and where we have disputes that affect teachers, the teachers are also involved. In our democratic society and system of free collective bargaining we do not say that one party is responsible for the resolution of disputes. The public interest always exists in the context of free collective bargaining.
That context and that responsibility for Vancouver have brought us to the point where government, through this legislation, says that we can no longer rely on the parties to arrive at a resolution. There is a clear course of action that will, with the passage of this legislation, have students back to school with an imposed settlement through binding arbitration. With the other districts, there is still a latitude and a recognition of the responsibility that lies with those parties, but I want to make it very clear that the responsibility they must assume at this time has very stringent time lines upon it. If they are not able, within that time frame, to arrive at an agreement that brings an
[ Page 6635 ]
end to the disputes, then the minister has the power to act.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
The purpose of the bill is to recognize that all of us have a responsibility for the welfare and education of our children. We also have a responsibility within the systems of law and labour relations and collective bargaining to exercise our responsibilities in a way that the public can rely upon. With this legislation, I believe that the responsibilities of all parties are defined. People are given the opportunity to exercise their right to collective bargaining and to arrive at an agreement in a timely way. If they do not, government then has the means to ensure that students are back to work. It is not a light thing for us to impose mechanisms that bring binding results to any collective agreement. It is one that all parties -- trustees, people who work in our school districts, people interested in public welfare within the context of collective bargaining -- must examine very carefully. This bill has been crafted with those responsibilities and accountabilities in mind, and in the context of the events of the past weekend we will, I believe, see results very quickly.
I want to conclude by noting that within the context of collective agreements and labour law and the budgets provided for education this year and last, the majority of school districts and their employees have arrived at agreements. There are 57 agreements in place in the 75 school districts. Among those 57, eight disputes have resulted in actual time lost from school. Many districts have lived within budgets and with the labour law that prevails in this province. It is now up to the districts that have yet to resolve their collective agreements for this year to do so. If they are not able to do so and get into a situation where a party decides to strike or lock out, then in these last weeks of the year, as we are concerned about the well-being of grade 12 students -- as well as all other students -- government has the opportunity, through the Minister of Labour, to act quickly.
This legislation will, I hope, pass the House in a way that allows the information from our deliberations to go to parents, to the workers in our schools and to students. As we deliberate on these issues and on our mutual responsibilities here in this House, and at the tables in the districts where there is still not a collective agreement in place, people should know that they need to act now and that we have acted in support of education for our children.
Hon. G. Clark: Sitting here listening to the opposition parties speak, I can't help being struck by a great irony -- in fact, hypocrisy might be a better word. To hear the Social Credit leader stand here in this House and condemn a system of bargaining that his government created is just a bit much. To see him stand in the House and puff himself up and say that one day is too long for people to be on strike in Vancouver, when his government tolerated a six-week strike in the north of British Columbia without a peep from that member or from any Social Credit member in the House, is a bit much.
It's certainly ironic to see the Liberal Whip, or whatever he is now.... House Leader -- is that what it is now? They move so often that I'm not quite sure.
Hon. M. Sihota: He's Gordon Campbell's campaign manager.
Hon. G. Clark: Gordon Campbell's campaign manager -- I think that's his title, isn't it? It's a great irony to see him stand in the House today and say that these tough budgets for Education are causing the problem, when day in and day out they stand up here and say that we're spending too much on education and that we should cut spending on education. There isn't a day that goes by when those members -- all of them, and particularly the person he's supporting for leader -- don't say that we should be cutting spending on education; we're being too generous. He says that all the time. But today he says it's our tough budgets in Education that are causing the problem. It's a great irony and a sad day, hon. Speaker, to see this kind of hypocrisy exposed in the House from a party that campaigned for constructive opposition -- a great irony.
I want to talk seriously about the legislation before us, because all of us are elected and come to this chamber from different backgrounds, different life experiences and different work experiences. There are car dealers, for example, on the other side of the House -- many of them.
Interjection. [Applause.]
Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, I missed that. Say it again.
There are five or six car dealers out of seven members of the Social Credit Party. There is a flight instructor, who is the Liberal Labour critic -- a depth of knowledge, I'm sure, in labour relations that we've come to appreciate in this House. We all come to the chamber with different perspectives, different philosophies and different ideologies. I think that's a wonderful thing about parliamentary democracy: we're all elected to represent our constituents, and we all bring to bear in this chamber different perspectives and different philosophical views. Besides the fact that people are in three parties, I'm sure there are a variety of views on a variety of subjects.
My background -- and I make no apologies for this -- is in the labour movement. The labour movement is the reason that I am in politics today. My father was a business agent for the painters' union and a business manager for a decade. I was a union organizer for four years before I was elected. I am very proud of my labour background, and that is why I'm in politics. It's certainly why I joined the NDP. It is the belief in the fundamental right of workers to organize collectively and to bargain that has motivated me to take political action and to get elected. When I spoke in this House on Bill 19 a little more than six years ago, my opposition to Bill 19 was because it put hurdles in the way of people's fundamental right to organize collectively. It's a human
[ Page 6636 ]
rights issue for people in a free society to collectively join together to pursue their collective interests, and that is why we opposed Bill 19. That is a major reason for my being in politics.
But when I spoke six years ago in this House against Bill 19, I said repeatedly that it is the right of the Legislature to intervene to act in the public interest. Members who have perused Hansard can look at that Bill 19 debate and see that members of the NDP opposition consistently said that we opposed the hurdles in the way of collective bargaining in Bill 19, but that we believed in the right of parliament to intervene in the public interest. That is where we're at today.
It is a right which should be exercised very, very carefully. It is something which parliament should exercise as infrequently as possible. The reason is this: if you believe in collective bargaining and if you believe the system works, then there has to be pressure on both parties to settle. If the government is to intervene and say to the parties that the government is going to impose a solution on the parties, then the danger is that the parties will never mature in their relationship with each other. They will never collectively bargain. They simply will rely on government to bail them out. It is something which one wants to exercise very carefully.
It is certainly immature for members of the Liberal Party and the Social Credit Party -- but particularly members of the Liberal Party -- and for anybody who understands labour relations at all to say, after one day of any strike in British Columbia, that the Legislature should intervene and bail out the parties. They don't understand how the system works, and I fear that if they were ever to form the government, we would have chaos in this province.
[4:15]
With this Liberal Labour critic's ignorance of collective bargaining and his irresponsibility in this House, I would fear if he were ever given the power of office -- because it is a delicate situation. It's a balancing of interests and a balancing of parties, which works very well if left to work in a mature way. Forty-three out of 50 school districts have settled. They have bargained without reference to the provincial government. They have bargained together, they have fought it out, and they have arrived at a mutually agreeable conclusion. The collective bargaining system works if you allow it to work its way through.
We have a new system of bargaining in the school system; it is only a few years old. This is, in fact, the second time we've gone through 75 school districts bargaining, and it has worked remarkably well in a majority of districts. I believe the system can be made to work. Clearly there are problems, and that is why we're here today.
In the Vancouver school system the collective bargaining system has failed. We have an obligation to intervene, as I said at the outset, in the public interest. This parliament can and should intervene in extraordinary circumstances, when the system has failed. I regret very much that we are here today intervening in this dispute, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Frankly, it is very clear that we could not reach a settlement. It is clear that in the Vancouver School District the bargaining system has collapsed. It is also clear that in those districts which have not settled there is still a chance to make the bargaining system work. We are determined not to use the power of the state to intervene in those districts and let the parties off the hook, because I fear that in doing so we are laying the groundwork for more fundamental change.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: The collective bargaining system can work. It works remarkably well across the public and private sectors in British Columbia. It has worked in a majority of school districts, but it has not worked in Vancouver. Because the students in Vancouver are facing exams, because of the time of year and because we are in a very difficult situation in Vancouver, the bargaining system has failed. We have an obligation to students and parents in this province to ensure that those students have a chance to participate in provincial exams, and we have chosen to exercise that option.
In this bill we have also chosen to support collective bargaining in those other districts, and where it fails we have the ability to intervene to try to expedite collective bargaining, if we can, and to impose a settlement through that bargaining process.
Extraordinary action on the part of the government has happened today to deal with where the collective bargaining system has failed. It is not the end of collective bargaining. That seems to be the position of both opposition parties. They don't believe in collective bargaining in the school system....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult, with the constant interjections, for the Chair -- and I'm sure other members -- to hear the member who has the floor. I should remind hon. members that I have heard reference to the member's personal name, and we certainly all know that members should not be addressed personally but by their constituencies when they have been recognized.
Would the hon. minister please proceed.
Hon. G. Clark: When listening to the opposition, the obvious conclusion is that they are opposed to collective bargaining in the education system. At the first sign of a dispute, opposition members in this House demand government intervention. It is an irresponsible and immature position for members opposite, which is simply not tenable. It is my view that it would be a tragic mistake to throw away a system which has worked in the majority of districts just because it has failed in one.
We are here to find a resolution to the Vancouver situation and get children back to school. As well, we are here to say that we want the collective bargaining system to work in those other districts, and we are putting in means which will ensure that collective bargaining has a chance to happen. We believe it can and will work.
[ Page 6637 ]
I take no delight in rising today to support this legislation. I believe very strongly that we have an obligation to intervene from time to time. It is a position which we have taken in opposition; it's a position which I have taken in opposition. We believe that parliament has the right to intervene in extraordinary circumstances. We are doing that today. We must be very careful that the collective bargaining system is not undermined by this action. It is in fact enhanced, because this bill allows collective bargaining to take place in those other districts and provides a means for expediting a resolution.
W. Hurd: I have just listened to a 20-minute dissertation on collective bargaining in this province without one mention of the young people and students of this province -- not one mention.
Hon. Speaker, before researching to speak to this particular bill, I decided to find out what this government said in the throne speech about education and the importance of courage. I'd like to read into the record what this government said in the throne speech about the need for courage, because it will put the reason why we're here today in perspective. The government said that to ensure public access to accomplish these goals in education:
"...the men and women of this assembly must work together in good faith. As public servants, we must stand firm in the face of criticism, resist entrenched interests and dedicate ourselves to the future of our province.
"As leaders of British Columbia, let us draw inspiration from those who have gone before us.... These British Columbians, along with countless others who have built this province from its beginning, all have one quality in common: they had the courage to change... Do we have the courage, imagination and commitment to lead this province into the twenty-first century and build a British Columbia we are proud to leave to our children?"
They mentioned children in the throne speech, but not once have they mentioned them here today -- not once.
Hon. Speaker, I always enjoy reading into the record another campaign promise of the current government, because they make such wonderful reading on special occasions like this: "A New Democrat government will make sure that the young people throughout B.C. get the best possible education. It's the best investment we can make in our future." It goes on: "Educators will get the respect they deserve...." That's why we're here on Sunday, ordering an end to a strike that the school board has said they can't settle; and educators have been on the picket lines for some time. "Elected school boards and college boards will have their mandate restored." The Minister of Labour, throughout this dispute, has sided with the BCTF, said that the school boards aren't negotiating in good faith and ordered them to bite the bullet. That's how this government restores the elected mandates of college boards.
If we go back and look at the seeds of this dispute, the reasons why we're here today, as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has indicated, go back to the debate on Bill 84, when the opposition stood in this assembly, with considerably less people than are in the audience today, in late-night sittings, arguing on behalf of retaining education as an essential service in this province. At that time, I read into the record a letter from Jack Finnbogason of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, who told this government that if they removed the essential services designation in that bill, he could not keep the schools of the province open in the event of labour disruptions. He couldn't keep them open, because there was no mechanism of providing for an essential level of service to keep the schools open.
That's what this is all about, hon. Speaker. This government knew back then that we were headed for a kind of conflagration in collective bargaining in the school system and that the schools would not be able to stay open in the event of a strike. They were prepared to accept that. The Minister of Finance stood in the chamber today and said that collective bargaining outweighs any other consideration in this province, even the rights of parents and students. That's what he said a few minutes ago in this assembly.
A few short days ago, in a rugby field near this assembly, two teams from the Vancouver district were on the sidelines watching the B.C. rugby championships. They were there because they couldn't get the approval of the B.C. Teachers' Federation to appoint a chaperone to accompany them to those championships. We laugh. It's a rugby championship, and what does it mean in terms of the overall strategy of debate in this House? Well, hon. Speaker, what kind of lesson are the young people of the province learning about the way in which the members of this assembly, the union and some trustees deal with education in our province? What are they learning as they stand on the sidelines as spectators at a championship which they have spent four or five years preparing for? What kind of lesson about the glorification of collective bargaining will they take with them as they go about their lives, having been denied an opportunity they worked five years for?
There are no answers from this government. All they can do is talk about the need to preserve the wonderful mechanism of collective bargaining, even when it isn't working. The members of this government have the audacity to stand and suggest that just because a majority of school districts have settled, somehow the rest should cave in as well. The members from the district of Surrey, for example, know full well that fast-growing districts like Surrey, Langley and others were never in a position to accept the kinds of settlements that exist in other districts -- there was no possibility.
Trustees have told the opposition and this government that they couldn't settle. There was no money to offer at the bargaining table. Given that overwhelming message to this government, what was their solution in the debate on Bill 84? It was to remove education as an essential service, which forced students in my own district of south Surrey to meet in study halls and in public buildings to prepare for provincial examinations.
This government really doesn't care anything about students, despite its campaign promises. If it cared anything about students, this bill would order a 30-day cooling-off period for every school district in the
[ Page 6638 ]
province that is currently on strike. Instead, it's business as usual in those districts that are still on strike, and the government still refuses to summon up the courage it needs to order an end to this lunacy in the public school system of the province. All they can do, in a special sitting of this Legislature, is say that despite everything, somehow the collective bargaining system in those districts that are on strike is going to get us through -- never mind what the students and parents are experiencing and never mind provincial examinations, which we have raised in this House for weeks.
[4:30]
We're not talking about an emergency that suddenly occurred in the last week; we're talking about a pattern of strikes and lockouts in public education which has occurred throughout this province. We're talking about 110,000 students who have experienced job and classroom disruptions for a month and a half. The government has steadfastly refused to deal with it, and we find, to our consternation and amazement, that members of the executive council have been exempting themselves from key decisions on education because they don't know whether or not they're in a material conflict of interest. Talk about accepting responsibility! Talk about lessons for young people in our province and about what it means to take on responsibility!
For the Minister of Labour to kick off debate on this bill by talking about the rights and responsibilities of government is an abject and utter insult to every member of a school board that has gone into bargaining without any means of achieving a contract settlement. There is no more money. The Minister of Labour has said that there is no more money. Yet it has taken this government months to come to the point where they recognize that the benefits to students in our province outweigh any other considerations. It defies belief that this government would even now not be buying back its campaign literature, where it talks about its commitment to education, to everyone's future. Yet we're falling behind, and we've fallen a lot further behind since this government took office.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
There has been a solution available to this government from the beginning; it's accepting the fact that education in our province is an essential service. They recognized that fundamental principle during the Hospital Employees' Union strike, in which essential levels of service were designated. What is the difference between the Hospital Employees' Union and our hospitals, and public education? What is the difference between education and health care, when we have two-income families in the province, when in the district of Surrey young people have been going to work with their parents for weeks because there's a lack of anywhere to put them?
During debate on Bill 84 these things were pointed out to the Minister of Labour by members of the opposition during many lonely late-night sittings in this assembly, and they were greeted with utter contempt and derision by this minister. I think it's appropriate at this point in the debate for us to ask some hard questions about this minister and the job that he has done with his portfolio as Minister of Labour. Do trustees and people of this province any longer have confidence in this minister? Is there a shred of a reason, given the way this minister has handled his portfolio, for trustees or anyone in this province to believe anything he says?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I call the House to order and ask the member to address second reading of the bill before us.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I have to refer again to the throne speech. Do we have the courage, imagination and commitment to lead this province? Clearly the government's handling of education in this province gives the lie to the lofty promises that it made in its throne speech. There's no other conclusion that can be drawn.
One of the last lines in the throne speech is: "...history shall be our judge." I wonder how history will judge the special debate on this bill today in the House. How will history judge the need for this particular debate? There is absolutely no question about how history will judge the performance of this government on education, because it will, as always, measure it against the lofty promises that were made before the government assumed its mantle of office. It will measure the government's performance when it looks at the disruptions that have occurred in education and which are unprecedented in the history of this province. Never have we seen as many students lose as many days in this province as we've seen in the past year of this government. That's how history will judge the way this government has dealt with public education.
The thing that must really gall those rugby players, as they stood there and watched from the sidelines, is that this government claimed it was making a commitment to the young people of the province. This government claimed it understood the importance of secondary education and post-secondary education and training. It said that the welfare of our young people outweighed any other consideration -- even up to and including collective bargaining. That's what we should have assumed and what we had reason to believe. It just didn't happen.
Even as we debate this bill today, it's a bill of half-measures. It does not order a cooling-off period, and it does not meet the needs of every student in this province. It's a bill called in a state of abject crisis management by this government, which has steadfastly refused to meet its responsibilities in public education.
Hon. Speaker, this is a shameful day for this government, and it's a sad day for the students of this province who have entrusted to this government their welfare in the future. Some of them are not able to vote yet. I wonder how those rugby players who were denied five years of hard work will view this government when they are of voting age. Will they accept the vague platitudes of the Minister of Finance
[ Page 6639 ]
about the wonderful system of collective bargaining, which has utterly failed them? Will they accept the judicious wisdom of these members opposite -- some of whom could not even deal with the issue without getting the approval of Ted Hughes?
I couldn't agree more with the throne speech: "...history shall be our judge. Let us agree today to accept the challenge. Let us have the courage to change." I ask this government to change its approach to collective bargaining in public education by once again designating education as an essential service, so that never again in this province will players in sports and extracurricular activities and students facing public exams be held up to ransom by the collective bargaining system, which has no interest in their future.
I said last week in this assembly that this Minister of Labour has failed the students and parents in this province, and so he has. He has failed them again today by not ordering a cooling-off period and returning our schools to normalcy for 30 days. All we need is 30 days to carry us to the end of June. They cannot summon up the courage to do that on behalf of the young people of this province. It is shameful, but it's the kind of government that people expect. They have now come to expect that in the final analysis, this government will always put the interests of public sector workers ahead of students and parents. That is the way they operate, and they always will.
L. Hanson: Well, here we are on a Sunday afternoon at great expense to the taxpayers. Last fall we went through a process of rescinding a perfectly good piece of labour legislation. We spent months and months and untold dollars on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia to bring in Bill 84. The Minister of Labour stood up in his opening remarks and said: "It's obvious we have to fix it where it's broken." Hon. Speaker, I submit to you that if we had not gone through that process last fall, we would not be here today and we would have good labour legislation in place that would preclude this from happening.
Our party is going to support this bill with some amendments, simply because the issue of the children of the province is far too important to delay passage. Even though there are some pretty irresponsible sections in this bill, the children will get back to school and have the opportunity to complete their education and go on to higher education, and in some cases to take their place in the world of employment.
F. Garden: As union members.
L. Hanson: There's the difference in philosophy between my party and the people over there. People should have the right to work. People should have the right to employment, whether unionized or otherwise. We don't adopt a philosophy and labour legislation that makes unionization a religion. It should be the decision of those who have that decision to make. They should have the right to vote, and they should have the right to vote in secret. Bill 84 has taken all of that away.
The Minister of Finance suggested that we were the government that put Bill 20 in place. He's right; we were. But the Minister of Finance, being, I suspect, somewhat aware of accounting principles, knows that there are two sides to a balance sheet. When you take away one side and consider only the other, it distorts the picture totally. I think the Minister of Finance would accept that, because generally speaking I've seen him to be a reasonably fair person -- not completely, but reasonably fair.
Interjections.
L. Hanson: There's a good reason I'm being heckled by my own members. Not everybody on our side of this House agrees that the Minister of Finance is fair. But that has nothing to do with the bill before us right now.
[4:45]
I've heard the Minister of Finance at different times talk of leadership, and I've heard members of that cabinet talk of leadership. We believe there is a responsibility of leadership when elected to this House, a responsibility that goes much further than the simple issue of putting the teachers back to work in this situation. Let me read you something about leadership. This is a quote from the Minister of Labour on education as an essential service when we were debating Bill 84:
"...the Labour Relations Board will have the ability to make determinations as to how they interpret the provisions of this section. They will, on their own, decide which issues fall within the ambit of the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, and we will leave it up to them to make that determination."
Here is the revealing part: "Far be it from me in this House to give them some direction." What is government elected for, other than to give direction? That's our purpose. That's our responsibility. That's why we're here in this House.
Look at Bill 84. We lost 198,000 days in '90, 284,000 days in '91 and 761,000 days in '92. The argument is that Bill 84 wasn't in place. But do you know what was in place? An expectation on the part of unionized leaders in this province that far exceeded reality.
An Hon. Member: What's your point?
L. Hanson: Let me tell that member how expectations in British Columbia have been totally misplaced, to the point where expectations are so great.... When this government was first elected, they granted a 7 percent retroactive wage hike to the teachers. They allowed school boards to run deficits. I hope the Minister of Finance will say whether he is going to -- as a result of this piece of legislation -- allow school boards to run a deficit. I hope he will tell us what he and the school boards are going to do with the millions of dollars that have not been paid out as a result of this strike.
