[ Page 17039 ]

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

G. Campbell presented a bill intituled Education As An Essential Service Act.

G. Campbell: I rise today to present a bill entitled Education As An Essential Service Act, for which notice has been given in my name on the order paper.

For some time the B.C. Liberal Party, the opposition, has been calling for the establishment of education as an essential service in the province of British Columbia. There is no more important service that we can provide the next generation, the youth of British Columbia, than a good, strong education -- the tools they need to get on in the real world.

Unfortunately, with this government what we have seen is over two million student-days of learning lost because this government was not willing to put students at the top of its list. This government has not been willing to say that we must provide our children with the education that they need, because it has another agenda -- to try and make sure that its friends are taken care of instead of the students of the province of British Columbia.

I introduce this bill today because we understand how important it is that all of our young people, regardless of where they live, know that they can go to school, that they can get the tools they need so they can get on in the real world.

I move that under standing order 81 this bill be considered urgent business and be passed through all stages today. We know that there is currently a threat to young people in Surrey, and we believe that that threat must be removed.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, you haven't the privilege of moving that motion. The only motion available to you is with respect to the process of your bill. If you wish to make the proper motion. . . . The hon. Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I am looking at standing order 81, and I don't see any mention there at all that this is required to be a government bill. It merely states: ". . .a bill. . . ." It is not exclusive of opposition bills, and therefore I believe this is well within order.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair has ruled that the privilege is reserved for the government side, and that has been the practice and custom.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then I ask for unanimous consent to move this bill through all stages today.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Official Opposition should move the motion respecting his bill.

G. Campbell: I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'd like guidance with respect to the rules that indicate that when the House is in ordinary session for at least four days in one week, there will be a question period. I would like the Speaker to advise the House if question period in fact will be held today.

The Speaker: I believe the rules are quite explicit on that matter. It's four days unless otherwise ordered, where there are variations on a Friday. I think our standing orders are quite clear on that. There is no question period on the weekend.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 21.

Hon. E. Cull: I move that Bill 21, the Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, be read for a second time.

As I stated yesterday during first reading, this legislation is intended to ensure. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. E. Cull: . . .that the delivery of educational services to students and the provision of health services will not be unreasonably disrupted by impending labour-management disputes. It provides for a fair procedure for the conclusive settlement of any dispute which occurs between now and the end of June 1996 involving a board of school trustees, a post-secondary employer -- a member of the Post-Secondary Employers' Association -- or an employer member of the Health Employers' Association of B.C., and a trade union representing the employees of those employers.

This legislation is intended to deal with any dispute that might arise within the next two months. As I mentioned, there is the immediate situation of the current dispute between the Surrey Board of School Trustees and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 728. It will also ensure that there is a fair and reasonable settlement of the dispute and that any collective bargaining. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale should restrain himself and wait until he can take his place in the debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I would really appreciate it if hon. members would allow the minister to complete her remarks without the interruptions.

[ Page 17040 ]

Hon. E. Cull: The legislation will ensure that any dispute that involves students or patients and that has proceeded to the same situation as the one between Surrey and its employees -- that is, collective bargaining has gone on for some time in its normal fashion, there has been a mediator or an industrial inquiry commission under the Labour Relations Code, recommendations have been made, and they have failed to bring a resolution of the dispute -- doesn't also disrupt necessary services to those people. Finally, it includes a sunset clause: it expires by June 30, 1996.

Let me talk about some of the major principles of the bill. Any collective agreement created by this legislation will have the same standing in force under the code as if it had been fully negotiated by the parties. The government, through a regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, will be able to designate an employer or a trade union to be covered by the legislation provided that that employer or trade union belongs to one of the three groups that are referenced in the legislation, which I mentioned a minute ago. The employer can be any board of school trustees, any member of the Health Employers' Association of British Columbia, or any member of the Post-Secondary Employers' Association; and the trade unions, obviously, are those which represent employees of the designated employer.

Where a mediator or an industrial inquiry commission has been appointed under the Labour Relations Code and has made recommendations as to how collective bargaining differences may be resolved, this legislation will allow those recommendations to become the basis of the agreement between the parties. The fact that a mediator or an industrial inquiry commission has been actively involved in the dispute and has made recommendations means that the rights of the parties to have their collective bargaining positions fully respected and clearly articulated to either the mediator or the commission will have been met.

In addition, the legislation ensures that all provisions that have already been agreed to and accepted by the parties will also be incorporated as part of the renewal agreement. The legislation goes on to allow the parties, by mutual consent, to amend the mediator or commission recommendations if they agree to do so; and the parties will also have the ability to return to the mediator or the commission for clarification of any of the recommendations.

Most importantly, this legislation will ensure that parents and students in British Columbia can plan for the remainder of the school year without having to worry that education may be disrupted by labour-management disagreements, and it also means that citizens have no fear of any disruption of health services.

For the most part, the collective bargaining process works. Seventy-three out of 75 school districts have settled, and they have settled using the regular processes that are available to all employers and all unions within this province. Some of them require the involvement of a mediator or an industrial inquiry commission. Very few collective bargaining situations require this further step, and this legislation is the further step that ensures that services to students and to patients remain without a disruption. It provides a clear opportunity for employers and unions to reach settlement by mutual agreement; in fact, we encourage all employers and unions to reach settlements by mutual agreement through the processes that are available to them.

[10:15]

But where that fails, where we have not been able to resolve it through the normal process, the government has a responsibility to step in, to act, to ensure that services are protected, and this bill does that. More importantly, we have to acknowledge the fact that when the Legislature has been dissolved, there is no other route for settlement of disputes. It is important, because this Legislature, when it debated the Labour Relations Code and passed it a number of years ago, insisted that the Legislature retain that right, and this bill does that.

I'll be very interested in hearing what the opposition has to say, because I'm sure they're going to be opposed to this bill, opposed to the measures that we are taking right now to deal with a very few bargaining situations which may disrupt services to patients and to students. But in conclusion, this bill is essential because of the difficulties that have arisen in a few -- a very few -- bargaining situations, and our government is taking the responsibility to ensure the continuation of services.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this bill is a disgrace. This bill is a reflection of this government's commitment not to the students of British Columbia, not to the patients of British Columbia, but to a continuation of the amateur hour which we know is taking place from that side of the House. It's a four-week plan with a 60-day guarantee. It has nothing to do with providing students with the security that the government claims it does. It has nothing to do with taking care of parents' concerns, hon. Speaker. It has nothing to do with taking care of patients in the province.

What we should be passing. . . . What we should have passed, what this government should have passed and what they never should have removed from the labour legislation was the designation of education as an essential service in the province. The government says they're concerned about students. We know they're not concerned about students. It took us very little time to discover what this government's real concerns were. They're concerned about a four-week plan that leads to an election, so hopefully there won't be disruptions.

But this provides them with an awful lot of power, which is not necessary. This creates a great deal of concern for people across the province. We know this government's commitments. Whose side is this government on, really?

G. Farrell-Collins: The unions.

G. Campbell: We have a former union organizer as the leader; we have a former union organizer as the Deputy Premier; we have a former union organizer as the Minister of Social Services and the House Leader; we have a former union organizer as the Minister of Forests. Are they really concerned about the students of British Columbia? I don't think so.

What we have here is CUPE Local 7's "Table Talk" of April 17, 1996, writing to their members and not talking about the students of British Columbia. They couldn't care less about the students of British Columbia. This government has shown they don't care about the students of British Columbia. We had a Minister of Education for this government who said that maybe students are better off out of school than in school. This is what "Table Talk" says: they had direct connection with the Premier's Office after direct intervention from Premier Clark.

[ Page 17041 ]

"At the Premier's Office, we talked to government representatives, who asked us to consider alternatives" -- to a strike. "After a lengthy session with representatives of the government, your bargaining committee agreed, and. . . .at about 5:30 p.m. we reached an agreement to delay strike action. The Premier called to thank us and to wish us well."

I wonder how many students and parents the Premier called and wished well. I wonder if he called the school trustees and wished them well, in making sure we kept students in the classrooms in Surrey and making sure we kept students there. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Only picked one side.

G. Campbell: Absolutely. This government is worried about the students, all right. They're so worried about the students that they've allowed two million student-hours to disappear from the lives of young people in the province, because they have not been willing to act. They have not been willing to protect young people, to protect education as an essential service in the province of British Columbia.

What are they really concerned about? The Premier has a leadership campaign. He gets a few thousand bucks from CUPE. He calls them up and says: "Good luck in your negotiations." What sort of return was that supposed to be?

The people of British Columbia want to be sure that children in this province have education as a protected and essential service throughout their life in school -- not for 60 days. They don't want a four-week plan with some phony 60-day guarantee; they want to be sure they're there. Even the member opposite, as a teacher, must have wanted to teach students in school. Surely you wanted to teach students more than you wanted to play political games; surely you didn't want to hold students hostage to the labour relations climate in British Columbia.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: You used to be.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: Well, you shouldn't have been.

Hon. Speaker, having played tennis with the member opposite I thought he might have been a tennis teacher. I certainly didn't think he would be in a real classroom.

The fact of the matter is that this bill is not designed to take care of the students in British Columbia. It is not designed to alleviate the concerns of parents in Surrey or anywhere else in the province. It is designed to try and provide an image -- an image of toughness.

But let's be clear: this is not about toughness. This is about a blank cheque. It's a blank cheque to this government to take care of their friends. It is not a commitment to the people of British Columbia to take care of the students in the province. This bill leaves so much to be desired. It leaves a great deal to be desired, because the fact is that it provides this government with draconian powers. It really undercuts the collective bargaining process across the sectors that are involved.

The minister stood and introduced the bill and said that it did not, in fact, do that -- that it did restrict. The fact of the matter is that it is not a restrictive bill. It does not say to the government that we are going to limit this. For 60 days, there will be no true collective bargaining in British Columbia. "For 60 days," we have said to the school board -- the duly elected school board in Surrey -- "you will not be able to negotiate." What we've said to them is: "We will remove your accountability to your electorate."

We're going to say the same thing to the people of Coquitlam. Unquestionably, you'll suddenly find a breakdown in negotiations; unquestionably, you'll suddenly have a mediator appointed; unquestionably, within minutes the government will be imposing a decision on that duly elected board. Collective bargaining is being put on the back shelf. And let's be clear about this. This will create substantial additional costs. It will have a direct negative impact on the students in Surrey, it will have a direct negative impact on the students in Coquitlam, because this government doesn't care about students.

Ask yourself whose side they are on, hon. Speaker. They are not on the side of students. They are on the side of CUPE; they are on the side of contributors to their election; they are on the side of big labour. If they were on the side of students, they would have voted at least once out of four times to designate education an essential service in British Columbia.

Let me tell you this: we will deal with this bill over today and tomorrow, unquestionably. We will suggest a number of alternative ways that we can approach this to make sure we protect the students in Surrey. But let me tell you this: following their 28-day plan to re-election, there will not be that government in office. There will be a new government in office, and it will be a government that puts students at the top of the list in British Columbia and does designate education an essential service -- so that it's not an essential service and a concern for the 28 days of an election, but a concern for the entire life of a government and for the life of every student in the province and for their parents, so they get the tools they need and can in fact get on in the real world with the kind of confidence that they deserve.

This government has failed students in British Columbia. You have consistently failed them. You've failed them in Campbell River, you've failed them in Quesnel, you've failed them in Vancouver, you've failed them in Surrey, and you have failed them again. This is not a solution. It's a short-term, stopgap measure -- a four-week plan with a 60-day guarantee -- and after the 60 days, the same problem exists.

Following the election, there will be a bill introduced in this House. It will declare education an essential service, and it will be sure that our students -- not special interests, not political supporters -- are put at the top of the public agenda in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Priddy: I rise in support of the bill which is currently before the House today. I am deeply concerned about the urgent situation that this bill is intended to deal with. This coming week the education of students in the Surrey School District will be at immediate risk, and that is why this government is prepared, if necessary, to spend this entire weekend debating this important piece of legislation. In fact, this bill will provide that no labour-management disputes will impact not only on Surrey and Coquitlam, but on health and education services in the immediate future, starting with the current and critical situation in Surrey.

I was very interested in the comments by the leader of the opposition party. But let me tell you that my commitment since I've moved to this province has always been to children and students and families in Surrey. That's as a volunteer in my children's schools; that's as someone who works with 

[ Page 17042 ]

families and education in Surrey; that's as someone who's been a school trustee in Surrey; and that's as someone who's been a chair of the Surrey School District. Therefore my commitment continues to be what it has been for the last 15 years in this province, which is to students and families and their education in Surrey.

Students in Surrey and potentially in Coquitlam have worked extremely hard all year long, as they have in all districts. They deserve to be able to write their exams and present their projects. Their families want them to be able to be in school, which we know is the very best place for students to be -- in school completing their education.

If the Legislature is dissolved, the government must retain the right to resolve deadlocked labour disputes. This bill will bring that needed finality for the settling of collective bargaining matters in a binding and conclusive manner.

Mediators and, in the case of the health sectors, an industrial inquiry commissioner are in place in most of the significant negotiating sessions currently underway. The next short period of time will be critical in determining whether voluntary settlements will be possible. The time frames of this legislation meet the urgency of current negotiations. Although these disputes may be settled without the need for the interventions provided by this bill, and we sincerely hope that this will be the case, we must ensure that these services are not placed at risk.

[10:30]

Collective bargaining throughout this province has worked extraordinarily well. As a previous speaker said, 73 school districts were able to settle with the process of free collective bargaining. Only five of those school districts even needed a mediator to do some facilitation work. Only one of those districts even needed a mediator to write the recommendations. Unfortunately, in the situations which we face, there has been a mediator, there has been an industrial inquiry commissioner, and we still do not have a solution.

This bill ensures that potentially affected parties have taken every opportunity to conclude their own collective agreements -- as opposed to the opposition parties, who are absolutely opposed to collective bargaining. There would not be any opportunity for that kind of collective bargaining to happen under the bill that is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The provisions of this bill will be invoked only after the parties have exhausted their efforts in good faith and meaningful collective bargaining, only after the industrial inquiry commissioner's recommendations or the mediator's have not brought resolution to the dispute.

Throughout all of these stages the parties have control of their own destiny. They can use the mediator; they can use an industrial inquiry; they can use the recommendations from those parties. It's only at this point, if a work stoppage appeared imminent, that government would name specific parties through the regulations provided in this act. Even then, the provisions of this act allow the parties to mutually agree to alter a recommendation -- clearly very different from anything envisioned by the opposition party here.

This legislation is consistent with the government's strong record supporting health and education in B.C. The government's priority in education has always been what is best for students in the classroom. We've invested $3.4 billion in education this year -- 3.3 percent more than last year. We're investing in building and expanding and renovating schools -- 20,000 new post-secondary spaces -- and health care has increased by 23 percent since 1991.

This translates into direct improvement in access and quality of care for patients and students. This bill allows us to continue to protect these important services in the near future when the Legislature has been dissolved. In my mind, it's fair and reasonable legislation for the negotiating parties and, most important, it's legislation that speaks to the urgent needs of students and their families in Surrey, to patients and students in other parts of the province. I would therefore strongly urge that all members of this House support the quick passage of this bill.

L. Hanson: I find it quite interesting to listen to the Minister of Labour when the Minister of Finance presented the bill. I'm not sure that, due to the newness of her appointment, she has the experience to present the bill. But I think it's most appropriate that the bill be presented by the Minister of Finance, because the bill has nothing to do with labour relations. I imagine that the Minister of Finance will be very high in the process of an election readiness committee. That's really what the bill is -- an election readiness bill -- because I don't think that the party in power today would really like to have a lot of parents wandering around out there who are upset with the government because there is a strike.

Some years ago -- I think it was 1993 -- there was a strike. It was allowed to go on for some weeks. But the difference is that that wasn't a writ period or the approaching of a writ period, and that makes quite a difference in the opinion of the people. Discussing the principles of the bill. . . . It's very difficult to discuss the principles of the bill because the reason behind the bill has nothing to do with the bill.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the hon. member. . . . Just a moment, please. Members carrying on conversations while the member has his place is certainly, at the least, a discourteous practice. I would ask members to respect the person who has his place.

L. Hanson: As I said, the reason, the principle behind the bill has nothing to do with the bill. It's a pre-election bill. It simply is a bill to guard against the difficulty that the government might find itself in if there were labour disruptions in some of the industries named. We as politicians and, I hope, the people of British Columbia will recognize the real reason behind the bill.

I might just add that this sort of thing prior to an election, for an election purpose, is really what has caused some of the cynicism that is seen about our system. It is some of the cause behind some of the cynicism that the public looks at politicians with. It's so obvious that I'm sure it will be seen as such by the people of British Columbia.

Yes, I do agree that the bill does have a sunset clause; that's the end of June. I guess that tells us that we're going to have an election before the end of June, so it leaves some flexibility for the government when they decide to call that day of judgment. I'd like to point out that the bill does have a sunset date of June 30, but the contracts that could be imposed under the bill could, in effect, be there for as long as five years. That's a lot different than trying to give the impression that this is a temporary measure that the people of British Columbia need to guard the education system for that period of time.

Given the obvious relationship of this government to the workforce, I suspect there will be very, very few settlements imposed on any of the unions that aren't first of all approved by the unions themselves. That's a fact that has been disp-

[ Page 17043 ]

layed many times by this government -- their relationship there -- and the people of British Columbia will see that when the election is called.

Hon. Speaker, I'm not going to speak a long time about this, simply because the principle, as I said earlier, has nothing to do with the reason behind the bill. The people of British Columbia will see the reason behind the bill quite clearly, and I hope they consider that when the election comes up.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise to speak in second reading in support of the Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. I believe that this government has demonstrated through this act, as it has with other actions in the last eight weeks, that we are committed to acting in the best interests of students, parents, families and patients in our health facilities around the province. This is a bill that clearly demonstrates that we are on the side of middle-income families and their children, to make sure that education is protected.

I want to just say a few things. One of the members opposite asked why this bill is being presented by the Minister of Finance. Perhaps the member has not sat through the debates of this Legislature for the past four years. If he had, he might then know that the Minister of Finance chairs the Public Sector Employers' Council and is charged with responsibility for negotiations and collective bargaining in the broad public sector. That is what this bill addresses.

I want to speak specifically about how this bill fits with our commitment to protecting education. As Minister of Education, Skills and Training, I think it is critical for students at both the post-secondary and public school levels to be able to finish their studies. I am proud of the leadership that our government has taken in placing the education of our children first. Since becoming Minister of Education, Skills and Training, I have participated in many, many announcements and activities that clearly demonstrate our commitment to public education and post-secondary education.

Let's look at the context. The Leader of the Opposition speaks about the need to protect education, yet he brings forward a platform which would slash spending in this province by $3 billion a year and gut public education services in this province as a result. Look at the contrast here.

Facing a $435 million cut to health and education spending in this province, this government has acted to trim elsewhere in government, protect health and education, and ensure that those services are there for our students. We've begun by starting at the top.

An Hon. Member: You don't know where you're at.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We've begun by starting at the top.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed, minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm a member of the smallest cabinet that has sat in this House in 25 years. And we have begun cutting at the top in this combined ministry that I'm now responsible for. About 100 positions within this ministry are going to be eliminated so we can redivert those funds to the classrooms.

Earlier this month we were able to announce that in the public school sector, rather than passing through the cuts from the Ottawa government and rather than engaging in the slash-and-hack approach that the opposition parties wish to see in public services, we were able to provide an additional $64.5 million to funding for public schools. That's how you protect public education: by making sure that we have the funds available to provide high-quality education.

Every school district in this province has benefited from this government's commitment to increasing funding -- every school district in the province. In the post-secondary system, rather than pass through the federal cuts, which would have resulted in 8 percent cuts in budgets to every college and every university in this province, we increased funding by $16.5 million and are creating 7,000 new spaces in our colleges and universities to ensure that every British Columbian who wants a post-secondary education has access to it. That's the leadership that's required to protect education, not frivolous pieces of legislation that would essentially ban collective bargaining in public schools by designating them essential services.

We have also taken the leadership in restructuring the public school system, cutting at the top. The first review of school district governance in 50 years has been undertaken, and as a result we're going to be amalgamating 34 school districts into 16 and asking all schools districts across the province to find savings so they can protect education for our students.

As part of this funding package we have maintained funding for special education, for aboriginal education. We've protected funding for the school meals program, for the inner-city schools program and for other social equity programs in our schools.

That is the environment in which collective bargaining in the health and education system is taking place, an environment in which this government has cut elsewhere to provide funding so that education is assured for our students, both at the K-to-12 level and at the post-secondary level. Yes, we recognize that school districts face challenges in their budgeting, but the foundation for contract settlements is there because of our action as government to cut elsewhere in government to find the funds to devote to education.

The bill that we have before us today was tabled as a result of a potential strike in the Surrey School District. I would just like, for the record, to indicate this government's commitment to education in Surrey by briefly running through what has happened to education funding in Surrey in the 1996-97 budget. Their total operating funds in this district, the largest in the province, will reach $279 million this year -- an increase of $7.7 million, the highest dollar increase of any district in this province. They have received a 10 percent increase in funding for ESL, a more than 50 percent increase in funding for aboriginal education, an increase of $1.3 million in operations and maintenance, and almost $1 million more for special education in Surrey. In addition, for school facility expansion and new construction, that district will receive over $61 million -- the largest school capital investment of any district in this province.

[10:45]

It is indeed regrettable that in the environment of this government's support for education in Surrey, collective bargaining has failed to produce an agreement to date. There has been an industrial inquiry commissioner; there has been a mediator. Regrettably, agreement has not been reached.

[ Page 17044 ]

I think it is appropriate in these circumstances that government step in and say clearly that our first priority has to be protecting the interests of students and their parents, protecting the quality of education and protecting access to education -- and that is what this bill does. As a government, we are acting to ensure that students and parents in Surrey and elsewhere in the province know that education is our priority. They know that this government is on their side; they know that we are going to ensure that education continues.

G. Farrell-Collins: How many students did the Premier call? How many union leaders did he call?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite asks how many students and parents we have been in touch with on this issue.

G. Farrell-Collins: No, the Premier!

Hon. P. Ramsey: I need to tell the hon. member. . . .

The Speaker: Order, minister.