They repealed the Compensation Fairness Act. They lifted the freeze on administrative salaries, which was at the level of $70,000. They rejected province-wide bargaining, and they rejected the two-year wage freeze on public sector salaries that had been mentioned. The
[ Page 6640 ]
government continues to send out those mixed messages -- budget deficits; and government abandons the promise of a balanced budget that they made in the election process.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the member who is speaking, but there seems to be an increasing number of conversations going on in the chamber. As a courtesy to the member who has the floor, I would ask that these conversations be kept to a minimum. Please continue, hon. member.
L. Hanson: The expectations that this government has created in the labour communities in our province are far greater than the people of British Columbia can afford to pay. There is no doubt that if Bill 19 was still in place, the expectations that these negotiations have brought to the forefront would not be nearly as high as they are.
We will get into this when we get onto the sections clause by clause, but I think that the Minister of Labour has misjudged -- or at least misinterpreted.... I suspect he really does know the difference between a mediator and an arbitrator. I submit that a mediator whose recommendation is likely to become the arbitrator's decision will have very little hope of mediating a settlement before the requirement to impose that settlement. If the Minister of Labour doesn't recognize the difference, he should talk to some labour experts so that he can find out what it is.
The Minister of Education suggested that the fact that 57 of the 75 school districts in British Columbia had reached a settlement was reason to continue with the process exactly as it is. I submit that if any children in British Columbia are deprived of the ability to achieve their educational goals, that is far more important than dealing with averages, and that all students of British Columbia are certainly entitled to a fair shake and an equal opportunity in education. I think the minister would agree with that.
I think that negotiations in this particular field are okay. They should be allowed, but there has to be a mechanism in place to handle the situation, and there was a mechanism in place before Bill 84 was brought in.
When you look at the history of this government's leadership for 18 months, I think that the people of British Columbia will recognize that it has been less than credible; it has been less than responsible; and it certainly has not provided leadership to either the labour or the employer side in British Columbia.
I will be voting in favour of this bill, with some amendments. But I do it with tongue in cheek and with less than dedication, because the other side of the equation is that the students of British Columbia remain pawns in this dispute. I don't think that we, as responsible people elected to these positions, can tolerate that. Therefore, even though this is far too late -- this should have been done some time ago, and the minister has done excellent footwork in his dancing to avoid reaching this confrontation -- we have to put the children back in school to give them an opportunity to achieve their education goals.
Hon. D. Miller: As I listen to the opposition, I've heard more complaints about being here on Sunday than I've heard about the substance of this bill. The member for Surrey-White Rock seemed to think the bill has something to do with playing rugby. I hesitate to think what would have happened if we tried to call in the House last night when the hockey game was on. Perhaps they wouldn't have shown up.
The facts are that we have a group of people in this province -- school trustees, who I assume are devoted to education and ran to be school trustees because they wanted to do something in education, and school teachers, who took their training and are in education because they believe in it and want to do something for children -- who have been unable to achieve an agreement in Vancouver through the collective bargaining system. The system has collapsed and those two groups -- who I assume have the best of intentions in serving the needs of our children -- are not bargaining and our children are not in school. Because of the failure of the collective bargaining system in Vancouver, the government has now made the proper decision to intervene in the public interest.
I think my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance was absolutely correct in trying to direct attention towards the principle of this bill. The government is exercising its responsibility to intervene because of a failure of the collective bargaining process -- nothing more, nothing less. The members can cite all they want about rugby games and complain about Sundays; they can say anything they want. They are really saying that they want to have the luxury of saying we should have done this sooner. That is all that those members are saying. I suppose I could criticize the Liberal history -- except they don't have a history in this province, so I have very little to criticize. Despite their claims and the rhetoric, we will see if they have a future.
Let's concentrate. I'm really trying to relate what is being done here -- and why -- to activities that happened in the past. Clearly, there have been disputes in this province in the past that have shut down the schools and kept children out of schools. There was a dispute two years ago in the Peace River that kept children out of the schools for 32 days. The government of the day did nothing to intervene in the bargaining process. I simply cite that as an example. It is obvious in hindsight that the judgment of the government of the day must have been that the collective bargaining system was working, notwithstanding that they had not concluded an agreement. They could have intervened, but they did not. It strikes me as just a touch hypocritical to have those same members of that party -- who were in power -- now standing up, clamouring and saying that we should have intervened sooner.
When I look further back in their record, I can see that some school boards in this province incurred the displeasure of the former Social Credit government. What was their response? They did away with those school boards. They did away with the school boards in Vancouver and in Cowichan. This government is simply
[ Page 6641 ]
intervening at a critical moment to return order and return those children to their classrooms.
The principles of free collective bargaining have been talked about. We hear members opposite saying that there's a better way: make it an essential service. The members say they've done some research, but they surely have not done very much research. There have been a variety of attempts to deal with negotiating in the public service, a variety of attempts to say: how can we forestall these kinds of disruptions? The fact is that none of them have worked any better than free collective bargaining. Over time, as the hon. Minister of Finance has indicated, we think that people develop the maturity to recognize that they do have some common interests. Trustees have common interests with educators, and they need to develop the maturity to recognize what their common interest is and to ensure that their collective bargaining does not interfere with the very thing that they're trying to do.
The members talk about....
An Hon. Member: Think about the kids too.
Hon. D. Miller: You know, hon. Speaker, if we were not thinking about the children, what would we be doing here on Sunday -- the fact that those members are complaining about so much?
The fact is that a variety of systems have been tried in the public sector. It is easy to say: make it illegal. But the fact is -- not only here in British Columbia but in other jurisdictions -- that where it has been illegal, for example, for public sector workers to strike, strikes have occurred; labour disruptions have occurred. Over time -- and there's a long history in North America -- free collective bargaining remains the best possible system. The check on free collective bargaining, when it fails and a question of the public interest arises, is the obligation on us as legislators to come back to forums like this and take action, which is exactly what we are doing here today.
[5:00]
An Hon. Member: Oh, way to go. Pat yourself on the back.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, my purpose is not to pat the government on the back and not necessarily to attack the opposition -- which I don't mind doing from time to time -- but simply to try to put this in the context it deserves. The system, by and large, works. Where it fails to work, government has a responsibility to step in, and that's what we are doing here today.
We have concluded, despite the rhetoric we hear from the opposition, that the collective bargaining system in Vancouver has broken down to the point where the parties are unable to achieve a collective agreement. Given that, we are taking the position we are taking. We are assuming that the parties in the other districts are capable of reaching a collective agreement, and we are sending a very strong signal to them that that better be done fairly quickly.
As much as the opposition is stalling, complaining, whining, saying that it should have been done sooner and bringing out a litany of complaints -- despite all of that, this government's judgment is that now is an appropriate time to act. We are acting in the public interest. Those children will be back in school tomorrow, regardless of the stalling of the opposition in this House. Those children will be back in school tomorrow, and they will be able to prepare for their final exams.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but again I have to ask the House to come to order. I'm sure all those who wish to will have an opportunity to take part in debate. But at this point the hon. Minister of Forests has the floor, and I would ask members to respect that. Please continue, hon. minister.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to conclude by saying that despite the rhetoric we hear from the opposition, and despite the litany of whining and complaining about being here on Sunday.... I don't care if it's Sunday or any other day. If the government has to take action in the public interest, we will do it regardless of what day of the week it is. When we strip away all the rhetoric, the fact is that this government has taken action. The members opposite want to fill the air with their rhetoric, but at the end of the day they will support the government, and the children in Vancouver will be back in school tomorrow.
An Hon. Member: What about Surrey?
Hon. D. Miller: Children in Surrey and those other districts will be back very soon. So let's get on with the speedy passage of the bill, and let's not hear any more complaints from the members opposite about having to give up their Sunday to come in here and do the people's business.
J. Dalton: First, let me assure the Minister of Forests -- and anyone else across the way who thinks that we're not happy to be here -- that we certainly are here with a measure of concern -- in fact, real concern. We are not reluctant to give up our Sunday, as some members opposite would suggest. I would submit that it's a travesty that this House had to be called today. It is unique in the history of this parliament to have a Sunday sitting. Why is it? Quite clearly, it is because of the lack of planning and the lack of action by this government -- and not just over the last few days. It is a lack of planning that has been demonstrated over many months, which I will be outlining in a moment.
The opposition is here, even though this could have been handled quite differently and in a much happier situation. I would also suggest that the taxpayers would have been much happier if this had been handled differently, given the cost of this extra sitting. We are here on an urgent situation, and we will be quite prepared, once the full debate of this bill has been undertaken, to allow its passage. But as our Labour critic has already indicated, there are some important
[ Page 6642 ]
amendments that have to come up clause by clause, and those will be dealt with in due course.
Hon. Speaker, let me come to the urgency of this session and the bill before us. As I heard the Transportation minister say, it is urgent. We agree. Unfortunately, this could have been handled differently. For example, why was this not brought in on Friday afternoon? The members were here on Friday. I remember full well the Labour minister being asked just as we adjourned on Friday if there was a likelihood of a weekend sitting. He assured us that it was highly unlikely. What do we hear the next morning? We get word from the Sergeant-at-Arms out of the Speaker's office that there will be a special sitting on Sunday afternoon. That's most unfortunate.
Let me address the urgency. Why is it urgent? What we find in Bill 31 is that Vancouver is being treated differently than the other districts that are currently strikebound. I think there's an interesting twist on the urgency that is being put forward in this bill. I might also comment that it's not just Vancouver, Surrey and some of the other districts that are currently out. There are many other districts that unfortunately may follow suit. I admit that there is a provision in part 2 of this bill to get those districts back, if they do become strikebound or locked out, as the case may be, so that the classrooms are open. However, the process is not one that we in the opposition would necessarily endorse; there are other ways, which I'll comment on later in my comments.
One thing that I think is truly regrettable in this entire debate today is that I have heard no comments about the students from government members, whether in cabinet or on the back bench. Have we forgotten the students in this entire process? We seem to have. We seem to want to concentrate on districts, on situations, on urgency and on whether or not we need to be here. It's the students who must come first.
This is when I'm going to detail some of the districts that have been affected by strikes and lockouts since January of this year -- which the government doesn't want to talk about. They suddenly find an urgency today. Why was it not urgent back in January? Why is it that the smaller school districts such as Powell River and Vancouver Island North, both of which were hit by six-week shutdowns, were not urgent? I would submit that they were.
Can this government tell us that the grade 12 students from Vancouver Island North, for example, who are facing provincial exams -- just like all other students are, including Vancouver's -- were not affected by the shutdown of six weeks? Well, of course they were. Putting aside the comment that the Minister of Education submitted the other day, that perhaps they don't need teaching and may be able to survive quite happily on their own.... But we've dealt with that.
Let me just go back for a moment and outline some of the other shutdowns that have occurred since January of this year, because this so-called buildup of urgency is one that has been clearly flagged, one that has been demonstrated for many months now. This government should have been ready to act a long time before today. Fernie was the first of many that have been hit in one way or another by slowdowns, strikes, lockouts or what have you. Fernie was locked out for four weeks, starting the first week in January. That should have been a flag right then to this government that we were going to have problems this year. If this government is suddenly caught off guard, and with this sense of urgency today, I would suggest it has not been paying attention to the many unfortunate circumstances that have occurred, not in just a few isolated districts but in many districts.
We've heard the cabinet ministers opposite tell us that in only one example has the collective bargaining process broken down. Hon. Speaker, with respect, obviously that is untrue. I cite Fernie as a four-week lockout. Obviously the process broke down; otherwise it would not have occurred. And why did the government allow that lockout to continue for four weeks? Why was Quesnel strikebound for three weeks? Obviously the collective bargaining process again broke down somewhere.
Surrey is currently out. I think it is, in a large way, unfortunate that Surrey is not being treated in the same way that Vancouver is in this Bill 31. If we want to be looking at the larger school districts -- and obviously numbers become important by themselves -- then I would suggest that a district with 46,000 students that is strikebound and still will be tomorrow, whether this bill goes through or not, should be treated the same way that the students of Vancouver are -- who, if this bill goes through, will in fact be back in class tomorrow. There's an inconsistency in the sense of urgency that this government would have us believe in.
There are many other districts that have been affected by strikes and lockouts that I could comment on to demonstrate that this government should have had a plan in place long before now. Vancouver Island North was out for six weeks, at the same time as Powell River. I have already commented on that. Vancouver Island West was hit by a strike. Other districts have been out for shorter periods of time -- New Westminster, for example. In many of these cases they were able to come to a resolution of their differences in a fairly speedy manner. It is well documented that since January of this year there have been difficulties in the collective bargaining process in the school districts. It is not enough for this government to say today that there is only one district in which the bargaining process has failed, collapsed, broken down, or all the other terminology that we've heard, because that is untrue.
I hope that we haven't forgotten -- in our entire course of debate and discussion on this bill, in the entire issue of education in this province -- that it's the students' interests that should come first, not the question of whether collective bargaining is or is not a good thing. We don't want the socialist dogma continually preached at us. We want to address the specific concerns of the students of British Columbia. The opposition speaks on behalf of the students, and it is on behalf of the students of this province that we point out why this government should have had an action plan long before Bill 31 was created.
If I recall, one of the members of the third party suggested that this was perhaps written up on the back
[ Page 6643 ]
of an envelope. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. But it does seem surprising to me that we had to wait for so long for this government to make something happen when it's been well documented over many months that something was bound to happen. Now they suddenly find an unprecedented sitting of this Legislature on a Sunday afternoon and they have to deal with an urgent situation.
The members opposite -- as well as several of the cabinet ministers -- have already pointed out to us that they are proud that so many districts have settled without difficulties. We are brought up to date by the Minister of Education in her comments that 57 districts out of the 75 have now settled, and: "Only eight have had job disruptions." I would submit that there is an inaccuracy in saying only eight. Of the eight, many students are affected. Vancouver and Surrey are the two largest districts in this province, and both are currently on strike. Of the other six, there are certainly a lot of other significant disruptions in those districts, including the two I commented on earlier -- Powell River and Vancouver Island North, both out for six weeks. Surely that is a shameful statistic of itself; and if it isn't, it should be.
[5:15]
I would add that the members opposite don't seem to want to point out to the House that many other districts have been hit by work-to-rule, strike votes, threatened disruptions, the mediation process, and by the continual worrying of both students and parents in those districts that their district may be the next one to collapse. Yet this government has had no plan in place to deal with those issues.
I suggest it's not enough to say that only eight out of the 57 settled to date have had time lost through lockouts and strikes. There is another measurement that we have to pay attention to in the overall disruption and the unsettling effect that labour disputes in the school districts have had, and will no doubt continue to have until this government grapples with the more serious and pressing issues of financing and the collective bargaining process overall -- things that no doubt we will be debating on future occasions in the House.
Let me also comment on what I can only describe as the inaction of the Minister of Labour, because clearly once these labour disputes were identified.... He has many times advised us in the House in question period and elsewhere: it's his problem, one that the other ministers were very quick to pass over to the Minister of Labour. But what has the Minister of Labour done, other than finally produce Bill 31, which we are now debating?
From time to time, the minister has suggested, or even threatened, that he's going to intercede in school district disputes. For example, I remember full well the Powell River dispute, when they were on strike. The minister came out with a very strong statement: he said to the parties that if they didn't resolve it -- and I believe it was the second week into that strike -- he was going to step in. The Minister of Labour never did step into the Powell River situation. That district was down for six weeks. If the Minister of Labour was going to step into the Powell River situation, he would have done it before a six-week strike had run its course. In that example, and in others that we can cite, the minister is certainly guilty of inaction.
How has the minister dealt with the Vancouver situation? We've had this back and forth: mediators appointed, public recommendations made and trustees who will not accede to the minister's request threatened, to put it mildly, that they cave in and resolve the situation. I would submit that as far as the trustees of Vancouver are concerned, they have an elected responsibility to ensure that their school district, the one that we are primarily debating today, has the integrity and financial wherewithal to put in place any collective agreement that's negotiated. If those trustees, whether the Minister of Labour likes it or not, feel uncomfortable with that circumstance, they have to speak up -- as they have done. For the Minister of Labour to give these veiled, or otherwise, threats to those trustees is a disgraceful performance. He clearly interceded in a local event.
And now what do we find? We find that those threats didn't work, so we will now bring Bill 31 before the House and inconvenience many people. Not the members -- I'm not standing here to say that I'm inconvenienced -- but certainly the people who were called in on a Sunday: the staff and others, who I'm sure were looking forward to their normal time off on the weekend. Those people clearly have beeninconvenienced. As I commented earlier, for what reason? Why were they inconvenienced? Because this government had no action plan in mind, and could have dealt with this last Friday afternoon or a week ago or.... Probably even better, as I'm next going to argue, if they had listened to our discussion last fall during the Labour Relations Code debate and the many suggestions we've brought forward since that time, we would not be dealing with this situation now
What I'm alluding to, of course, is that education clearly should be designated an essential service. Why shouldn't it be? If this government is prepared to counter our argument and say, "Well, there's nothing about education dealing with public health, safety or welfare," that is a very sad comment. We argued strenuously last fall that education be designated an essential service, that it brought it back into the Labour Relations Code as such. That was unsuccessful. We have put it to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour, and even to the Premier on occasion, that education should be designated an essential service. That has fallen on deaf ears.
I am suggesting that if those arguments had been listened to and given some effect, we would not be in this House today on a Sunday afternoon arguing before a special sitting on a so-called sense of urgency that this matter has to be dealt with, because an essential service designation would have taken care of it. While I'm on this topic, what happened to the Minister of Labour's circumstance with regard to essential service designation? He is the minister who should have acted on that recommendation that came forward out of the North Island dispute. He passed it back to the Labour Relations Board. We questioned him subsequently in
[ Page 6644 ]
question period. We put it to the minister that it was an improper delegation of his authority, but the minister came up with his typical excuses as to why he acted that way. Yet to this day we have seen no specific action on the ruling that came forward from the Labour Relations Board and that has now been put back to the Minister of Labour as to whether education is an essential service, and if so, how it would be implemented.
If those things had been listened to earlier and a game plan put in mind, again, we would not be going through this protracted debate on a Sunday afternoon on a proposal that could have been dealt with in a much happier circumstance and a more timely fashion, and certainly much earlier. It would have produced a resolution of the many strikes and lockouts that we've faced to date. As I commented earlier, we're probably going to be looking at some others before this school year is finished, even though Bill 31 may have the effect of limiting them or perhaps cutting them off entirely. But that's not the point. We're running around trying to resolve, after the fact, a problem that was clearly identifiable. I hope the government doesn't resolve every difficulty in its hopefully limited lifetime by calling the cabinet and the caucus together, debating it over the telephone or what have you, putting a package together and then calling a special session of the House to deal with it. That's not the way to govern. This government should certainly be strongly criticized for the fact that they felt the need to bring on Bill 31 in this circumstance.
I'm going to make two other observations, both of which deal with members of the current cabinet. I have in front of me a news release from June 7, 1988, in which the then Leader of the Opposition and now the hon. Premier is commenting on school disruptions under the previous government, now the third party. The last paragraph is of interest, and I will quote from it: "Regrettably, it's a government" -- referring to the Social Credit government -- "which continually raises new controversies, controversies that add to the confrontation and uncertainty that has characterized our education system and indeed our province. And in turn, it hurts our children's education and holds all British Columbians back." The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, is commenting in 1988 on our children's education being harmed by controversies and disruptions at that time. Yet here we are, five years later, dealing in a special session of the Legislature with the obvious and very harmful effects of extensive strikes and lockouts in the same school system. Perhaps the hon. Premier, when he has his opportunity to address Bill 31 in second reading, would like to comment. A perceived disruption in the system five years ago has suddenly, I presume, taken on a different flavour. I guess it demonstrates, as we've argued many times, that once members cross the floor and become government, they do take on a different attitude.
The Minister of Education, in her comments on second reading, argued that all parties have the responsibility for resolving labour disputes in the school districts. That, in a way, is true. There is obviously responsibility on all of us to try to create a harmonious labour climate in the school districts. But I suggest that this government -- starting with the Minister of Education and going now, of course, to the Minister of Labour -- has to have a game plan in mind. It is not enough for the Minister of Education to stand in this House and say that it's the responsibility of all parties to resolve these disputes. Ultimately, it becomes a ministerial responsibility. I would suggest that this cabinet and the ministers responsible have shown a lack of planning and action, which would have forestalled these difficulties and certainly would have meant that we would not be here today on a Sunday afternoon debating this bill under a sense of urgency.
It is true that this bill is important. I can assure this House that the opposition will ultimately be supporting this bill, but only after full debate...
G. Farrell-Collins: And amendment.
J. Dalton: ...and amendments, the Labour critic reminds me -- which is true. But had this government had a significant game plan in mind.... Looking back over the last few months, as I've itemized briefly, we knew what was coming down the pipeline. But this government either chose to ignore it or to allow things to run their course, so that they wouldn't get tangled up in a twisted situation, which they now find themselves in. Unfortunately, that has happened. This government has got tangled up in a mess, and it's one that they could have prevented, because, in large part, they created it.
Bill 31 will be dealt with in the appropriate course through full debate today. Certainly the opposition, after the amendments have been properly vetted, will be pleased in the final run to do the most important thing -- which is why we're here today, hon. Speaker -- to ensure that our schoolchildren's education is not further interrupted.
J. Pement: I rise in support of this bill. I find it really difficult today to listen to some of the comments from the opposition -- comments such as that we, and I as an MLA, do not have regard for the students of this province. If they really just read the bill, it would help a bit. If they took a look at the first note that's in the bill, they would see that students are involved in the bill. We're talking about the continuation of programs for students. That's the important issue of this bill all the way along. All they have to do is have a look at it and read it. This bill does give the government the authority to support collective bargaining where it's working, and that's really important. It also fixes the process when it falls through, and that is why we're here today. We're going to give good education to our kids in this fair province.
[5:30]
From the comments that I've heard, I agree with the Finance minister: the members opposite really lack an understanding of the process of collective bargaining. I think they better sit down and have a look, maybe take a little workshop and find out what collective bargaining is. They have to understand that there are some clearly defined steps in collective bargaining and that disputes can be resolved. But in that process there
[ Page 6645 ]
is a time element; unfortunately, the time is sometimes lengthy. Disputes can be resolved at the table; there's a process of working at the table. They can be resolved through mediation or voluntary arbitration.
Clearly, in the majority of cases in the school districts in the province, the process has worked. We have the vast majority of students in our schools, at work with their teachers, and the majority of the districts in the province are finished with collective bargaining. I think that those are things we should look at. For those districts and students that are having difficulties at this time, we now are putting in a mechanism to assist them through that process. The process works only if you allow it to happen. There has to be a willingness by both sides and all those involved to make it happen and to make it work. If there isn't a willingness, then it will fall through.
It's easy to jump in and say you're going to fix it before you allow the processes and the steps to happen. I have to say that I really endorse this government's approach to dealing with the situation. They have given an offer of assistance, and that is something the members opposite haven't even allowed in the comments they've been making all along. They have not allowed for the fact that this government has assisted in many ways to help resolve the situation. They have tried with mediation. They have tried by talking to the parties, and that is of most importance when it comes to putting those teachers back into the classroom and having a good working atmosphere in the classroom. I would suggest that the members opposite take a look at that as well.
I've had the opportunity to work on a school board. I've been a past chair of School District 55 in my constituency, and I know that difficulties can arise in the process of collective bargaining. I know it's really important that there is respect in the bargaining process and on both sides of the table in order to make resolutions happen. I also know that when we sat at the table, we all had the common goal -- I think this is important for the members opposite to know -- of providing a good education for our kids in our district and in our province. I don't think the members opposite understand that that is how the system is set up. I also recall in those years -- a little history for the history buffs across the way -- the poisoning of that process. The members of the past Social Credit government set up a system so that when school districts bargained and came to agreement, the government would then decide whether or not we could have that agreement. In other words, what they did was devalue the whole system of what we were doing -- the whole discussion, the dialogue and everything else. They just devalued it when they took back the contracts and changed them. They said we couldn't have the contract that we had agreed upon. That caused a really difficult situation at the table. They sit there and smirk. But I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that it was not an easy situation, and we had to work hard at the table to ensure that we got some resolutions.
I also recall some of the strikes that happened in other districts. We were always very fortunate that our district was able to work it through, even though there were difficulties. But when those other districts went out, they were out for many, many weeks with not one comment from the Social Credit government, in terms of trying to resolve the issue. Those teachers and districts were left hanging high and dry. I will not forget it, and I will remind you for certain.
We had a strike in the Bulkley Valley this year, and it was regrettable. I talked to both the district and the teachers' association as an MLA and offered to assist in any way I could in resolving that issue. Clearly there was a common goal there, which was the good of the children and a better education. They worked it through with a mediator and had agreement recommendations. It's to their benefit and to the children's benefit that they're going to have kids back in the classroom in a good working atmosphere in that particular school district.
We just don't applaud enough the hard work that these people have put in to ensure that they have a good contract. I cannot understand why the members opposite cannot encourage other districts to do the same, instead of just hammering and saying it doesn't work.
I am really pleased that this bill not only focuses on Vancouver and will get Vancouver kids back to school right away but also addresses future problems that may occur. In the way that it is addressed, it gives assistance, and that's the important part: assisting with the process, getting the teachers and districts back to the table and encouraging the process to work. The members opposite should be focusing on that as well.
It's interesting: you can always find pieces of paper with words written on them with some past history. It was really interesting when I looked back at the Liberal Party's policy in terms of labour relations. They have one part where they say that they will assist with a dispute resolution mechanism to maximize the potential for management and labour to solve their problems without government interference. It's a great idea; we all have that focus and ideal. But there are times when decisions have to be made. The decision this time is very clear. We're saying that no, now we have to do something. The process is broken and we have to fix it.
The members opposite talk about raised expectations. Hon. Speaker, if you expect the children back in school, they will be. If you expect a good working climate, there will be. If you expect the government to make these difficult decisions and be very decisive, you've got it. This bill is going to ensure that a process and mechanism is set up and we are going to have our children back in school and a good working atmosphere in this province. It will take some time, willingness, respect for one another and honest, hard work, but I expect that this government will do it.
A. Warnke: I must admit....
I see the sudden discharges from the bowels of government are back again.
Naturally, I suppose I should be in bed trying to nurse a cold, but I must admit I really did want to come today to speak to this proposed bill, because I wanted to know what was in this bill and see what would happen
[ Page 6646 ]
in terms of its impact on students, teachers, trustees and anyone who has anything to do with education in this province. Actually, I was hoping to be rather optimistic. As a matter of fact, hon. Speaker, if you were to listen, as I'm sure you did, to government members, they presented this bill as: "Well, we have a bit of an unusual situation, but really everything is normal." Things are not normal in the province with regard to education.
The problems that currently involve educators across this province were entirely predictable. These predictions were made last year, as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove said earlier, during the discussion and debate on Bill 84. During that debate, I recall myself saying: "You know what's going to happen. Here is a bill that is going to react to Bill 19; they are going to introduce Bill 84." Bills 19 and 84 are something that really should be receded into the past, because we need some sort of legislation that provides some balance in British Columbia, for a change. We did not see that in Bill 84. By cracky, every prediction that we made has now come up since Bill 84 was passed.
The problem is not just one of recent months or weeks. It has been from day one -- since Bill 84 was passed. Again, it's not just Vancouver that's having a bit of a problem -- as some of these members from the government would put it. It started, as the member for West Vancouver-Capilano put it, with a problem in Fernie in January. On and on it goes, yet those government members think things are just proceeding as normal. They're not. We have an unusual situation in which it is conceded by this government that we have to meet in an extraordinary session today.
To say otherwise is contradictory. To suggest that this is just normal -- obviously, by their actions today -- is contradictory. We have a very serious problem in this province. It's about time that the Minister of Education, the Minister of Labour and all the members of the executive council, including the Premier, recognized that we have some basic, serious problems with regard to education in this province. Yet what do we hear? We hear from the Minister of Labour that the school trustees are the problem. It is rather contradictory, to say the least, and hypocritical to suggest that we just have no more money for the school boards. We went through Education estimates and heard over and over again from the Minister of Education that we don't have any extra money; we have to tighten our belts; we've got a problem and therefore school boards are expected to tighten their belts. Yet by the same token, when it comes to a crunch, all of a sudden it's the school trustees' fault.
[5:45]
Those ministers cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue on the one hand that the school trustees and school boards are the problem and then turn right around and say there's no more money for the school boards, school trustees and so on. It's truly amazing that those on the other side -- you, the government -- by being lax with regard to education and not hearing not only what the opposition said last week but also what a number of educators, teachers and students, as well as those who serve on school boards throughout the province, have been saying for a long, long time, must now sit down and take a realistic look at some of the really serious problems in education.
This government hasn't done that. Indeed, when it was presented by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove during the course of debate on Bill 84 that there was going to be a serious problem with regard to essential services and education and that we must make education an essential service, it was repugnant of the Minister of Labour to just sit back and say: "It's hypothetical. It isn't going to happen. I'm pretty confident it won't happen." My colleague the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove made those very predictions. It didn't take much analysis to come to that kind of conclusion. But the Minister of Labour failed with his conclusions because he has contempt for the opposition and the public. He is unfair to the public. I would say that the Minister of Labour is prejudiced, and I want to expand on that point a little later.
By the same token, it's very clear that the cabinet has been tremendously irresponsible in dealing with education and the crisis that's before us. When forced, they blame someone else -- the school trustees one week, the conflict-of-interest commissioner the next -- for the delay. What kind of attitude is that? What kind of premise does that inject into our system? They have the responsibility to lead government. They were elected in October 1991 as government; they are no longer opposition. By cracky, if that government doesn't smarten up, it will not only not make opposition or government, it'll be a third party at best. Sha-na-na-na, heh-heh-heh, goodbye.
Interjections.
A. Warnke: I'm very pleased to see that it's beginning to dawn on some hon. members from the government side.
When we take a look at the record, there have been some astonishing contradictions. For example, I've heard the Minister of Labour say in this House during question period that the opposition hasn't addressed a problem. I remember one in particular: "Oh, the opposition haven't done their homework. They haven't done anything to address some of the problems of northern Vancouver Island." What a falsity! It's on record that our Education critic, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, raised those very issues before the Minister of Education with regard to northern Vancouver Island districts and their problems with strikes, and the Minister of Education had to respond to that question. Look it up in April 1993, hon. members from the government side. That's long before May, when the Minister of Labour started making those kinds of comments.
The Minister of Labour also has some comments going back to 1989 that are highly relevant to the bill before us. I would like to draw attention to two comments.
Interjections.
A. Warnke: If all that the government members want to do is yak away, let them. But I'll get louder.
[ Page 6647 ]
The now Minister of Labour said in 1989 that the then minister from the Social Credit government pointed the finger at somebody else, namely the local school boards. He went on to say that the problem didn't rest with the elected officials on the school board at whom it was convenient for the minister to point fingers, which overlooked the fiscal framework inadequacies -- in other words, the amount of money that the province provides. He now turns around and makes the very same kind of comments that he perhaps attributed to the Minister of Education in the Social Credit government.
I think this bill is irresponsible in two areas, and in this context the government had better listen to the amendments that will be put forward by the opposition. What this bill needs, especially in two areas -- some have already been addressed by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and need no elaboration -- is to address all the students throughout the province of British Columbia, not just the students who happen to be located in the city of Vancouver. Hon. Speaker, I guarantee you that the people in Vancouver are fair. They are not looking for special treatment. The teachers and the students in Vancouver are fair -- perhaps unlike this government.
One thing especially that must change is the minister's appointment of an arbitrator. As I see it, it is very cute to turn around and say: "We need an arbitrator. This is what will really resolve our problem." Yet it turns out that in this bill the minister appoints an arbitrator. In order for the minister to do that, the minister must be fair. He cannot be prejudicial. Yet, in the statements made by the Minister of Labour, this is in fact the case. He is not fair. He is indeed very prejudicial, because he has made a public statement that he is against the school trustees.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member take his seat. The Chair has tried to give the hon. member some leeway. I'm sure the member recognizes that moderate language is the hallmark of debate, and I would urge the member to please use restraint so that he does not stray into language that could be unparliamentary or inappropriate in this chamber. I would ask him to continue addressing second reading of the bill in that vein.
A. Warnke: The minister's appointment of an arbitrator must be based on the notion that the minister is fair. In this context, hon. Speaker, I urge an amendment that does not allow the Minister of Labour to make the exclusive appointment of an arbitrator, and I urge him to listen very carefully to what the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove put forward and to at least have the judiciary involved in the appointment of an arbitrator. Due to the premise and the biases expressed publicly by the Minister of Labour, I believe that an amendment is absolutely essential in order to make the entire bill work. Failure to do this means that the jig is up and Bill 31 is in serious jeopardy. If the government wants to ignore that kind of advice, it's in very serious trouble. On that basis, I would urge the government to take a close look at its legislation and to listen to what the opposition has to say in terms of its amendment.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, as a matter of professional courtesy in this Legislature, I know that a number of members on the government side are wondering why my eye appears a little red. I want to advise them that it is not because of my professional conduct or that I was talking when I should have been listening. It's something far more minor than that, so rest at ease.
Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 31, the Educational Programs Continuation Act. Like all other British Columbians -- probably like all other members of this Legislature -- I have a great deal of unease and discomfort with what has actually transpired today. I think we have a great deal of unease and discomfort in that the actions that are occurring today -- Bill 31, for example -- are something we all hoped would not be required -- not in today's world, not in 1993. Today is a day demanding an action that should never have occurred.
We've heard a lot about faults in the debate on second reading, and as some have pointed out, perhaps it's a little bit of everyone's fault. It may be society collectively. We've certainly heard that the Premier is at fault, that the Minister of Education is at fault and that the Minister of Labour is at fault. I suspect that probably cabinet and indeed all of the NDP caucus, as well as the party, is at fault in this particular matter.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Perhaps so. Some say it was our government. We haven't been government for almost two years, and this is occurring right now.
When you look at applying the concept of fault, I think that what has created or precipitated a situation that has required this government, which is certainly a friend of trade unions.... Trade unionists are fairly substantial in the elected ranks of members of this Legislature on the government side. What has precipitated an action that demands Bill 31? I would suggest that what has precipitated this occurred a long time ago in the history of the NDP, in that the left arm and the right arm are of the same body. I remember that a number of years ago the Premier, who was then Leader of the Opposition, encouraged an illegal walkout. He did that and, I believe, participated in it.
What we're looking at today is the result of unrealized, unrealistic expectations. By whom? Not by the teachers at large. I know that we focus on and like to stereotype groups, and that we like to say certain things about teachers, but I believe that the majority of teachers are hard-working, committed professionals; that they have become teachers because they want to teach children. I suggest that there is probably as high a percentage of teachers as there is of members of the public who are unhappy with the present situation.
I suggest, however, that because of the type of expectations that have been supported by the current government, there is a group within the teaching community which is perhaps dominant and influential
[ Page 6648 ]
through a variety of means, and is very effective through the BCTF, which has jumped on the band-wagon -- and probably they should. I have no difficulty with anyone trying.... I think the BCTF has done a super job of attending to the wages and working conditions of teachers, and I compliment them for that.
[6:00]
The problem arises when a government that is charged with responsibility to the public at large chooses to maintain that cosy friend-and-insider relationship with the BCTF. Fundamentally, that's where the problem lies. When the BCTF in this particular case -- as with any trade union, public sector or perhaps private sector, but to a much lesser extent.... Public sector trade unions know that they have the inside track with the government, and that we have the Minister of Labour speaking up repeatedly in support of one side of this strike situation, and utilizing all sorts of coercion and intimidation tactics on the trustees.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: "Well, get out," I hear from across the way.
I have some recent comments from the Minister of Labour, in response to comments from the members opposite. In the Times-Colonist on May 22, the Minister of Labour said: "We are continuing to try to get one trustee to make a determination to send 54,000 children back to school." Talk about pressure, talk about intimidation! Talk about fairness, balance or courage! Everyone in government, with its tremendous resources, is picking on one trustee. Fair, balanced, reasonable?
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Well, that's fair enough. I said that there was a tremendous bias, and it becomes more and more evident. Perhaps my participating in debate is disturbing a number of independent conversations in this Legislature. Perhaps it is something we will attend to.
In any event, the Minister of Labour goes on to say: "These people" -- identified as the Vancouver school trustees -- "are acting in a childish and immature manner." He goes on further to say: "Our frustration is with the trustees. We've got some trustees who are behaving in an unacceptable way as democratically elected officials." I would suggest that that is where the problem comes in and the expectations come forward. The government has to stand up and be counted and truly act in a responsible manner. Government has to have the strength, and should have the courage of its convictions, to stand up in this case and represent the public interest to the very best of its ability and in a fair, balanced and reasonable manner. But it has not done so.
The Minister of Education has not participated in this. The Minister of Labour has been on one side of the issue. How can you expect the public to have confidence in the fairness and balance of a government or in Bill 31 when its position is made so blatantly obvious? We have a situation -- and the public is well aware of it -- of the fox tending the chickens. I become very concerned, whether it's with the office of the Minister of Labour -- who's been very active in the strike situation in Vancouver -- or the Ministry of Attorney General. When you politicize those ministries to the extent that they have, then you're starting to pervert and distort fairness and balance.
The only way we can maintain the confidence of the public is with fairness and balance. I don't mind the politicization of the deputy minister, perhaps, although I'm concerned about it -- I would like a full professional in that position -- but I do mind politicizing and tampering with the actual ministry, so that a bias is imposed on the ministry and carried forward. That is fundamentally what has caused the crisis in education.
The matter that you made an earlier ruling on, hon. Speaker -- a matter of urgency and importance.... I challenged that ruling in my mind, and I went and talked to the Clerks. They alerted me to the fact that that ruling, dealing with standing order 81, I believe, was entirely appropriate. I was more familiar with standing order 35 on motions.
In this case, when we deal with it as a matter of urgency.... It is very urgent and important. I think we're unanimous that all of the children have to get back to school and that this matter has to be resolved in a fair and equitable manner. But we're very concerned with the structure of Bill 31 and how it has been put together. As a matter of fact, I look at sections of it, and I can speculate as to whether it has been drafted by the government or by the BCTF. When I look at sections dealing with the appointment of an arbitrator to do the bidding of the government -- and the bias has been made evident.... What fairness, balance or public interest is being attended to here?
An Hon. Member: None.
C. Serwa: None at all. The trustees are standing up for what they believe in. There's an inability of society to continue to pay and pay for wages in the public sector. It doesn't matter if it's the BCTF or the BCGEU; there's a finite limit on that. Actually, this has nothing to do with socialism or free enterprise; this is straight economics. There is an inability to keep taking from the economy and putting it into sectors.... We have to invest in parts of the economy that can produce and get stronger so we can continue to provide quality education, for example. We're using nineteenth-century tactics in almost the twenty-first century.
In the specific case of teachers, it's my understanding that in School District 23, the average wage -- and we have teachers that have a great deal of experience and maturity -- is approximately $61,000 per year. Over and above that, the government is adding 9 percent into the pension fund. Fair enough; that is through the free collective bargaining mechanism. These individuals are, as I said earlier, trained professionals who have university degrees and are working in a very difficult environment. I understand that. The increase in wages, though, doesn't mitigate the environment. There are
[ Page 6649 ]
other causes for the unhappiness and stress that is imposed in the education system. We have to look not simply at wages to resolve a system or decrease class sizes, but at what is causing the fundamental problem.
Bill 31 doesn't address that. Bill 31 is a very simple, short-term stopgap measure, which has a termination date on it. All of the interests of unions are amply protected here. In the appointment of an arbitrator, undoubtedly, the bias will show up. The Labour Relations Board made two rulings with respect to the essential element of education, indicating clearly that in the Vancouver Island North strike they considered education as essential -- especially with respect to grade 12 students. Indeed, to all students education is essential; there can be no question about that. Surely Bill 31 should have addressed a more practical, realistic or current method of negotiation or arbitration or bargaining.
You cannot convince me or any other citizen in the province that a strike and a high-profile occurrence at this time is anything less than a very heavy hammer utilized to get all the concessions that are wanted. We hold up for ransom the generations of the future. That's what the timing is; it's not haphazard. Nothing happens in that field in a haphazard fashion. They've chosen a time when they can hurt the worst. We've found in labour negotiations, unfortunately, and through the free collective bargaining process -- especially in the public sector -- that you strike when you can hurt the most. For example, if the fruit crop in the private sector is being harvested, that's when they strike, because there's nothing else anyone can do. They will have to settle at any cost.
There has to be an incumbent sense of responsibility. As government is the major player and the private sector and industry are major partners in the economy and enterprise in the province, so are the unions and the employees in those unions. They work, and they are part and parcel of the economy of the province. They have to bear a responsibility. Bill 31 could have addressed some of these elements. It could have been landmark legislation. It could have meant that we would be moving toward province-wide bargaining on a more realistic basis. None of these matters were attended to.
Surely the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education, the Premier, the cabinet and, I'm confident, the entire caucus are well aware of the problems on a firsthand basis. There must be a substantial amount of controversy in government caucus on this particular matter and on all the foot-dragging that has transpired. I'm particularly disappointed that government is so firmly in the grasp of single-interest and special interest groups. Government is compromising its responsibility to the people of the province collectively. It's not an easy job being government, and it's probably not an easy job being a government caucus member. It is a job where you're challenged, and that's why you're elected: to represent all the people and all the public interests -- the welfare and safety of the people of the province of British Columbia.
In debate on Bill 84 we spoke repeatedly about that public interest and the safety and welfare of individuals, especially in the education system. At that time it was not taken into consideration. Over the last two or three weeks, we've repeatedly asked questions in question period and suggested that education be deemed an essential service in order to get a handle on the situation and not let it explode. Again, those pleas fell on deaf ears. Now we are reaping dividends that none of us are very happy with. I think that we have let things slide a little bit too far.
Government has to be strong and courageous, as the words were used in the throne speech. I don't feel that government has been courageous. There are too many debts to pay. That's not taking anything away from individual members in the cabinet or individual government caucus members, but the normally the strength of a group is the sum total of the individuals in that group. The peculiar thing about government and government caucus is that it seems to work as the total of the inverse proportion of the members. As you get a larger group together, there is less and less common sense exhibited. I lament that fact; obviously, so do the people of British Columbia.
What can we do? We have utilized tactics here.... It is patently obvious that there are strong commitments and benefits to the unionized sector of the economy in this province. School boards are confronted with the BCTF, which is using very sophisticated tactics and means to impose settlements on virtually defenceless trustees. They use the whipsaw strategy very effectively. Government has to be strong enough to move aggressively towards province-wide bargaining. Some issues can be adjusted locally, but in province-wide bargaining we can settle it once and for all. In that perspective, hopefully there would be a legitimate response on the part of government to represent, in this case, the interests of the students, parents, teachers, school trustees and, in fact, all of society. Government cannot continue to foot-drag and abdicate their responsibility.