Hon. members, there will be an opportunity for each member to take his place in the debate. If we would please accord the normal courtesies to the person who has his place on the floor, I'm sure we could proceed with the least amount of inconvenience to anyone. Please proceed, hon. minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I went to address the British Columbia association that represents parent advisory committees from school districts across this province. I outlined for them the provisions of Bill 21 and told them that we were debating it and passing it in the Legislature this weekend. They were delighted. The parents of this province recognize the importance of education to their children. They are committed to work with this government to ensure the provision of high-quality education. They recognize this government's commitment to put health and education funding first, not tax breaks for corporations. They recognize that we will, as a government, do all we can to ensure access: by freezing tuition; by increasing the number of spaces; and by making sure that when adequate funds are provided, education is not disrupted unnecessarily by labour disputes.

Those are the principles embodied in this bill. On behalf of the students of this province, I urge all members of this Legislature to vote in favour of Bill 21.

R. Blencoe: It is a pleasure to stand in my place today to say a few words from a different perspective and share with all members of the House and the public some insights into what, in my estimation -- and I'm sure for many of my former colleagues across the way -- is a very politically expedient piece of legislation, which is really a conversion on the road to an election. That's all it is.

This government has had every opportunity in the last few years to look at the Labour Code, which many of us and many members on this side of the House gave reasonable suggestions for change and balance in, and gave many thoughts and suggestions for amendments to. Many people in the province suggested, quite rightly, that we had a Labour Code that needed balance and reason and fairness.

Some of us who were on the other side at one time, hon. Speaker, also call for that as well. But unfortunately, sanity in labour issues for some did not prevail. Consequently, we have labour legislation in British Columbia that here today, because there is an election pending -- and the operative date, of course, is June 1996. . . . Because there is an election pending and this government is so desperate to hang onto power that it is prepared to be so politically expedient as to bring a bill into the Legislature that really, when it knows that its Labour Code and its labour legislation are not balanced, not fair. . . . It's politically expedient.

There must be some members across the way who are having a tough time with this. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds -- a long time in the labour movement -- sits, and I wonder what he's thinking. I'm wondering what he's thinking now. I'm wondering what his colleagues in the labour movement are thinking.

I guess, hon. member -- and to those other members I mentioned on the other side -- when principles and values are up for grabs during an election, those principles and values are put aside, eh? That's what it all means.

What about the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke -- a long, proud part of the labour movement, a long time working in the labour movement? I wonder what he's thinking today.

And the member for North Island. I saw him on television last night. Well, a different perspective today, I suppose. "But we're in government, and principles and values can be suspended to stay in power." I recommend to this government a book that was written many years ago by William Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power. You all need to read it.

What about the member for Cariboo North, a staunch union member? Where is he today? I suspect he's got his running shoes on, and he's having to do damage control at home with his members. And I'm sure the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is having to do the same thing.

Unless they have a deal. I don't know, maybe there's a deal to be quiet, by the labour movement. Maybe there's a deal. Maybe the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has made a deal. Maybe the member for Cariboo North has done that; maybe the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke has done that.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I would caution the member with respect to imputing any improper motives to any members of the House. If that's the member's intention, I would ask him to be cautious. Please proceed, hon. member.

R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I've been in this House long enough. Any thought that I would impugn the member or my colleagues. . . . Of course I would not do so. But what I'm suggesting. . . .

Interjections.

R. Blencoe: What about the member for Skeena, who stood up for teachers, who stood up against legislation that impugned and impinged upon the rights of labour?

Well, hon. Speaker, it's conversion on the road to an election. If it's politically expedient, principles and values can be suspended for power. What happened, folks? What happened to a proud party that would never, ever do this?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 17045 ]

R. Blencoe: I was interested in the mild-mannered response of Mr. Georgetti last night, who made some suggestion that he didn't quite approve of this legislation. Mild-mannered Mr. Georgetti! Can you imagine if the Liberal Party -- and the Leader of the Opposition was the Premier -- did this legislation? Those benches that would be over here would be up in arms, we'd have all-night sittings, and we'd have fighting in the trenches. And do you know where Mr. Georgetti would be? He'd be leading the parade, he'd be leading the fight, he'd be leading labour on the steps of the Legislature. But a mild-mannered response from Mr. Georgetti.

I don't know if it's accurate, but I'm sure the phones were alive and well between the Premier and Mr. Georgetti: "Well, you've got to say something, Kenny. You've got to say something, but make it mild, because we want to win the election. And we will suspend our principles and values. And Kenny, we want you to suspend yours too; mild-mannered response, please." And you got it, folks. That's exactly what you got. A deal was made. It was part of the phony demonstration we had here, led by Mr. Shields and others. Same kind of deal. . . .

An Hon. Member: You're anti-worker.

R. Blencoe: No, I'm not anti-worker. But where were you, Madam Member, when the Labour Code was introduced, and why weren't you talking for this kind of legislation then?

Just prior to Christmas in my hometown, handyDART went on strike for about three months. And you know what. . .?

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: Oh, the Legislature is sitting. Oh, give me a break, Madam Member. Where was the government when the poor and the disadvantaged and the handicapped were asking for your help, members? Where were you? Where was the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head? Sitting on her hands. Where was the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill? Where was the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for three months?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Over Christmas this government, when I suggested that there should be an arbitrator. . . . The Minister of Labour's response was: "The Labour Code -- which we introduced so proudly -- won't allow us to have a cool-off, won't allow us to put somebody in there to seek reason and balance." And that was the Labour Code that was introduced. And over Christmas this government ignored the handicapped, ignored the poor, ignored the disadvantaged, for political ends, because labour. . . . If labour had seen you move then, all hell would have broken loose.

What's different today? We know what's different today. This government, which is called the New Democratic Party but is now the new New Democratic Party, has lost its way, lost its principles, and has a deal concocted with Mr. Georgetti and others to quietly bring in a piece of legislation that will look good on the hustings. But when push came to shove, when the handicapped needed help before Christmas, when the poor needed help, when those on assistance needed some transport for a Christmas party, there was no transportation. And this government said they weren't going to do anything, they couldn't do anything, because the Labour Code tied their hands. And now, on the eve of an election, we have this piece of legislation.

Well, the people of British Columbia are very smart. They'll see through it. They know what it's all about. They know the phony posturing, and they know that the real key to this piece of legislation is June 1996, because 360 days of the year anything goes, except when you want to have an election, Mr. Premier, when use of political expediency to suspend your values and principles. . . . When June 30, 1996, comes around and the election is over, it's back to normal, folks -- no balance between labour and management in this province, but you've taken care of the election. The people will not be fooled by that. This is a conversion on the road to an election. It's a phony piece of legislation. People will understand that June '96 is the key date.

In my hometown, when for close to four months those who depend on handyDART wanted help, this government said not a word. No member in Victoria said a word. They sat on their hands. Home support? The same thing. Firefighting?

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: Yes. There's a litany of abandonment of principles and values. But when it comes to an election, guess what. Well, I remember vividly in this House somebody else who used to suspend values and principles on a whim, somebody else who used to have basically a contempt for this House, as we're using this House now for the backdrop to a provincial election, costing thousands of dollars to the taxpayer. You know who that member was, that Premier was -- and we have a Premier today very similar -- using this place, suspending values? Well, that Premier was a gentleman called Mr. Vander Zalm. Mr. Vander Zalm, not knowing the difference between right and wrong, principles and values, would suspend them at a whim. Power. . . .

[11:00]

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: It's a sad day for a party that I used to be affiliated with -- a very, very sad day. And let me say to you, knowing this party for 20 years, there are members across the way. . . . I hope they speak. I hope they speak and defend it, because many of them, I'm sure, have a tough time with this kind of legislation -- not only a tough time with it, but with the timing of it.

To conclude, I would hope that those members across the way. . . . Oh, the member for Skeena is here now. The member for Skeena and the member for Cariboo North have an honourable history and distinction in the labour movement. I tell you, if they were sitting on this side of the House and another government came in, with the timing right now. . . . I know what they'd be doing. You know what you'd be doing. The member from Burnaby, you know what you'd be doing. The member for Mission-Kent -- the Minister of Forests -- I know what he'd be doing. The member for North Island, I know what he'd be doing.

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: Boy oh boy, it must be tough to live with yourselves, hon. members. On the eve of an election and a conversion on the road to the election, you suspend your principles and values so you can tell the people of the 

[ Page 17046 ]

province that you've seen the way. But it's an election. Well, the people will see through it, because in June '96 it all comes to an end. So, hon. member, I hope these members and those members who have a proud history in the labour movement are proud of what's happening today, because it certainly isn't the New Democratic Party that was known by many, many people who have worked in it for a long, long time.

F. Gingell: It is interesting to listen to the cynicism and the two-facedness that this government brings forth with this bill. The Minister of Labour stood here and said there was no other choice. Clearly that isn't true. The Minister of Labour, under section 72(2)(b) of the Labour Code, could direct the Labour Relations Board to declare education an essential service, just like that. That's what this Minister of Labour could have done. So why is it that the Minister of Labour stands up and goes through a whole series of points that are meaningless?

If the Minister of Labour -- who referred to her dedication to education in Surrey through her service on the school board, as though that were something unique in this House -- really cared about education and not about political posturing and not about protecting this government in the case of an impending election and really meant what was said, she would have acted under section 72(2)(b) of the Labour Code and had the Labour Relations Board designate education an essential service, as I believe they have done in the past during the life of this parliament. This is not something unique. The Labour Relations Board has done this, as I understand, in the case of Bulkley Valley.

The Minister of Finance, who introduced this bill, talked about how important it is to protect education, and we all agree. If she really wanted to protect education, she'd ensure that this province had a strong financial base. That's the real protection of education. During these years of relatively good economic times, she would have ensured that this province had a surplus and not a deficit. She would not have gone through phony bookkeeping practices, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, to hide deficits in the name of surpluses.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance can say what she likes, but she knows in her heart that the truth of the matter is that they've changed the accounting practices in this province for the purpose of showing a surplus when there is in fact a deficit. If the minister says that they haven't changed the accounting practices, I suggest that she go home and think about that again. She has done. I'm not wrong.

An Hon. Member: Not this time.

F. Gingell: Not this time. I'm usually wrong, Mr. Speaker, but on this occasion I can assure you that I'm correct.

We're all interested in protecting education, but this government continually asks: "Whose side are you on?" If you were on the side of kids and education, you'd have passed the private member's bill that our party has tabled in every single session. Do you know whose side they should be on? They should be on the side of all British Columbians. This government talks in terms of things that I thought I'd left behind me -- class differential, class warfare, middle class, working class. We're all Canadians; we're all British Columbians. And all British Columbians deserve and are entitled to the protection of the government of British Columbia. And that includes the kids in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education -- previously the Minister of Health -- stood up and suggested that by designating education an essential service, we would be banning negotiation. Well, that's nonsense. Health is designated an essential service. Has that stopped negotiation? When he was Minister of Health, did he suggest that? Not at all. All we are asking for is that children in our schools be given the same high priority that patients in our hospitals and our health care system deserve, but so frequently do not get from this government.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to educate some people who refuse to listen about economics and economic growth.

The Minister of Social Services was quoted in the newspaper this morning as saying, as Government House Leader, that the only purpose of this legislation was to look after the situation in Surrey. The official opposition offered yesterday that if this government would change the wording of this particular legislation so that it dealt only with the situation in Surrey or brought in another bill, we would support it. The reason we are here today and will be here tomorrow is that they weren't being quite as open and honest as they should have been.

Clearly, if their interests were the children in Surrey, we would have dealt with this yesterday. It is clear that their interest is to create labour peace and to try and get through an election without any embarrassing incidents; that's the reason we are here today.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we seem to be having a debate now across the aisle, rather than one person speaking and the rest listening. Could I ask us to show that courtesy to the member.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate for us to look back and give some thought to what has happened in previous years when this kind of legislation has been brought into the House. Most members will remember, even if we weren't here at the time, that in 1990, through Bill 31, a previous administration, which is no longer with us, brought in similar legislation. What was said in this House by the Premier at that time? "Every member of the public knows the way they" -- meaning that administration -- "have treated and used teachers as an election issue in British Columbia." Well, what has happened this time is that it's this Premier who is using kids as an election issue for the election of 1996. The present Premier went on at that time to say: "This bill, which stifles the collective bargaining process" -- now, does anyone recognize what this bill does? -- "demonstrates the kind of deliberate ignorance we've seen on the government benches with respect to labour negotiations."

All they had to do was designate education an essential service. All they had to do was allow one of the private bills that we have tabled in every single session of this parliament to be debated and passed. But they didn't really mean that.

[ Page 17047 ]

What else did the present Premier say back in 1990 when Bill 31 was being debated?

"I just want for the record to show that the minister, incompetent as he may be, clearly doesn't have any clue about this legislation. He goes into auto-rant with respect to the political line he has been asked to peddle. He probably knows as well that this legislation is stupid, and that's why he can't defend it."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that it's appropriate that the Premier stand up in this House today and repeat the words that he spoke on Bill 31, because they just as aptly apply to Bill 21.

[11:15]

We should be dealing with urgent issues in this House. We all believe that the situation in Surrey -- which may have in the meantime been settled; we understand there's a possibility -- is an urgent issue. This government has allowed over two million lost student-days during its term of office. Did they care then? What did they do then? Nothing.

An Hon. Member: They shrugged.

F. Gingell: They shrugged. The Minister of Education at the time said that perhaps the kids were better out of school than in it. But these things happen. When it comes to election time, when they don't want the record of this government to be facing them on the streets in the eyes of angry parents and disappointed children, they bring in this legislation. It is a cynical act of a cynical government. I'm surprised that members of the government have been able to stand up with straight faces and say so many of the things they've said this morning.

If they want to solve the problem, designate education as an essential service. Care not only for the children of Surrey, but care for them all over the province. Care for them not only in an election year, but care for them every year. Be assured, Mr. Speaker, as you and we all know, that education is critically important to the future and the quality of life of the citizens of this province. We shouldn't be playing around with it for crass election purposes.

K. Jones: It's indeed a pleasure to be here in this debate on Bill 21.

As a member representing the people of Surrey, this bill is a sham. This bill is being brought in to give a contract to unions that are in the process of negotiating -- and that may have already completed negotiations. This is not a crisis situation; this is a situation where there was good collective bargaining going on.

This government has a schedule that they are working to, and this was interfering with their process and their timing of the election call. It is the way this whole scheme has been set up leading up to this election. This government, with its friends and insiders working with unions that have been working up controversy and what looked like and was promoted as a serious difficulty with the labour movement. . . . Then they come along and make soft agreements with the unions. They tie the workers to agreements that are supposed to make this government look good. This is the kind of scheming that is going on by this government.

We cannot stand for this kind of work: using the taxpayers' money, using the legislative process, so that this NDP government can stay in power. They are so power-hungry today that they will do anything -- literally anything -- to stay in power. They will connive; they will cheat; they will steal. The history of the NDP shows itself: the Nanaimo Bingogate -- stealing from charitable organizations, literally stealing from charities. What about Bingogate in Nanaimo? What about Hydrogate? This is where the people of this party have continued to show that they really. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. On a point of order, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I've got concerns about the words "stealing" and "cheating" being said. It's inferring that members on this side of the House are stealing and cheating, and I don't appreciate those comments.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Could I ask members to take their seats for a moment. Before we get into a long and protracted harangue on points of order, the member was not, I believe, making direct reference to any member of this chamber or this government, and therefore it seems to me that what he said is indeed within the rules of order. Member, please continue.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, of course I was only speaking to the party of principle -- a party that does not have any principles anymore. It is a party that will cheat, steal, or anything else in order to stay in power. That's what's wrong with this NDP government and this NDP party: they have compromised. They used to have principles; they used to stand for the working people. They don't stand for the working people today any longer. In fact, they do exactly what the working people have always opposed, and that's government interference in the collective bargaining process. This is something that we've heard from these people for so long: "Don't interfere, government. Don't get in the way of the collective bargaining process. We can work it out." But when it comes down to staying in power, they will use anything to stay there, including throwing away their principles with regard to the labour movement and the labour negotiations process. They do not have any principles.

This process in Surrey was going along normally. Vince Ready, the mediator, was brought in to start negotiations. Vince Ready was not able to sit for a day in negotiations, where there was progress being made, when all of a sudden, to meet the schedule of this government -- the schedule to call an election next week. . . . That's what it's all about; it's calling an election this coming week. This schedule of negotiations that was going on with Vince Ready, the school board and CUPE in Surrey was ceased by the order of this government, by the order of this Labour minister, who represents the people of Surrey -- or the people of Surrey thought they had a representative from Surrey-Newton that was representing them. No, she's just lockstepped into the struggle to stay in power by this NDP government. This is what we have: a very juvenile Labour minister, one who will not even stand up for the collective bargaining process over the principles or the lack of principles of her party.

If this had been allowed to proceed. . . . In spite of the fact that the government pulled the mediator out, the negotiations still proceeded. The negotiations proceeded such that yesterday, an offer was made to CUPE by the school board -- an offer that I understand today is very close to coming to a settlement, if it hasn't already been made. I'm awaiting word that there is a settlement in this dispute.

[ Page 17048 ]

This is the kind of hysteria that this government is trying to generate in the public's mind. They're trying to make it look like they are going to be the champions and protect the public from labour strife. Well, labour can look after itself. Labour has always been able to look after itself without the interference of government. Labour has been able to work with management through a process that has worked very well in this province, where there is collective bargaining, where the parties have to get together and work out what they can afford and what they desire. In the case that we have here, the school board has made a good case to try and bring about a settlement.

I'd like to sit down for a moment to allow an introduction by my colleague.

Deputy Speaker: The procedure is for the other member to ask for leave to make an introduction. Is the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast doing that?

Interjection.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the member giving me this opportunity, because I believe my guest has to leave shortly. I would like to introduce Richard Fahl, who is the Progressive Democratic Alliance candidate for Victoria-Beacon Hill. He is watching the proceedings here today.

K. Jones: What we have is a situation of a government that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia with a claim that they really are administering our province well when they have done the worst possible job of financial administration. They have created a totally unaccountable situation in British Columbia, where our debt is $10 billion greater than it was in 1991. That is the real problem in dealing with our ability to settle: to have enough funds for the operation of our schools and for the capital provision for our schools. If we don't do something to reduce that debt, we will not be able to afford the necessary operating and capital costs that we have to spend today.

We need a whole lot more spending in those areas to keep up with the growth of our communities. In Surrey-Cloverdale and in Surrey overall, as a school district, we have not seen this government come up with the money to provide for the growth that has occurred in the area, let alone the catch-up required as a result of previous governments' lack of funding. Previous governments have not been able to put the funding up. . . . We have a situation in Surrey where there is insufficient capital to build the schools necessary to meet the growth of 2,000 students a year, which is projected to the year 2000 and beyond. We have a situation where our hospitals are inadequately funded.

This government claims it's protecting all these things. Well, what is it doing to protect them? It has done nothing. It has inadequately funded them, and it has forced our administrations to go to the bare bones of their operations. We have a situation where our environment is not even being adequately monitored. We have such short staff to monitor the whole Fraser Valley, as far as the environment is concerned. Again, this type of administration, this type of government financing, is causing the problem.

This bill has forced the Surrey School District to enter into an agreement that is going to be so costly that they will not be able to stay within their budget. Yet this government is forcing them to stay within their budget. What does that tell us? That tells us that this government is forcing our school district to cut services to the students; they will be cutting services to the students as a result of this government. It is because of that that they are now forcing a labour agreement upon the school district without even providing the opportunity for the school district to work with the workers they are employing to find a just and equitable settlement.

This agreement has another factor that is of great concern to us, and that is the very, very strong possibility that this agreeement could be imposed retroactively upon any previous agreement where there was a mediation process in place. The wording of this legislation makes it possible for this government, if it's favourable to its union friends, to introduce changes to an agreement that was mediated several years ago and bring it in at this time. I think the wording of this is very sloppy. It is totally unnecessary and totally inadequate.

[11:30]

Hon. Speaker, we need to free the process. We need to bring in the essential services legislation that this side of the House, this Liberal caucus, has brought forward four times now. It would have dealt with this issue. It would not have just dealt with it for a two-month period to get by an election but would have dealt with it on on ongoing basis, no matter when there was a labour dispute. We cannot allow our children to be used as pawns; we cannot allow our patients to be used as pawns in labour negotiations. That has to end.

J. Tyabji: I'd almost forgotten what it was like to be in these buildings. It's been 264 days since the last legislative sitting.

I'm shocked and disappointed and surprised by the government's action. I'm surprised we're here on a Saturday, but I'm more surprised by the reasons we're here. I think it's fair to say that although one might be disappointed in the position being taken by the official opposition, and even by the third party, one would look to this government on labour issues and assume that here there would be some labour sympathy, that there would be some idea of what the interests of employees, labour leaders and the people who look to organized labour are, and some idea of where they want to be in terms of the overall philosophy and principles that are associated with organized labour.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Let me put this on the record, because the member for Skeena is asking how I voted on the Labour Code. It is well known in these buildings and well known in my riding and by leaders of the labour movement that I'm not a union sympathizer and I was not a union organizer in the past. My family background is on the management side. We're from the business sector. I've never belonged to a union. So that's where I'm coming from, and I have to say that this government's position on labour is completely unacceptable. Shame on them! Shame on this government for trying to take something. . . . The member for Victoria-Beacon Hill talked about political expediency, and there's no other word for it: it is politically expedient. The reason this government has chosen this is that they've forgotten why they were elected. This government was not elected to get re-elected. This government was not elected to serve the interests of the elected members.

[ Page 17049 ]

An Hon. Member: They won it by default.

J. Tyabji: The member for Peace River North says the government won by default, and that may be the case. Regardless, this government came forward and had a mandate from the people who supported this government. One thing that we should never lose sight of in this Legislature is that each of us has a mandate. If we don't honour that mandate and if we sell out to political expediency, the voters will not forget. They don't forget, especially the people in the labour sector.

I listened to the Minister of Labour with absolute shock. This is the Minister of Labour for an NDP government, and she gave an argument in favour of this bill that it is an argument for essential service designation -- period, absolutely. There was no time limit on the argument that she gave. The justification that she gave for this bill is the same justification that these people who call themselves Liberals are giving for their position on labour, a position which people who are real Liberals are having a very difficult time with. We know this because we speak with them daily and because many of them are joining our party.