The Minister of Finance talked about the diverse nature of members in this Legislature and the different, complementing perspectives that are here. When he pointed out that diverse nature he was looking at the opposition benches, but he didn't look at the government side. Government has to really look at themselves and take into consideration the strength of their membership. Three groups are represented. Those who have experience in labour have been organizers and been involved with the unions. There are professional politicians, teachers and university professors. If that party is going to represent the public interest in government, I would suggest that they have to expand their area of representation to pull in people who truly represent the other part of the world, which contributes so substantially to the economy and allows these things to happen.
I indicated our primary concerns with this bill....
[6:15]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Time, time.
C. Serwa: Thank you very much, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
[ Page 6650 ]
The appointment of the arbitrator is clearly not acceptable. I think that the public -- and I certainly hope that the government -- is listening and understands that that appointment by the Minister of Labour is clearly unacceptable, because a fair position is not going to be reached on the basis of public and taxpayer interest, nor an affordable solution.
The other concern is the continuing expression of bias by the Ministry of Labour, and the Minister of Labour in particular. The Minister of Labour has to be as concerned as the Attorney General about how he is perceived. If the Minister of Labour is only on the side of labour and not independent, fair and balanced, then there is certainly an inherent lack of confidence because of that perspective of the Minister of Labour. That is certainly a major problem.
The other action in this bill is the repeal date. This is just a design, either by the BCTF to pacify the majority of teachers who have to belong to the BCTF and who I think are opposed to strikes.... I think there was significant pressure put on the BCTF; certainly there has been pressure put on the members of the government side. I'm not a member of the government side, and I have certainly heard a lot about the concern that parents and students have about the expansion of the strike situation in the province. What we have is a short-term bill that will do nothing more than buy a little time. It is seen as simply trying to slide away for a brief interval and as trying to portray some courage, some toughness, some stiffness in the back, which is clearly not evident in the day-to-day speeches that transpire here in this Legislature.
If the government is really committed to doing the right thing, it would take back Bill 31. It would declare education to be essential; it would get the teachers back to work, as part of this bill will do. But it would change the structure of bargaining so that our children are not held up as hostages and will not lose their opportunity for strength and a strong future. If they lose that opportunity for strength and a strong future, British Columbia loses its opportunity.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, it's with very mixed feelings that I rise today to speak to Bill 31, because like every other member of this assembly, I wish to see students who are affected by labour disputes back in school and back in class, where they belong. But like many members of this assembly, I'm very concerned about the manner in which the House has been recalled to pass this bill today. I'm very concerned about the sense of drama the government is trying to fabricate in having this Sunday sitting of the Legislature: a showdown at high noon so that Vancouver students can be back in class with their teachers tomorrow morning -- which is something that we all want to see and to support. But why this fabricated sense of drama? Why are we here? To pursue the political agenda of this discredited government, which has been toying with our children's education for far too long.
I think it's very appropriate that the Premier started today's sitting by reading a letter from the conflict-of-interest commissioner with respect to whether or not some members of this assembly might be prevented from participating in this debate. I think Mr. Hughes outlined very clearly in his very important letter what the principle is here that allows us to debate this bill. He stated that any member who is a teacher or whose spouse is a teacher anywhere in the province, including School District No. 39 (Vancouver), can participate in debate and vote on this bill. I think that's important.
But the issue of conflict of interest goes well beyond that technical ruling made by our conflict-of-interest commissioner. I think the hon. Premier and the government opposite are extremely unclear on what conflict of interest really entails. This whole government and the party that forms this government are in a clear conflict of interest on this issue, by virtue of their constitutional alignment with the B.C. Teachers' Federation. So in speaking to Bill 31, we have to talk about whether or not the government is in a conflict of interest. Is that what has brought us here? Is that why we've experimented with brinkmanship, which has taken us to the edge, forcing students to consider forfeiting a whole year of their education?
Teachers are out of their classes; students are affected in the two largest school districts in our province. Why? Because of a conflict of interest. That's why we're here ordering teachers back into the classroom. We're here because the New Democratic Party is in a clear conflict of interest by virtue of their constitutional alignment with the British Columbia Teachers' Federation. We've seen it for almost the last month now. Students have had to suffer because of NDP ideology, because of their outdated approach to labour relations and because they give precedence to industrial relations over the provision of educational services.
Conflict of interest is a much larger concept than that addressed by conflict-of-interest commissioner Ted Hughes. It's a conflict that is inherent in this government. One of the reasons this government is going to be unable to rule is that it's trying to rule in favour of one group in society only, and that is the trade union movement. When a governing party is aligned with only one group in society, it cannot function; it cannot govern a province as a whole. You must represent all British Columbians in order to govern in this province. So that's the conflict of interest that we really need to be addressing and that the people of British Columbia want to see addressed. That's the conflict of interest that will ultimately decide the fate of this government.
One of the problems with Bill 31 is that it's the culmination of the Minister of Labour taking sides, a process without precedent in the history of this province. You can look back through the catalogue of Ministers of Labour in various administrations in times gone by, and never before have we seen a Minister of Labour actually taking sides in a labour dispute as we have seen with this particular dispute. Never have we seen a Minister of Labour actually criticizing and condemning publicly one side in a labour dispute, as this Minister of Labour has done with the Vancouver school trustees. It's shameful.
Even if we go to the one other NDP government that we had in British Columbia, back in the early 1970s, a previous Minister of Labour by the name of Bill King
[ Page 6651 ]
did an exemplary job. Bill King understood the independence of his role as Minister of Labour. He did a very good job, even though it was difficult, because, like this NDP government, that regime was also plagued by labour relations disputes and labour chaos. Unfortunately, NDP times are tough labour times, because they're filled with high expectations that can't be fulfilled. But Bill King understood the principle of the independence of the Labour portfolio and its tribunal. He understood that.
The Minister of Labour who brings this bill to us today, in his arrogance, in his ineptitude, has really shown why he deserves to go down in history as the worst Minister of Labour in the history of this province. He will go down as the worst Minister of Labour. He does not understand the independence of his portfolio. He has interfered directly in the collective bargaining process. He pays lip service to free collective bargaining, but he interrupts, interferes and intervenes in every labour disruption in the public sector, including the disruption that led to this bill being tabled in the Legislature today. So this minister has taken sides, and he deserves to be dumped from cabinet for that reason alone. We've heard a lot about this Minister of Labour and the problems he has, but this bill alone is the culmination of poor judgment on his part, and it explains why this minister should never have been appointed to the executive council in this province.
The history of ordering British Columbians back to work in labour disputes isn't very extensive. Bill 31 is simply the latest manifestation of a number of precedents for ordering British Columbians back to work; there haven't been many, though. You can count on one hand the times that British Columbians have actually been ordered back to work in labour disputes. A couple of those occurred when the last NDP government was in power. In 1974 the Essential Services Continuation Act, Bill 108 at the time, was passed, ordering the firefighters' unions back to work because they were designated an essential service. In 1975, just before a very historic election, the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act was passed. That ordered striking workers throughout the province in the resource sector, the food industry, British Columbia Railway and the transport industry back to work. Isn't it interesting to reflect on what happened after those two bills were introduced in the Legislature and passed into law? The NDP government of that day was booted out of office -- justifiably so -- because they betrayed a trust. They betrayed a contract that they had with one group in society. That shows why a party that has that philosophy cannot govern in this province for long. It is simply a paradox, the paradox of NDP ideology once it gets into power.
That's why the bill that we're addressing today, Bill 31, has to be looked at very closely. We want to support it. We want to see our children back to school in Vancouver and elsewhere in the province. But why has it come to this? What a sense of drama the government is trying to fabricate with this bill! The Minister of Labour indicated in his comments on second reading that he supports free collective bargaining. But how can he support free collective bargaining when he takes sides in a labour dispute such as this one? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? He says he supports the free collective bargaining process, yet when it comes to the public sector, whatever the dispute, we see this minister and his colleague the Minister of Finance directly intervene in the labour dispute and take sides with their friends. Where is free collective bargaining in this process? It has been thrown out the window in the public sector with this government coming to office. We've seen it time and time again. These are damnable lies.
We have a need for education reform in British Columbia. Bill 31 does not address the needs we have; it's a band-aid. Bill 31 talks about addressing a specific dispute which has been pushed to the limit in a dangerous game of political brinkmanship by an irresponsible, inept government. Bill 31 doesn't deal with the larger issues in educational reform that have to be addressed. It doesn't address the independence of the labour tribunal or the minister's office, which has clearly been breached during this crisis. It doesn't address the fact that we in British Columbia want to take politics out of education. British Columbians want to give education precedence over industrial relations. A nineteenth-century form of labour relations has no role in our education system, when we're on the verge of entering the twenty-first century. Yet what we're seeing with Bill 31 is a perpetuation of a nineteenth-century industrial model that cannot be applied to the education system. That's why British Columbians are dissatisfied and upset with this government. That's why there's disenchantment with the education system itself. It's because of the temptation on the part of this government to interfere and intervene in a bargaining process which, in theory, is free. We all support that notion, but this government has put the lie to free collective bargaining throughout the public sector, particularly in education. The conflict of interest is there. There's only one or two ways we can solve it.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair has resisted interrupting the member, hoping that he would dispense with the kind of language he is moving toward and get back to discussing second reading of the bill. I would ask the hon. member to use restraint in his language and to debate second reading without the propensity toward personal comments, which the member is leaning toward.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I will certainly take that direction to heart. The Chair appreciates that this is an emotional issue. The Chair understands that it's difficult for this member and many other members in this House to describe the background to this bill without verging on language that might be considered unparliamentary. I will be careful, and I will take your words to heart.
Bill 31 is the culmination of a process that was launched last session with Bill 84, the new Labour Relations Code. Bill 31 is testimony to the failure of that legislation, which was sponsored by the same minister who sponsors this bill. That legislation was an abysmal failure. It has led to industrial relations chaos in our
[ Page 6652 ]
province, and it has led to labour relations chaos. It has removed even the possibility of designating education as an essential service. As a result, Bill 31 is really testimony to the failure and the bankruptcy of the philosophy of the government opposite, when it comes to applying labour relations principles to our education system.
[6:30]
For these reasons there are a number of concerns with this bill. I know those concerns are going to be addressed in committee stage. I won't go into them in any detail right now. I think it's important to note that this government has failed the students in British Columbia, and in Vancouver in particular. It's addressing this issue because, of course, the New Democratic Party holds a number of seats in the Vancouver School District. Finally they've come to terms with this issue. It has been a difficult process for them, I know, to come to terms with an issue that is difficult to manage in terms of their relationship with the BCTF. This bill really demonstrates that this government has failed students, teachers and our whole education system. It's the failure of their approach to labour relations, with a government that is tied to only one group in society. Only one group in the labour relations equation is represented by this government. We've seen it with this minister's actions, his public intervention and his support of one side in the labour dispute. I would only request that when the Premier enters this debate, he will give some indication that he has finally agreed that it is time to fire the Minister of Labour.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I don't mind being here on Sunday. This is an important subject, and I know that I and my fellow caucus members are willing and quick to come here to deal with this issue on a Sunday. I would rather it had been about two Sundays ago, or on a Monday or a Tuesday.
We went through an exercise of criticism with this government when we were first elected and we took a little longer than they wanted us to in dealing with the estimates debate and the special warrants. We were criticized at great length for keeping everyone here overnight and spending about $30,000. This government has for weeks had the opportunity to do the things it needed to do with respect to this issue. Hon. Speaker, we have asked you -- and the Social Credit Party has tried -- to debate this issue on an emergency basis, on its urgency. So we listened today with great care to the Minister of Education, who was going to give us the two reasons why it was urgent on Sunday but it wasn't urgent on Thursday or Friday, because I'm sure this played an important role in the decision you came to in deciding that it was urgent today. I didn't hear a single word. It was clear as soon as the Foley recommendations were rejected. They were rejected a week ago, and all of a sudden this issue is urgent. And the Chair has seen fit to support that. I must admit, although I'm happy to come here on a Sunday to deal with that issue, I find that a very difficult decision to accept. But accept it I will.
As we have listened to the various arguments that have been put forward, we have also been wafted with a series of rather unusual and different aromas. In fact, I think they've just started to come back. First of all, there was a smell that I clearly identified as muffins; then there was an aroma that I clearly identified as toast. Then it got worse, and I think the Speaker actually sent somebody out, because it smelled as though it was beginning to smell like burnt toast. And that's what this government is now. It is burnt toast, because it failed to deal with this important issue when it needed to be dealt with.
But here we are, and the NDP government has spent all day trying to justify their actions. They have meekly protested that none of this is their fault; it has been the fault of the school trustees; it has been the fault of anybody but themselves. They have tried to pass on the responsibility for this situation to everyone but themselves. The reality is that it is their responsibility, and it is their fault. They are the government, for better or worse, and at the end of this evening they must accept the responsibility for the regrettable situation that we now find ourselves in.
There is a very important lesson in all of this. While in opposition they curried favour with special interest groups by promising the moon. They promised it to the BCTF, the BCGEU and the health worker unions, in their bid for power and they promised more than they could ever deliver. Now they are reaping the rewards of their labours, and they must take responsibility for the deceptions they created. But rather than accepting their responsibility and dealing with this issue promptly, as they should have done, they chose to hide from their duty to the people of this province and, more importantly, to the students of this province.
This is not an emergency debate. These children have been out of school for a month now. We in the opposition have seen this coming for a year, since the introduction of Bill 84. We did everything in our power at that time to alert this government to the folly that they were committing. They were just not prepared to listen.
Listening to the debate that has transpired today has been quite an education -- likely the only one to be had in this province in quite some time. The difference in focus between the government and the opposition has been remarkable. We in the Liberal opposition will pass the bill for no other reason than our paramount concern for the children and students of this province. These children must be back in school, and we will do whatever we have to to get them there. Yet the government apology for its pathetic lack of action has revolved around dogmatic reverence for the free collective bargaining process. We have heard from the Minister of Finance that collective bargaining is the most valued of all considerations and that it's unfettered operation comes at the expense of all else. We have heard that the parties must be permitted to bargain with each other without government interference.
The fact is that in the case of education, not all of the players are represented at the table. Those most affected, the students, do not have a choice. They don't
[ Page 6653 ]
have a shop steward. They don't have a collective agreement. They don't picket. They don't go on strike. And do you know what else they don't have, hon. Speaker? They don't have the ear of this government, and they don't have its respect, and they don't have its understanding. This government only hears those who can pay for that attention with donations, organization and electoral support. It is the role of this government to represent all of those who cannot represent themselves. If they refuse to stand up and stand in and speak on their behalf, then they are guilty of the most despicable negligence, and they will pay dearly for it.
My colleague for Surrey-White Rock quoted the throne speech reference that history will judge this government. Well, many of those grade 12 students of today will be voting in two years. History can be much closer than we think.
Hon. Speaker, to close, I just wish to remind the government of two important issues. Firstly, you really can solve this problem through amendments to Bill 84 and designating education an essential service. Secondly, however this process moves along now, it is critically important for the Minister of Labour to be seen to be impartial. The process that proceeds from this point on must have the support and the trust of teachers, school boards, parents and, most importantly, students. It would be most inappropriate if the executive director of the BCTF were to be seen coming out of the minister's office before this matter has been dealt with. It would be most inappropriate for the Minister of Education to meet with the executive director of the BCTF or the executive director of the BCSTA between cabinet's making a decision and getting this bill drafted and its being passed by the Legislature. Impartiality is critically important. That's why, of all the amendments we have proposed, all of which we think are important, we ask you to think seriously about allowing the arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to add my words in second reading debate of Bill 31.
Hon. M. Harcourt: This bill puts teachers and students in Vancouver back in the classroom. It puts all other school districts still in bargaining on notice that the public and the provincial government expect no less than expeditious resolution of their disputes.
You have heard from the members of this government that we believe in free collective bargaining. We believe that it is a fundamental right and a fundamental part of any democratic society. It is essential to the peaceful and productive conduct of our economic and social life. But as with any other right, collective bargaining comes with inherent responsibilities. We've heard some discussions during this debate on Bill 31 of what those responsibilities are. It is the responsibility of parties to a collective agreement to bargain in good faith and to make every attempt to reach a settlement. As was stated earlier in this chamber by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education, the vast majority of districts have succeeded in reaching agreements through the free collective bargaining process. As a matter of fact, three-quarters of the province's 75 districts have already settled. In many instances, that collective bargaining has been assisted through government-provided mediation and other services.
[6:45]
However, as well as the responsibility to facilitate the parties in free collective bargaining, the provincial government has another important responsibility: to assess when collective bargaining is in difficulty and the public interest is at risk. In recent days the government, through the Minister of Labour, has made significant efforts to assist the parties to the dispute in Vancouver in resolving their difficulties. A mediator was appointed by government. That mediator was then designated as a special mediator. There was a full and public release of the recommendations of the special mediator and, finally, an invitation to both the school board and teachers to agree to voluntary binding arbitration.
The Minister of Labour, to his credit, has fulfilled his responsibilities by exhausting all of the possibilities that could lead the parties to an agreement. It became evident on Friday that bargaining in the Vancouver district was paralyzed and that our children were paying the price. Only through the actions of this government could I ensure that the children in Vancouver would be back in school tomorrow. This bill takes clear action to end the dispute in Vancouver and get those students back to school. It also ensures the expeditious resolution of the other outstanding disputes.
I want to quote from the letter that I tabled today from the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Mr. Hughes says:
"While many may debate who are the winners and losers in this bill, I can only conclude that the only certain winners are those students who will now be entitled to resume their studies.
"As I have already indicated, the context of this bill and its clear purpose is to put an end to a sometimes bitter and controversial strike, which has taken on crisis proportions, and also to put in place mechanisms which may prevent the same from occurring in other districts over the coming months."
This bill is a strong message to those parties in the districts still in dispute that kids are concerned about their education and their parents want them back in school. This bill also provides new options to ensure that the government will resolve disputes where those parties cannot reach an agreement through collective bargaining.
With this bill, 91 percent of the students in the province of British Columbia will be back in school tomorrow. I'm confident that this bill puts those districts where the remaining 9 percent of children are not in class on notice that there will be an expeditious resolution of those outstanding collective agreements and negotiations in those districts.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't want to interrupt the Premier during his speech, but I do feel it's
[ Page 6654 ]
important. I don't know if you'll rule on it, but the Premier is quoting from the conflict-of-interest commissioner, an officer of the Legislature, to support the legislation the Premier is bringing in. I think it's very inappropriate to be using the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Quite clearly, the government doesn't understand the independence of the office of the conflict-of-interest commissioner. It was inappropriate, and I believe the Premier should withdraw those comments.
The Speaker: I thank the member for raising the point of order. However, without judging the content, I think the Chair can only determine that the hon. member quoted from a letter that had previously been tabled in the House. The Chair therefore does not find anything disorderly in quoting from a document that has already been tabled.
The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on a point of order.
D. Schreck: It's an abuse of this House to enter into debate with the misuse of points of order, and that is what the Opposition House Leader has attempted to do.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on second reading, I will now take the vote on second reading of Bill 31.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 70 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Boone |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Barlee |
Charbonneau |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Conroy |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Hagen |
|
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
|
Clark |
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
|
Blencoe |
Barnes |
MacPhail |
|
B. Jones |
Copping |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Farnworth |
|
Evans |
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Mitchell |
Dueck |
|
Serwa |
Weisgerber |
Hanson |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Dalton |
Gingell |
|
Reid |
Cowie |
Chisholm |
|
K. Jones |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Warnke |
Hurd |
Tanner |
|
Symons |
Neufeld |
De Jong |
|
Janssen |
Brewin |
Simpson |
|
Kasper |
Garden |
Randall |
| Krog | ||
|
NAYS -- 1 | ||
|
Wilson | ||
Bill 31, Educational Programs Continuation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CONTINUATION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 31; E. Barnes in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 2 is, I suppose, the defining part -- it is the definitions -- of part 1 and, indeed, the defining part of the bill. It is quite apparent from section 2 that the government is certainly willing to deal with the Vancouver dispute, but is not willing to deal in exactly the same fashion with the other disputes that exist in this province, some of which predate the Vancouver dispute. The Surrey dispute has been ongoing for some time, and we're aware that the Minister of Labour has appointed a special mediator. Given the passage of this bill, the Surrey students may be back in school within the next two or three days or so.
We find ourselves in the situation -- because of the gross delays due to the inaction of this government, and particularly the inaction of the Minister of Labour -- where many other school districts are just waiting in line to get a mediator or to engage in full-blown work stoppages, to the detriment of the students of this province.
With that said, I would move an amendment to section 2. The amendment reads: "`employer' means a board of school trustees designated in the regulations; and `trade union' means a trade union designated in the regulations that represents employees of a board of school trustees."
The gist of this amendment is to include all districts in this province and to give them the same piece of legislation and give the same protection to the students in the rest of this province as applies to the Vancouver district. It will allow all of the provisions from section 2 through to section 7 to include all districts in this province and will fast-track the process even more than what the Minister of Labour has allowed for in the other sections.
The Chair: The motion is out of order in that it would be a direct negative of the intent of that section. So I must regrettably ask the member to continue without reference to that motion.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I understand your ruling. I think that in drafting this piece of legislation it is unfortunate that the Minister of Labour -- although I know he did it in much haste.... As early as Friday he was quite unprepared to bring forth legislation, and was, I think, chastised by his cabinet colleagues and told to get more information, or bring something a little more concrete to them....