For those paying attention to this debate who are looking for reason and sanity in the workplace and in the labour sector, and for those labour leaders who are watching and who have a very difficult time with their membership right now -- members who are turning to them and saying, "How could you be so milquetoast? How come we're not demonstrating in the streets? How come we're not leading marches against this government?" -- and for those labour leaders right now who are telling their members, "It's because we're deathly afraid that one of the two opposition parties will come in and be even meaner. . . ." I tell those labour leaders that we have a home for you. There is a party in this Legislature that will respect the decades and decades of trying to get to a position where we have some sort of common sense in our labour standards and in the work environment and in the economy of British Columbia.

This government has said for the past four and a half years that the reason there's labour peace is that they've been good managers of the economy -- they brought in the Labour Code, and the Labour Code is such a great piece of legislation that there hasn't been labour unrest. That's not entirely true; that's not the only reason.

Let's talk about the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour and the comments he made when he was in Kelowna on a radio show, which I happen to know a lot about because I was interviewing him on this.

An Hon. Member: What's his name?

J. Tyabji: Mr. Georgetti. He said at the time: "I make no bones about it. I'm not hiding the fact that the B.C. Federation of Labour supports the NDP. We support the NDP -- we are tied to the NDP -- because the NDP is constitutionally tied to organized labour." Well, how quickly the NDP will sell out their raison d'�tre -- the people they are supposed to represent. How quickly they will push them aside and say: "Look, guys, it's just for 60 days. It's just until we get a renewed mandate, and then we're friends again." What happens the next time the government needs something that's politically expedient? It doesn't have to be organized labour; it can be any group that this government has made a commitment to, and then it doesn't become politically expedient for them to fulfil that commitment, for whatever the justification. The principles are gone.

The reason we've had relative labour peace is that the people in the labour sector are afraid of the options. They don't need to be; there are other options. There should be no more blackmail in political affiliations in this province, because there's no need for it.

This government was elected in 1991 with a mandate for change. The reason some of the talks are breaking down right now is that there's been no significant structural change to the way we do business in British Columbia -- nothing. We're still on zero-base budgeting; we still have annual budgets; we still have, at the grass-roots level, significant insecurity. In fact our budget, provincially, is going to be six weeks late before it comes in. Every school board in this province is plagued with insecurity.

An Hon. Member: The ones that are left.

J. Tyabji: The ones that are left. And every hospital board in this province is worried. They're not just worried about a budget which is nonexistent at this point. They're not just worried about the health accord and what this could mean if there's a mediated settlement which is going to increase the cost of the health accord and this government's not going to increase funding.

They're worried about these regional health board and community health council animals that this government imposed in 1993 and has just left, with hundreds and hundreds of hours of volunteers at the community level spending time away from their families, taking time out of their community to serve on the community health councils and regional health boards, which three years later are toothless -- absolutely powerless bodies. This government has given no leadership on that. They've spent money on it. We've got the two opposition parties saying they'd get rid of them, which is no comfort to the people who've spent all this time on them. There are communities who have developed plans for health care. They're prepared to take over from the hospital boards, and there's no leadership there.

There's no labour security, no community security, because of this government. The structure has not changed. It doesn't help to eliminate a few school boards if you don't give them direction, if you don't give them some idea of base financing, long-term capital budgeting, which doesn't exist right now.

Hon. Speaker, if there is a problem -- and there is -- in Surrey, this problem is not a surprise to this government. This problem didn't suddenly crop up on Thursday night. The issues which are coming up in the health accord, with the expiry of many union contracts on March 31, were not suddenly sprung on this government.

In fact, I know that some of the scribes who are with us today were writing about them in the fall. Mr. Twigg and Mr. Palmer were writing about some of the implications of the union contracts coming up months ago. And although we all know how brilliant the scribes in the press gallery are, I'm just assuming that this government has as least as good research, with their hundreds and hundreds of staff; that they didn't suddenly realize, "Oh my goodness, it's April and all the contracts expired in March"; that this government had some idea of planning; and that they weren't so caught up with their leadership race and so caught up with their internal political problems that they forgot to govern. We would assume that they remembered they were still in government.

[ Page 17050 ]

So what we have here is a classic example of politics taking priority over governance.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for Peace River North is correct: it's incompetence. It's completely incompetent in terms of governance. Governance is what this party was elected to do, not politics.

Hon. Speaker, we're in the fifth year of this government. We are in a province where most people recognize we should have fixed election dates. This government could have avoided these things if they had had a fall election last year. They could have had an election in the fall of 1995. At that point they could have gone to the people and said: "Well, here's our record. Let's go to the polls." They didn't do that, because politics didn't allow them to do that.

They saw this window of opportunity because they poll and they poll and they poll. I for one am absolutely sick and tired of being governed by polls, provincially and federally. I'm tired of having polls shoved down my throat, telling me what I want from my government, and then the next day reading it in the newspaper. In fact, we have, when the news is very good. . . . But that aside, we cannot afford to have government by polling anymore.

This government found out that their polls were looking a little bit good, and they got quite excited about that because it hadn't happened for a long time. They set up their election agenda, which included the dropping of the writ. But what was interfering with that election agenda was that they hadn't been governing properly. They hadn't been paying attention to the school boards and the public sector workers and the hospitals. And it is not just the labour unrest that's a problem. That's only a problem in the short term for this government. If we dig a little deeper, and if we look at the budgets of the hospitals around the province right now -- notwithstanding $25 million gratuitously being dumped in a pre-election promise -- if we look at what's going on in the school districts with special needs. . . . What about some special needs programs that are being cut? What about what this government is doing to some of the programs around the province? What about anti-poverty funding? What about the food banks, with the longest lineups yet? An institution which didn't exist 15 years ago. . .record numbers of people.

And the food banks are not just accepting those who we like to sort of hand a nickel to once in a while when we are walking down the street. We have all these shopping bags, and we feel guilty, so we throw them a loonie once in a while. That's not who the food banks are welcoming anymore. You know who they have now? They have people who were just previously middle-income families. And the number one recipient of free food in this province is children.

So the food bank lines are getting longer, the demand is getting higher and we have record numbers of people on welfare. The employment statistics are no comfort right now, because they don't show the people who have stopped looking for work. They don't show the people who went from $15 an hour to minimum-wage, part-time jobs with no benefits. And this government buys time on BCTV to tell us how good things are. But they have to bring in legislation to shut down people who would normally be their friends, because even people who would be their friends are prepared to take job action because things are so bad.

This government has not been governing. That's the problem. You can't fix a lack of governance with a piece of legislation that's supposed to put a little band-aid on it before you go to the polls. That's like taking out a little piece of Elastoplast and putting it on a severed limb. "Oh well, that looks much better" -- only from a distance, maybe if you hold it ten feet away and then you don't see what's going on.

This government should start to deal with the problems and recognize them. If they governed, if they acknowledged the issues, then we would be in better shape. But the fact that we are here on a Saturday. . . . The greatest irony of this is that not having sat for 264 days, when they do finally get around to calling the House in the most blatant display of pre-election electioneering on public money. . . . I have to give this government credit. They have done a better job of using the taxpayers' money to try to get themselves re-elected than the Socreds did in 1991.

[11:45]

They've done more than the Socreds did. They sent home glossy publications with school children. They used the children of this province to take home election propaganda paid for by the taxpayers of this province. That was something the Socreds hadn't even thought of. You've got to give them marks for that. Boy, they took it even further.

Two days into a session, which this government has called for cosmetic reasons, and they actually hit an issue. The issues were too big for them to call the House for even five days and not hit a serious issue. So they call it for a couple of days. One of the issues starts to crop up, bubbling to the surface, and they can sense that it's like trying to stick a finger in the hole of the dike. If they don't do that, the whole thing is coming down, because there is going to be sector after sector lining up and saying that actually, now that we think about it, we have a problem: we have a problem in health care; we have a problem in transit; we have a problem when it comes to social services; we have all of these problems lining up. This government tried to put a lid on it. It's not fooling anybody.

I want to take a second to talk about the image of the children that we keep using here. Hon. Speaker, you know that any time you want to get people really emotional about an issue, any time a government wants to get people lined up to go to war and have themselves killed for something, you can use some pretty powerful images. Any time you want to justify something that would normally be unjustifiable, pull out the image of the children. Let's use that as a political football. Let's talk about children, and somehow that becomes a political football that nobody wants to touch. Oh dear, is it better for the children? Then we'll do it.

If this government cared about children, if they cared about education, they could have done something four and a half years ago. They could have said four and a half years ago that the structure of education is not working. They could have gone to four-year-based financing. They could have said that we're going to have long-term capital planning; we're going to include demographic projections for growth; we're going to start to get away from annual budgets, which lead to insecurity; and we're going to make sure that educators do not constantly feel under pressure to get into the political arena.

In fact, some of them on the executive of the BCTF are under so much pressure to get into the political arena that they are running for the NDP now, which could explain why there's a deafening silence from some of the labour leaders. Hon. Speaker, you know that there are labour leaders in this province who are too busy campaigning in the re-election offices of the NDP to represent their own members. They've forgotten their mandate.

[ Page 17051 ]

I feel really strange, as someone who is not a union sympathizer, telling the labour leaders of this province that you have a job to do, and your job is not to re-elect the NDP; your job is to represent your members. If it were a Socred government, you'd get out there and march; if it's an NDP government. . . . I don't care who's in government, your dues are being paid by your members, you're being elected by your members, and you get out there and you represent your members.

And Mr. Georgetti, if you're listening, I heard what you said when you were in Kelowna. If I'd had any idea that you would say something very different when this government came out with this kind of legislation, I would have hammered you in Kelowna. I was very polite, because I believed you when you said that you had a mandate and that you represented every working woman and man in this province. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I said: "Okay, ideologically we're different, but you really believe in what you're doing. You seem to." If you don't get up, Mr. Georgetti, and represent your members. . . . Well, I'm sure your members will have something to say about that, because I've already talked to some of them.

I want to mention on the record that the president of the North Okanagan labour council, Mr. Jeff Fox, who is actively campaigning for the NDP, had the courage to stand up and say that what the government is doing is wrong. And do you know what he did? He represented his members. I'm not sure how much heart he's going to put into running their campaign, but I'm sure they'll have to deal with that themselves.

On the issue of the children, then, which is the issue that I want to deal with: we must get away from using children as a means to justify things that should be done differently. We shouldn't do this anymore, whether we're NDP or Liberal or Reform or PDA, whatever we call ourselves. Cut it out, because this is about government. We build the structure of government, and our children live within that. Every single one of those children will be served or not served based on the structure. If there's a problem with that structure, fix the structure. Don't set up some sort of phony argument that you're doing this for the children, because you're not.

This is a slippery slope, what this government is doing. This government has now opened the door wide to the Mike Harris style of dealing with unions -- to what our friends in the Liberal Party would do.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Mr. Skeena Representative, don't tell me that it's over there, because this piece of legislation is from your benches. This NDP government is bringing in. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We all understand the rules: through the Chair, please. Let us all hear what the member has to say.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very meek, and I get drowned out easily.

The member for Skeena was saying that the members on this bench are somehow responsible for this legislation, which of course is. . . .

G. Wilson: That's true. They're trying to steal their election issue.

J. Tyabji: Ah, the leader of the PDA points out that the NDP are trying once again to steal a right-wing election issue, and that's true, because this government is trying to govern by polls. And if the polls temporarily show that a right-wing agenda item is popular, instead of this government trying to stand on their principles, explain their position and fight for what they believe in, they will cave in to that poll. They will try to take that right-wing agenda item. They will say, "This was our first idea; we had it first; we're in government, and we're going to implement it; we're going to downsize the school boards" -- with no demonstrated budgetary impact, no plan in place ahead of time, just: "We're going to make them smaller. We're going to have fewer of them, because that seems to be the flavour of the month."

The bottom line here, and the issue that we cannot get away from, is the slippery slope. As somebody who is not a union sympathizer, I have watched in other countries where people fight for the right to organize, to bargain freely and to have unions, and I have followed enough history to know how many people have given their lives in other countries and other jurisdictions for the right to organize.

Why are we, as we approach the next millennium in British Columbia, trying to take a step backward when we have a government which has been elected not only with some of the financing of organized labour in this province but with the sweat and the time and the energy of people who trusted them to represent their interests? Why is this government taking us backward? Why would this government, on the eve of an election, burn their own people? Why would they turn on their own people? I don't understand that, because all of these workers must be wondering how they can possibly work for people who would so quickly push them aside if they think that's convenient.

To our new Premier, I would say, for the Premier's interest, that if there is something outstanding, such as labour unrest or an issue which might be coming up in Surrey, or anywhere else for that matter, then he had better deal with it. That's his job. His job is not to try to get re-elected; his job is to govern. And if the people feel that he has governed effectively and fairly, then they will endorse that vision. To this point, especially given this piece of legislation, I don't know how anyone can have any confidence that he knows from one 24-hour period to the next which direction he's going in, because right now he seems to be running in several directions at once and, depending on what suits the needs of the strategists of the NDP, they will introduce legislation accordingly.

I didn't think that I would even have a chance to speak in this session, because we were told it was going to be four to five days. We thought it would be a throne speech reflecting back on prior accomplishments, and instead we had a number of promises.

I want to put on the record that since we are here, we'd better get to work. Because there are a lot of promises that this government has made to the people of this province, and we're expecting to see some results, especially now. We'd better earn the trust of the people with our record in this Legislature, and this Premier had better understand that he's got a lot of bridges to rebuild here, not just with the people in the labour sector who worked and paid money to finance this government into power and who are now prepared to sit on their hands because they are afraid they might elect something scarier -- not just because of those people, but because the people of this province have no confidence that they will know where this government is going from one day to the next.

[ Page 17052 ]

Seeing the time, I move that we adjourn debate.

J. Tyabji moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 1:00 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 11:57 a.m to 1:03 p.m.

The Speaker: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 21.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, before I conclude my comments I want to clarify something for the record. When I spoke prior to lunch, I named the number of days that we had been in recess since the last sitting, and it sounded like a lot. I talked about 264 days, and I thought, gee, that number is way too high. So we asked our researchers to check it out, and our research assistant discovered that the number was incorrect. I want to make sure that Hansard clarifies for the record that it was 286 days since the prior sitting.

It was my fault for making the mistake; I think I reversed the numbers. But what's interesting is that when you mention a number like that, not only has there been the sort of contempt for this parliament that's been shown by the NDP but they are even prepared to laugh at that number and try to render it insignificant. And obviously it's not.

Somewhere in that 286 days, this government could have realized that their number one job is to take care of governing the province, and that includes all the items covered by this bill. This bill does not deal with anything that has recently come up. Every item in it, every person who will be affected by it, was in existence prior to the House being called last Thursday. It's really unfortunate that we have a political agenda taking precedence over the agenda of the government.

There's such a sense of déj� vu. First of all, last year when I stood -- and I think it was in the response to the Speech from the Throne -- I made the comment that this is the laziest Legislature in the country. That was a comment that actually managed to ripple its way across to some of the other legislatures, probably envious of our poor record, wishing that they could also have so much time to spend in their constituencies or travelling or whatever it is that some of the MLAs do when they're not in the Legislature.

This year our record is worse than it was last year: 286 days out of a year with 365 days is a pretty appalling record to take into an election campaign, notwithstanding the legislation in front of us and notwithstanding that this government has brought in a throne speech which on its surface is purely cosmetic. They have the opportunity to pursue some of the initiatives that they brought in in the throne speech, but none of us are expecting them to do that. That in itself is an abuse of parliament, and it will be an abuse which we will bring up again and again during the election campaign. They can count on it.

With respect to the bill in front of us, I can't state strongly enough how dangerous this move is that the government has made. What they've done, in effect, is validated those cries from people who are saying: "Here is a serious problem that must be dealt with." For those, as I say, on a right-wing agenda who will say, "Get rid of unions altogether," which is at the bottom of this slippery slope and is the end result of the argument given by the Minister of Labour today when she was speaking in the House, for those who will be fighting for the elimination of unions, for those who will be saying that an essential service is anybody who happens to be working on a payroll that's paid by the taxpayers, for those who will push that agenda, this government has begun the process to meet that agenda. This government has said, in effect, that there are times when they will justify the arbitrary removal of the rights of the working women and men in this province.

I would prefer if they would just say: "Well, we've just decided that we're going to completely change our principles and philosophies, not suspend them for an election campaign. Okay, guys, we happen to think that the people of this province no longer want public sector unions, because we've been listening to the Liberals and to the Reform Party. Heck, we've got to go into an election campaign, and those are the big guys to beat, so we're going to take on that agenda item. We're going to get rid of public sector unions having the right to strike." If they did that, it would be a lot more honest. That would be saying: "Okay, we're going to do something that's totally against our principles. We're going to do it because we've been listening to people, and we happen to believe that the majority of people believe this."

I actually don't believe this is the case, because I've talked to my constituents. It's an interesting progression that has occurred in the last few years with those who were at that time calling for an end to any kind of right to strike for public sector unions. As the economy has worsened, people have started to change their perspective on the workforce. They would like the government to take action that is more than just short-term, that's more than just dealing with something in a cosmetic way, but that has to do with governance: changing the financing structure, changing the way things are set up, increasing the security of financing for our public sector, local governance. Whether it's a hospital board or a school board -- whatever it is that they're dealing with -- whether it's a regional health board, which is the new animal that is supposed to come in after the election. . . .

Those labour leaders who are watching owe it to their members to tell them the long-term implications of what this bill means. I know that the leader of the PDA is going to address some of the ramifications of what's happened in British Columbia in the past. Let's not pretend that this is something we can take lightly, and let's not pretend that any one of these members who comes from a union background would have an easy time with this if it were anybody else introducing it. Let's also not pretend that they haven't sold out for expediency, for an election campaign, the very principles that they're just about to go into the campaign espousing.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, as we near the end of the mandate of the current government, this bill, Bill 21, may be one of the final pieces of legislation that we deal with in the House. Perhaps it is appropriate that at this late juncture, it's one of the most cynical, manipulative and dishonest bills that this province has ever seen.

As I was preparing for the debate today, I had occasion to look back at the Hansard of 1990, when the Social Credit government of the day decided that they were going to legislate the teachers of the province back to work. There are some intriguing comments from the former minister who now sits as the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 17053 ]

Speaking in Hansard in July 1990, the current Premier said: "Every member of the public knows the way they have treated and used teachers as an election issue in British Columbia." He talked about the bill stifling collective bargaining and demonstrating "the kind of deliberate ignorance we've seen on the government benches with respect to labour negotiations." It gets better. The current Premier said: "I just want, for the record, to show that the minister, incompetent as he may be, clearly doesn't have any clue about this legislation." He goes on to talk about the fact that the people had basically been duped, and that's why the minister of the day couldn't defend the legislation. Now, that was the minister in 1990, and today he introduces legislation in this assembly to do exactly the same thing.

I ask myself: how could he have undergone this transformation in the course of four years? As I listened to the debate this morning, it was readily apparent that the reason why he has been able to make this transition is that in Surrey, at least, the fix with regard to the CUPE union is definitely in.

This morning in the debate, the Leader of the Opposition introduced a copy of "Table Talk," which is the newsletter of the Canadian Union of Public Employees' local in Surrey. The newsletter spells out a series of negotiations which have been going on between the Premier's Office and that union, totally separate from the negotiations between the school board and its unionized employees: an under-the-table relationship between the government, reaching into the office of the Premier, and this particular union. The quotes were read into the record, but I think it's important to read them again. The newsletter says: "After many long and often frustrating hours, your CUPE bargaining committee has accepted the appointment of Vince Ready as an industrial inquiry commissioner. This difficult decision was made late Tuesday afternoon, after the direct intervention of. . ." -- the Premier.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The direct intervention of the Premier.

Further on, it talks about the negotiations. They were called into the Premier's office at one point during these negotiations: "At the Premier's office we talked with government representatives, who asked us to consider alternatives." Imagine that: you're a school trustee in the city of Surrey, negotiating in good faith with the unionized workforce, knowing that secret, under-the-table meetings are going in the very office of the Premier of the province. The reality in the city of Surrey. . . .

It's entirely appropriate that we should be dealing with this bill, considering that the city of Surrey and the students in that district have had more interrupted days of schooling in the last four years than at any time in the history of the province -- more lost student-days. As we get to the last, dying days of the government, when they have resisted entreaties from this side of the House to declare education an essential service, when they introduced a back-to-work bill in 1993 after a month-long strike and imposed a settlement at that time which the school board couldn't afford -- imposed it anyway. . . . After all those lost days and a steadfast refusal to deal with education as an essential service, we now have a bill, with an election pending, which will get the government through the next 28 days without a strike or a lockout, supposedly, in the public sector. It runs out on June 30, and we're right back into it again after that. Isn't that a tremendous commitment to the students and the teachers and the parents in the Surrey School District? "Hey, we'll guarantee you school for 28 days; beyond that, all bets are off."

[1:15]

Well, it's typical. It's understandable. But there's a more sinister side to this debate than merely politics and electioneering. It's about the relationship between the Premier's Office and the CUPE union in Surrey -- those secret, under-the-table negotiations that I alluded to earlier.

Part of the recommendations that were supposed to settle this strike, the union voted to accept. The school board couldn't accept them. What will happen with this legislation is that, once again, the government of the day will undoubtedly order a settlement based on those job security recommendations that the board, on behalf of the taxpayers, can't live with. Once again, we are going to see which side of the fence the government is on, and we are going to see this government reward its friends in the CUPE union in the school district of Surrey at the expense of parents, students and, ultimately, the taxpayers of the province.

It's entirely appropriate that at this late date we should be dealing with a bill that basically unmasks the priorities of the government. Those priorities are to protect the interests of its union friends at all costs and provide them with job security provisions that -- make no mistake about it -- will have implications far beyond the school district of Surrey. Those dynamited job guarantees will carry implications for every school district in the province, because they will form a basis on which other unions will undoubtedly approach the bargaining table.