[ Page 6655 ]
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know what I hear on the news and what I hear the Minister of Labour say. On Friday afternoon at 6:05 p.m., the Minister of Labour stood outside the cabinet office and said that his cabinet instructed him to go back and get more information. Either the Minister of Labour wasn't speaking the truth or this member is not clear on the facts. I think this member is not clear on the facts.
Quite clearly, the minister did put this legislation together in some haste. One of the errors in this legislation is that it applies the most expedient method only to the Vancouver district. It is a a shame that over the last little while the media has focused on the Vancouver district, but quite clearly there have been disputes around this province that the minister has let go on far beyond that of the Vancouver dispute. I would say that he is willing and able -- and probably very likely -- to let the other disputes pending in this province go on for a good length of time also.
I know the minister is going to state that other sections of this bill allow for an expedited process. But I must make it clear to the public and to the members of this House that the other districts in this province are not automatically included in the jurisdiction of sections 8 and on in this bill, and they can only be included at the point where the minister appoints a special mediator. Given the foot-dragging of this minister over the past two months, I'm not very confident that will happen. So I hope that the minister brings in an amendment of his own to change the intent of this section to allow for a province-wide system, as the rest of this bill fits together.
W. Hurd: In speaking to this section of the bill, there is no justifiable reason for the difference in treatment between schoolchildren in Surrey and school-children in Vancouver. The rationale used by the minister in second reading debate was that negotiations in Vancouver had irretrievably broken down. Having had the benefit of being briefed by members of the board of trustees in Surrey and members of the Surrey Teachers' Association, I can tell the minister that the state of negotiations in that district are no better, and perhaps in some ways even more difficult and obstinate than they are in Vancouver.
It is absolutely unconscionable that the minister would decline to accept any amendments from the opposition on this particular section, which really has the effect of classifying schoolchildren in our province based on political expediency. In the spirit of treating all students equally in this province, I would urge the minister to accept an amendment to this section of the bill.
L. Hanson: The obvious intent of section 2 is to restrict part 1 to the Vancouver teachers' dispute, when the definition says: "'trade union' means the Vancouver Teachers' Federation." Maybe the minister can tell us the status of the other dispute that's going on there. It wouldn't be captured under this if it isn't resolved. I would like to know if it is.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure to receive a reasonable question with regard to this section. The VRMEU agreed to engage in voluntary binding arbitration by a unanimous motion passed on Friday night, I believe. The Vancouver School Board passed a motion to engage in voluntary binding arbitration with regard to the VMREU. On that basis, the parties are going back to work. It was only after the trustees of Vancouver had passed the motion on the VRMEU that they had their difficulties with a quorum.
L. Hanson: I suspect that that will be the end result, then. I guess the minister could confirm that part 2 would apply if something should break down in that process, even though they've both agreed to it.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister can clarify this: looking ahead, in section 8 a trade union is defined as a trade union; it is not limited to any of the employees of a board of school trustees. Why is it an open-ended designation under part 2 and a closed designation, dealing with the teachers' union, in part 1? What is the rationale for the difference between those two designations of trade unions?
Hon. M. Sihota: Part 1 deals with the Vancouver situation; part 2 deals with all other school districts. That's the reason for some of the differences. Part 2 can capture, as I just said to the member for Okanagan-Vernon, a situation involving support workers -- for example, in Vancouver -- whereas part 1 deals only with the outstanding dispute in Vancouver, which is the teachers' dispute.
V. Anderson: In Vancouver there is also the International Union of Operating Engineers. Are they covered by this? If they go out on strike this coming week, what deals with that?
Hon. M. Sihota: As I just answered a few minutes ago, they could be covered under part 2 if the government chose to impose part 2 on them.
V. Anderson: Am I to understand from the minister's reply that "other school districts" also includes Vancouver in part 2 -- the assumption being that when Vancouver has been treated separately in part 1, "other school districts" applies to everybody but Vancouver? Is the minister now saying -- this would help in the clarification -- that part 2 will also include Vancouver? That would help in dealing with this question.
Hon. M. Sihota: It could if there were a dispute in Vancouver.
D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, I'd like to ask the minister a question. In response to the member for Okanagan-Vernon, he indicated that part 2 may, in fact, apply to other unions such as the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees' Union. Why, then, is the definition section under this part of the act restricted in the way that it is? In terms of drafting, why would you have the narrow definitions of employer and trade
[ Page 6656 ]
union that are applied here? Why wouldn't you expand them?
Hon. M. Sihota: Because currently in the Vancouver School District there is a dispute between the Vancouver Teachers' Federation and the board of school trustees of School District 39. Part 1 of this legislation seeks to deal only with that dispute -- namely, the one between the teachers and the board. There are other unions in Vancouver -- for example, the VMREU. There is no dispute there in the sense that both parties have agreed to voluntary binding arbitration; hence there is no need for part 1 to capture that situation.
As the member for Vancouver-Langara has pointed out, there are other unions in Vancouver. I suppose there could be potential disputes in those areas which may be captured by this legislation. If that were the case, it would fall under part 2, not under part 1. Part 1 deals with the outstanding dispute in Vancouver right now, which is namely between the teachers and the school board.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a bit of a problem with that answer. Quite clearly, I think it shows the bias of the government and particularly the minister. It shows that the concern of the government isn't to get the students in Vancouver back to school; it's to deal with the labour relations problems in Vancouver. Quite clearly, if the precedent had been put, if the real importance of why we're here today was to put the Vancouver students back to school, the minister would have included all of those potential conflicts in Vancouver within part 1 of the act, because if there is a dispute with the operating engineers, we then have to wait another 36 hours. If they go on strike, the students are out for another 36 hours, and then we come back in hopefully at the end of it.
Again we see the bias from the members opposite, because their only concern is that they not offend the trade unions. They're not concerned about the students. If they were concerned about the students, the minister would have a more encompassing definition.
The Chair: Order, please. As the hon. member must be aware, we are in committee now and not on second reading. With the greatest of respect, you should be addressing the section as presented. The member may continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll keep your comments in mind. I am in fact directing my comments specifically to section 2, and even more specifically than that to the definition of "trade union." The minister has taken the narrowest interpretation of that, and I'm suggesting that the minister is more concerned -- by using his wording -- with not offending those members of the other trade union than he is concerned with the education of the students in Vancouver. Does the minister not think that it's the education of the students in Vancouver that has put us at this point today? Why are we here on Sunday? The Premier says we're here so that we can get them back in school by Monday. If that is the overlying concern of the government, why not broaden the definition of "trade union" to include those others, so that we don't end up with a dispute somewhere down the line?
Hon. M. Sihota: With all due respect, in his rush to try to make a political point, the hon. member throws all logic out the window. There's one dispute ongoing in Vancouver right now. It is with the teachers and the school board, and part 1 deals with the teachers and the school board and directs, as you will find when you read section 3, the parties in the city of Vancouver to go back to work. That means the children will be back in school tomorrow. That's the only dispute. There are no other disputes ongoing that would prevent students from going back to school. The VMREU situation has resolved itself by way of a process -- i.e., voluntary binding arbitration -- and the parties have agreed to go back. That's why part 1 reads in the fashion that it does.
I would caution the hon. member. If he wishes to get into trying to make political debating points, he should try to do it in some kind of logical and consistent and methodical fashion, and that's absent from his remarks.
G. Farrell-Collins: If we wanted to make political points, we've certainly had more than enough opportunity today already, and there's no need to do it now.
The second part of this bill deals with other disputes that may arise in other districts. Those disputes don't yet exist in many districts, but there's legislation being put here in the event that they do exist....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: No. If the minister would pay attention, he would understand. It's quite simple. The minister has put in sections 8 through 14 to deal with disputes that may arise in other jurisdictions -- other disputes that may occur. That's what they're there for, and the minister said that in second reading.
[7:15]
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs should talk to the Minister of Labour, because the Minister of Labour said quite clearly that he has appointed a special mediator in Surrey to deal with those provisions -- so the further sections can apply in the case of Surrey.
If the minister was concerned primarily with the education of the students in Vancouver and that they all get back in school, it would seem to me that the minister would take somewhat of a pre-emptive strike on this -- to use a perhaps inappropriate word -- or at least a pre-emptive action to ensure that if the operating engineers do go out, just like he's allowed for any other disputes that may occur in the future under sections 10 through 14.... If he were to include a broader definition of a trade union under section 2, he would allow for that. So if that dispute did arise, there wouldn't be one more day of school lost by the students in Vancouver. I don't think that's too much to ask from the minister.
[ Page 6657 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: It may be too much to ask for some consistency. Let me try it one more time. There is a dispute in Vancouver with the teachers. That's covered in part 1. It directs the teachers to go back to work, school to resume and children to be back in the classroom.
Under part 2, section 8, which is the next definition section, you can add Vancouver to the list of designated areas....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, how could I legislate people back to work under part 1 who aren't even out?
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd be glad to offer advice to the Minister of Labour. It's quite simple. We seem to have turned the tables. If the minister is willing to put the students of Vancouver first, then all he has to do is change section 2 to broaden the definition of trade union. Then he will ensure that the students in Vancouver, in the event of a disruption by any other trade unions in that district, will not be disrupted, and he will guarantee that they will be in school between now and the end of the year, and that they will not lose another day. It's as simple as that.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's an absurd notion by an hon. member who, for some reason, in his haste to make what he thinks is a political point, just hasn't thought things through. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that we ought to be ordering people back to work who aren't even on strike.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: If he'd just listen, chill out for a moment and maybe take a Valium, he might understand the balance of this. If there are any other disputes, they are covered under part 2 of the legislation, including any disputes that may happen in Vancouver.
If the member has some difficulty with a 36-hour provision or gap, and if that's the sole extent of his argument, then he should go back and reflect on the comments made by the Minister of Finance when he was making suggestions about the opposition's inability to tolerate a dispute for even one day. I would ask him to simply reflect on what the Minister of Finance had to say.
G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly part 2 would deal with the event of there being a dispute with another trade union in the Vancouver School District. That's clear. The problem is that once again you have the teachers and the students out of the classroom, along with the support workers -- the engineers, for example, which was the case we were discussing -- who walk out and shut down the school. Then again we have the students of Vancouver out of the classroom as we approach the end of the year.
If the Premier thought it was important enough to the students of Vancouver to bring this House in on a Sunday in order to ensure that they didn't miss even one more day of school, I would expect that the Minister of Labour would bring in a piece of legislation....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, there's the fundamental difference here. I hear from the Minister of Government Services that the only reason this is being brought in is that the collective bargaining system has broken down. Her sole concern is with the collective bargaining process; it's not with the students of Vancouver. If she was concerned with the students of Vancouver, she would say: "Regardless of the collective bargaining process, these students have been out for three weeks. Their education is being damaged, and it's time the Premier brought them back to work and brought the students back to school." We're here today instead of tomorrow so that they don't lose one additional day.
Hon. Chair, you would think that if it was that urgent for the Premier to bring this House back on a Sunday -- an extremely rare occurrence -- he would have ensured in the legislation, or at least had his Minister of Labour ensure in the legislation, that there wasn't going to be another one-day or two-day disruption somewhere before the end of the school year.
That is the intent. I know it's difficult for the minister to change his focus from a labour relations orientation to a students' rights orientation, but if he could do that for just a moment, he would see that this is exactly the point we are making. If the Premier thought it was important enough to get us back here on a Sunday, then it should be important enough to ensure that we don't lose at least one more day, perhaps more, of the school year for the Vancouver students before the end of June. That's all that this is about; and that's all that it takes -- a small change for the minister.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, we must seriously -- and not because we're trying to get political points.... The students and parents of Vancouver, and those in other parts of the province, have been through a great deal of stress. They are looking forward to getting back to school and being able to stay there for the rest of this term. That's crucially important for them, particularly for grades 11 and 12 and others who will be writing exams.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. Is the hon. member going to be addressing his remarks to section 2?
V. Anderson: Yes, the definition of the trade union.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member.
V. Anderson: That definition is very important. These students who are now trying to get back will know that they have assurance that they can complete the rest of this term. Many of these students have less than three weeks until their exams. If there is a break in that three weeks, the devastation that those students have already faced will be compounded numerous
[ Page 6658 ]
times. It won't be simply one day. It'll be two or three days -- the disruption of people going out and coming back in. It's very important that the minister should have given -- and should still give -- this kind of protection, which would be very easy to do, so that this possibility does not occur, because there is not time to rectify it if it does happen within the three weeks that are left. It's crucial that the minister take this into account and make the change that is necessary for those students and parents.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me just try this once again, because obviously the Liberals are not understanding the issue here.
Hon. Chair, you can't ask people who are working to resume work. They're working. Section 2 deals with people who aren't working and asks them to resume work -- i.e., it asks the teachers who aren't working to go to work. Section 8 deals with people who are working, but who may in the future not be working. It establishes a process to make sure that they do start working expeditiously. It allows for Vancouver, because of the wording, to be captured in the definition of employer and trade union in section 8.
I don't know if one can make it any more clear than that. I'm sure I can expect the hon. member now to understand. If he takes a look at section 3(1)(c) -- I know it's a little bit out of order, but let me just stretch it a bit -- it says: "Every employee shall resume his or her ordinary duties and work schedules of employment with the employer." It says that you must resume work. But if you're working, you don't need a legislative provision to tell you to work.
The Chair: Before the hon. member proceeds, I would remind all hon. members that under section 61 of our standing orders, there is a question of repetition, tediousness and relevancy. I'm not suggesting that members should not continue in this matter, but we are getting to a point where the Chair is concerned that positions have been established. We are close to the point where we should move on.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. We've made our points. The minister will disagree. I see that there's a problem here; and if and when that problem develops, we'll bring it to his attention again at that time. But before we move off this section, I would like quickly to refer the minister to Black's Law Dictionary, page 992, where the legal definition of "other" is given. It says: "different or distinct from that already mentioned; additional or further." Part 2 says: "Other School Districts." So if that legal definition.... The minister should pay attention.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs chooses to engage in debate, I'd be glad to listen to him. But the caution here is that if the minister is putting "Other School Districts" down for part 2, my concern is: will Vancouver be excluded from that, given that Vancouver was already dealt with in part 1?
Hon. M. Sihota: When the hon. member is reading Black's Law Dictionary -- and I'm glad he's trying to do that -- he may also want to take a look at a book by Driedger called Construction of Statutes. If he reads the section that talks about the impact of titles versus definitions, he will realize what every first-year law student realizes: that he ought not to be hung up on the word "other."
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 4 is one that does give us some concern, given the fact that particularly in the last two weeks, since Mr. Foley made public his recommendations on the dispute in Vancouver, the Minister of Labour has quite clearly taken sides. He has referred to the Vancouver School District as irresponsible. He has referred to the school district in a number of disparaging ways and has told them to bite the bullet. He has called on the public to put political pressure on the trustees of the Vancouver School Board to sign an agreement that they, as elected officials, were not comfortable with. He quite clearly has chosen sides in this dispute. He has chosen to represent the teachers instead of maintaining the customary neutral position. In fact, it's incumbent upon a Minister of Labour to remain neutral in these disputes.
So I have a great deal of concern about the Minister of Labour having the power, under section 4 in this act, to appoint the arbitrator. In that light, hon. Chair, I will be moving an amendment to allow those mediators to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as opposed to the Minister of Labour, given the fact that the public no longer has confidence in the Minister of Labour.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the Minister of Government Services saying: "Nonsense, nonsense, complete nonsense." The Minister of Government Services should look at the IWA master agreement for 1983 to 1986, where in fact a Supreme Court judge deals with the appointment of an arbitrator. So there is a precedent for this. In this situation -- with the minister's positioning, the letters that have been written by the School Trustees' Association, and the comments and the letters that have been written by parents around this province -- people no longer have any confidence in the neutrality of the minister. Quite clearly, if ever this type of amendment were necessary, it's necessary now.
The minister shrugs his shoulders with the typical arrogance that we see from time to time, but the reality is that he has deported himself extremely poorly in the last two weeks in relation to the labour dispute in Vancouver. We do not have confidence, the public does not have confidence and the trustees of this province do not have confidence in the Minister of Labour to be able to make an unbiased appointment of an arbitrator in this dispute -- therefore the moving of the amendment.
[ Page 6659 ]
[7:30]
On the amendment.
F. Gingell: I was waiting with bated breath to hear the response of the Minister of Labour, because this really is an important section of this bill. I know that the Minister of Labour recognizes the importance of having the process accepted by all parties -- not only the teachers and the school trustees, but also the parents -- and of the students knowing that everything is proceeding in their best interests. It is important for the minister to be seen as absolutely neutral, and many of his statements are going to bring that into question. So why not, in the name of reasonableness, allow the Chief Justice to appoint the arbitrator? The neutrality of the Chief Justice is without question. Why put someone into the process whose neutrality can be questioned, even if it's being questioned wrongly?
Hon. minister, I plead with you to give this consideration. Do the job well. Let's have a piece of legislation that we can be proud of. Let's ensure that the results of the process will be seen by the people of British Columbia to be fair.
Hon. M. Sihota: The opposition seem to be irritated that I made some comments about trustees. They never seem to have any difficulty in taking some shots themselves at trade unions. Be that as it may, it is true that I made some comments about the trustees during the course of this dispute. It is my responsibility to comment on what is happening in a particular dispute, and indeed I did.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Look, if the yappy cocker spaniel over there will settle down, we could....
F. Gingell: Listen to who's talking. Go back and read the way you used to speak in this House when you were in opposition.
The Chair: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair doesn't wish to intervene, but if members are going to take liberties with respect to personal comments on individuals, it will be incumbent on the Chair to ask them to withdraw. I would ask the minister to withdraw the term "cocker spaniel."
Hon. M. Sihota: I withdraw my comment that the hon. member is a yappy cocker spaniel.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. Please proceed.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll wait for the member to settle down before I speak again.
We had a dysfunctional situation in the city of Vancouver, and it seemed to me that the one comment on the situation in that regard was in the public interest and in the interest of getting children back to school.
I can appreciate that the opposition will, as all oppositions do from time to time, express the view that they don't have confidence in a minister. In fact, I would be surprised if that didn't happen in our parliamentary world. It seems to me that hardly a day goes by that the opposition doesn't make that comment about one minister or another. That's part of the give and take of our parliamentary system here in B.C. There are determinations by the Premier with regard to who serves in what capacity. Ministers who have had the opportunity to serve in this portfolio have made the determinations with regard to the appointment of arbitrators, and it is our intention to continue that practice.
D. Mitchell: The Minister of Labour indicated that he feels he has a responsibility to comment on labour disputes, and that is true. The Minister of Labour may have a responsibility to comment and to be extremely circumspect in his comments in a labour dispute. The minister has indicated that as Minister of Labour, he, like his predecessors in that portfolio, may have power to appoint arbitrators, and that is true. His predecessors have often had the power enshrined in statute to appoint arbitrators. The problem here is that this Minister of Labour has crossed the line of impartiality to partiality during this dispute. During this lengthy dispute in Vancouver, where the students have been out for almost a month, this minister has repeatedly taken sides. He's done something none of his predecessors as Minister of Labour have ever done.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The subject has been raised, but I don't think that it can really be defended as being in order if we follow standing orders in committee. I am not going to rule that a brief reflection on the subject before us is not in order, but I would suggest that the hon. member keep in mind that we are on section 4.
D. Mitchell: And we're on the amendment to section 4, which I'm speaking to. The amendment moved by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove seeks to take away from the minister the power to appoint the arbitrator. I would like to argue that there may be some real merit in this amendment, because this minister has lost the confidence of the members of this assembly and certainly of the people of the province because of his taking sides. He has taken sides in a labour dispute, and Ministers of Labour don't do that if they understand the impartiality that goes with their office.
This minister, who is a member of one political party, may not agree with those who have been members of other political parties, but I would ask him to reflect back 20 years to a Minister of Labour from a previous New Democratic government, Bill King. Some members might remember Bill King. Bill King was Minister of Labour during a time of chaos in labour relations, which most periods of NDP tenure in office are. But Bill King understood the impartiality of the portfolio of Labour in this province, and he never took sides in the many labour disputes during that ill-fated three-year
[ Page 6660 ]
term of NDP government in the early 1970s. He understood. This Minister of Labour should have gone and talked to Bill King so that he understood more closely the role of Minister of Labour.
If the minister doesn't like the idea of giving the Chief Justice the ability to appoint an arbitrator, then maybe he can come up with a better suggestion. The truth is that he can't propose the Labour Relations Board, because the labour tribunal has also been compromised by the appointment of Stan Lanyon and by the more recent appointment of Hans Brown. So the labour relations tribunal itself cannot be given this task because it has become extremely politicized by this minister. That's another reason why this minister should not have the power to appoint an arbitrator. This is the same minister who, over the desire of Stan Lanyon to have an independent tribunal, appointed Hans Brown as a vice-chairman.
The Chair: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo rises on a point of order.
D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I would refer members to standing order 40. I rise reluctantly on this point of order. I wonder whether this amendment is indeed in order under the terms of standing order 40. Let me, if I may, explain. The reference in standing order 40, of course, is that "no member shall use offensive words against any member of this House." Offensive words are construed in the discussion of that particular session as a famous qui digreditur principle. That principle means simply that you cannot raise the competence or the qualities of an individual as a point in a debate; rather the issue is what is primary. This entire amendment is based on the alleged lack of qualification of this member, this minister. I would submit that this entire amendment is thereby perhaps out of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order, quite clearly the amendment isn't meant to deal with the competence of the minister; it's to deal with the record and the intent of the minister. We can't comment on competency by putting in an amendment, but we can comment on the ability of the minister to make a correct determination; that is all we are doing.