Should there be a strike in the next 28 days, the government will undoubtedly accept the recommendations of that inquiry commissioner in Surrey, who has recommended a settlement the district can't afford, and the government will order every other district, or every other CUPE local, back with those kind of recommendations built in. Is it any wonder that people of the province are cynical about whether the government really represents their interests? When the district trustees in Surrey advised their constituents of these secret negotiations between the Premier's Office and CUPE, what was the public supposed to think? Why do they go to the polls to elect school trustees? What is the purpose of electing a local school board in British Columbia anymore, if something as vitally important as negotiations with a public sector union at the local level are hijacked by the government for political purposes? What assurances can we have that there won't be more deals?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. There appears to be quite a bit of chatter on the side, which is making it very difficult for the Speaker to hear the debate. Please restrain yourselves.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted that the Premier has returned to the chamber, because I can remind him of some other comments that he made in Hansard. He said: "The Socreds are playing political games with our children's education. We're working towards ending the school conflicts, while the Socreds are continuing to prolong them." That's what he said: prolong them. Well, they're going to be prolonged -- but not beyond June 30, with this bill. They'd be prolonged well past the 30th if this government were to be re-elected, and we know that can't possibly happen. But if it did, the deal is good for 28 days -- a 28-day deal which just happens to coincide with the amount of time it takes to complete a provincial campaign.

This legislation has a dual purpose for the government. It provides the union with the support and the job guarantees 

[ Page 17054 ]

they were looking for, and it enables the government, if they want to, to order them back to work according to a deal the taxpayers can't afford. How can you possibly, if you're in government, get a better deal than that? Five years' worth of job guarantees for the union in Surrey. And according to "Table Talk," they got the deal out of the Premier's Office. That's how they did it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan West rises on what matter?

C. Serwa: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. I take your admonishment very sincerely, and I note a great deal of entertainment and voices coming from the government benches. I would encourage those members to stand up and speak up and defend their particular position, rather than heckling.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The point of order is well taken, and I would hope that the members would adhere to the request by the hon. member.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, in the last 24 hours, members of the opposition have had certain discussions with the board of trustees in the city of Surrey, who are despairing of the process that they've been forced to endure and the fact that the government has taken direct involvement and intervention in these contract talks, which are supposed to rest at the local level, based on the ability of the taxpayers to pay. When they pick up a union newsletter and read of the involvement of the Premier's Office, the midnight calls on these negotiations. . . . Who are they negotiating with? I mean, talk about friends in high places. How can you get a friend higher than that -- in the Premier's office?

This bill has nothing to do with protecting education in the province, protecting students. It's nothing more than an election document. It's another table-setting election document. After four and a half years, I don't know how members opposite can stand and claim they're defending public education in British Columbia.

Not too long ago the Premier made an announcement about election funding in British Columbia. Supposedly the government was committed to not passing on the federal transfer payment cuts. But that wasn't the message three months ago. Three months ago the government wanted $80 million cuts in public education. They said then that. . . . The cuts were being blamed on the federal government: "We're going to cut you dollar for dollar, and if you don't like it, go to Ottawa." That was the message.

On the road to Damascus or Armageddon or whatever else it is, the government underwent a dramatic conversion. All of a sudden they could maintain funding for education -- another promise good for 28 days. I wonder how the former Minister of Education feels, who, during the. . . . I don't see him here today, but I wonder how he feels, because during the amalgamation process, he had to go around the province and tell school districts that he was cutting 80 million bucks out of their budget. He said he had to have it. The Minister of Finance told him: "I've got to get $80 million out of my budget for Education." I wonder how he feels now, with a new Premier making a commitment that he could never get as the Minister of Education from the previous Premier and the Minister of Finance. How does he feel now? The minister says he's not running in the next election. Well, I can understand why.

How do you go, in a three-month period, from $80 million down to $16 million up? You can do it if you're only going to do it for 28 days. Of course you can do it; it's easy. You can do anything. You can freeze ICBC rates; you can freeze hydro rates. You can do anything when you're only going to honour it for 28 days. That's what this legislation is all about. It's a 28-day job guarantee that will have no meaningful impact except to saddle taxpayers with settlements they can't afford.

We ask ourselves in this assembly why the public is cynical about what we do. They wonder why it is that governments just can't get it right, why they can't put the public interest ahead of the interests of their friends, why -- after four and a half years of taking education out of the Labour Code as an essential service, after denying there was a problem, after Surrey students have lost more days than at any other period of time in the history of the province -- they bring in a bill now to get them through the next 28 days and expect the public to react with positive and glowing commendation for the government. It's cynical in the extreme. It's why people have rejected what happens in this assembly and what the government is doing, because they can see through this kind of thing. I have news for the members opposite: they can see through this kind of thin veneer that we're dealing with here today.

I just say it's entirely appropriate that this bill should be one of the last ones we deal with, because on many occasions in this assembly I've got up to talk about the government's secret agenda on so many issues. So many times there are the public spin doctors and the public pronouncements, and then under the table there's the agenda that you don't see, the agenda that as I said earlier is described in "Table Talk," of discussions between the Premier's Office and the CUPE local in Surrey.

You're not going to read anything about that in the government announcements. You're not going to hear them talk about how they went around the school board and school trustees to get a deal in Surrey and how, after the district had rejected the job security recommendations, the Premier of the province decided he was going to bring in a bill that would enable the government to force an end to the strike, based on those same job security recommendations that the trustees had rejected.

That's what we are dealing with here: a 28-day election guarantee for the government and a reward for a union that has supported the government very well over the last four and a half years. And that's the government legacy on protecting education after four and a half years.

I am going to close by reading into the record. . . .

Interjections.

W. Hurd: I feel compelled to defend the former Minister of Education, who I'm sure is delighted, on the one hand, that the government is making a commitment that he couldn't honour as minister.

Anyway, in 1993 this Legislative Assembly returned to duty on a weekend to end the last strike in the Surrey School District. The minister of the day -- and I'm going to read what he had to say, because I think it's important -- when he was talking about why the government needed the bill. . . . It was the former member from Esquimalt, now the Minister of Environment, who said: "The purpose of this bill is to support collective bargaining where it is working and to fix it where it is broken." That was the purpose of the last bill in 1993: to legislate an end to the school strikes in Vancouver and Surrey at that time.

[ Page 17055 ]

From that time to this time -- three years -- nothing has changed. In the Surrey School District, three weeks ago parents still were not sure on Sunday evening whether they were to take their children to school the next day. If these members opposite had only received some of the calls that I got in my office from parents who were absolutely outraged that while they had to listen to the radio in the morning to find out whether they could take their kids to school, the Premier's Office was in discussion overnight with the CUPE union to decide whether that strike should go ahead. Isn't that a tremendous commitment to the parents and students in the Surrey School District! They'll find out from the radio; CUPE will find out directly from the Premier's Office. That just about says it all with respect to this legislation.

So it's time that we had real essential-service legislation in the province to protect our school children. And we're not talking about rescinding collective bargaining rights. We're talking about affording schools the same protection that hospitals enjoy in the province. Surely the future of our kids is worth the same as patients in British Columbia, and I hear from parents that it is. We need that kind of essential service legislation, not some sham of a bill designed to get us through a 28-day election window. We need real commitment to students and parents in the province. I say to the government and to the Premier, which had a lot to say in 1990 about this legislation: shame on them. Shame on them for the last four and a half years for the uncertainty that has resulted for parents and students in the city of Surrey! Shame on them, because this bill is not fooling anyone!

[1:30]

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and support this bill. I listened with intent. . . .

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: You had your last grasp earlier on today, hon. member.

The hon. member before me, the member for Surrey-White Rock, asked a very critical question, and that was: "Whose side are you on? Whose side is the government on?" I am pleased to answer him. We're on the side of parents; we're on the side of students; we're on the side of education. In Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam, this government has been on the side of school construction, opposed by the opposition. This government has been on the side of funding school operating grants by increasing them every year. This government has been on the side of education for four and a half years, and with this piece of legislation it proves once again that it is on the side of parents and students.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

The hon. member for Victoria-Hillside on a point of order.

R. Blencoe: I really want to hear this speech. It's critical to the government, I believe. But it's very hard with the wall of shame, with their coffee club over here, speaking.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

R. Blencoe: Perhaps you could ask the wall of shame to be quiet.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, if we can have some decorum in order to proceed with the debate, it would be much appreciated.

M. Farnworth: This piece of legislation, according to the opposition, is somehow a cooked-up deal to reward the CUPE union. This piece of legislation deals with a problem, and that is: what happens if the Legislature is dissolved and there's an election -- which lasts 28 days -- and there's no method in place for the government to resolve a labour dispute?

Hon. Speaker, 73 out of 75 districts have resolved their labour problems and arrived at a contract. Two districts haven't: one is Surrey, and the other, Coquitlam. My own district of Coquitlam is currently in mediation, and I hope that mediation reaches an agreement.

In the case of Surrey, that has failed, despite the best efforts of both the union and the mediator, and despite a school board that does not seem to want to reach an agreement. So we are left with no choice.

J. Tyabji: I wonder who they talked to.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member says: "I wonder who they talked to." I'd like to see a record of the phone calls between that school board and the offices of the Liberal Party to see what their strategy was. I can tell you, if there is an election and there had been a strike, they'd be the first ones jumping up and down, going: "Why wasn't something done? Why can't the government act?" Because we are in the middle of an election campaign, they know we wouldn't be able to. It was part of their strategy, I believe, to do just that.

Unfortunately, we've dealt with it, and parents are spared the problems of the children crossing or having to deal with picket lines, because their kids will now be in school. The collective bargaining process has been preserved. What's happening is that the government has shown leadership in dealing with a problem that I and many of us believe is the direct result of politicking by a local school board. It's no coincidence that in the district of Coquitlam, the chair of the school board is a Liberal candidate and has been extremely reluctant. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, that member knows full well that the chair of the Coquitlam School District is no longer the chair of the Coquitlam School District and has stepped aside. He should know that.

The Speaker: Order, please. That was not a valid point of order. Matters such as the one raised can be clarified when members take their place in a debate.

M. Farnworth: Let's put it this way: if she isn't, it's news to everybody, including the media. The fact of the matter is that she still sits on the board, she still has a vote, and she still manipulates and controls that school board like she always has.

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock asked: "Whose side are you on?" Whether it's school construction, whether it's school funding, this government has shown that it's on the side of children and parents. We contrast that with the opposi-

[ Page 17056 ]

tion's message. For the next four and a half years, this government -- and it will be this government again -- will be on the side of students and parents and education.

We contrast that, because parents want to know what a $1.1 billion tax break for corporations is going to do for education. It's going to hurt it. What is a $3 billion cut to public services going to do when the largest expenditure is on health care and education? It's going to hurt it and it's going to cripple it. It's not going to build schools; it's not going to put teachers into schools. It's going to result in a reduction of funding to students and to schools in this province. That's what they have to explain. We know whose side we're on; they don't. They have yet to decide. They know they're on the side of corporations, but that's as far as they go. They still cannot tell the people of this province how they're going to remove $3 billion from the budget and not have it impact education.

They are trying to say that somehow they believe in education, and they don't. My question to them is: what are you going to do with this piece of legislation? How are you going to vote? At the end of the day, are you going to stand up and vote the way that your arguments have been? Are you going to have the courage to change, as you like to say? Are you going to have the courage of your own comments of this morning and vote against this piece of legislation? My bet is that you won't. The fact of the matter is that this piece of legislation is what parents and students want. It's in the interests of education, and it's in the interests of this province. And that's why I urge them to vote for it.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 21. As I do, I'd like you to sit back, relax and close your eyes, and let me take you on a journey into time: the date is October 7, 1975. Hon. Speaker, you were sitting in the House at that time. You were here. You had more hair -- much more hair, in fact, hon. Speaker. Here we were sitting at a time when the New Democratic Party in power brought the House into a special session, and brought in standing order 81 so that they could introduce Bill 146 and be permitted to advance it through all stages in the same day.

That bill was to give them an opportunity for 90 days of strike-free time so that then Premier, Mr. Barrett, could run an election -- and could run that election free from labour strife. Back then on October 7, 1975, the opposition of the day -- the Socreds -- allowed the motion to be approved. And as we look at Hansard, we heard the exact same discussion from the opposite benches -- then the government of the day, from Labour minister Mr. King -- as we hear today. We hear about how they have to do this as much as it runs against their principles; about how their position is that they have to protect the interests of the people of British Columbia; and about how much they didn't want to introduce this 90-day freeze, but that it had a sunset time, a sunset period, and that after that 90-day period we could go back to business as usual. Isn't it something? Just when you think this government has elected a new leader, has put on a new face and is actually going to do something that's different, we find out: there it was, exactly the same as it was, again.

What did labour say back then when that was brought in? I'll tell you what labour said about Bill 146. I quote the B.C. Federation of Labour, which had a president then who was perhaps just a little bit more forceful with respect to the government that we have today. It said: "Rarely in modern times has any government in Canada interfered so brutally in free collective bargaining. No government has engaged in strike breaking on such a massive scale."

Hon. Speaker, here we have it again. This government, desperate for an election window, has decided they're going to bring in a piece of legislation, and that piece of legislation is to give them a period of time when they can have strike-free electioneering. If it wasn't such an abuse of the authority and power of this government, if it wasn't such a complete contradiction of the principles that they espouse with respect to the rights of people who are organized within the trade union movement to come forward and bargain collectively and use the only weapon they have at their disposal if that bargaining results in a stalemate -- and that is the right to strike or the right to lockout -- this would be offensive indeed.

We find also, as we sit here on Saturday -- indeed, as was handed me but a few minutes ago -- that the school board has made a new offer and the threat of a strike on Monday has, in fact, now been removed. And here we are sitting. According to the president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Gary Johnson has said that the threat of a strike on Monday no longer exists. So it makes you wonder, then, if this is really about strikes in Surrey. Or is this really about something else? Is this about putting in place, as they tried to do way back in October of 1975. . .? Is it about trying to have a blanket placed over the opportunity of trade unions to take the one action that they are allowed at the time that this government chooses to call an election?

It's interesting, as we start to hear the debate and we go back through the text of the material that was presented to us before, that when the government in 1975 tried to bring in that 90-day freeze, the trade union movement at that time said: "No way. We're not going to allow what we have fought for, and fought hard for, and that is the right to freely and collectively bargain without the threat of government intervention. . . . We're not going to allow this government to come in and legislate a 90-day freeze when we are in the final stages of trying to complete a deal."

[1:45]

They took strong action, hon. Speaker -- and you will recall. . . . Although you were certainly able to withhold the onslaught that took place in the election in December of that year, during that 90-day freeze period, because you maintained your seat, many did not. In fact, the Premier of the day did not. People in this province know the difference between principle and expediency. They know the difference between a political move to simply provide an opportunity for re-election and somebody who stands on the principle of free collective bargaining without government intervention and government interference.

Unlike my colleague, who has never been a member of a union, I have. I've been the president of my union, chief negotiator involved in round after round of labour negotiations. I understand exactly what is involved in mediation and arbitration services, and the one thing that both sides, employers and workers, do not want is the government to have a loaded gun at their heads when they're trying to settle. They don't want the government there, ready to pull the trigger at any point that they don't want to deal with this issue.

It is kind of interesting to see that when Social Credit took over -- and they won that election in 1976 -- they introduced an act that was called the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act. Does that sound familiar, hon. Speaker? It should sound familiar, because that act was designed to do something very similar to what this act is designed to do now. Isn't it interesting that when they introduced that act back in 1976, this government -- or certainly those that came before it, 

[ Page 17057 ]

and I assume that the principals are in the same position -- took strong exception to it.

As we look at the words of the Labour critic, the former Labour minister talked about the fact that government intervention should only occur "when that point is reached and an emergency confronts the province, and not before. It should only be on an ad hoc basis, because the Minister of Labour has said himself" -- referring to the Social Credit Minister of Labour -- "and he said it correctly, that part of the strength of government intervention comes through the uncertainty of what they might do."

Hon. Speaker, those were true words then, and they are today. This government, which claims to be the one to look after the interests of organized labour, has just slapped in the face all those people who stand as negotiators, who sit day after day to try to negotiate a deal. If it isn't -- and we know it isn't, because we've just heard that the threat of a strike in Surrey is off -- maybe what this government is really after is the nurses. Maybe it's the nurses they really want to go after here, in terms of a strike.

When you go back and look at some of the people who took issue with this government's position back in 1975, it's interesting that the member for North Island, who was then the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, said this: "I think that this legislation, together with our intervention in the firefighters' dispute" -- because he was dealing with the firefighters at that time -- "together with the general drift of the Labour Code, is creating a greater climate for intervention by government in British Columbia." You know, hon. Speaker, he was right then, and he is right now.

He went on to say that while it is not compulsory arbitration, it is the kind of thing that can lead to that climate. When you heard the Minister of Labour stand up and talk today about this bill, the Minister of Labour was saying that this government really believes that their right to remove the right of a strike should fall only to their cabinet when it doesn't suit their political agenda. That's what we heard that minister say. It was certainly sugar-coated: "We're going to look after the interests of teachers, students, parents and education."

If that was true, why hasn't this government abandoned formula funding and gone to four-year-based financing? Why has this government not put in place the kind of financing in the schools that is so desperately necessary in order for us to be able to avert or get away from, avoid, this kind of dispute today? Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. If it did have something to do with that, with this news today that the threat of a strike is averted, this House should rise, and we should go home for the weekend, come back on Monday, get back to the response to the Speech from the Throne, and anticipate a budget.

If this government is truly interested in the well-being of the people of British Columbia, I challenge them today to bring in the legislation they promise in the throne speech. Don't wait; bring it in. We can have a one-week, two-week, four-week or six-week session. You don't have to call an election in May or June, or even in July or August. We could have an election in September if the interests of the people of British Columbia are really at the heart of this government. There is no emergency, no crisis.

Let's be very clear that the only reason that this government thinks it can get away with this kind of legislation is because of the politics of fear: they know that the labour movement is looking out and seeing what may well be the alternative to this government. They're fearful because there is one out there who seeks to come in and trash the Labour Code, trash the right of teachers to strike, trash the kind of labour harmony and peace we've had over the last four years. Who is this man? The Man from Plaid. He's out there, and these people know that if this government falls and the Man from Plaid takes over, life could be quite worse.

But let's take heart, because this Man from Plaid is blessed with the courage to change. Indeed he may, and indeed he does. He changes from time to time: his shirt to a suit. He changes his sitting MLAs for somebody else. This man, from time to time, will change his policies to something else. The courage to change is a blessing indeed, because it means you never have to stick with one set of policies for any length of time because you can always change it, depending on your audience.

So when we get into this debate, we have to ask ourselves what's really going on. What's really going on here today has little if anything to do with good, sound, proper labour law. This government introduced a labour bill which, for the most part -- to give credit to this government -- has been exercised with some fairness and, I think, has been exercised with a degree of labour peace. We have had, for four years, a reasonably good record on the labour front. I think that's true. And I think that there are issues within the labour bill that need to be amended.

If in fact there is a legitimate legal question with respect to the right of government to act during the period of an election, that is a matter that should be properly addressed in an amendment to the Labour Code. That's where you bring in that amendment; that's where you deal with that amendment. And you do it in a manner that does not arbitrarily provide the right for cabinet to come forward and simply decide that they're going to allow a mediator's report to become a collective agreement. That's what this bill does.

There are few times when you can, in second reading, stand up and really, honestly go after a bill on the question of principle. This is one of those times when you can, because the principle that is at stake here is really important. I know that many parents in Surrey would say that they're worried about their children not being able to go to school. They're worried about being held hostage at a time when there is a labour dispute. I understand the seriousness of that, and I don't diminish the importance of that one iota. But the principle is also enshrined in our ability to make sure that those people who have a legitimate legal right under the labour laws of the province are protected under those labour laws and are able to legally exercise that right if it includes the right to strike. So we in the Progressive Democratic Alliance cannot support this bill, and we will oppose it on those grounds of principle.

Notwithstanding the fact that the people of Surrey are upset that their children may be held hostage, I wonder, as the member for Victoria-Hillside earlier said, what happened when we had handyDART out. What happened at that time when we had the homeworkers out on strike? Nothing was done.

What happened when we had Powell River struck, with parents not able to get their students to school for week after week, when I went before the Labour minister and asked: "Is there any way that we can try to bring these sides together? Can we get a resolution?" Are you kidding? Powell River? It wasn't election time, so the people of Powell River were allowed to let that process take place for week after week. In Quesnel the same thing: there was no caring at that time, because the principles had been abandoned.

So let me serve notice to this government that those principles of fair collective bargaining -- the right for both 

[ Page 17058 ]

sides, employer and employee, to sit down and fairly negotiate an agreement between the two parties without the threat of government intervention -- rest solemnly and solely in this party, the Progressive Democratic Alliance, and they will not be abridged.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm hearing from the member: "What did you say?" I would go back and check Hansard.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Wilson: When I come into this Legislative Assembly, I tend to try to do my homework, and I hope the minister opposite would do his. Check the Hansard. You will see within the Hansard that my position with respect to the fair right of a collective agreement to be made without the intervention of government is something that we've stood by from the very beginning.

I have to say also that this government knows full well that it could not get away with this legislation this close to an election if it had not already sought, in some way, the tacit approval of some of those people who are on the executives of the unions affected. But I can tell you that I've heard from many in the rank and file. They're not going to forget this legislation any more than they did in 1975, when a New Democratic government in this House stood here and did precisely the same thing at that time under standing order 81 and brought in Bill 146 to give them 90 days of free electioneering. They failed. They were out in opposition for 20 years. How close we are to having those similar things again.

I have to say that if there was not such a fear, among not only unionized workers but workers generally in the population at large, about the possibility of this official opposition ever becoming government, this government would not be able to bring this act in and make this act work.

We don't stand up and criticize without providing what we believe to be reasonable alternatives. It's important, because we do have an opportunity -- especially now as we learn of this new offer that's been made from the school board, and that the threat of a strike is off, and the emergency debate, if we can call it that, is no longer necessary -- to look at a different and better way. There is no panic for us to be into an election by next week, no panic at all, unless this government has already committed its finances, unless perhaps the bus is up and running, unless we were so far down the road. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Oh, and I see that the Minister of Health is telling me that only the buses over there. . . .

There is no panic. This government suggested very much so, and suggested that we had an opportunity to bring in some legislation. In the throne speech they even said that they had that legislation pending and waiting. So my challenge is to take two or three weeks and bring in that legislation. One of the pieces of legislation that you can bring in while this House is in session, while the threat of this potential job action is in place, is an amendment to the Labour Code. Scrap this piece of legislation, Bill 21, which is offensive to the labour movement and offensive to anybody who believes in the fundamental right and freedom of an individual to go forward and freely and collectively bargain on either the employer or employee side. Scrap it. Get rid of it, and bring in a piece of legislation that amends the Labour Code to provide the necessary protections, within government, in the event that during the writ period there is a crisis in British Columbia that requires government intervention.