The Chair: Yes, thank you. I appreciate the submissions. The hon member for Vancouver-Langara on the point of order.
V. Anderson: Not on the point of order, but on the amendment itself.
The Chair: Hon. member, the point of order raised by the member for Nanaimo has been reviewed again. Section 4 addresses the content of debate, as the member himself pointed out, and while he's quite right with respect to impugning the reputation, etc., of a member, the Chair finds the amendment itself to be in order, and it does not address any of the concerns of the member.
I ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara to proceed.
V. Anderson: I think this is very important in the amendment, because not only do we need to have confidence in the decisions that are going to be made in Vancouver, but this also sets a pattern for reflection and for decisions that will be made in other parts of the province. So it has far broader ramifications than for just Vancouver itself. It sets an example of the kind and quality of those negotiations, and the respect that they will have in the broader jurisdiction. I know that in Vancouver itself, with the mediator we had and the report that came in, one of the concerns that came out of that report was that the mediator then appointed himself arbitrator following the report, if it had been adopted in the last phrase within that report. That was questioned by people within the community, in all aspects of the community.
I think it is very important that people in the community see that the person with the least bias and prejudice, the person that they can have confidence in, be able to be appointed. So I'd highly recommend that the amendment be endorsed.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to correct a couple of the points that the hon. member made. With regard to the situation in Vancouver, the individual was appointed as a mediator and was asked to make public recommendations as one of the terms of his appointment as mediator. He wasn't appointed as an arbitrator. And obviously, if he was and if the parties had accepted the arbitration on a binding basis, I guess we wouldn't be here today. But the individual was put in as a mediator.
Putting aside the reflections of the opposition on the individual who currently occupies the portfolio -- let me put it that way -- I think it is important for me to comment on a couple of the points that have been made. It is indeed true that one has to take some care in terms of the appointments that they make in terms of mediators and arbitrators -- or including the vice-chairs and the chair of the Labour Relations Board.
As I believe I said during debate on Bill 84, and perhaps during estimates as well, it is important that the appointment be one where the parties have confidence in the person being appointed. It's not out of the question for the minister to canvass names with parties and to seek input from parties in terms of who ought to be an arbitrator or mediator in a particular dispute. It's surprising how frequently the parties themselves will actually put forward names that overlap, and that of course makes the job a lot easier. Occasionally that doesn't occur, in which case you have to make some choices. But when it doesn't occur, the parties always run the risk that the minister, in exercising his or her discretion, may accentuate the risk that either of the parties feel with regard to the outcome of arbitration.
[7:45]
The legislation here doesn't oblige the minister to consult with either of the parties. I believe there's an amendment by the member for Okanagan-Vernon on that point. But the practice is to sit back and canvass the
[ Page 6661 ]
parties, and I see no reason why that practice would cease to exist.
C. Tanner: All political considerations and all personalities involved apart, why wouldn't the minister have the arbitrator appointed by a judge? It seems to me that it wasn't too long ago that this government appointed Mr. Justice Seaton to arbitrate a decision because of some very fine point that Mr. Hughes had been involved in in the construction of the legislation in the first place. Now we've got a case which is far more delicate, particularly from your government's point of view. Why wouldn't you take this alternative that we are suggesting? Surely it would enhance the reputation of the minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let's not forget that it was the government who made the decision to appoint Mr. Justice Seaton. The government makes those kinds of determinations based on a number of variables. I have never heard of the opposition taking issue -- in the context of labour relations -- with any of the arbitrators we have appointed with regard to any dispute. Even with regard to Mr. Foley in this dispute in Vancouver....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Several. We appoint arbitrators and mediators in disputes. Over the last 18 months I can think of occasions where we have gone to both arbitrators and mediators, and I have never known the opposition to complain. I guess it's a pretty good record. Either the opposition hasn't been paying attention.... I would assume that it has been, and I would assume that it hasn't taken issue with the decisions we have made. Therefore I can't understand why the opposition would be concerned.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the reason that the opposition hasn't been as upset with some of the appointments the minister made.... We certainly have made a record of being upset about a number of the appointments he has made to the board -- the vice-chair, in particular. We have made clear a number of our objections to appointments this minister has made on a whole range of issues. We have never....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hydro board? Do you want me to give you examples? I can list all the patronage appointments the minister's ministry has gone through, but I don't think it's appropriate for this portion of the debate.
We have never been in a situation where we have had such hard feelings on both sides, and have never been in a position where we are sitting in an emergency session of the Legislature to deal with one issue. That in itself indicates the severity and importance of this issue and indicates why, above all -- despite the fact that the minister has dillydallied through this process and we are in a situation where the relations between the two parties have reached an all-time low -- that it is clearly time to start building up again from the bottom. I think the best way to do that is to ensure the impartial appointment of an arbitrator right from square one, particularly given the hard feelings of the trustees towards the Minister of Labour.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member's thesis is that never have we seen such difficult disputes. We have. For example, I can reflect on the health dispute about a year ago. I believe in that situation we appointed Mr. Kelleher or Mr. Munroe, and I have never known the opposition to be upset. I grant you that you have expressed some dissatisfaction with some of the people we appointed to the Labour Relations Board in terms of chairs and vice-chairs. I acknowledged that a minute ago, but only with two. I have never known you to take issue with those. When we are finished with this legislation, I really don't think you'll be taking issue with any individual we will end up appointing under this section.
F. Gingell: It really isn't us that have to be satisfied; it is the public. Because of the circumstances and positions of the trustees and teachers, it is important that the public, the teachers and the school trustees accept the person who is appointed and believe that person to be impartial. Whether the opposition believes them to be impartial is pretty irrelevant, but it isn't irrelevant outside this Legislature.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 19 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Reid |
|
Gingell |
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
|
Mitchell |
K. Jones |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
Warnke |
Hurd |
|
Tanner |
Symons |
Neufeld |
| De Jong | ||
|
NAYS -- 49 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Boone |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Barlee |
Charbonneau |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Conroy |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Hagen |
|
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
|
Clark |
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
|
Blencoe |
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
|
Copping |
Lovick |
Ramsey |
|
Pullinger |
Farnworth |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
Doyle |
|
Hartley |
Streifel |
Lord |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Simpson |
Brewin |
| Janssen | ||
[ Page 6662 ]
L. Hanson: Hon. Chair, I would like to submit for the House's consideration an amendment to section 4, adding subsection (6):
"Any arbitrator or other person appointed to act under this section shall be so appointed from a list of qualified arbitrators acceptable to both parties; or failing their agreement, acceptable to both the B.C. Teachers' Federation and to the British Columbia School Trustees' Association; or failing their agreement, selected by a reference to a justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court. No person who has acted as a mediator or special mediator in the dispute is eligible to be appointed or to act as an arbitrator under this section."
I've already submitted it to the Clerk.
The Chair: The Chair has a copy. Hon. member, please proceed.
On the amendment.
L. Hanson: The rationale behind this, I think, is pretty obvious. The minister has appointed a special mediator in the dispute in Vancouver, which is the section that we're dealing with. He has made some public comments that might be perceived as being in support of that special mediator's recommendations. He has also made some public suggestions that the school board in Vancouver is holding up the education process in that school district.
What this would do is require the agreement of the school board and the teachers' association affected on who should arbitrate the dispute or, failing that, a referral to the provincial bodies that represent those two particular groups for their consideration as to who might be acceptable.
Another possibility is that a list of qualified arbitrators could be acceptable to both parties, and one person would be chosen from that list. Failing an agreement under those circumstances, it would be referred to the Supreme Court, and the decision would be made by a judge of that body.
[8:00]
There's one other thrust of this amendment: no person who has acted as a mediator or special mediator in the dispute is eligible to act as an arbitrator under this section. The rationale is that in the process of appointing a mediator or special mediator, there is a suggestion -- and hopefully a real, true desire -- to reach a mediated settlement between the two parties without having to invoke other sections of this bill. If the arbitrator could be the same person as the mediator, it would lead to a difficulty for the two parties to accept any suggestions of a mediator who is going to change his hat and become the arbitrator at some later date. There is good and valid justification that the mediator, the person who is given the responsibility to try and reach an agreement between the two parties, should not be the same judge, if you will, who would sit as an arbitrator, listen to the presentation of both sides and make a decision as to what is fair in that dispute.
With that, I move the motion that I have just dealt with, and ask the members of this Legislature to consider it and, hopefully, to approve it.
Hon. M. Sihota: There were a number of comments made by the hon. member in that presentation. I'll try to go through them in the order that they appear in the amendment that he has put forward.
He has indicated that the arbitrator should be selected from a list put forward by either of the two parties, and if they can't agree, between the BCTF and the BCSTA. Let me just stop at that point. As I said a few minutes ago, it is the practice of myself, and certainly of the ministry, to consult and discuss with the parties. Indeed, as the hon. member probably knows from his previous experience, the parties are often very quick to put forward names themselves for potential arbitrators, and therefore one really is never without notice of the views of the competing parties with regard to who they think would best fill the role of arbitrator in a dispute and whose confidence they most enjoy. I will not accept this amendment, but I will say and commit to this: we will consult with the parties and seek their advice as to who they would consider to be an adequate individual to serve the role of arbitrator with regard to this dispute in Vancouver.
Secondly, to state the obvious, as minister I am responsible for the determinations that we make and for the arbitrators we appoint. I commented on that a few minutes ago, and I won't repeat myself, except to add one other point: I don't underestimate the ability of the opposition to raise questions in this chamber and hold me accountable for any determinations that I make in that regard. Indeed, if they feel that some kind of bias is demonstrated in the appointment of an arbitrator, I'm sure I'll hear from them. Let me also say that the ability, to state the obvious, of that becoming an issue is something that drives one to make a determination so that it doesn't become an issue.
Finally, in his submission with regard to the amendment, the hon. member makes an interesting point about the role of the mediator or special mediator and whether or not that person could actually serve as an arbitrator. That might be more relevant debate under sections 10 and 11 when we're talking about situations apart from this one. I note what he says in his amendment on the current situation in Vancouver. He has to take note of what I have just said about it.
We will consult with the parties and seek their opinions as to who they think would be best qualified, as we normally do. For that reason plus the others that I've indicated, the amendment is unnecessary.
L. Hanson: I accept what the minister says, and I understand why he's saying it. I suspect that the concern with this situation is that there was a mediator appointed who was requested to make his recommendation public. I believe that the minister, in fairness, would understand that there might be a perception on the part of the public that his judgment and who he was to appoint under those circumstances might be considered a little bit prejudiced because of the remarks attributed to him in public supporting the report of that individual and suggesting that the school board should adopt it.
[ Page 6663 ]
I won't add any more. I think the amendment would enhance the credibility of this piece of legislation in the public's eye as well as in the school board's eye.
D. Mitchell: I listened carefully to the minister's initial response to the member for Okanagan-Vernon. I'm not really sure I understand one aspect of what he's saying. He's saying that the amendment would codify the existing practice of consultation which already takes place under him and took place under previous Ministers of Labour. He says that if he as minister appointed an arbitrator that appeared to be biased, he would hear from the opposition; but that would be after the fact, not before the fact. There are perhaps questions inherent in the amendment about the minister's judgment, but I don't think the minister need take this personally. It relates to this specific incident that Bill 31 is dealing with. If the amendment is really just enshrining existing practice, why would the minister not accept the amendment? He's indicated that he won't, but he hasn't really told us why.
Hon. M. Sihota: It is the practice now for the minister to consult, and I've said that the minister will consult. But it is not the practice now to totally fetter the discretion of the minister.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, I didn't hear that; I'm sure it was something that was worth hearing. But it is not my practice currently to fetter the discretion of the minister, nor would I think it appropriate to limit opportunities for accountability in this House by codifying this.
The current system works well; I don't think the hon. member would disagree with that. Part of the indicia of evidence in support of the proposition that the current system works well in the employment process is the fact that very seldom, if ever, have I heard...or has the opposition, to my knowledge in the time that I've served in this House, complained about appointments. If one were to cross the line, I'm sure the public would hear about it -- with the appropriate reaction from the public that one would expect.
I don't think it's necessary. I think it's superfluous in some ways, and in some ways it's better to have it codified and have the direct accountability of the minister than not to have it.
D. Symons: I too have some difficulties with the answer that the minister is giving on this. He mentioned in his first response that this House would have a chance to respond; as the previous speaker said, that may be after the fact. Indeed, the House may not be sitting, so unless the minister is willing to guarantee that we'll only have school strikes while the House is sitting, that may be a rather empty promise.
The other thing I think the minister should consider is that something very similar to this was basically the case for arbitrated negotiations for a good many years before Bill 20 came into effect. That was what was happening in the school system for 20 or 30 years during the sixties through to the early eighties, and it worked well. We did not have strikes. You talked about the arbitration system working well. Well, this system has been in practice in the province of British Columbia. It has been the case that the two parties chose the third-party arbitrator, and there was a three-part arbitration process. We had to first go to conciliation and then to binding arbitration, and that was the system. It's really the system that I would have hoped that you were bringing back in your legislation today, because that's the system we should be having in the province here. We should get away from what's been happening in the last few months in this province, and you had the opportunity to go back to what was there before Bill 20, and you flubbed that.
Now you're bringing in something that is neglecting or putting out of hand something that also is a good recommendation, and I think you should take it much more seriously than you have when you simply said: "Well, I'm not going to go along with this." This deserves serious consideration. It has stood the test of time in this province and has worked well to serve the students and the people of this province very well. It should not be rejected.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member at the outset of his comments talked about the House not sitting if there was a strike, and I think what he was thinking about was the arbitration process when the House is not sitting. I don't think he realizes that what we're dealing with here in this section regards Vancouver. I see he acknowledges that now. It may be more appropriate for him to raise this argument, if he wishes, when we get to sections 10 and 11. This deals exclusively with Vancouver.
I should also point out that that system that he sort of referred to as being one that gives him comfort is a situation where the Minister of Labour made the appointment.
C. Serwa: The amendment appears to have a great deal validity in its presentation. It appears to be fair and balanced.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Well, the Minister of Labour challenges that, but let's look at the perception of the way it is structured in Bill 31 and the proposed amendment, the addition to the bill. What is at jeopardy here is the integrity of the whole process, and surely the Minister of Labour is as responsible as the Attorney General, as I said earlier in second reading, for striving to maintain the integrity of the process.
Here we have an amendment that the public can accept, that the government should support in all fairness because of the independence of the process and because of the integrity that is required in the negotiations. The minister has stated on altogether too many occasions where his particular bias is. His bias is not any different than the bias of the government of the day or of the general bias of the caucus members on the government side, but nevertheless the minister has a
[ Page 6664 ]
greater responsibility for balance and fairness, as does the Attorney General, that overcomes that particular bias in the system. There are too many statements on the matter of public record uttered not only by the minister but by other members on the government side. Surely the public interest has to be protected in an objective fashion.
The amendment takes into consideration both parties in the choice. The minister has conceded that that is an important facet, although the minister reserves the right -- and this is where the suspicion tends to come in with the ability to subvert the process -- to consult but not to act on the basis of that consultation. The reality is then that there will always be a perception and a suspicion out there on the basis of the choice of the arbitrator, and even the integrity of the arbitrator in this particular situation will be challenged, whereas the independence of the system from the presentation of this particular amendment will negate that. It will remove the responsibility from the Minister of Labour, from the government of the day, and assure the independence and the integrity of the process.
[8:15]
Failing the agreement of both parties, then we ask for the agreement of the BCTF and the B.C. school trustees -- higher level, both stronger organizations, again representing both interests: the concerns of the teachers and the concerns of the general public as voiced through the actions of the school trustees exercising their responsibility. Failing that, there is another level where we can go and ask the B.C. Supreme Court to indicate an arbitrator. The reality is that this particular section would resolve the big question out there, but if the government chooses not to accept this amendment, then it is really displaying and confirming to the public that it has a particular bias and will choose an arbitrator who will swing the results in the favour of the BCTF.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says, "Oh no," but that is what the perception will be, because the Minister of Labour is on record with his statements. The public is well aware of precisely what will transpire. The accountability is really no accountability. We can negate all of the conflict that would ensue here in this Legislature with this proviso and maintain the integrity of the whole process and those in the process. Perhaps the minister would respond to that.
Hon. A. Petter: I can't allow those statements to pass without some comment, because they are completely contradictory. The previous member stood up in this House and preached for the first three or four minutes of his presentation about how it was the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to ensure the integrity of the process. Then for the last four or five minutes of his presentation, he went ahead and tried to make an argument that this responsibility should be removed from the Minister of Labour. It's completely contradictory as an argument.
I want to say that the member's initial comments were absolutely correct. The responsibility of the Minister of Labour is to ensure the integrity of the process. The Minister of Labour discharges that responsibility and he is accountable for discharging that responsibility to this House. That's the way our system works. The members opposite don't seem to understand that. They seem to want to displace that responsibility and make someone else responsible. That is completely contrary to the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour and the way in which the parliamentary system is intended to function.
The Minister of Labour has made it very clear how he intends to discharge that responsibility. He will do so in a way that is even-handed. No one opposite has suggested that he has ever discharged that responsibility of appointing mediators in anything but an even-handed manner. I want to suggest that the suggestions opposite for some supposedly curative amendment are at best superfluous and at worst politically provocative.
C. Serwa: I certainly hope that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has a better handle on his ministry than he has on this particular issue. The reality is the integrity of the process. The Minister of Labour has already exhibited his bias, as the government has exhibited its bias, in this particular matter. This amendment is very necessary to allow the public to have confidence in the whole process. We're not here in this Legislature to victimize the taxpayers of British Columbia. We have a collective responsibility to provide fair and balanced legislation. Here's an opportunity to remedy something, which appears to have been written by the BCTF, in favour of fairness and balance, giving both parties in the matter an opportunity to agree on an arbitrator so that the process can be more distant from the minister who has -- on record -- exhibited his bias. That is the purpose of the amendment; there is strong merit in the amendment. If the government of the day is genuine in their concern for fairness and balance, they will accept this amendment. If they do not accept this amendment, it is blatantly obvious that the foxes are going to continue to watch the chickens and think it's a great deal.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll be very brief. With due respect to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- I do have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- given his comments and the argument that was made, yes, it does appear contradictory on the surface, but when one looks at the person who occupies the role of the Minister of Labour, it becomes quite clear. Truly, the Minister of Labour is responsible to ensure the integrity of this process, and as the member said, he is responsible to this House to do that. The fact that this amendment is being brought forward proves that the minister must be accountable to this House. Over the last two weeks the minister has quite clearly demonstrated his inability to ensure the integrity of the system, and today, on a Sunday afternoon and evening, he is being held accountable to the House. That's the
[ Page 6665 ]
reason for the amendment. He is being judged today, and he is being found wanting.
D. Mitchell: I too would like to compliment and thank the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for his intervention in this debate. I would particularly like to offer him my support in his efforts to become the next Minister of Labour in the cabinet shuffle to come this summer.
I think too much is being made of this relatively noncontroversial amendment. We know that Bill 31 was drafted in great haste over the last 24 or 36 hours, and the Minister of Labour surely will agree that it is not perfect and could be improved. This final stage of the bill that we're in right now -- the committee stage -- is the one opportunity for members of this House to have some input, and I think the amendment deserves some support as a noncontroversial amendment.
C. Serwa: Just one further question on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon, and I would like a response from the Minister of Labour. Bearing in mind the limited life of this particular piece of legislation, would it not be prudent, for the requirement of the perception of fairness and balance in the intent and presentation, to incorporate the amendment? You've got a narrow scope of time. The act will be repealed March 31, 1994, which is less than a year away. In the spirit of recognizing its validity, in the spirit of compromise and in the spirit of the value of impartiality and integrity, wouldn't it be wise for government to accept the amendment? Recognizing that it's a relatively short term and that it expires in less than a year, why not give it an honest try, hon. minister?
K. Jones: He's too perfect. He'll never accept it.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll wait for the member from Surrey-Cloverdale to settle down. Then I can take my opportunity to speak.
The Chair: The Chair must say that the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale has been speaking from his seat quite a bit this evening. I would ask him to consider the difficulty of the Chair in trying to hear the exchanges between the members and to please tone down his interjections. Thank you.
Hon. M. Sihota: Obviously we realize that we have to take some care with regard to the appointment, and we will, just as we have done with all other appointments. I'm aware of the point that you're trying to make, and I appreciate it both administratively and politically. I also recognize that I have commented on this situation; if I may say so. I've commented very consciously that there are biases. The bias, in this case, has been to try to get the schools back up and running and the children back in school as quickly as possible. We had a situation in Vancouver where the board was essentially dysfunctional. In my view, that clearly warranted some comment.
The Chair: I'm sorry to interject, hon. minister, but there is an inordinate amount of dialogue taking place in the chamber. I would ask the members who are having conversations to show us the courtesy maybe of leaving in order that we can carry on with the committee.
Hon. M. Sihota: The opposition has expressed some concerns with regard to bias. I guess we could have simply inserted into the legislation the recommendations of the current special mediator. We didn't, and I think there's reason for that. We consciously chose a process of binding arbitration for a lot of reasons, and we're well aware of our obligations with regard to the arbitrator. We will act in accordance with the requirements of this office to ensure that the decision is properly made.