And I say crisis. I'm not just talking about an embarrassment to the governing party because there happens to be a party out there -- a union or an employer -- that may embarrass one or two or a handful of candidates because their riding is going to be hit with job action. It's ironic indeed that the Minister of Labour is from Surrey. I understand only too well how vulnerable that member is. Coming from Surrey, with a potential threat of a strike in Surrey, that member quite clearly realizes there is a political threat.

But there is a sensible solution for sensible, planned use of this Legislative Assembly in a proper manner -- not to call some spurious debate, haul it over the weekend, and then try to ram it down our throats by having a Sunday sitting where we go through the committee stage. We suggested in the beginning. . . . When this was first brought in on Friday, we suggested that this particular bill was not necessary. We hear now that it isn't necessary, because the threat of a strike is gone. We know. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: Because of the bill.

G. Wilson: And we hear the Minister of Health saying it's because of the bill. So that's what this exercise is about. We now understand that the government introduced this bill simply to push the hand of the employer to make another offer for the union. That's unbelievable. What a terrible admission for the Minister of Health to turn around and say that the only reason they brought this bill in was so they could push the employer to make another offer to the union. That's ridiculous. Talk about government taking a direct role in negotiations! Oh, my goodness. The government decides it's going to take a direct role in negotiations. In that sense, that's just unbelievable.

There is clearly a better way to proceed. And that better way to proceed, in our judgment, is for a proper and orderly use of this House. It seems to me that if you review the history of labour in British Columbia, and if we understand the process that goes forward in a negotiation, this bill provides an opportunity for government to have a direct intervening role. In fact, when we hear from the Minister of Labour on this bill, we hear that the Minister of Labour is prepared to use direct government intervention as an ongoing tool in negotiation. This is completely contrary to the philosophical base that this party has put forward in the past.

[2:00]

I have to tell you that if it wasn't for the politics of fear, if it wasn't for the fact that this governing party has spun so clearly this prospect of fear that this Man from Plaid is going to come forward and trash the labour laws, trash the bills, take away the right to strike. . . . If there wasn't such fear of this Man from Plaid, who has the courage to change. . . . I have to tell you that this courage to change might in fact keep this government in power.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

What we understand is that this government is now prepared to compromise its principles. It's prepared to compromise the position it has traditionally taken, confident in the 

[ Page 17059 ]

fact that the membership they are going to be calling on to go door to door, to be knocking on the doors and delivering their brochures and their leaflets, to be out campaigning for them, is so fearful of the potential that there may be something worse down the road if they don't re-elect this particular government that they are prepared. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: And I'm hearing the opposition say: "It's true, it's true, it's true." So we understand the strategy. Members opposite are saying that we understand the strategy.

There is another alternative. There is an option that is prepared to honour the process and principle of a free collective bargaining system. There is an option that is going to allow the people of British Columbia to have sensible, reasonable and responsible government with respect to the funding of education and health care, to eliminate the need for this kind of labour dispute to occur in the first place. There is someone, and many now who are standing in the upcoming election, that will take to the people a sensible plan with respect to health financing, so that the nurses have an adequate and proper health agreement, so that the people have an opportunity. . . .

Deputy Speaker: The member for Okanagan West on a point of order.

C. Serwa: While I enjoy the comments of the member for Okanagan-Penticton, may I remind the member that he is silent unless he is sitting in his own seat.

Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. Will the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast please continue.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I thank my colleague from Okanagan West.

We understand, and I think we understand only too well, the extent to which there is out there, among people in the health unions -- the BCNU, the health employees' union, among the CUPE members -- anger at the betrayal of this government of the very basic principles that this government stands on.

They are angry because we find that in this situation, where there had been a promise of a fair collective bargaining process, this government now is prepared to come in and suggest that this deal is going to be a better deal. Suggestions have been made by all opposition members that maybe the deal has been cut. Maybe we've got a situation where the mediator's report is well known already. Maybe we know that the appointment in the matter of the health union. . .that there's a sympathetic mediator who might, in fact, give a sympathetic deal. So sit on your hands, guys, don't go out there, don't rock the boat, don't ruffle the feathers against the New Democratic Party, because ultimately, when we have this legislation and that mediator reports out and reports in favour of you, you're going to have your mediated report as your collective agreement.

Well, let me tell you, if they're prepared to betray the very principle of free collective bargaining, I as a union member wouldn't take their word. If they're prepared to betray those fundamental principles and the election turns sour, they'll betray that deal. They'll do anything that they have to do to get re-elected. They will betray any deal if it looks like the winds of change are happening in British Columbia and they, in terms of their electoral success, are now threatened.

Any government that's prepared to come in and say that we're going to hammer down a 90-day freeze -- or 60 days in this case, but in 1975 it was a 90-day freeze -- on a duly elected union membership to go forward and have a strike vote and exercise their right under the Labour Code in British Columbia. . . . I would not take their word in an election campaign, because as soon as things turn sour, as soon as it looks like things aren't good, that deal will be cut right now. It will be gone, absolutely gone.

I think we also have to point out how ironic it is that this New Democratic Party, which is the party of labour, the party of people, is the only party when in government, certainly in the recent history of British Columbia, that has actually legislated people back to work.

You know, when Social Credit were in government, certainly in recent history they were branded as being anti-labour, and they brought in anti-labour bills. In fact, I think that this current Labour Code is a vast improvement on the previous bill. But let's remember that as much of an improvement as it was, it clearly was flawed, because we have to cover up one of those flaws again today with this piece of legislation. It hadn't gone far enough to deal with issues, especially issues with respect to the legalities in implementation of the code. And we tried to point that out at the time, as I recall. This government was not prepared to listen to reasoned amendments to make that a better, fair and more equitable piece of legislation.

When we saw the teachers in Vancouver go on strike, this government was in like a shot to legislate them back. We saw them move with respect to the question in 1975, when they were prepared to come forward and legislate a 90-day freeze period. If the members of the trade union movement think that this is a government friendly to them, they'd better hope that the political wind continues to flow, because without it, I think they're in trouble.

Insofar as we have had an offer from the school board, and insofar as the immediate threat of a strike in Surrey no longer applies, I would move that the motion for second reading of Bill 21 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."

On the amendment.

Hon. A. Petter: I rise in opposition to the motion to amend.

I want to say, in listening to the previous speaker, that I'm always fascinated by the previous speaker, because in that desert of drivel there are oases of common sense. Plaid oases of common sense, as it turns out.

The member knows very well, as all members of this House do, that there is a serious concern with respect to a number of labour matters, but most particularly ones in Surrey and Coquitlam. There has been a serious issue in the possibility of strike action that has emerged in recent days and caused concerns to parents. If, as a result of introducing this legislation, the parties have thought better of the matter and are now going to try to seek a solution through negotiation, then so much the better. But we cannot ignore the fact that a serious situation remains; and if there is improvement, it is only because this action has been taken.

Let's also recognize that there's a second important purpose to this bill that is not at all inconsistent with the position this government and this party, which I represent, has taken over time, or that the labour movement has taken. That is a 

[ Page 17060 ]

position that at the end of the day government must retain some residual authority to step in where labour issues reach a point that they cause damage to the public interest. Normally that authority is expressed through the Legislature, but as the member knows very well, when the Legislature is dissolved, as is the case during an election, that residual authority no longer exists.

All this government is proposing in this legislation is to ensure that during the course of an election campaign -- which there is speculation will be coming soon -- government retain the residual authority to ensure that the public interest with respect to schools and hospitals remains. Our responsibility is to make sure that the interests of school kids and hospital patients and those in need of care is not put at risk. In this legislation we ensure that because the Legislature is not there to provide that safety net, government is there to do so for a fixed period of time. For that reason it would be wholly inappropriate to accede to the amendment proposed by the member opposite.

This legislation does speak to the interests of British Columbians, both the immediate interest with respect to the Surrey and Coquitlam situations and, more importantly, the interest to ensure that the education system is not placed in peril and the health care system continues to operate in an appropriate way during the course of a campaign in which there will be no Legislature to step in.

With that safety net, it remains our hope and expectation that matters will then be resolved through collective bargaining in the same context that they are always resolved. But if one takes away the ability of legislatures or, in this case, of government to step in, then that will undermine and alter that context of collective bargaining, and that's what we don't want to have happen here. The interests of school kids and health patients are too important to place at risk, and we're not prepared to do so.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak on Bill 21.

An Hon. Member: On the amendment.

D. Jarvis: It does disturb me.

An Hon. Member: It's the amendment to Bill 21.

D. Jarvis: This bill, Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. . . . The amendment -- in order to help out the rest of the gentlemen in the House who are screaming that I should be talking to the amendment. This bill perhaps should be called "how we are going to suspend collective bargaining for the next two months," or, maybe even more so, for the Premier: "There will be no strikes during my election, as I am desperate about maintaining my summer job."

This is more hypocrisy from the NDP, especially when they say it's for the children. Then they try to spin that the opposition is not concerned about students. The NDP has introduced this bill just to get them through this coming election -- and for the next 60 days only -- which only means that a strike can occur after the next 60 days. Hence the amendment.

This government professes to believe in collective agreements, and now brings in this compromise or cycling legislation. Yet four or five times now -- I think it's five including today -- we in opposition brought forward essential services which would have precluded any situation as is arising in Surrey today. This government removed essential services from the Labour Code in 1992. There really is no need for this bill. Under section 72 of the Labour Code, the Minister of Labour, at any time, could direct the Labour Relations Board to declare education an essential service. This would mean that the government would have to admit -- and thousands of parents out there are concerned and are saying -- that we need education to be an essential service.

Parents out there, and ourselves, as I said, do not wish to have essential services, but they do not wish their right to strike to be taken away from them -- teachers accordingly -- and we agree. But essential service does not mean that they have to have the right to strike taken away from them. Like police, or the hospitals, health. . . . When essential service is in effect there is still a skeleton crew there.

As I said earlier, the NDP ordered the teachers back to work in 1993 with the Educational Programs Continuation Act. This was a band-aid solution then, and this is a band-aid solution now. They have presented this bill under the guise of an anticipated crisis when there is no crisis, or so-called emergency when there is no emergency. This is a contrived issue. So here we have the NDP -- the great defender of collective bargaining -- suspending collective bargaining for at least two months. Here we have a Premier who has been interfering with the bargaining in health and education over the past month or so, and he's been failing to get anywhere with them. But he is saying that it is necessary to bring in this legislation that is now before us.

[2:15]

I believe there is only one NDP MLA in this House left over from the 1972-75 era of this government. That individual surely must remember that prior to the '75 election there was labour strife throughout this province. Perhaps the hypocrisy in this bill is that that may possibly and probably be why this bill is before us -- that which was presented in '75 when they had labour strife. This is a contrived issue, or why would this government be turning on their labour friends -- or the wing of that party especially? It's obvious that we are wondering who is going to benefit from this. It's certainly not going to be the education service that's delivered to the children. It's certainly not going to benefit the parents. The government had ample opportunity over these past four and a half years to put forward proper legislation, but not this style.

The Minister of Education, the former Minister of Health, stated earlier this morning that all school districts in British Columbia have benefited from this NDP government. I find that an appalling statement to make, because it is definitely not correct. This government has meddled with the education system of this province and caused a lot of problems in various school districts around this province.

I will tell you exactly of one district where this government has meddled with the education system and has caused unknown damage. Back in '92, School District 44, North Vancouver, had problems settling their collective agreement. They were forced -- meddled with by the government -- to accept that agreement. The trustees knew at the time that the taxpayers couldn't afford it. The trustees had no control of where the money was coming from. Representatives of this government convinced them that it was necessary to settle that collective agreement, both for CUPE and the teachers.

Then the situation arose where this government again meddled, and they changed the way of funding in this province. They upset the technical distribution plan that

[ Page 17061 ]

 would have given balanced funding to all the school districts in this province. Yet they chose to go a different way with funding that certainly helped out their own NDP ridings. Subsequently, after having to accept the mediation figure for School District 44, this government changed the funding for School District 44, and we had a $1.5 million shortfall.

It was at this time, in order to try to balance the books, that this government forced School District 44 to cut. They told them they had to cut. So they started cutting, and they cut all the services that were extra to the children in North Vancouver, and they cut them really hard. They cut so many services that North Vancouver, which used to be a leader of the education system in the province -- the ones that started things like outdoor schools, community school systems, brought in extra services. . . . This board had to cut because this government wouldn't give them these services. They cut their funds. The deficit grew and the deficit grew.

Then we had more meddling by this government. Then we had the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale start meddling. He meddled and he meddled to the point where it's very doubtful whether he will ever get re-elected again in this area, ostensibly because he didn't know what he was talking about but he was trying to make his own government look fiscally responsible in the area. So he had all the trustees fired. He openly bragged that he had all the trustees fired. All the trustees were fired by this Premier.

Then they put in their own appointed trustee. This trustee was to go in and count the beans and find out where he could cut -- cut some more, cut some more -- and find out what was wrong. Well, lo and behold, this trustee submitted his report less than a month ago. And the first thing he said in it was that the problems with School District 44 -- why it was necessary for them to cut French immersion, cut the maintenance, cut the books, cut community schools, cut outdoor schools, cut bands and strings -- was because this government had failed to fund the North Vancouver School District properly. So our hypocritical Premier turns around and says: "We will make up all this difference." It's now up to $4.8 million, and they will fund North Vancouver more. This is a Premier meddling in the education system. He's a hypocrite, along with his Pecksniffian assistant from North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Fortunately we will not see them around in the future.

Deputy Speaker: Could I interrupt the member for just a moment to remind him that calling other members of the House -- specific members -- by terms such as you've used is pushing the envelope in terms of parliamentary usage. I would ask you to please take that caution. Ideally, you would make life easier if you would simply withdraw that remark, Mr. Member, if you wouldn't mind.

D. Jarvis: I don't wish to argue with the Chair, but I used a perfectly normal word in the English language that is not what I would call a derogatory name.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Mr. Member, these items are not open to debate. There is a few thousand years of parliamentary usage that we're trying to protect which says that we do. . . . I'm sorry, not thousands; almost -- a rather long time. I've asked the member, as politely as I can, simply for the sake of the dignity and decorum of this chamber, if he would consider withdrawing that remark. I would ask him to do so, so we could proceed. That's all.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, then I will withdraw the word that I used, which simply means a hypocrite in the English language; that's all it means.

As I said, we've had great problems in our education system in North Vancouver, with this government meddling in it. Now they want to meddle in other school districts, and I'm concerned about the future of our education system if we are to see this type of legislation go through. I do not believe that this bill is for the taxpayers or the parents, or of any benefit to the students; it is just about keeping this government in power once more. On that basis, I will have to support the hoist motion.

D. Schreck: It gives me great pleasure to follow behind my neighbour from North Vancouver-Seymour, best known as the member who has promised to mine the Tatshenshini if he ever gets the chance. I find of great interest the member's recollection of events with respect to protecting children and education, both in the context of the principles of the bill before us and as he attempts to generalize that context to his recollection of matters affecting School District 44.

Let me deal first and specifically with the Liberal promise about education and essential services -- the so-called private member's bill that has been introduced four times -- as it relates to the legislation before us. The Liberal promise might be called the perpetual dispute bill, because that Liberal promise provides no mechanism to resolve a dispute. It provides no mechanism to determine what would be paid. What it does is guarantee that a dispute would go on forever. It might be called the Liberal collective bargaining bill that guarantees the eventual type of situation we've seen in Alberta, where unions in Alberta have taken strong, decisive, illegal strike action. We don't want to see that type of illegal job action coming to British Columbia, the type of illegal job action that is evidenced in Alberta and is one more of the type of Gordon Campbell -- excuse me, hon. Speaker, I meant to say Ralph Klein -- ultra-right-wing imports that that Liberal Party seeks to bring to British Columbia.

What we need is not a perpetual dispute mechanism. What we need is a mechanism that will resolve disputes. The legislation that's before us provides for the mechanism that ultimately can be turned to in this province when disputes cannot be resolved. No one likes to see the members in this chamber have to be called to resolve a dispute. However, that is, finally, a step in the process that can be taken. When the chamber is not in session -- as it may be soon if an election is called -- then we need the type of power that the legislation before us provides.

Before I continue with the remarks made specifically by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour in his rather hazy and incorrect recollection of some of those events, I would like to yield the floor to one of my colleagues, who has an introduction to make.

J. Tyabji: I'm making this introduction as the people are actually having to go to do something else. I'd like to introduce, joining us today. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Before you do, member, the protocol is. . . .

J. Tyabji: Oh, sorry, hon. Speaker. I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to introduce, with us today, Georgette Poirier, Don Gagnon, Brian Grant and Lynda Sturdy, who are joining us for this most interesting and critical debate.

[ Page 17062 ]

D. Schreck: I was briefly outlining the mistake made by the Liberal opposition in their confusion over perpetual dispute legislation versus legislation that can act during a brief period of transition when the Legislature cannot be called in order to see that resolutions of disputes are achieved.

Let me talk specifically about how our concern for children is reflected not only in the legislation that's before us but in terms of specific actions in School District 44. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour, whose constituency president was the chair of the North Vancouver School Board, who refused to cooperate with the Ministry of Education, who found himself at odds with the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. . . . That led to the type of conflict that no other school board in this province has experienced for almost 20 years. We have the member for West Vancouver-Capilano joining with me, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, in calling for having those trustees held accountable and subject to both fair funding and fair spending.

Meanwhile, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour -- while he recites events since 1992 -- can be shown by a review of Hansard as rather new to this issue. Not at one time in the last four years has that member stood in this House, stood in estimates, stood in a public forum or stood anywhere defending children or parents or taxpayers in North Vancouver. What we have is that member defending his constituency association president when it's shown that one arm of the Liberal Party is calling out, "spend, spend, spend," while the other arm of the Liberal Party is saying: "Oh no, we have to give $1.2 billion away to the corporations."

C. Serwa: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I have a point of order from the member for Okanagan West.

[2:30]

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I have difficulty relating the comments of the speaker at the moment to the principle and philosophy of this particular bill or to the motion. Perhaps the speaker would get on with this important matter.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his intervention and would remind him and all members of the House that the Chair has had some difficulty for at least the last hour on that very point.

D. Schreck: I appreciate the remarks of my friend, because just as those remarks from my friend from North Vancouver-Seymour -- and his actions -- have been irrelevant to protecting children and taxpayers in North Vancouver and in the rest of the province, their opposition to this legislation ignores those children and those taxpayers.

It is time to recognize that we have an opposition party that wants to pay off $1.2 billion in corporate tax cuts while ignoring the children of this province. For that reason the sooner we can get to an election, the better. During that period, we cannot have the instability of not being able to call this Legislature should some school board or labour dispute destabilize and threaten children in this province. Hence the need for temporary, sunset legislation.

R. Chisholm: I rise to address the hoist motion to Bill 21, Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

We came to this Legislature to do the people's business. This includes debating bills, not wasting our time with political charades. The government has not called an election, and I hope all members of this House will remember why they're here: to debate bills, implement legislation and ensure that the province's concerns are met -- not to abuse the Legislature, which belongs to the people of British Columbia, with these political charades.

We cannot afford to have children and patients in this province become political pawns, as they so often have in the past, and endanger their education and lives while political parties position themselves for the upcoming election.

It has become politically expedient for these parties to challenge some of the basic principles that we live by. No wonder the people of British Columbia are cynical about politicians. This farce has happened in the past, and the practice should be discontinued. We are here to discuss the present situations and not practise past mistakes.

If the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a better proposal than was initially presented by his House Leader, then I'd like to see it. I would urge all members of this Legislature to forget party politics and to debate and vote with their heart and conscience for what is best for the citizens of British Columbia. After all, the people of British Columbia know that this should have been corrected four years ago when we were having educational woes.

The Surrey situation just happened Thursday evening. This is a 60-day bill with a sunset clause, which is a result of not addressing this issue earlier in the thirty-fifth parliament. This is called crisis management and manipulation by government and political grandstanding by all parties for an upcoming election. Now we'll be forced to vote on a band-aid solution to a serious problem. Whether Surrey is solved or not, the problem still exists. This leaves me wondering which members in this chamber are actually concerned about the problems of students, patients and citizens in this province. Somehow I think they were left out of this equation while this posturing continues.

C. Serwa: I am very pleased to rise on this occasion and speak to the hoist motion put forward by my colleague from Powell River-Sunshine Coast on Bill 21. If I were to speak with respect to the principles of this bill, I wouldn't have stood up whatsoever, because there are no principles to this bill. However, there's a great deal of philosophy related to this bill, and I'm very pleased to stand and speak on that aspect.

First of all, I'd certainly like to thank the persuasive nature of the individual -- probably a hired, unelected, unaccountable adviser -- who convinced the Premier to bring this specific piece of legislation forward at this time. I thank that individual because I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak in this Legislature at this time of the government's mandate, just prior to an election.

I know it was not the government's intent, and certainly not in the best interests of the government, to suffer this type of embarrassment. There has been absolutely no defence, other than a weak, pathetic effort to try to defend the principles of this bill.

What it shows is that this government is devoid of principles, or else their definition of principles is one of short-term expediency, one of flexibility and one of convenience. There is nothing in this bill that is representative of the traditional value system of the CCF, purportedly carried forward by the New Democratic Party.

This particular piece of legislation is something that has been coming out of the Premier's office in the last 40 or 45 

[ Page 17063 ]

days. It's like an instrument coming out from a Mad Hatter's tea party. That's the basis of this piece of legislation -- and to be politically correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with caring about education, essential services, health care, or our colleges or universities. It's simply cover-your-backside legislation. That's all it is: "We don't want to suffer any embarrassment from our purported supporters and friends in the labour union movement during the critical period when we're appealing to the electorate at large in British Columbia to vote for us, because we're strong, we're stable, we're consistent and we're honourable."

Open and honest government was a pledge of this government in the 1991 election, and the people voted and supported and elected this current government on that basis. As a Socred member, I certainly got a clear message in 1991 that the people wanted honest, responsible and ethical government. They wanted politicians who didn't simply mumble in this House and vote like senseless blobs of protoplasm. They wanted members who would stand up and speak up for their beliefs and on behalf of the people of the province, and most definitely on behalf of their constituents.