The making of that decision will involve, first of all, a process of discussing the issue with the parties, as we normally do. From the list that they submit, if there's an overlap, we will look at the overlap; and if there isn't an overlap, we will exercise our judgment in terms of the arbitrator. That's the approach we'll take. It's obvious, not so much from the comments of the member from Social Credit but from the others, how their minds are operating here. I would be lying if I said that I was oblivious to their concerns. We will make an appointment in this regard -- and I don't know who it will be at this point in the game -- that I will be comfortable defending in this House. Therefore it must meet certain criteria of independence.
I think that's as much as I need to say. We will make the appropriate determinations and make a decision with regard to an arbitrator. We will duly advise the public and this House through that method, and we will be happy to defend that decision in this House should the opposition still have those concerns once the arbitrator is appointed.
D. Symons: Obviously the minister is not aware, and I just want to correct.... When I spoke earlier about what the arbitration board was made up of before, he assured me that it was appointed by the minister. I have a copy of the 1979 school act in front of me, which confirms exactly what I said. That is:
"a salaried arbitration board appointed by the minister for the zone, and composed of: (a) a member nominated unanimously by the boards that are parties to the dispute; (b) a member nominated unanimously by the associations that are parties to the dispute; and (c) a chairman nominated by both members under paragraphs (a) and (b)."
The chairman was indeed chosen by the two parties involved, and that is precisely what this amendment is saying. You said it was not that way before; well, sir, it was. Therefore this is a good amendment, because it will allow the procedure that has 20 years of experience of working well in this province to work again. We will not be in the bind that we're in today. We will not be called out on a Sunday to fix this government's mistakes if you would accept an amendment of this sort.
[ Page 6666 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: In that situation, I'm told that when the parties could not agree, the appointment was made by the Minister of Labour.
D. Symons: All I'm willing to say is that that is still possible, because when the parties don't agree, there is the opportunity in this amendment to have somebody appointed. Indeed, I don't really mind if it's the minister or the Supreme Court, but at least we have an opportunity for the two opposing parties to choose that chairman. This is a very good amendment, and I would urge all government members, if they believe in fairness, to support it.
[8:30]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 17 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Reid |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
Hanson |
|
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
Mitchell |
|
K. Jones |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Warnke |
Tanner |
Symons |
|
Neufeld |
De Jong | |
|
NAYS -- 49 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Boone |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Barlee |
Charbonneau |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Conroy |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Hagen |
|
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
|
Clark |
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
|
Blencoe |
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
|
Copping |
Lovick |
Ramsey |
|
Pullinger |
Farnworth |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
Doyle |
|
Hartley |
Streifel |
Lord |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Simpson |
Brewin |
| Janssen | ||
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 5 deals with the duties of the arbitrator. One of the things....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's getting late in the evening. I think the NDP back bench is getting giddy.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. Hon. member, please proceed.
G. Farrell-Collins: We don't have a great deal of problem with the subsections in section 5, as they read. The problems we do have with this section are with the parts that aren't there.
Hon. Chair, in Bill 84 last fall the government removed the old section 137.96, which dealt with the ability of the taxpayers to pay. Quite clearly, in this debate today and certainly outside in the corridors today the Premier made comments.... The Premier, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance and indeed the Minister of Education over the last two weeks have made numerous statements to the effect that there's no more money. Time and time again they have said that there is no more money to settle these disputes. In particular, they made reference to the Vancouver dispute.
Hon. Chair, perhaps if....
D. Symons: Point of order. Hon. Chair, there are some noisy disruptive persons in the House -- NDP for short -- and I'm having difficulty hearing the discussion that's going on.
The Chair: The point is well taken, hon. member, and I would ask all hon. members to restrain themselves. It is getting late in the evening, and a certain amount of anxiety, I suppose, is understandable. Nonetheless, we are in committee, and it is necessary to have reasonable decorum in order to proceed. The hon. member continues.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair, for your interjection.
In the debate on the revised Labour Code last fall, section 137.96 was removed from the bill. That section put certain parameters on the duties of the arbitrator. One of the main duties of the arbitrator, particularly as it related to public sector bargaining, was to ensure that the ability of the taxpayer to pay was one of the paramount requirements of the arbitrator. The reason that was brought into public sector negotiations is that there really is not, unlike industrial negotiations, anyone who is directly accountable for the expenditure of those funds in the same way as private sector negotiations. The difference is subtle, but it's important.
Now that the government has removed those sections from the Labour Code, there is no requirement. There is no voice for the taxpayer in this binding arbitration the government is bringing in with respect to the Vancouver dispute. Nobody is there to make reference to the ability of the taxpayer to pay, and I think given the restraint that....
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, there seems to be an NDP caucus meeting going on down at the end of the House.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. The Chair has requested cooperation a number of times. I would appreciate it if members would take their conversations outside, because it's difficult to hear the member who has the floor.
G. Farrell-Collins: Given that in this legislation there is no paramountcy given to the taxpayers'
[ Page 6667 ]
ability to pay, and given that the government has removed that from the Labour Code with the introduction of Bill 84, I would like to move an amendment to section 5 and insert new subsections (2), (3) and (4).
Subsection (2) will read: "In an arbitration between an employer and a trade union, the arbitrator shall, in settling the terms and conditions of a collective agreement, the ability of the employer to pay shall be the paramount factor."
Subsection (3) would read: "An arbitrator shall not, to the extent that the employee compensation and benefits under the collective agreement, make an award inconsistent with the employer's ability to pay."
Subsection (4) would read: "For the purposes of this part, 'ability' to pay means the current ability of an employer to pay based on existing revenues, requirements of any fiscal policies to which the employer is subject, and the impact of increased costs on the maintenance of existing levels of public service."
The significance of this provision is profound, particularly subsection (4) and the last sentence in subsection 4, which states: "...impact of increased costs on the maintenance of existing levels of public service." Quite clearly the boards in the province -- particularly the Vancouver district -- are grappling with maintaining a level of service. The Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education and the Premier have said time and time again that there is no more money for Vancouver. I think that's clear to the board; I hope it's becoming clearer to the teachers; and it's certainly becoming clearer to the taxpayers.
When the arbitrator makes that decision, it is important that whatever settlement is offered to the teachers in this dispute regarding class size, mainstreaming of special needs students or salary increases, that that not impinge upon the level of service being offered. And that relates directly to teacher layoffs.
This section would ensure that no pay increase would be given if it meant that the level of service or the number of teachers were going to be reduced. In essence, this ensures that first and foremost the number of teachers in Vancouver will be dealt with as the paramount factor. The money left over will go to wage increases and the other issues, which are valid concerns of the teachers but which need to be addressed within that envelope that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and the Premier have so clearly defined.
I think that is certainly a reasonable amendment. Given the economic times we are in right now, it is a reasonable amendment. I see the Minister of Finance was nodding. Now the Minister of Labour is looking at him and he's shaking his head.
[8:45]
The Chair: On the amendment, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will hear what the Minister of Labour's feeling is towards this amendment -- whether he feels it's an appropriate amendment given the risk of teacher layoffs and given the fact that he himself has said that there's no more money for the Vancouver School District.
Hon. M. Sihota: I was going to tell the hon. member that the amendment is not necessary. We're going to send the Minister of Finance to give evidence to the arbitrator, and that will probably do the trick.
In any event, I don't underestimate the ability of the parties to state their case and to talk about the limitations in their own budgets and the fiscal realities that they face. One of the reasons we have this dispute in Vancouver is that trustees -- three of them, in any event -- have taken a particular view with regard to the limitations they have. Because of that, I anticipate that they will be making an argument in front of the arbitrator with regard to both the quantum of funds in their possession and the consequences of an award in excess of what that quantum of funds can tolerate.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that the board and the teachers did just that before the mediator. I assume they advocated their position to that extent, and the mediator quite clearly came up with a solution that would have impacted on hundreds of teacher jobs in Vancouver.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Here is an opportunity for the Minister of Labour to take some leadership and to give some direction to the arbitrator that the level of service the students of Vancouver are entitled to will not be decreased, that the level of service will be maintained, that there will be no layoffs, that the jurisdiction and the number of teachers will not be reduced and that the level of service will be kept. Quite clearly, at this time the minister should be showing some leadership to the arbitrator to ensure that those are parameters within which he must operate, so we don't end up with the situation we had with the mediator's report.
Hon. G. Clark: I think the short answer is that such an amendment is not required. I'd like to explain why that is. In any arbitrated settlement, both parties make their case: "This is how many people have to be laid off," they might say, "if this settlement were achieved." The union will make their case and say: "We think that there should be administrative staff laid off to fund this settlement." The arbitrator makes a decision by weighing all the evidence, including the ability to pay. That's central to the arbitration process; central to the arbitrator's decision is the ability of the employer to make an award. The arbitrator does not come to these questions completely with some abstract notion of wage rates in the province. The arbitrator hears the evidence from the school boards and from the teachers' union, and makes an adjudication based on that.
It's not a science, I might say. I'll give you an example. In many cases in British Columbia school boards have said, "We'll have to lay off X number of teachers if we agree to this settlement," and lo and behold a few months later, no one's laid off. There's a certain amount of posturing in labour relations, and debate back and forth between both parties, on both
[ Page 6668 ]
sides of the equation, whether it's trustees or teachers. Teachers will say, "Of course you can afford this very generous settlement, and no one will have to be laid off," and that is not always the case either. What happens is that the arbitrator weighs the evidence as best as he or she can, and makes a decision. The decision is often something which is not palatable to either party.
I want to assure members of the House that no further provincial funding is going to be provided for the settlement. The arbitrator knows that; all the parties know that. When they go into arbitration, there is a budget. It is finite; it has been awarded. There's no secret or magic to that, and there's no requirement to impose any restrictions on the arbitration award, such as the ones suggested by the members opposite, because they're implicit in the nature of arbitration.
I would suggest that the members opposite are really posturing when it comes to this question. It's not required. We will see the evidence of that. We see it routinely in this system, and I can assure members that monetary factors will be a key element in the arbitration decision.
G. Farrell-Collins: I thank the Minister of Finance. Now we know he, at least, understands the process. The interesting thing, though, is that less than a week and a half ago the Premier stood up in this House and said that he does not support binding arbitration, because the taxpayer gets hosed. Those are the words he used in question period. What the Liberal opposition is trying to do with this amendment is ensure that the taxpayer doesn't get hosed. That's what we're trying to do.
I don't understand the discrepancy between what the Minister of Finance is saying and what the Premier is saying. Clearly, one of them isn't talking to the other one. I don't know which way it's going, but if the Premier says that the taxpayer gets hosed, and the Minister of Finance stands up and says, "Nobody gets hosed and everybody's happy," then quite clearly there's a problem.
If the defence against binding arbitration by the Premier last week is taken to be fact, and he is speaking on behalf of his government, I would ask the Minister of Finance to reconcile his statements with those of the Premier.
Hon. G. Clark: I would say this. This is not unfettered binding arbitration for the entire education sector; this is not like some of the patterns of settlements we've seen through an arbitrated system of settling wage disputes in the education sector. More than 50 school boards have already settled. We have a unique circumstance in Vancouver, which we are putting to arbitration. We know that Mr. Foley's recommendations are matters of public domain, and that there are many and complex recommendations. We know that the parties have strong views on this, and they'll put them forward in that context.
We are only doing arbitration in one dispute, where there is a poisoned atmosphere, where collective bargaining has broken down and where there is a special mediator's recommendations, which are very detailed and very complex and which will be put to a new independent person very aggressively and forcefully by the parties. This is not saying that henceforth all 75 districts will be settled by binding arbitration before the budgets of the day are delivered. The budgets have already been delivered. Most districts have settled. There is one where there is a dispute, and we're putting that to a third party. That's a fundamental distinction here.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister perhaps hasn't read the rest of the act, and we'll certainly get there. But I assume, when we come to section 10, which deals with a special mediator who within 36 hours essentially becomes an arbitrator, that he will support my amendment in that section, given the comments that he just made -- where in fact we're dealing with more than just one district.
And to use the logic of the Minister of Finance, he has stated that because we're not dealing with the whole province or all the districts in the province, if the taxpayers get hosed in Vancouver it's okay, since we're just sort of hosing them a little bit.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister asks how they are going to get hosed. They can get hosed in two ways. They can get hosed by having an increase in their tax rate, which of course isn't being allowed for. All the ministers have made that very clear. But they can get hosed in another way, in that the level of service decreases. That's where the problem is, and that's where the crunch is. That's why the amendment to subsection (4), which I drew the Finance minister's attention to, and which he was nodding at at the time I said it.... That is the section that strictly pertains to the comments of the Premier about the taxpayers getting hosed. The last part of subsection (4) would deal with that specifically. So why would the Minister of Finance then speak against that, given the comments of the Premier?
Hon. G. Clark: If you follow the logic of the opposition, hon. Chair, then I assume that their position is that we should impose zero settlements over the next few years. Social Credit members are applauding, and though I disagree with their position, I respect it.
But if the member opposite is saying, "We can't lay off any teachers, we can't lay off any support staff, and we can't lay off any administrators; we know the budget, and we're going to have all these factors go to arbitration," then what's the arbitrator to do?
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: That's okay; I understand that, but be honest then. I say to the Liberal Party, be honest. You're not in favour of collective bargaining; you're now not in favour of arbitration. You're in favour of unilaterally imposing a settlement from Victoria. That's the logic of what you're saying.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think he's finally got it. Because with his budget, the minister, through the
[ Page 6669 ]
Minister of Education, has given the Vancouver district -- I can't remember what Vancouver received -- I think about a 3 percent growth. Even if it's zero, or whatever, the amount that's there clearly only allows for growth, if that, within the district population growth. That's similar to what other districts are facing. What the minister has to admit and be frank and honest with the public about, particularly those members of the various trade unions, is that if you're going to give a negotiated increase to the teachers, you're going to take that money away from other trade unions in that district -- or from the excluded staff, capital expenditures or programs.
If you're going to give a finite budget to a district and pretend that they can bargain collectively within that, but there's no more money -- there are no deficits running, etc., we're just fine; that's what the minister is saying -- then at least the minister should be honest with those trade unions and say that any money that goes to one trade union or group of people is going to be taken away from the other group. Clearly that's what's likely to happen in Vancouver. If these people settle, the money that has been saved in the last 17 days of the strike -- however many million that is -- is going to be folded back into the pot. It's going to be taken out of the pockets of the support workers or those other people who were not able to cross the picket line and were shut down during that time, and given to the teachers. That's clearly what's taking place. The minister should stand up and be honest about it and say that this is what's happening.
That is what we are saying with this act: if you're going to do that, you're going to have to take money away from somebody else. Money doesn't come from heaven; it's not going to fall from the sky. There is a limited amount, and I agree with what the minister says. There's no more money. But he should at least be honest and put it in the legislation. Don't delude the teachers or any of the other trade unions that somehow money is going to come from nowhere. If it's going to go to them, it's going to come from their co-workers.
Hon. G. Clark: If you think of the logic of what the member opposite is saying, it works only if you assume that we have absolutely perfect efficiency and no discretion in school boards. What we would like to say -- and it's kind of ironic for the parties opposite, who seem to have no faith in government, to say there's lots of money and we should slash spending.... The logic of what the member is saying is that there is absolutely no room for efficiency gains or to look at structural changes, productivity improvements, the elimination of layers of administration, modifications of class size or ways in which we can do business more efficiently. That's simply not correct.
[9:00]
In these kinds of questions, we try to promote efficiency and productivity improvements -- and yes, these are very challenging budgets indeed. I agree with the member that there's not lots of money for big wage increases. But we have seen time and time again that the public sector can work on efficiency improvements and productivity gains and look at their discretionary budgets and administration. Yes, there is some scope. That is proven time and time again when there are settlements where boards have routinely said they have to lay off X number of people, and then it ends up being 0.5 of X, or nothing. That happens routinely in the public sector, and not just in the education field.
There is limited room; everybody knows that. The Foley report is zero percent in the first year; I think it's 1 percent or something in the second year, with 1 percent at the end of the second year. It's not exactly a rich settlement. That was accepted by teachers. It's not exactly a generous document. The trustees still have some concerns over some special needs and some other areas. We understand that. Those will be put before an arbitrator, who will make some decisions. But I simply reject the notion that the public sector or the private sector can't re-evaluate the way they do business, look for ways to minimize layoffs and in fact improve services to people -- with less money.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, he does have it; he did get it. That's exactly what I've been arguing. The only way to ensure that the extra moneys that are found to settle the dispute don't come out of the pockets of fellow workers or other employees is to look at subsection (4), which states that the arbitrator must ensure that the same level of service delivery exists. Therefore the board is forced to work with the union and to go back and look at structural efficiencies within the district to come up with those funds. That's exactly what we're saying. In fact, the minister and I are agreeing wholeheartedly on this section, so I fail to see the minister's.... He really hasn't stated one thing that would make it clear to me that he can't support the amendment. He has stated a number of arguments for why the amendment should be put in there, and I have yet to hear an argument for why this amendment should not be included.
D. Mitchell: It's too bad the Minister of Finance couldn't make it to the Finance ministers' meeting in Ottawa, because his eloquence would stand us in better stead there than it is here this evening.
The Minister of Finance states that we're not dealing with the whole province in this bill. He states that it's a unique situation, and indeed the Vancouver teachers' dispute has been a unique situation. That in itself seems to be a good argument for supporting this amendment. If the Minister of Finance intended to make a good argument for supporting the amendment, he did, in fact.
There has been a lot of buck-passing, where the province has been playing games. Statements made by Vancouver school trustees over the last few weeks reflect a grave concern over the ability to pay for a contract that is going to result in draconian measures, quite frankly, in the Vancouver school board. This section that is being amended reflects the duty of the arbitrator. Should the duty of the arbitrator not have some consideration for the taxpayer in Vancouver, in particular, which is what this section is dealing with? Should the duty of the arbitrator in this unique situation, which the Minister of Finance has said is a special circumstance, not have some consideration for the ability to pay? That's all this amendment is doing.
[ Page 6670 ]
It's relatively simple; it would not necessarily cause a precedent. The Minister of Finance has made a good argument in favour of supporting this amendment. It would be interesting to know whether or not the Minister of Labour agrees with those arguments.
B. Jones: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I fully respect the right and responsibility of the opposition to make amendments and to argue those amendments vociferously. I don't doubt that the opposition -- even the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- could do this ad nauseam all night. But this is an extraordinary session. I have some difficulty....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. Would the member please state his point of order.
B. Jones: The point of order is simply that we are in a special sitting. Those members opposite complained bitterly about the lack of mention of concern for children. We have 540,000 children in the city of Vancouver who are going to bed -- my six-year-old son has already gone to bed -- not knowing if we're going to pass this section with respect to Vancouver. What we're seeing is repetitious, boring debate. I would quote the section in the standing orders that suggests....
Interjections.
B. Jones: I think the points that the members opposite have made with respect to amendment and other amendments are very clear and valid points. But they're making the same points over and over....
The Chair: Order, hon. members, in order to hear the member's point of order. All hon. members will have an opportunity to make a submission. Please proceed.
B. Jones: The Chair of the committee has the right, and I think the responsibility, in a situation where a member persists with tedious repetition -- and that's what I've heard on these amendments -- to direct that member to discontinue speaking or to ask that member to withdraw. I would suggest that we watch this very closely and that we try to speed up the debate in this very special sitting.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes. I don't know if the member was paying attention, but right at the very beginning of this debate -- in fact, at about 2:20 p.m. -- both myself and the Leader of the Third Party made it clear that this bill would be passed this evening. Indeed, that was broadcast on the news this evening, so I'm sure all little children in British Columbia are aware of that, and so are their parents. We'll continue this debate. We're very near the end, and we intend to be thorough but not repetitious.
The Chair: On the same point of order, the hon. Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm just catching my breath; I had retired to my office because the debate was getting so tedious. But I heard the hon. member for Burnaby North speaking of the children, and I agree with him. It's about time somebody spoke again about the children.
The conflict-of-interest commissioner did not take very long to size up the intent and the importance of this legislation. The Premier quoted from the judgment delivered by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, which was tabled in the Legislature at 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Interjection.
Hon. T. Perry: My son is also waiting to go to bed. He's been out of school for three weeks, and he's very keen to get back in class.
I would like to urge the members of the opposition, who have been asking for government action for some time, to recognize that it's now time to get on with it. Let's pass the bill. Let's get the Lieutenant-Governor in here and get that assent. Let's go home and get on with the regular business of the House tomorrow.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. On the same point of order, the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.
A. Warnke: On a point of order, I just want to bring to the Chair's attention that when a point of order has been raised, a reference should be made to the standing order upon which the point of order is raised. The hon. minister and the member for Burnaby North did not do that. Therefore I would encourage members that if they're going to raise points of order, they do so under standing orders.
The Chair: Than you, hon. member. I believe the hon. member for Burnaby North did cite one of the standing orders.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara on the same point of order?
V. Anderson: Not on the point of order.
The Chair: Is the member rising on the section?
V. Anderson: Yes.
The Chair: Before we proceed, the Chair would just state that the points of order probably express frustration more than any violation of the standing orders. However, I would ask members to remember that we are in committee, and there are strict guidelines. It would be of great assistance if members would do their best to gauge their comments according to those standing orders.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara on the amendment.
Interjection.
[ Page 6671 ]
V. Anderson: Yes, I think the point is well taken. We have waited a long time for this debate to come forward, and the implications of it for the future are very important, so let's make sure that we clarify and understand the situation.
The hon. Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour have commented often about the Vancouver situation. That's the very reason that we're concerned about this at this moment. In that negotiation, after the mediator's report had come in, there was no agreement between the teachers and the trustees as to the settlement of that. There was no guideline; it's simply left up to the mediator. In this particular case, the mediator said:
"I have concluded that if I recommend the so-called provincial settlement pattern of salary increases and working conditions for the Vancouver School District, there would...be a significant cutback in teaching services, resulting in the layoff of a significant number of members of this bargaining unit."
So the mediator -- or the arbitrator, as we're discussing here -- is in the position to know what the criteria are against which that decision has to be made. We're simply stating quite clearly that ability to pay is a factor that the arbitrator and all of the parties involved must take into account. With that guidance, the arbitrator is in a better position in relation to his conclusions and his responsibility to all parties. I would affirm this amendment.
D. Symons: I've been listening intently to this very interesting debate, and the thing that really draws my attention is the offhand manner in which the government is turning this down. Yet when the government is negotiating with the BCGEU and the health care workers of this province, they seem very concerned about level of service and the fact that people may be laid off. In the most recent health workers agreement that they tried to sell, they had even written it in that it would guarantee job security.
It would seem, then, that if the minister is going to be consistent and not hypocritical, he would be quite willing to carry on with a process that would provide the same sort of guarantees for the education of this province that they're willing to bring in for other workers in the province where it comes out of the public purse. I can't understand their objection to bringing this in, considering the steps they've taken in dealing with those other bargaining units in the province. Therefore we can come to only one of two conclusions: either the government does not feel that they're going to be fair to the educators of this province or they're simply hypocrites. They can choose the one they want.
A. Cowie: This amendment has to be supported. It's a very important amendment. The arbitrator has to know the terms of reference that he's working within, and putting the financial constraints right on the table is one way of doing it. I thought one of the trustees in Vancouver, Anne Beer, had a great deal of courage in making this point. She was very concerned that if there wasn't the budget, then they would lose educational programs. I give her a great deal of credit. I feel very confident that she was voting and acting in good faith. The fact that the NDP dumped her, in civic terms, had nothing to do with her convictions. I give her great credit, along with some of the other trustees.
In the Vancouver situation there was no way that the teachers and the trustees were going to meet. In this particular case it's very important that the financial conditions be set out and that the arbitrator know that if he or she sets unreal conditions on salary increases, then the repercussion will be loss of jobs. I think this is important, and the government side should support it.
[9:15]
D. Symons: I have one last very short comment. A good number of the members on the opposite side are involved in the union movement and indeed are union organizers or union executives in the management side. Would they be proud to take this back to their membership as something they would like the work unit to live by? If they could, in good conscience, say that this would be good for their union, then I suppose it would be acceptable to give to the teachers. But I doubt very much that very many of them would be proud to take this back to their particular bargaining unit and say: "This is the sort of labour legislation we believe in."
C. Serwa: Just noting what the hon. member for Burnaby North said, the debate is finished on the sections that are critical to the Vancouver School District. Is it possible to proclaim them as an act and then continue this tomorrow rather than continuing now? I suggest there are further amendments, and that in fact the critical issue is that of enabling the teachers and students to get back to school. It seems to me that some sort of an adjustment may be necessary in order to achieve that.
Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to the question is no.
The bill as drafted contemplates that parties will make their case. I would be astonished if the trustees making their case would not talk about the consequences of any settlement. I would be astonished if they didn't talk about layoffs and if they didn't make a case with regard to the extent of those layoffs. At the same time, I would be astonished if the trade union negotiating or appearing before an arbitrator didn't realize that there are consequences to every award. They know that, and that is one of the operative pressures on a trade union at any given time.
You don't need to spell out in legislation the ability-to-pay argument; it is always there. It is underlying. The reason for a dispute is because one party takes the view that its ability to pay the demands of another is limited by the resources it has. That is implicit in the collective bargaining system and in the tensions that arise between the parties, which are reflected in Vancouver. Trustees know what their limitations are, and they make those arguments.
There might be some value, if there was evidence that the decisions of arbitrators or mediators in these kinds of disputes were such that awards were wholly insensitive to the fiscal realities faced by all and known by all. The evidence has been to the contrary. In the
[ Page 6672 ]
school disputes we have seen agreement after agreement that have averaged somewhere between 0.5 and 2 percent annually. That reflects knowledge of the fiscal realities of the day and the ability of the taxpayer to fund them. We take the view that the collective bargaining process, by its very definition and by the very tensions that exist between employers and employees, takes into account the matters referred to in this amendment.
I will deal with the other point raised in this amendment -- level of services. I have never known -- certainly in my experience when I've had occasion to meet with trustees during a labour dispute -- trustees to make any arguments with regard to level of service. My general observations to date, in dealing with these school disputes, has been that trustees -- whether they be from Powell River or Vancouver -- have expressed a strong desire to maintain programs and levels of service. They have spoken -- sometimes very frustratingly -- about the limitations of resources, which give rise to the kinds of disputes that we have. So I don't think there is any need to impose upon the section in question the amendment put forward by the hon. member.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 17 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Reid |
|
Gingell |
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
|
Mitchell |
K. Jones |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
Warnke |
Tanner |
|
Symons |
Neufeld | |
|
NAYS -- 49 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Boone |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Barlee |
Charbonneau |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Conroy |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Hagen |
|
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
|
Clark |
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
|
Blencoe |
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
|
Copping |
Lovick |
Ramsey |
|
Pullinger |
Farnworth |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
Doyle |
|
Hartley |
Streifel |
Lord |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Simpson |
Brewin |
| Janssen | ||
Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.
On section 8.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, due to previous discussion and discussion we've had since, I would like to propose an amendment to the title of part 2. The amendment is: "that the title under part 2 reading 'OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS' be deleted."
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: I take it that the amendment is just to delete the title. That's fine with us.
Amendment approved.
Section 8 as amended approved.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
G. Farrell-Collins: The amendment we are proposing to section 10 is similar to the one the government has chosen not to accept for section 5. I assume that the debate will go fairly quickly. Part 2 of the whole bill is a system that will very quickly kick in from mediation into binding arbitration. In that case, with the same arguments that we used on section 5, the taxpayers' ability to....
The Chair: Order, hon. members. Please try to keep down your comments from your seats. It's very difficult to hear the member who has his place. Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: For the same reasons that we proposed this amendment under section 5, we would move it under section 10 also. I won't read the amendment because it is essentially identical. I'll just submit it to the Chair.
On the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: Given that part 2 of this bill very quickly goes from a mediation process to a binding arbitration process, once again the taxpayers' ability to pay should be recognized. The arbitrator should be given some guidance as to the level of services that are required in order to make some reasonable determinations within the funding parameter that the government has allowed the districts -- in this case not just the Vancouver district but all districts in the province. For the same reasons we articulated earlier but more profoundly, because it affects such a large number of districts, we move the same amendment to section 10.
I'm sure this is where the Minister of Finance will get up and speak in favour of the amendment, because in the debate on section 5 he stated that were this to apply to a larger number of districts, this type of guidance might be necessary. Given that section 5 applies only to Vancouver, he did not feel it was necessary to have that amendment, because it dealt with a relatively small amount of money. I wait to hear the Minister of Finance's defence of this amendment.
[9:30]
[ Page 6673 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to make the same point as I made a few minutes ago with regard to the amendment that was brought forward to section 5, for the record.
Amendment negatived.
L. Hanson: Section 10 seems to say that if a mediator or special mediator has been appointed by the minister, the recommendations of that mediator can in fact be turned into an arbitrated settlement at the order of the minister.
Our concern with this is that if a true mediator is to be accepted, even though they may be termed special, that would have any hope of mediating a settlement, agreeing to a settlement.... We would like to add another subsection to section 10. It would be subsection (5) and would read as follows:
"An order by the minister under subsection (1) may, within 30 days of the making thereof, on the request of either party, be submitted to an arbitrator other than a person who has acted as a mediator or special mediator in the dispute, appointed by the minister from a list of qualified arbitrators acceptable to both parties, or failing their agreement, acceptable to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and to the B.C. School Trustees' Association, or failing their agreement, by reference to a justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court, and the decision of that arbitrator shall replace the minister's order."
On the amendment.
L. Hanson: I think we already recognize the minister's argument against the referral to the school board, the association of trustees and the BCTA, but there seems to be an underlying problem with this. That is the fact that if a mediator is appointed, the sides are going to look at the responsibilities of the mediator more as the responsibilities of an arbitrator. The possibility of that mediator being able to reach an agreement between the two parties, or being able to encourage an agreement to be reached between the two parties, seems to be prejudiced by the fact that the minister can turn the recommendations of that mediator into an arbitrated or imposed settlement.
It seems that the two parties would be very reluctant or very suspicious under those circumstances in agreeing to any of the suggestions of the mediator, knowing that they would likely be turned into an arbitrated settlement at the end. So I think the minister would admit that there's some confusion with the mediator. If he wishes to term the special mediator an arbitrator, then I think that would be acceptable. The difficulty is that the minister seems to be giving the special mediator the responsibility of an arbitrator also, and that's why we propose that amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to comment on the process; I've already commented on that in terms of going to the various parties. And I'm not going to repeat the comments I made earlier, except to say that it is true that these people now tend to perform more of a function of mediation-arbitration, which is known in the business as med-arb. Therefore there is a different quality to the process, and there are different arguments on both sides of the fence. Some would argue that the person who's most familiar with the dispute is best able to make recommendations in a med-arb capacity, as opposed to bringing in somebody with a learning curve.
The practice has been that in some cases we've taken the existing mediator and made that person a mediator-arbitrator. In other cases, we've brought in a fresh person to do the mediation-arbitration work. A lot of it depends on the dynamics of what has transpired at the bargaining table in the preceding round. I can think of situations where we would want the same person there; I can think of situations where we wouldn't. I guess what I'm saying is that that is some of the discretion that has to be vested in a minister to decide when to change faces in a dispute. There are clearly occasions -- the hon. member, I'm sure, knows from his past experience -- when there's a time and a place for bringing about a change. Sometimes there is a benefit in keeping the same person there and working things over with the parties.
Med-arb is a process which I favour, quite frankly, and which works well. I know people sometimes get confused by the terms mediation and arbitration, and then med-arb is sort of somewhere in between. But we've reviewed past practice for this kind of legislation, and med-arb has often been used in these kinds of circumstances. I think it would be appropriate to try to keep that kind of system in place, but I do appreciate the fact that the terms -- mediator and special mediator -- are sometimes confusing.
In addition to that, I do think that this change that we're making here in section 10, and actually in section 11 as well -- but particularly in section 10 -- has a lot of promise, in the sense that I think it will prevent much utilization of this legislation; at least I hope so. In the past, when we have appointed special mediators, people didn't quite appreciate the power that mediator would have when the special recommendations were made. Now the stakes are a lot higher, because the consequences are pronounced in this legislation; whereas they weren't before. I think the med-arb or special mediator process that we trigger will have a higher probability of success than has been the case in the past.
V. Anderson: I wonder if the minister might explain the distinction between what he is calling mediation and mediator, and arbitration and arbitrator, so that we're clear what he has in mind as to the distinction between mediation and mediator, and arbitration and arbitrator, and what the differences are when one moves from mediation to arbitration. What are the meanings of those terms in his mind?
Hon. M. Sihota: Mediation is a process by which the mediator, as a servant of the parties, works with the parties to try to bring about a resolution. An arbitrator, of course, arbitrates a dispute. A mediator-arbitrator -- the med-arb process -- uses a little bit of both to try to bring about a resolution.
D. Mitchell: Just a point of clarification on the recommendations of a special mediator. Would this be the section under which the special mediator appointed
[ Page 6674 ]
by the minister this morning to handle the Surrey labour dispute would be operating?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, we're on an amendment right now. We'll deal with that....
The Chair: We're on the section. The amendment was defeated. We're on section 10.
Hon. M. Sihota: Are we not on an amendment from the member for Okanagan-Vernon?
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I recollect it, we're on an amendment from the member for Okanagan-Vernon.
The Chair: The Chair stands corrected. I wasn't aware of that.
Did the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi have the floor?
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I'll gladly wait until you put the question on the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, could I just re-put that question to the minister as to whether or not this section applies to the Surrey special mediator he appointed this morning?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, because this morning this legislation didn't exist, and it doesn't exist right now until it's proclaimed -- or it doesn't come into effect until it's proclaimed. The mediator was appointed pursuant to section 76 of the Labour Code.
D. Mitchell: I take it that the minister was afraid to anticipate the passage of this bill this morning when he appointed the special mediator. I was wondering whether or not the terms outlined in section 10 of this bill, on the recommendations of the special mediator, would apply to this special mediator. I understand that under this section, we're referring to section 76 of the Labour Relations Code. But will the expectation be that the recommendations and report of the special mediator appointed this morning for the Surrey disruption will follow the guidelines of Bill 31?
Hon. M. Sihota: We could proceed under section 10 or section 11, once an order-in-council commensurate with section 12 is passed. We will obviously put our mind to doing that after this legislation is passed, but at this point the person is appointed pursuant to section 76. To answer your question, we could; whether we will is an issue that remains to be seen.
D. Mitchell: Just one final question. The powers given to the special mediator under this section are quite extensive, pursuant to section 76 of the Labour Relations Code. While this is a hypothetical question, just so I understand how this works, if this section had been in effect prior to the Foley mediation, would the Foley mediation then have been imposed? Is that how it would have worked, possibly?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. On a theoretical basis, we could have appointed Mr. Foley. He could have made a report, and we could have implemented the report under section 10.
K. Jones: Further to this question of this special mediator that you've appointed in Surrey, is the special mediator you appointed the person who was actually the mediator previously and made some report to the minister or to the boards? Was there a report made? Could you clarify that?
Hon. M. Sihota: He hasn't made a report to me or to the board, to my knowledge. He is an employee of the board, and he's a servant of the party.
K. Jones: You've now appointed him as a special mediator. He now has to go to the parties and bring forward a report before any further action can proceed according to section 10 or section 11. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: It assumes that he'd be appointed in section 10, because we're dealing with section 10. We're not dealing with section 11 right now. It assumes that he'd be appointed under section 10, and right now he can't be, because he's appointed under section 76 of the Labour Relations Code.
K. Jones: If he's appointed under section 76 of the Code, which is listed under section 10.... It is the appointment process -- correct? Therefore it calls for recommendations being provided to the parties. Since those recommendations haven't been made, the question I asked you was: will there still have to be recommendations made, or is this special mediator able to just bring forward his report and it becomes binding first thing tomorrow morning?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are options available to the government, and the option could be to put them under section 10. We could also elect to put them under section 11, and it would have to be in compliance with section 12.
[9:45]
K. Jones: The minister has indicated that there are a lot of options, but the minister took a special action this morning and appointed the mediator as a special mediator, without the chairman of the board even knowing about it.
J. MacPhail: Chairperson.
K. Jones: The chairperson. Yes, I stand corrected. Thank you, ma'am.
Therefore you have a reason for doing this. Is it your intention to bring forward a report from this special mediator before 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, so that those students will be back in classes tomorrow morning?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know how you can expect me to make that comment. This legislation is not passed. I can't do anything, hon. member, until such time as this legislation is passed. It's now 9:50. I have a
[ Page 6675 ]
note from somebody here telling me that I should be taking my time, because there are some members involved in a pool or something like that. I don't know, I'm just trying to take direction. I'm just hoping it's not the Premier who sent me that note.
The Chair: Be careful, hon. member. Order.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Chair.
In any event, once we've passed and proclaimed this legislation it's possible to appoint someone under section 10. It's possible that that person can make a report, and it's possible that that report can indeed become the collective agreement. It's also possible to trigger the 36-hour provision, which is in section 11, with regard to the same person.
I think where you're getting confused is that independent of this legislation, we can appoint a special mediator. We've appointed special mediators in other disputes. I wouldn't want you to think that just because we're appointing a special mediator, we must be doing it in furtherance of this legislation. We can, under the existing legislation, establish a special mediator; it's just that the powers of that mediator vary.
K. Jones: That's exactly what I thought you did. You appointed a special mediator under section 76 of the Labour Relations Code; and in doing so, you did it with a purpose. Was your purpose to have a report made to you, so that we can have those children and youth back in school by tomorrow morning? Have you made a decision on that? Are you waiting for this legislation? You say it doesn't depend on this. You say you already have the legislation and the capability of doing that. What are you doing?
Hon. M. Sihota: All I'm trying to do is unconfuse you, because you have kind of confused yourself.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Judging from the reaction, I take it some of your own colleagues have had difficulty or challenges in that regard as well.
All I'm trying to tell you.... Let's just take this step by step. I can appoint a special mediator under section 76. Obviously the purpose of doing that is to try to bring about an end to the dispute in Surrey and to get the children back in school as quickly as possible. This legislation at this point has not passed.
An Hon. Member: We're aware of that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know that you're aware of it.
Should this pass, there are additional powers that are available to the Minister of Labour that don't exist until such time as this legislation is passed.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'm trying to explain it to the hon. member, and I'm sure he'd like to hear.
Once this legislation is operative, I have some options with regard to this legislation; and when it exists, I will be happy to take any questions you have with regard to what I intend to do with Mr. Cott next.
K. Jones: The minister says that he is able to proceed with the appointment of the special mediator without this legislation. You have the authority to proceed to get a recommendation from the special mediator right now, today. You don't have to wait until tomorrow. You can have those children back in school tomorrow morning. Is it your intention to do that, or are you going to procrastinate on this?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not trying to procrastinate; I'm just trying to help you understand the situation.
K. Jones: I don't need help. You need to get a decision made.
Hon. M. Sihota: If you'd just listen to me for a moment. I can appoint a special mediator under the current legislation, but the powers that are vested in me to deal with the report do not exist until such time as this legislation is complete.
G. Farrell-Collins: The question to the minister is quite simple. We're all aware the bill hasn't passed yet. We're all eagerly awaiting its passage, but we are aware that it hasn't passed yet.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: This question, contrary to the comments by the member from wherever the heck he's from, is not an irrelevant question. It's very relevant to the students of Surrey.
We've had this minister dragging his feet for so long in this House with these labour disputes. We want to know from the minister, when this legislation passes -- in ten or 15 minutes, or whenever it is -- if it is the minister's intent to then, as hastily as possible, take the action that is prescribed to him under the bill to ensure that the students in Surrey are back in school right away.
The Chair: On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chair, I know it's been a kind of interesting discussion, but hypothetical questions are out of order in the chamber. Future action on the part of government is out of order. We're debating a question of the bill, which is permissive in terms of the minister's powers, but questions regarding future actions by the minister are not in order, I don't believe, on this discussion.
K. Jones: Hon. Chairman, what we are discussing is not future action of the government; it is the current action of the government. The minister has taken action, and we are asking what the minister's intent is in order to get the students back to school tomorrow morning. Is
[ Page 6676 ]
it your intention to get them back to school tomorrow morning, by your actions?
The Chair: All hon. members know that we are in committee stage of the bill. The intentions of the minister, while of interest, are not addressing section 10. I would ask hon. members to proceed, keeping in mind the guidelines as prescribed for committee stage of bills.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, the intent of the minister with regard to section 10 -- and particularly given the timing of his appointment of the special mediator under section 76 of the Labour Code in Surrey today -- is important. The fact is that the two happened on the same day. It's important that the opposition know what the intent of the government is as regards section 10 before we approve passage of this section. We made a commitment to the students of this province that this government would find it very difficult to get any work done on any other issue of legislation or estimates that they have before them until the students of British Columbia get back to school. If the Minister of Labour is not willing to be clear on this statement and tell us what he intends to do, what the intent of this section is, and the timing of this decision, then it's quite clear that it becomes incumbent upon the members of the opposition to take a different look at the debate.
Sections 10 and 11 approved on division.
On section 12.
G. Farrell-Collins: A quick question to the Minister of Labour. Under what time frame do we plan on seeing some of these regulations, some of these people, some of these districts that are having problems brought in and put under this act? Is this part of the bill an intent to really solve these disputes and get people back into school, or is it merely one of the other solar systems in the galaxy of options that this minister has skated around for the last six weeks?
Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps the hon. member doesn't realize that this section deals with regulations and making regulations under the act. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council doesn't have to wait until cabinet every Wednesday in order to pass regs. It could begin to pass regs any time after the proclamation of the legislation.
G. Farrell-Collins: We know that the government can make these regulations, and in fact we hope they do that immediately. I would hope that the government would do it before they went to bed tonight -- in the next hour or so -- and get these districts involved in this process and get the solutions started. All we are asking from the minister is: does he intend to act with haste on this part of the legislation, or does he intend to continue in the vein that he has followed for the last six to eight weeks?
Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 31, Educational Programs Continuation Act, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. M. Sihota: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 31, Educational Programs Continuation Act, read a third time and passed.
[10:00]
The Speaker: I am advised, hon. members, that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is on his way. We will have a very brief recess, and I ask members to stay in the chamber until we are advised that he is be ready to enter.
I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is prepared to enter the chamber.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk:
School Amendment Act, 1993.
Educational Programs Continuation Act.
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, before we adjourn, I wish to advise all hon. members that the successful pool winner is the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I can't think of anybody who needs the money more than that hon. member. With that said, I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]