Most of the members on the government side might as well send in their proxy to the Premier and stay home and save the taxpayers money for all the good they do in this institution, for all that they add, for all that they bring forward. They mumble and they mutter and they heckle, but they are not willing to stand up and even defend this piece of legislation. This is an extension of a charade by an amateur government that has been going on for four and a half years.

An Hon. Member: Right on! Amateurs.

C. Serwa: Amateur government -- trained seals, doing nothing, staying out of the line of fire, hoping to get re-elected because nobody can remember anything bad about them. I compliment the member from Coquitlam, because at least that member stood up and said what he believed. I don't agree with that member, but I respect that member. I cannot respect other members on the government side who sit like senseless blobs of protoplasm and vote the government line -- unwilling to, unable to, incapable of defending this silly piece of legislation. The government tried to get it through as an emergency debate. The Speaker couldn't support it; no one could support it.

The reality is that it is not even necessary. It is blatant interference. It ridicules the current labour legislation; it ridicules the whole system of free and collective negotiation process that we have to believe in. You can't have flexible principles; you can't have flexible principles of convenience. Either you believe in the system or you don't believe in it.

The Minister of Finance got up earlier this morning and said that it works most of the time -- 73 out of 75 school districts have settled. So now we have to do something. It's the same type of philosophy and the same response as saying someone is a little bit pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. Either you believe in a principle or you don't. But, hon. Speaker, you know full well that if you believe in principles, you must be consistent with those principles, you can't bend those principles, and you can't exploit those principles simply because it is that time in the government's mandate.

I say shame. I say shame to the government, to the executive branch who have compromised not only the union members -- their friends, the left arm of that NDP body. . . . The political arm has willingly compromised them. Not only that, all of those members -- the executive branch, the Premier and all of the private members on the government side -- have compromised their constituents by supporting the position on this bill.

Settle at any cost. Labour peace at what cost -- exploiting the taxpayers? This is a government that robs Peter to pay Paul, and they can always count on Paul's support. But it is the taxpayers of the province who are footing the bill. You know what? It doesn't matter whether they tax the banks or the large corporations or whether they add more taxation onto the fuel, the energy, that we consume in the province. It doesn't matter whether they freeze hydro rates, because they have accelerated hydro rates at three times the rate of increase of other institutions that are devoid of the potential that we have for hydro. It's more indirect taxation.

It doesn't matter if they say: "We are really good people, and we are freezing tuition rates because we care about education and the future of our young people." After they have increased tuition rates in our colleges and universities by more than 24 percent, now they are going to come out of this as good guys. Who are they fooling? Do they think that the population -- the taxpayers, the people of British Columbia -- are devoid of intelligence, unknowledgable, uneducated? Do they think that they can say anything?

People measure performance by deeds, and that's the problem with this particular piece of legislation.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I think a member would like to make a point of order.

G. Janssen: Moments ago the member for Okanagan West reminded members and brought to the attention of the Speaker that we were all over the map on this bill and should stick to the contents of this bill. I ask that the Speaker remind the member of his previous point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member, for your point.

C. Serwa: I thank the member for his intervention and his suggestion that I stick to the content. I must remind the member that I in fact am. If the member cleans the wax out of his ears, and pays attention and uses his logical thought process, he will find that I am talking about the principles of the bill and, actually, the motion to hoist, and supporting that.

I am trying to make the point. . . . It will take me a while to elaborate and make this point. This bill is nothing but sheer, pure political hypocrisy. It is consistent with the hypocrisy. . . . That's why I must be mindful and continue to inform the member of the hypocrisy that has prevailed in the past and why at least this hypocrisy is consistent with this particular piece of legislation.

The principles of the bill were supposed to provide consistency of opportunity in public education, in health care -- essential services in the province. But what sort of principle do we have in this particular bill, which is earmarked with a specific term -- 28 days, 60 days? Is that how long a principle lasts? It's simply a matter of convenience for the current government. They want to create a fa�ade, a myth, that they really care about parents and students and our education system.

I ask you, hon. Speaker. . . . As a proud member of the former government, the Social Credit government. . . . In the Vander Zalm era, in spite of the harping of members of the 

[ Page 17064 ]

current government, there was a 40 percent increase in Ministry of Education funding.

[2:45]

What is the crux of this problem right now with the school district of Surrey? Well, I'll tell you what it is, hon. Speaker. For the last number of years, there have been smaller increases in the Ministry of Education funding than during the restraint years of the Bill Bennett government: 1.3 percent in 1996-97, less than the rate of inflation. Where are the school districts going to get the money from? It was 0.8 percent in 1995-96, again less than the rate of inflation. So as you put more and more pressure on school districts, it makes it more and more difficult for them to be responsible and reasonable to the constituents that they represent, who are the taxpayers in their communities. So the reality, in the term of this current government, is that they have decreased the real amount of education funding by 4 percent.

Deputy Speaker: Pardon me, member. I have a point of order from the member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, I'm having great difficulty in hearing these words from the member. They're very important, but there seems to be a party going on across the way there. I think the Speaker should bring them to order.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his point. We caution all members, that we do function best when we hear one another.

C. Serwa: I just want to emphasize that the operating budget expenditures per student have decreased by 4 percent in real dollars over the past four and a half years of this government. I've listened to the Minister of Labour speak this morning; I've listened to the Minister of Finance speak; I have listened to the Minister of Health speak this afternoon; I've heard other members speak.

D. Symons: Point of order again, hon. Speaker. Those NDP -- noisy, disruptive persons -- are continuing the conversation. The Speaker should ask them to leave the room if they care to talk.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Richmond Centre, I heard your point of order originally. I gave a caution to the House. We cannot, however, tell everybody to maintain absolute silence. Let us all work together, as I say, so we can hear what the member's comments are. Those who are having conversations, please keep the noise to a minimum.

C. Serwa: As a matter of fact, I really don't mind the casual comments from the government members, because it covers up, I suppose, their uncomfortable feeling with this particular piece of legislation. Perhaps it's an attempt on their part to cover their embarrassment.

The reality is that public education funding, with this current government, has been minuscule for the operating budget; that's a reality. There's 4 percent less in terms of real dollars. Where has the money gone? Well, ask Connie Munro. They gave her $90,000 for coming, and they've given her $200,000 for going. Perhaps some of it went there.

What about the Island Highway project, where that cosy in-house deal between the construction trade unions and the current government has cost 20 and 30 percent more in terms of real dollars? Perhaps that should have gone into public education.

But getting back to the principles of this bill, this bill has in fact compromised the integrity of the relationship of the political arm to the union arm and most definitely compromised the people who elected. . . . The taxpayers of the province of British Columbia have been compromised badly. The government deserves to be embarrassed for bringing this bill forward at this particular time, and all of the sanctimonious utterings and mutterings of the current government will not cover up the fact that it is not an emergency situation. It is not needed. It is only a piece of legislation to cover their backsides and prevent embarrassment during the 28-day writ period, when they will profess that they have done a good job with respect to the trade unions in the province and that they will in fact have labour peace.

This is a government that claims allegiance from a lot of specific support groups. When Social Credit was government, on a daily basis I would hear about food banks. Do you know what I heard earlier today from the hon. member for Okanagan East? It's not just the poor people going to the food banks. Now, with the current government, it's the middle-class people who are going as well, and the food banks have been busier than ever before. This current government hasn't done a doggone thing about it.

In education, the Social Credit government heard a great deal from the then members of the opposition, now government, about portable classrooms in schools. Do you know what, hon. Speaker? There are more portable classrooms in British Columbia at the present time than there have been at any time in the history of the province. I have a school in my constituency -- a senior secondary school -- in which 50 percent of the students are in portable classrooms. Capital funding for the Ministry of Education has been greatly diminished as well. That's why we're short, and that's why we've increased the portable classrooms.

What about the situation that has occurred with the ability of the Surrey School Board? From the operational funding that they get, where have all those dollars gone? Well, the concern of part of this legislation. . . .

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Never mind, hon. Speaker. They're having a private conversation. Fundamentally, they're not interested in the legislation; they're not interested in the debate of the legislation.

What we are going to see is another perversion of the NDP's form of democracy, where might is right. There is no effort to change the minds and hearts of people through logic, through good, healthy debate. We know that there are more government members than opposition members, and government always wins. But government doesn't always win. The final decision-maker is out there, and that is the voting public. They care a great deal.

The arrogance and indifference and lack of concern of this government is seen; it's perceived; it's real. It's not like the deception of this particular bill. So I think the public will see very clearly the amount of disinterest and the lack of need for this. I believe that the unions too will see the willingness of this government to compromise the integrity of the relationship they have between this current government and the trade unions that support them.

Sixty-day principles or flexible principles or convenient principles simply don't warrant consideration in today's society. I thought we should have matured above and beyond that. Certainly in 1991 the public said loud and clear: "We 

[ Page 17065 ]

want a change in the way politicians act, and we want a change in the way politics are carried out in the province." I think Social Credit was the only one that learned that particular lesson. The current government, who got in by default, certainly hasn't listened and hasn't cared.

I heard a little bit in the debate with respect to the right and responsibility of government as the final arbiter in a labour dispute, having to step in and take command. Is that consistent with what this government has said over the years? I find no sense of consistency with respect to that.

What about agricultural land appeals? Oh no. It's wrong to have those you've elected and the executive branch, the government of British Columbia, interfere with that. We'll stack the Agricultural Land Commission, and we'll leave it to them. We'll stack it with kindred souls of the New Democratic Party, and we'll leave it to them. We won't hear this appeal.

What about the Motor Carrier Commission? We won't hear appeals from the Motor Commission either -- and I guess not, when the member from Cranbrook blatantly interfered in the whole process and issued taxi licences on the basis of the present Premier.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. The member for Kootenay on a point of order.

A. Edwards: It will be a point of privilege, sir. I would caution the gentleman and ask him to withdraw that statement.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Okanagan West, I advise that the normal procedure is that when a member on a point of privilege asks that, normally the request is acceded to immediately. I trust the member would do that.

C. Serwa: While history will probably prove my remarks entirely accurate, I will have no hesitancy, however, withdrawing my remark in this chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Please proceed.

C. Serwa: In any event, we were talking about consistency in approach in the government. I was using several examples to show the willingness of this government to set up boards or commissions to distance themselves from the responsibility of actually governing the people in this province. While I may have hit a nerve, and a tender nerve at that, the reality is that the government is inconsistent in its interfering in the free and collective bargaining process that exists in British Columbia.

Whether I agree or disagree with the current labour legislation or the process is academic. The reality is that it is provincial legislation. A process is in place. That process should and must be followed -- not with the passage of a bill like this, not with the passage of pathetic indifference on the part of government members who are unwilling to, or perhaps unable -- or perhaps have been advised not to -- speak in support of the bill. Nobody wants to be responsible for supporting something other than acting together in a unified force, voting the party line and saying: "Well, don't blame me. I had to do that. I have no mind of my own." I would suggest, if they say that to their constituents, that their constituents should turf them out. I think they will, folks.

What about the objectivity of this particular exercise and debate of this legislation? Who works for government? Who appoints the industrial inquirer or commissioner? Who appoints the mediator? Who made the phone call to the mediator and suggested what would be acceptable to the trade union? Who made the phone call to the trade union and said that these things are about the best we can do, and we will make certain that legislation comes forward whether the school board is willing or unwilling -- that, in fact, they will be written into the contract? Who made those calls? There's a very good question here. The calls were made. A secret deal was cooked up between the Premier's Office and this whole process, and what we're going through now is a charade. It's a pathetic waste of taxpayers' dollars to keep this institution open on a weekend after the long, protracted delay, when elected MLAs are unable to carry on effective business of the province. It's a charade and, again, a pathetic waste of public tax dollars.

There are sensible things that we must do, and the sensible thing for this government to do is to pay heed to the hoist motion and take their losses. You know, in business your first loss is often your cheapest loss, and I suggest that that's the right thing to do. The government has made a mistake in bringing this legislation forward. They may as well admit it. There is no emergency; there is no need for this legislation. If the government truly believed in the free collective bargaining process, they would let that process work. But they don't believe in it, and that's the sad situation.

In order to buy off the trade union, they've cut a special deal. They've said: "If you back off, we'll give you these things. It'll be written into the contract, and although we're compromising the principles of free collective bargaining, you're doing okay and we're going to do okay in the next election. After all, winning is the important thing." I don't buy that. I don't buy that winning is the important thing. I buy that doing good things, doing the right thing and standing by your principles on a consistent basis -- whether you win, lose or draw -- are important. That's the type of leadership the people in this province deserve and expect, and that's not the type of leadership the people in this province are getting at the present time.

[3:00]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

What government members have to know -- and I listened to the Premier's speech the other day -- is that instead of splitting and dividing members of society, we have to work together. Ordinary people make up British Columbia -- not simply poor people, middle-class people or wealthy people. There are short people, fat people and thin people. What is important to remember is this: all of these people laugh, and they hurt and they cry; they care and they think; and they work together and play together. They've made this province the great place that it is -- the province that I'm so proud to reside in, a constituency that I'm so proud to represent. All of these people working together and caring about each other have made this place great. Working together and caring about each other means that we compromise, that we develop the patience to develop a consensus, so that we're fair. We really shouldn't represent single-interest or special interest groups; we should strive to represent everyone -- not just the people who support us but everyone in the province.

We all have to be accountable, and we all have to be responsible. I'm going to put my money on school boards and elected bodies, I'm going to put my money on ordinary people, and I'm going to put my money on the unionized sector of the workforce as having the potential to be accountable and 

[ Page 17066 ]

responsible, given that opportunity. That opportunity has been taken away by this government. It is wrong. It is senseless. It makes a charade of the collective bargaining process. This government is wrong in doing that -- in compromising itself and its principles, compromising the labour trade unions and compromising the taxpayers in British Columbia.

This bill denies accountability and responsibility. The more government does for people, the less people do for themselves. We don't need interference. We need the acceptance of responsibility. We're a trading province in a trading nation, and we have to be competitive. Sure, we would all like more and we could all use more, but the reality is that we have to keep in concert with the rest of the world. It's nice to squawk. Maybe it's nice to whine or demand more, but the reality is that the economy of this province is directly dependent on our ability to be productive and competitive with our ability to export into very competitive marketplaces. There can be no internal economy that is different than the external. There has to be the collective wisdom in this province that our internal and external economies are the same. We send our children to the same schools; we shop for groceries at the same stores. The school district has to be responsible to the taxpayers of Surrey. The union has a dual responsibility. They have to be responsible to their members, yes, but as citizens they also have to be responsible for the well-being of the taxpayers in that constituency and in the province. The government interference is blatant; it's senseless; it's uncalled for. Not only do I support the hoist motion, I would respectfully request that the government withdraw this draconian piece of legislation.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to the hoist motion and the principles and philosophy of Bill 21. Indeed, as other members of the House have said, there are no principles in this bill. Let's be clear what this bill is all about. It is indeed a contrived measure by this government and this Premier for purely self-serving reasons. This bill isn't about keeping kids in school; it's about keeping the NDP in power. The duplicity of this government and Premier is breathtaking and hypocritical in the extreme.

The information my colleague the member for Surrey-White Rock has put before this House clearly demonstrates that. That the Premier's Office have conspired and interfered in the free collective bargaining process in the Surrey School District is shameful. In the Hansard debates of Bill 31 in 1990, the Premier, when he was in opposition, said: "This bill" which stifles the collective bargaining process "demonstrates the kind of deliberate ignorance we've seen on the government benches with respect to labour negotiations."

What has changed the Premier's mind? I suggest the change of heart demonstrated by this bill is based purely on political expediency, on this Premier and this government being on the side of their big-union friends. Some of those friends are working on the Premier's election campaign and contributed heavily to the now Premier's leadership bid in his party. So whose side is this government on? Certainly not the side of the kids, certainly not the side of patients, and this bill clearly demonstrates that, because this bill will last only 60 days. What kind of commitment is that to our kids?

If the government was committed to keeping our kids in school, this bill would be about essential services legislation. Now, what the government could have done and should have done was have the Minister of Labour direct the Labour Relations Board to designate education and health care as essential services. Section 72(2)(b) clearly gives the minister that option. This would prevent strike action, this would eliminate the need for separate legislation, and this would have kept our kids in school.

The NDP could not declare education an essential service because they would have conceded that our party is right when we say that education must be an essential service. If the NDP had adopted the opposition's private members' bills in 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995, education would be an essential service, and students would not be faced with losing precious education days. Our bill, the Liberal bill, would allow for a cooling-off period of 40 days, during which time no strike and no lockout could occur.

This bill has nothing to do with protecting patients and health care. This bill is about job security. This bill is about giving the Premier and cabinet the ability to provide for their friends in the big unions of health care and education. I suggest that this bill will allow the Premier and cabinet to circumvent the free collective bargaining process and deliver to the health and education unions strong job security provisions in their contracts. This bill means that a mediator's report becomes the collective agreement.

We all know that the government is ready to call the election, and the last stumbling block was the contract negotiations in health and education. This government has had four years to introduce legislation to protect health care and education. Is the official opposition cynical about the motives of this government? You bet. Are the people of British Columbia cynical about the motives and actions of this government? You bet. I am confident that when judgment day comes -- and it will -- the people of British Columbia will let this government know that they will not tolerate the hypocrisy, the payoffs and the sweetheart deals to friends and insiders.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to address this House today on this very important matter. I don't have the same background in the area of labour negotiations as some people do, but I put the question: would the government be considering this legislation if the mediator's report in Surrey had been accepted by the employer and not by the trade union? The answer is probably not.

The proposed act is using a sledgehammer, in that it gives the government the power to impose a mediator's proposal on both parties, not just for the period of the act but for the full term of the collective agreement. Again, it's not just for the two-month life of the bill but for up to four or five years.

Both trade unions and employers have extensive experience in collective bargaining and, until now, in the authority and capacity to enter into collective agreements on behalf of those they represent. The goal of labour relations legislation should be to encourage the parties to reach agreement themselves and to provide assistance in reaching that agreement where necessary. This is the role of mediation. The role of the mediator is to assist the parties to conclude their own collective agreement; it is not to coerce the parties into accepting recommendations they find unpalatable.

A mediator's recommendations should be, and are, based on the use of persuasion to help settle a contract, and should not be used to determine a settlement without the consent of the parties. The bill would undermine the role of mediation in the collective bargaining process. This is particularly so where, as here, the parties enter into mediation believing it to be consensual. There was no expectation in Surrey that the mediator's recommendations would be imposed on either party.

The Labour Code already allows the essential service designation that limits the effects of strikes relating to the 

[ Page 17067 ]

health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia. It would be a simple matter to refer the disputes in the bill to that process under the supervision of the Labour Relations Board of the province. This would allow the parties to exercise a limited form of job action which has proven effective in other disputes. The Legislature should be reluctant and really should be absolutely opposed to agreements which may last a number of years simply because of the inability of the Legislature to sit for a 28-day period. Such draconian measures are unwarranted interference by government in the collective bargaining process.

The hon. Speaker has ruled that no emergency presently exists. Taking away the right to strike or to freely bargain a collective agreement is not justified. If any action is necessary, then such action should be limited to the imposition of a cooling-off period -- the temporary suspension of the collective bargaining process without alteration of either party's position or intervention interfering with either party's rights for such a brief period.

During the cooling-off period the relations of the parties would continue to be bound by the expired collective agreement. This would not prevent a subsequent revision of the collective agreement once the cooling-off period, and in this case the election, is over. If government was sincere about maintaining services during an election, they would enact such a cooling-off period and allow the normal negotiating process to take place after the election. However, it seems to me that the purpose of this legislation is much more than maintaining services. I am told that it is a well-known fact that the process of imposing mediators' recommendations will result in settlements that are biased in favour of employees rather than the taxpayer, who in this case is the employer.

It reminds me of the contract which was signed by this government and the employees of the WCB. Here was a contract which was extremely biased in favour of WCB employees: absolute job security and no concern for the clients of WCB, people who are losing their jobs, losing their houses, because of the long, drawn-out process and the very poor service of WCB. Now a royal commission has been named -- or we're told that that's intended. After four years this government has done nothing to act on those problems.

I want to close by registering these concerns. It is wrong for the government to suspend the collective bargaining process at this time and in the manner proposed by this bill. Second, this is strictly an election-driven agenda. Third, I am concerned about the kinds of settlements that might be imposed by the current government even during the upcoming election. I am concerned about the impact on the taxpayer and the impact that such an imposition might have on a future government's ability to manage the business of British Columbians in the face of the kinds of agreements that could be signed, involving thousands of workers. Finally, the government had many other options, including the designation of education as an essential service. But for its own reasons, the government has chosen not to do that.

[3:15]

J. Tyabji: I rise in support of the amendment moved by the leader of the PDA. Hon. Speaker, it's now after 3 o'clock in the afternoon on a Saturday, the third day of the fifth session of this parliament. As I said earlier today, 286 days have passed between parliaments, and what have we accomplished at 3:15 in the afternoon? Well, we know one thing: we have sat long enough in debate that we've allowed the issue which prompted this debate to go away. So why are we still here?

We're obviously still here because the government have dug themselves into a bit of a hole. They have a piece of legislation which is indefensible, which I think can be evidenced by the fact that very few of them have gotten up on their feet to defend it. The arguments which we have heard from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education -- that the three of them. . . . I'm forgetting the Minister of Health as well. He's pretty sensitive; I don't want him to be feeling left out, especially since he is here. But what we have heard from the cabinet ministers who have spoken is an argument -- which is exactly the same justification that we've heard from the Liberal members -- to permanently remove the rights to collective bargaining.

This is a very strange day. The strangeness of this day is that one of the most articulate speeches in defence of unionized workers has come from the last sitting member of the Social Credit Party. Never did I think that I would see a day where a majority NDP government would be called to task for their legislation on the labour sector by the last remaining Social Credit member. This is something I did not expect to see.

As was outlined by the leader of the PDA earlier, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Twenty-one years ago, the New Democratic Party did the identical action by bringing in a piece of legislation with 90 days instead of 60, political expediency being the same reason. At that time, they had three backbenchers who stood up on principle and said: "I cannot do this." So what's the difference? The difference is, of course, that they went into that election having sacrificed their principles. There was some internal dissent -- enough that the party started to crumble -- and they were soundly defeated at the polls in a bipolar system. There were only two parties; they lost.

Now, obviously -- including one of the three members at the time, who I know was quoted last night and has moderated that position enough, and certainly hasn't said anything against the government -- they seem to have better machinery in place to shut down the dissent in the labour sector. But who are they kidding, and what are they trying to achieve? They're not fooling the people of the province, and they're not fooling the membership of the unions, because the membership of the unions are not stupid. They know what it means to have the protection of a union. They know what it means when you're dealing with an employer and you reach an impasse -- that you have to have something.

As I stated earlier in debate, I am not a union sympathizer. This is also another irony, I find: I'm standing here in this Legislature. . . . I'm probably to the right of centre. In fact, I remember the member for Cariboo North, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour and a number of other members heckling me during the Labour Code debate for my position on labour. I had a number of problems with the Labour Code. I sat at the meetings, and I took the abuse, the gibing, the comments and criticisms of the other members for my position. But I stand here as someone who usually takes a management perspective, and I say this is ridiculous. Because you don't want to get rid of them. . . . So what is the objective here?

Is it the short-term objective of getting re-elected? Bad strategy, guys, because you're going to lose a lot of your workers, and there isn't a two-party system anymore. It's not a two-party system, and there's another party in the House that is prepared to respect the working men and women in this province. There's a party in this House that's prepared to stand up for balance and equity, and for not going for political 

[ Page 17068 ]

expediency. It's exactly what I said, no matter where I sat in this House. In fact, in the 1991 election this is exactly what we said -- that we need balance; that we need somebody prepared to say: "These are the policies and principles, and they're not negotiable." That's what we need. We don't have that. Nobody knows where they're coming from.

We had a former cabinet minister from this government comparing the now Premier to Bill Vander Zalm, and people can only say that the déj� vu we are experiencing from 1991 is now pretty strong. At that time, what did we have? We had a government which had gone through a long period of scandal, so they had to go beyond the four-year term. They had to replace the leader as they went into the fifth year, and expected that replacing the leader would give them a second term. We can only ask the last remaining member from that government how effective that was. That government didn't even go after its members and its volunteers in the election campaign for the purpose of trying to gain some political points. That government didn't even sink that low. This government has really set new standards -- new low standards.

This motion to hoist the bill would accomplish two things. It would get us out of here. The word "charade" comes to mind, because this is a joke -- to be out for 286 days and to come back, and three days later to be in emergency sitting for an issue which has disappeared while we're debating. That's a joke. So we could get out of here if we pass this amendment. But the other thing it would do is hoist it until after the election, because we know that no matter what, polls withstanding, we're going to have an election within six months. They can't get past the Lieutenant-Governor, who will have something to say. . . .

G. Wilson: Amend the code and do it properly.

J. Tyabji: That's right. As the leader of the PDA says, we could amend the Labour Code and do it properly after the election. So that's why we should pass this amendment. This amendment will accomplish something that I'm sure all of us would like to see happen. We can go away, come back and do that the right way.

Before I conclude, I want to walk through the four and a half years that have led us to this. I mentioned structural change earlier. There hasn't been any structural change, and that's one reason why things are breaking down right now. That's why we have health unions in trouble. The health accord, of course, is expiring, with not enough funding being given for agreements that are being made by the government without consulting with the employers -- in that instance, the employers being left without enough money to go around for a health accord which was imposed on them. This government hasn't dealt with that, so obviously now we're having a lot of issues, which they've kept at bay as long as possible, coming home to roost. It's the same thing with the school boards. We're going to have the same problem with the structure of health care; we're going to have the same problem with public sector employees, and on and on it goes.

But we live in a time when whether you're inside government or outside government, in the private sector or the public sector, and whether you're non-working, at home, retired or still below the age of voting. . . . Wherever we are right now, we live in a time of uncertainty. I find it really strange that this government's political wing, the NDP, purchased half an hour on BCTV the other night to tell us how great everything was. They talked about 15,000 new jobs, they talked about an economy that was the best in the country, and they quoted all these independent sources fairly selectively, so that it made them look good.

It doesn't matter what you tell people about how good things are right now. I challenge any member of this government or any member of the staff of this government to quit their job, take their résumé out into the job market and find a job that will pay them as well as what they're getting here -- with the benefits, with the job security, with whatever they're getting here. I challenge them to do that -- without using political connections, I might add. Don't go from this job to a job somewhere else that's a patronage appointment.

If they do that, they'll stop talking about 15,000 new jobs and great things happening in the economy, because there are not those jobs out there. If there are new jobs, they're at Wal-Mart, they're at Costco, they're part-time, and they're $7 an hour -- $7 is better than $5.

An Hon. Member: Seven-fifty.

J. Tyabji: Seven-fifty. There are no benefits attached to it; there's no job security. There are not the good jobs that they think are out there.

However, I will say this: we're not having riots with pepper spray, as they're having in the Maritimes, where the Liberal Party there was confronted by a group of people talking about the economy, or in Ontario, where the government has taken a sledgehammer to the unions. We're not doing that. So if that's what we're using to measure where we're at, of course we look good. We look great: we're not pepper-spraying anybody. Hooray! Aren't we wonderful!

That's not the point. We could be doing a lot better. We have entered a very dangerous era of scapegoating, and I noticed this starting in British Columbia about six years ago. The first people we scapegoated when the economy started to turn sour were the immigrants, and we went after them. What did we say? "Oh, they're taking all our jobs. Look what's going on with the economy; look, there are no jobs. It must be the immigrants, because if they weren't here, we would have those jobs."

Then we started to look at it a little more carefully. Actually, that wasn't what was happening, because the jobs they were taking were jobs that very few people would want to take anyway. They were not good jobs. In fact, if you read the Georgia Straight last week, they talked about some of the garment workers in Vancouver -- and I'd like to know what the minister is doing about this -- who are on what they are calling a contract. Because of that contract, they're working in little basements at way below minimum wage, with no benefits, no employment standards, no ergonomics, no Labour Code, no nothing. I hope this government is going to pick up on that story, because it's disgraceful.

That's the kind of thing that you're seeing with a lot of immigrants. They get taken advantage of because some of them can't speak English. I might add, as I said earlier today when we were talking about some of the special programs that are going to disappear because of this government's changes in education, that English as a second language is going to be in great difficulty if they don't pay more attention to it. That's a different debate.

When we look at that scapegoating. . . . We started with the immigrants, and then when that wasn't working very well, because the economy was still getting worse and we didn't find that that was a scapegoat, we went after poor people: "Those miserable poor people, those welfare bums and deadbeats." Wasn't that what the last Premier under the NDP, the last leader of this party. . .?

Interjection.

[ Page 17069 ]

J. Tyabji: That's right, there was Bill Vander Zalm. But there was also a member who has a seat in this House, the former leader of the party.

G. Wilson: The former Premier.

J. Tyabji: That's right -- the Premier just before this Premier. "Welfare bums and deadbeats" -- that was from the NDP; I never thought I'd see the day. But that was the scapegoat of the year -- welfare people. Nobody asked why people who had been working for 25 years were suddenly on welfare. Nobody asked why forestry workers had been displaced after decades of contributing to the economy. They started talking about Forest Renewal B.C. and silviculture: "We're doing all these great things." That wasn't the solution.

When the minister. . . . Where is she? The former Minister of Mines brought in an amendment last year to the Mineral Tenure Act to comply with NAFTA so that every single mining employee in this province could be called Canadian but didn't have to be Canadian; so a Canadian corporation no longer had to be Canadian at all -- not a Canadian board member, not a share owned by a Canadian. This government brought in an amendment, and the PDA fought it hard. We brought in amendment after amendment after amendment to that bill. This government didn't stop to think: "Gee, I wonder if any those displaced workers in the diminishing mining jobs -- because we haven't allowed project applications to proceed -- happen to be the statistics on the welfare rolls, the people we're going after now as bums and deadbeats." They never thought about that, hon. Speaker. They just passed it because they were complying with NAFTA.

An Hon. Member: And you supported NAFTA, I'll bet.

J. Tyabji: I have never supported NAFTA. I have said that since the day I got into politics.

This government has not bothered to scratch the surface of the issues affecting British Columbians. That's why they so cavalierly bring this in. "It's no big deal. We'll just bash these guys around. They're the scapegoat of the month. Now we're going to go after unionized workers." Do you know why? Because these are really hard times out there. Small businesses are having a hard time -- taxation after taxation after taxation after regulation after regulation.

[3:30]

Farmers. Do you want to talk about regulations that this government has brought in against farmers? You can't even hire pieceworkers now, so they've actually worked against some of the people who are the poorest of the poor and who don't have any possessions. They're transients; that's their lifestyle. But this government wanted to protect the transients and has effectively legislated them out of existence on farms, which was an interesting twist. So we have farmers, we have small business people, and we have people in the resource sector getting shut down. And we know that there is real fear right now in the civil service that they're going to start to get lopped off, depending on what happens.

G. Wilson: Axed.

J. Tyabji: Yes, axed. There is now a perception that maybe we should start to scapegoat unionized workers. It wasn't the immigrants and it wasn't the welfare recipients, so maybe it's those guys making all that money. Maybe it's because their wages are high; look at their benefits. You know, hon. Speaker, I can see why people are angry that somebody who is employed in the public sector is looking for more money -- if they are; sometimes that's not the issue, but let's say it is. People in the public sector are working and getting paid by the taxpayers. The taxpayers are mad. They are saying: "I don't want to spend one more cent on another salary." Do you know why? Because they don't have it. Nobody has any disposable income. Everybody is so overtaxed, so burdened. Both parents are working because they can't make ends meet. They've got their kids in school. Senior citizens who are on fixed incomes can hardly meet the tax demands. Property taxes have risen through the roof: people are getting taxed out of their homes. That's why they're mad when they hear that, given all the government waste, there could be increases in salary in the public sector. They say: "I don't get a raise; I'm working three part-time jobs, without benefits; I can't afford to get my kids glasses, because this government is delisting optometrist visits."

They don't want to have any more public sector wage increases. That's what the anger is in the public. Instead of this government standing up and saying, "Wait a minute, hold it, okay, you're mad, and you're justifiably mad, and we've made a mistake, we've overtaxed you and you need more money in your pockets," they haven't taken on that issue. They're prepared to say: "Okay, this year we're scapegoating unionized workers. Let's go; let's do it. It's an election. . . ." We did it to the poor people.

G. Wilson: Immigrants.

J. Tyabji: We've done it to immigrants -- well, maybe not this government; they weren't in back then, six years ago, but certainly we've seen that in this Legislature. So why not go after unionized workers? Well, there's a detail. Many of them are members of the party; many of them are working the phones, and many of them have contributed to election campaigns through their dues that get paid to their leadership. That's a bit of a detail. But they think that through the politics of fear, they can scare them into saying that they are still the best option.

Hon. Speaker, sometimes I think that we completely lose perspective on the things that are important. If you're out there in the real world, you are worried about so many things, you've lost track. You're even worried about the ozone layer, because we just heard on the radio the other day that it's at its worst level yet. We'll still pull up some scientists who will tell us that's okay, that we don't have to worry about it. But there is report after report about the environment, about the economy, about the deficit, about international relations. So we're worried.

Some people are so busy. They work all day, and they walk around with a sense of really not knowing where we're going right now. This government hasn't provided any vision or leadership for that, except I will say that I think the promises they made in the throne speech on fisheries were very encouraging.

G. Wilson: Bring it in. Bring in the legislation before the election.

J. Tyabji: Exactly. They better bring it in. Right now it doesn't matter what they've said in that throne speech, because none of it, not one thing, means anything unless we see it debated and passed.

Hon. Speaker, I would have to say we should pass this amendment so we can get down to some of the work which 

[ Page 17070 ]

will have a direct impact on the people of this province. Give the people of this province tax relief so they're not so angry about paying the wages for the unions. Change the structure of government to make government less expensive so that we don't go into debt, we don't go into deficit financing. Make some substantive changes while they have an opportunity to do this. Instead of having a new Premier who is being compared to Bill Vander Zalm, let's try to have some consistent direction. You've set out a course with the throne speech, and I think many people can feel comfortable if they see any of that course.

One member said earlier that it didn't matter about freezing ICBC or Hydro or whatever it is that you've announced. Like the 60-day clause in the bill in front of us, it's going to be gone. The election comes, and then: "Oh goodness, we looked at the books, and guess what, it's gone." People know that's coming because there has not been a structural change. So if you freeze the rates but you haven't changed anything, everybody knows they're going to have to pay the bill later. It's like those furniture companies who say: "Take the furniture now. Don't put any money down. Don't make any payments. We'll get you later."

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I don't know who he was referring to, but it was a funny comment. There may have been somebody here who ran one of those.

But, hon. Speaker, that is the mentality that they've got people into. People right now. . . . I've got to tell you, those are fairly effective things, because people are going to say: "All right, I have no money, so if I can get some sort of freeze -- no interest, no payment on approved credit -- with my ICBC and B.C. Hydro, at least I'll buy myself three months." But they know the bill is coming in the mail, so the government's not fooling anybody. There's no more efficiency in the system now with this government. In fact, it's worse. It is worse, and everybody knows it's worse, and nothing has been done about the things that really matter.

I wasn't planning to speak this long on this, but I do think that we have got to recognize what a dangerous direction this is. Let's stop scapegoating each other. For goodness' sake, can we not stop fighting with each other long enough to actually put our brains to work and fix things? I'm talking to the government who didn't call this Legislature for 286 days. You can bet that's going to be an election issue, because this is a parliamentary democracy.

In this province, parliamentary democracy is still supposed to mean that we actually debate things. And this government has chosen not to do that. In fact, even now when we're sitting, it's supposed to be cosmetic. We're supposed to be going to the polls this week. That suits my purposes fine, but I don't think it suits this government very well, especially not after this weekend. I would say that there's got to be some respect shown for this institution and for the people of this province. Do they forget how many people died trying to fight for democracy? There were times when people were prepared to stand up and fight for what they believed in, and not change their position -- fight for the purposes of collective bargaining.

G. Farrell-Collins: Remember the video they played the other night.

G. Wilson: That's right -- tears flowing down their eyes.

J. Tyabji: I'm being reminded that there was a video shown the other night, and it was a retrospective of the NDP. As I understand it, there's not an individual today who's going to take credit for having put that on the agenda, because of the response they got from the public. If nothing else, the important point of that video should have been -- for all people who are sympathetic to the NDP -- that there were some roots to this party; at some point this party stood for something, and they knew what it stood for.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Oh, please. The member for Cariboo North says they stand for something.

F. Garden: You don't know what you stand for, you've changed so much.

J. Tyabji: This member should realize that it's not enough to stand for something today and stand for something else in 60 days.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Tyabji: If you're going to stand for something, you'd better stand for the same thing for a longer period of time.

In this Legislature we have to recognize that the people of this province deserve to have a voice, and they deserve to be heard. Let's put it to use for what it's intended. Let's put in place a proper parliamentary democracy. Let's debate issues and let's get to work, because it's been a long time. Let's support this amendment so we can get on to something more important.

R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I'll be brief. I've been sitting here since 10 a.m., and I must admit that this bill came in with great desire by the government -- very important; they all believed in it. But it's really remarkable that certain members who have their roots in the labour movement have not spoken to it. Where are they? I suspect that I know where they are, but I really think their constituents deserve to hear from them. I really think that the member for Skeena should tell his friends. He should tell his constituents and his brothers and sisters, friends in his riding. The member for Cariboo North, who has been in the trade union movement for a long, long time, should talk in this House now. Get up and speak, and tell us how you support this suspension of trade union rights and collective bargaining, when we now hear there is no need for it. Oops, though, in June '96 you've got to have something in place just in case, folks. You've suspended your values, hon. member. The member for Prince George-Mount Robson, the current Minister of Municipal Affairs. . .

The Speaker: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

R. Blencoe: Through you, hon. Chair.

. . .who is very much part of the trade union movement, has not said a word. Where is she? The Minister of Forests, the member for Mission-Kent -- where is he? Why aren't they speaking, telling us their insights into why this is important for the trade union movement? Or are they are not allowed to talk about the fact that it's okay because they have made some kind of cushy arrangement with Uncle Ken? Is there a deal? Who knows?

[ Page 17071 ]

How about the member for North Coast, the hon. Minister of Employment and Investment and Deputy Premier? He's heavily involved in the trade union movement. Not a word; not a single word. Fix? Who knows? We might find out.

How about the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the minister of social misery? Not a word, except to support a piece of legislation that, if she was on this side of the House and it was a few years ago, she'd be up in arms about, screaming her head off that this was anti-union and anti-collective bargaining, and: "How dare you suspend principles just prior to election?" And she knows it.

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: You know it, hon. member, you know it.

The Speaker: Order! Hon. member, please address the Chair.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order!

R. Blencoe: Hon. member, we know the minister of social misery is troubled, but boy, she likes power -- through you, Mr. Speaker -- and she'll do anything. I guess she has got a cosy deal. The phone lines have been lit up with Uncle Ken: "Don't say too much, Uncle Ken, but make sure the money rolls in the next few days. We'll take care of you after June '96 if we're elected."

What about the member for Burnaby-Edmonds? He's somebody I have a high regard for, quite frankly, but he has not said a word. Boy oh boy, it must be tough -- unless you know something that we don't know, hon. member. The hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke is somebody I also have a high regard for and have known a long time. But where is he today? Well, I guess the gag is on, folks. "Don't speak out, because we've got deals. We're okay."

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: Hon. member, the minister of social misery, just cool off. You'll get to wrap up, hon. member, you'll get to wrap up.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members know. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: Well, with people like you, it's hard to get a word in, hon. member. But, hon. member -- through you, hon. Chair -- we're never quite sure who's talking, whether it's you or Uncle Kenny. We're never quite sure.

[3:45]

Another member, the member for North Island, is probably the one person in this House who has his roots in the trade union movement. Boy oh boy! But not a word, not a sign. Where is the member for Kamloops-North Thompson? Where are these members? And now, my good friends from the Victoria area, my former friend and colleague the Minister of Health. . . . He made an admission, and I hope Hansard and the media caught it. He said the reason we brought this bill in was that we wanted to scare them. That's why we brought it in -- because then they'd settle. Well, hon. member. . . .

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. Minister of Health rises on a point of order.

Hon. A. Petter: Point of privilege, hon. Speaker. I made no such statement, and the member knows full well I made no such statement. I would ask him to confine his remarks to accurate statements.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. members, the standing orders are clear. If a member wishes to rise at the end of a person's remarks on a point of privilege, this is admissible, but certainly intervening in a debate is inappropriate, and that was not a proper point of order.

R. Blencoe: That hon. member may wish to defend himself, but we all heard it over here -- that the reason why the bill was brought in. . . . The reason why Surrey is about to settle is that the bill was brought in.

I'm hoping that this government and that member will. . . . Every time there's any probability or possibility of a labour dispute, we're all going to get called back here and have this same kind of piece of legislation to take care of the issue.

An Hon. Member: Get it right.

R. Blencoe: That's what you said, hon. member, and you know it.

We've heard very little from these members. Where are those members who are steeped in the labour movement?

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: I've already said it.

But, hon. member, I think I really do want to point out something. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the former Minister of Labour. . . . I haven't heard a word, but I suppose he feels comfortable. But I tell you, hon. Speaker, at Christmastime, when the handicapped, the disabled, the poor and the seniors in this community, couldn't get a ride to their parties on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve, that minister was nowhere to be seen. He couldn't care less. He didn't care about the disabled. But on the eve of an election, when principles can be thrown to the wind and power is more important than the disabled or the poor, you can bring in this kind of legislation when there really isn't a need for it -- because the issue is past, dear friends.

I wonder what my colleagues from the Victoria area are saying to their hopeful colleague, Steve Orcherton. What about Steve Orcherton, the secretary-treasurer of the Victoria Labour Council? He happens to be running in my riding, I think, I hear. I haven't seen him lately. I assume we haven't seen him in these chambers. I don't know where he's hiding, but I tell you, I bet he is hiding. Because when he sees this 

[ Page 17072 ]

legislation, how is he going to be able to talk to his members? What's he going to be able to say to them? Where is the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, who's going to be running with him? She hasn't said a word -- not a word to the labour movement in Victoria, the labour council in Victoria, the secretary-treasurer of the labour council and their candidate -- unless something has happened that we don't know about; unless there's an arrangement we couldn't possibly know about. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, are you going to speak? Are you going to speak and tell us how you believe in this legislation?

Hon. Speaker, there is now every reason why this bill should be hoisted. In the last few hours, in the last few days, this government, I'm sure, has realized that they blew this one -- big time. You blew it big time. The minister of social misery can laugh her head off at what she's doing to her brothers and sisters in the trade union movement. You can laugh your head off, hon. member -- laugh away.

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: The member for Skeena, I hope you're going to speak to this piece of legislation, that you're going to tell us all about it.

Hon. Speaker, I hope this government has now recognized, in the last few hours, that the people of the province have seen through their fa�ade and their phony legislation, that it's not required.

Again, I recall and I remember when, in Victoria, in this community, for nearly four months I tried to get the cabinet members and local members of the NDP here to step in to help those in greatest need -- the most vulnerable in Victoria. But an election wasn't imminent, dear friends -- it wasn't close; it wasn't here. No election, so to heck with the disabled and the poor and the seniors at Christmastime. "Don't take the seniors to their Christmas dinner. No, it's not required."

But now, hon. Speaker. . . . They said they had principles then, because they didn't want to step in -- big government doesn't step in. They let the collective bargaining process move along. But now, just a few days from an election, to hell with those principles -- and to heck with the disabled and the seniors at Christmastime.

This is phony, phony legislation, and the minister for social misery knows it. She knows it. It should be hoisted now. Let's get back to the real business of the people of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Best speech he's ever made.

The Speaker: Order, please. There being no further speakers on the hoist motion, I believe it is appropriate to put the question.

Amendment to Bill 21 negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

D. Symons: I rise to make some points regarding this particular legislation. I too, like a few other members, am absolutely amazed at what's been going on in this legislative chamber today. If the tables were reversed and a bill like this came from the other side, the NDP government would be like a pack of yelping, howling dogs at this legislation coming forth. But what do we find today? We find them proposing legislation that only a few years ago they would be vigorously opposing. I can't really fathom the government here. There's a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of this government.

When this bill was introduced, the reason given by the minister revolved a great deal around the situation in Surrey. I would like to remind the members of this House, if I could be heard. . . .

[4:00]

The Speaker: Hon. members, may we please have order. Before proceeding, hon. member, just take your seat until members who intend to leave the chamber have an opportunity to do so, and then we will proceed.

D. Symons: I'd like to remind the members of this House that two weeks ago, almost to this day, the strike situation in Surrey was going on. The threat of a strike was there, the teachers in Surrey had all been warned there would be a strike on the following Monday, and they had basically agreed not to cross the picket lines. That was two weeks ago. Did this government call us together to the Legislature to deal with the matter at that time? No, not at all -- not a word from them. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Sunday evening, just hours before people would be going back to empty classrooms to face a picket line, that the union and the board got together and postponed that strike action that day. It was only hours before -- late Sunday evening -- when that took place, and the teachers in that district were phoned and told: "You can come in tomorrow, the strike has been postponed."

But did this government act then? No, they did not. As a matter of fact, they didn't act until last Friday -- yesterday -- and we find them bringing forth this bill as an emergency measure; at least, they attempted to bring it forth as an emergency measure. There seemed to suddenly be an emergency yesterday that didn't exist two weeks before when the strike was much more imminent than it was yesterday. As a matter of fact, we find out today that the reason, supposedly, for bringing forth this bill no longer exists. So we have real hypocrisy on the part of this government. Two standards: one to cover their backsides during an election period; another for the free collective bargaining process when an election is not imminent.

The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale talked earlier of the need for this legislation. He said what was needed was to bring resolution to a labour dispute. I remind that member that more than 18 months ago the BCTF entered into 

[ Page 17073 ]

first-contract negotiations with the employer group. This was as a result of this government's imposed provincewide bargaining for teachers. Only three out of more than 100 items in that negotiation have so far been concluded.

Now, did the government feel that they had to somehow bring some resolution to that dispute? No, they didn't call the House together and say: "That dispute has gone on; we must do something about it." That discussion has been going on for 18 months. The teachers are frustrated to the point where they are ready to take a strike vote. But did this government do anything about it in the last 18 months? Not a bit. It wasn't an emergency, was it? That's because they weren't ready to go to the polls yet. They were afraid they were going to lose. They are continually postponing things as far as the election goes, afraid they might lose. This is just one example of what they are willing to do to try and buy the votes of people in the province. They are attempting to say that they are somehow going to be saviours of education in this province by bringing forth a bill of this sort. It's utter poppycock.

If the proposal of the government to move to provincial bargaining for teachers was to prevent a repetition of the school-district-by-school-district strike actions that they witnessed in 1993 -- if that was the reason that they were legislating the teachers to provincewide bargaining -- they made a serious omission at that time. They left out unionized non-teaching staff as a separate bargaining unit. They can still negotiate with each separate board. It's not done provincewide.

We really face in the province today exactly the same situation that the government supposedly corrected when they brought in provincewide bargaining for the teachers. The non-teaching staff can still bring about a strike with the school board and therefore close down the schools. We are no closer now to keeping students in the classroom than we were when they imposed that provincewide bargaining on the teachers of this province. We have to ask: was this government really interested in bringing about a resolution of labour disputes? Are they really interested in the well-being of the students of this province? I think the answer is a resounding no.

We face the same education disruptions today as in 1993 because of this government's incompetence. Does this bill address the government's mistakes of the last few years? No, it does not. It's just a band-aid. It's just good enough to cover the festering sore for 60 days, and that's not a solution. Does this government believe in free collective bargaining? Obviously not.

That brings me to the point I made at the beginning: that they'd be howling if what was going on today in this Legislature was in the opposite shoes. Two years ago, when the B.C. Rail strike was seriously affecting some interior towns, did the government bring in a bill like this? What did they do when the rail strike was on? Well, the first thing was that they let it go on for a long period of time, and then they introduced a 90-day cooling-off period.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Well, if a cooling-off period was the solution required in that situation, why not a 90-day cooling-off period today? It would solve the problem, I suppose, of disruptions in the classrooms. It would solve the problem where the government says they're protecting the education of students, because 90 days from now the students would be on summer holidays. What it wouldn't solve is the problem of giving things to their friends and insiders who are on the unionized side of this dispute.

So why didn't they use that approach with the current labour threat? Because the fix was in. There's a cosy arrangement between this government and their friends in the affected unions to give them what they have not been able to achieve thus far through free collective bargaining and negotiation.

Normally, organized labour would be marching in the streets in protest at something like this. What do we hear from them today? A muted few yelps but nothing beyond that. Not the sorts of things that have gone on in the past when anti-union legislation has been brought forward. We find an NDP government -- friends of big unions -- bringing forth this legislation. Well, the only reason we're not hearing that sort of howling today is the very fact that the fix is in. Indeed, they are looking after their union friends while it appears on the surface to be something that is going to protect health and education in this province. The government is forcing this bill through under the guise of protecting education and health care.

Let's look at the consequences if this bill is passed. The non-teaching personnel in a number of school districts will get the deal they want. Where does this leave the students, one might ask. They say they are protecting the students. Well, the school board is caught in a pretty hard place. On the one hand, they have the government being frugal with the funding they are giving to that school district, while on the other hand, they are telling the organized union non-teaching staff: "Hey, we are going to give you the increases you were seeking." How are the boards going to meet obligations they have been forced into?

Interjection.

D. Symons: They are getting other concessions, though, hon. member. I might say that they are getting other concessions that are going to be a cost factor to the school board.

Where does the school board get the money to pay for those? Well, it basically has two places. One, they are going to take it from the teaching staff. If I were a teacher in this province, I would be very concerned about what this government is doing. They have to look carefully at what has taken place here and realize that their welfare can be at stake in this situation as well. The teachers in this province are wise enough to see beyond what the government is doing and beyond the excuses they are giving for what they are doing.

Either they are going to take it from the teachers of this province or they are going to take it out of classroom projects, out of the classroom budget. They are going to take it out of teaching supplies or other types of activities that are necessary to support the education system. That does not support the students of this province, that is not in the best interests of the students of this province, and this government fully knows it.

They know that what they are doing is only politically expedient to get them through the next short period so they can go through an election by talking about the wonderful labour record they've had in the province. It's a wonderful labour record that's about to go to shreds because of the ineptitude, the incompetence, that they have performed with in the last few years.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. What are we going to do? We are going to have a 60-day period during the election where they can gloss this over and then hope that after the election, if they were to form the government -- God help this province if that were to happen -- they will somehow be able to deal with all these problems and all the debt that they have racked up.

[ Page 17074 ]

Well, that's not going to happen, because they cannot fool the people of this province any longer. Indeed, they will end up being defeated at the polls, and we will then bring about better government in the province -- more honest government.

An Hon. Member: You're going to vote against the bill, aren't you?

D. Symons: I think we'll come to the answer to that very shortly. At this point I will take my seat and let somebody else carry on the discussion.

M. de Jong: Well, it has been quite a surreal debate and an odd day, to be sure. I just want members opposite to know that when I was in a school in my constituency yesterday afternoon after I got home, all of those BCTF notices that were hanging in the staff room were coming down and being replaced by copies of this bill. I know it was taking place in Abbotsford, and I am sure it was taking place in Mission and up and down the valley and on both sides of the river and across the province.

People across the province are watching with keen interest to see the comments, and there aren't many from the government benches. But they're watching to see what this government has to say about this Bill 21 that they have introduced here in the dying days of their mandate.

Before coming here this morning, I thought to myself: how could we put this debate in some sort of meaningful perspective? Much as the Premier did, I returned to the place I went to school, down the road from where I still live. I thought about the students who attend and continue to attend that one-room school -- and there are a few of them left across the province. I thought that surely that is what this debate is all about: those students.

I've heard the comments today when people have said: "Whose side are you on? We stand for the students," and "No, we on this side stand for the students." Well, surely there is one thing that can bring this House together; surely there is one notion that members on all sides of the House can agree upon. That is the desire to see our children do well, to receive an education that they require. Surely that is something we can see in the eyes of members of all parties, a desire to attend to the interests of children.

[4:15]

During the course of debate we will allude to the fact that the NDP does business with societies that rip off charities. That notwithstanding, we will say that surely the individual members of that party have the interests of students in their constituencies at heart. We will dwell, I think quite properly, on the fact that this is a government that set up an investment scheme in the Caribbean for its friends and insiders -- exclusivity to its friends and insiders -- to avoid paying taxes and to derive benefits that weren't available to other British Columbians.

An Hon. Member: Corporate tax bums.

M. de Jong: "Corporate tax bums," says one member.

In spite of that, we will look into the hearts of members on all sides and say surely the one thing we have in common is a desire to attend to the interests of British Columbia's children and students.

But it seems, by virtue of what has happened here over the past couple of days, that for one party, for the NDP, that commitment to children -- and I believe it's there somewhere -- is conditional. It's conditional upon one thing, and that is politics -- more specifically, electoral politics. That commitment to children comes after a commitment to be re-elected. The evidence is in the deeds. Members opposite should know that no amount of propaganda, speechmaking or ads is going to change the minds of British Columbians, who are saying to all of their political leaders: "We seek not words, but we seek deeds, and that is what we are going to judge." The deeds they are going to judge this government by are their actions over the past four and a half years.

They're going to look those individual members in the eye in Fernie, and they're going to say to those NDP representatives: "Where were you when my child was prevented from attending school for 19 days because of a labour dispute?" Where was that commitment then, which we see apparently and in a very transparent way today?

The member for Quesnel will have to look people -- parents and students -- in his constituency in the eye. He'll have to answer that question: "This new-found commitment, where was it when my son or daughter was prevented from attending school for 34 days?" -- 34 days away from school, away from learning, away from gaining the tools that that child requires to compete across Canada and globally.

The same in Surrey: where was that commitment we are hearing so much about today, while that son or daughter was prevented from attending classes for 40 days? Those are the people whom members opposite are going to have to look in the eye, probably in a week, and have answers for.

Quite frankly, they don't have the answers, and they won't have the answers. No amount of propaganda is going to change that fact, because what people are going to judge this government by are deeds, not words.

In New Westminster, students were prevented from attending class for 19 days. Where was this government's commitment to the students then? Nowhere. In Powell River, 45 days. Students kept home from school -- whom this government would now have us believe are the focus of their attention. . . .

What is the difference? What is the difference between 1993 and 1995? Mr. Speaker, in coffee shops, in homes across this province people understand that there is one difference, and it's what they're talking about this weekend. Members opposite know it. The difference is that there's an election coming. It's crass, opportunistic electoral politics, pure and simple, and that's what people understand motivates this NDP government. No amount of propaganda, no amount of ads paid for generally by the taxpayers of British Columbia, is going to change that fact.

One of the members earlier spoke about this new-found commitment and about home care patients. Where was the commitment last year when the elderly, when people shut in at home were trying to live a dignified lifestyle as best they could but were prevented from doing so because the people they relied on to provide basic home care services were on strike? That was every bit as threatening to those individuals. Where was this government for them? It was nowhere. It was nowhere, because it wasn't convenient; it wasn't necessary; we weren't going to the polls that week. Those were people who weren't likely going to make a lot of noise, weren't going to cause this government political embarrassment. That's what people understand is motivating this government to take the action it has decided to take over the past two days.

They had a chance to act. If the commitment they now present as being genuine were indeed genuine, it would 

[ Page 17075 ]

have been acted upon much, much sooner. It would have been acted upon years ago, when the opposition first presented essential service legislation to this House. The government thumbed its nose. "It isn't necessary. It's an affront to all that is good about collective bargaining." Those were the words we heard.

Now it's a completely different story, a complete flip-flop by this government, motivated by one thing only, and that is the realization that within four or five weeks British Columbians will be going to the polls. Members opposite know that that's what people in this province are talking about. That's what teachers, patients and health care workers are talking about when they consider the nature of the legislation that the government has tabled in the last, dying days of their mandate.

The message is clear: it's okay, according to this government, for our children to have their futures, their education held hostage by labour disputes as long as it doesn't happen during an election campaign. God forbid our students, our children, should have their futures held hostage at a time when it's politically inconvenient to the government. That's the issue.

The government sent some propaganda out to the schools the other day. It talked about the B.C. government providing a guarantee for youth. Well, what's clear from the legislation we have before us today is that it's a limited-time offer; it's a limited-time guarantee. It's K-Tel politics that says: "We'll protect you. Call us now, 1-800-NDP. Our operators are standing by. But hurry, because they'll only be standing by for 60 days, and then the guarantee is off." K-Tel politics -- that's what it is.

This is about power, this NDP government, and has nothing to do with people. If it had anything to do with people, the guarantees that they presume to hold so dear today would have emerged years ago in this government's legislative agenda. We heard earlier in the debate how this government has abandoned every principle that it presumed to hold dear, that it has sacrificed every single principle that we were told it believed so fervently in. It's about power; it's not about people.

The last time, indeed, we heard those kinds of statements, those kinds of comments, they did relate to a guy named Vander Zalm. The present Premier may not like to hear that, but it's the case. That's what people around this province are talking about. When these members of this government have to look voters in the eye and are going to be held to account for their eleventh-hour conversion to the cause of students in this province, those are the answers that they're going to be unable to provide.

It really does show a contempt for this Legislature when one considers the manner in which this legislation has come before this chamber: to have arrived here after an absence -- I think someone said a 264-day absence -- during which this situation was allowed to boil over, to reach the state that presently exists, to arrive here after that long an absence and be told by the government that we've now got a crisis. . . . Well, to the extent that there's a crisis, it is a crisis of this government's making. It really does show a contempt for members in this House, to arrive back and be told that legislation of this sort is going to be placed before us for, in the government's mind, instant passage over the course of a day. It's inappropriate, and it really is contemptible.

The first bill that was introduced in this House was the supremacy-of-parliament bill. That bill alludes to events back in 1603. In those days it was the sovereign, the Crown, that parliament concerned itself with in terms of having contempt shown for it. Today we've come full circle; today it's the executive branch. Today it's the executive branch that thinks it can run roughshod over the rights of British Columbians and the rights of members in this chamber by how it intended to proceed yesterday. Thankfully, that wasn't allowed to continue. Thankfully, that was brought to an end, and some time was made available to at least debate this bill, this draconian bill, in a more meaningful way.

It is about control. This is a bill that is about control, about political thuggery, quite frankly -- political thuggery that says: "It's our parade, and no one is going to do anything that inconveniences us or embarrasses us during the time we're riding in that parade. No one is going to be allowed to rain on our parade." You wonder what other kinds of draconian steps this government would consider taking in the name of creating favourable campaign conditions, because that's what this is all about. This is about creating a climate in which this government, and this party, can go on its merry way, spreading its propaganda and spreading its misrepresentations about the state of the British Columbia economy. This is about creating the conditions in which this NDP government can do that and not have to worry about being sniped at, not have to worry about embarrassing skirmishes arising on the side. That's what it's all about; it's about control. But what else would they do? What else would they consider doing? What else would they consider doing in the name of creating a favourable campaign climate? We know already, because, again, British Columbians will judge this government by deeds. This is not speculation. We know what this government will do.

They will, for example, try to muzzle third-party interests, and they've done that with the Election Act. God forbid someone should want to campaign at a time when British Columbians are focused on electoral politics and say something nasty about this government. "Couldn't have that, so we'll muzzle them. We'll limit their ability to do that, because if we can't control them, we don't want them doing it. If we can't control what they're saying during the campaign -- if we can't control what's taking place during those crucial 28 days -- then it better not happen." And that's precisely what motivated this government to bring in its legislation limiting third-party advertising.

The government wants disclosure. Who's financing campaigns during that crucial 28-day period? It wants every candidate to indicate who's financing them -- except themselves, because when you look at where all the money is coming from, it's coming from something called the Commonwealth Society. Well, I wonder where they got their money. I wonder where the Commonwealth Society got its money. And you know what: they don't want to say. There's a set of rules for all of us, but a different set of rules for them.

An Hon. Member: You don't know what you're talking about.

M. de Jong: The member says I don't know what I'm talking about. But when Mr. Patterson has finished with his investigation, all of us will know exactly what I'm talking about. And I daresay the member won't like the result, because the rules he expects us to live by are not the rules that he is prepared to live by, and it's about control. It's about controlling circumstances during that crucial 28-day period.

[4:30]

[ Page 17076 ]

We know one other thing. We know the lengths this government will go to, to effect that control on British Columbians. It will go to the extent of suspending the rights of duly elected public school boards. It says to them: "God forbid you should do something during those 28 days that makes us uncomfortable as a government, and we're not going to let you do it. We don't care that you've been elected by local people in your communities. God forbid that you should do something that we disagree with, so we're not going to let you do anything." That's what the legislation is about. It's about control, and a government that's unprepared, in the case of school boards, to allow duly elected representatives in local communities across this province to do their job. It makes them uncomfortable. If they can't control them they don't want them acting, because it's all about control.

In this province, where I thought the one thing that could bring all members together was a common regard and respect for the interests of our children and our students, it saddens me in the extreme to realize that, for one party at least -- the New Democratic Party -- that concern comes second to getting re-elected. It's a sad day, and that's the question and the statement that each one of these members opposite are going to have put to them when their constituents look them in the eye and say: "Where were you when my students really needed you?" Not: "Where were you when the election loomed?" Because that's not the issue; the issue is who stood by the students when they needed assistance.

J. Dalton: I am reminded of the sage words of Yogi Berra, somebody I'm sure many of you follow, particularly during baseball season: déj� vu all over again. Do we remember May 30, 1993, when we were sitting here on a Sunday dealing with school strikes? Isn't that ironic? Putting aside the rush job of yesterday, when the Government House Leader tried to convince the Chair that this bill was an emergency and stumbled her way through, realizing that there was hardly an emergency, it is also ironic that, as we know by the news today, CUPE has settled its differences in Surrey. We also know that the 23 colleges resolved their differences with their employer last night. So what is the rush? Well, as my colleague from Matsqui has just reminded this House, the rush is politics and the pending election.

So when we were hearing yesterday that there was some contrived emergency that had to be dealt with, it was utter nonsense. Two weeks ago -- and I'm hoping the NDP MLAs from Surrey, who presumably should have some clout in this government. . . . All three of them knew full well that their school district was quite likely to go down two weeks ago Monday. There was utter confusion. The news was the strike was on and it was off. Parents didn't know whether to send their children to school. This government did nothing. There was absolutely no action from this government two weeks ago on that pending strike. So why is it that two weeks later, suddenly we have to sit on a weekend to deal with something that has already resolved itself anyway?

We know the answer. This government does not want the very embarrassing prospect of strikes in the public sector while its campaign is underway for re-election. And is it not a shame that in the dying days of the fifth year of this government's mandate it has been unable to in any way resolve the issues of public education and health care and how to deal with labour relations in those important government services? This government that pretends it speaks for the working class has no concept of the concerns of the working class.

While I was waiting to board the ferry on my way over here today, Ken Georgetti was on the radio. Some of you on the opposite side know Mr. Georgetti. Ken Georgetti basically said -- and I can't quote him exactly -- that if he had seen this bill before it hit the floor yesterday, he would have burned it. Well, I was laughing. Ken Georgetti would have burned this bill? Sure he would have. I mean, who drafted this bill? We don't know. Of course, it was done on a napkin over dinner the night before. We don't know whose dinner table that was, but for me to be hearing that Ken Georgetti would have burned this bill is utter nonsense. This is all a contrived job. We all know it. The whole thing is phony. They couldn't deal with this issue two weeks ago.

When we cast our minds back three years ago to 1993, there were six different school strikes that led up to the one in Vancouver that precipitated us coming back on a Sunday to sit for eight hours to order those teachers back to work. Then it was not only the accumulation of six school districts being down for periods of time in that spring and summer of 1993 but also the fact that the largest school district in the province was down for many weeks. So they had to step in.

Well, they had the second-largest school district in the province about to go out two weeks ago. They avoided that, did nothing, and then when that spectre was haunting them again with the election to be called probably next Wednesday, they had to step in and show they were in charge. We know they're not in charge, and we certainly know that Ken Georgetti had no intention whatsoever of burning this bill had he had the opportunity. I might add, because the members opposite didn't have the advantage I did to hear this conversation with Mr. Georgetti, that the chair of the school board came on following Georgetti's comments, and he was pointing out the very long duration of talks -- 18 months that they have been at the table trying to resolve these differences, which they have now handled themselves. Again it begs the question: why Bill 21 today? Why is it that we have this last-minute so-called emergency?

I am just wondering, by the way, if anybody noted that this bill yesterday was introduced by the Minister of Finance. Do we not have to wonder why it is not the Minister of Labour defending this bill and presenting it to this House? However, it may be that only certain members of cabinet have the clout and the say as to what will be on the agenda before this bill goes forward and before this election is called.Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Okanagan West on a point of order.

C. Serwa: This is a serious debate concerning the people of the province of British Columbia, and the member for Skeena flaunts complete, pompous arrogance toward this Legislature. I ask you to call that member to order. That is ridiculous and uncalled for.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, member. I will now call upon West Vancouver-Capilano to proceed.

J. Dalton: I thank my colleague from Okanagan West. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. The member for Skeena on a point of order.

H. Giesbrecht: The previous speaker, in his point of order, made reference to the member for Skeena, and I would draw his attention to the fact that his remarks were scurrilous and without foundation.

[ Page 17077 ]

Deputy Chair: I think we are clearly beyond the realm of points of order. I am going to return to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

J. Dalton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I was ignoring the member for Skeena's silliness. I thank my colleague from Okanagan West for drawing to your attention and to the attention of the House the silliness opposite.

Interjections.

J. Dalton: We'll ignore that.

I would like all members to be reminded of the recent fiasco with Hydro, because I think there are some parallels that we can draw here. We all know that certain members of the government side were asleep at the switch during the Hydro situation, which I would remind this House came up last June 22, when the Premier -- then the Minister of Employment and Investment, responsible for Hydro -- was asked by my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour. . . . I would also remind the House that the Chair of that committee that day was the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, a director of Hydro. We all know that both of those people were asleep at the switch. When the Grand Cayman issue was raised, nothing was done about it -- until, of course, they had to face the investigations, which are ongoing.

Now we see a similar situation. This government knew full well that the Surrey school situation was going to cause problems and be an embarrassment to them. They did nothing, and in the last few days of their mandate, before they choose to call this election, they ride us back on the weekend at great public expense. I hope the taxpayers are aware of the bills that are being run up to get us here for two days.

It is shameful that this government cannot even see the issues that are facing the public of this province. The only concern they have is pure re-election politics -- nothing else. This bill only has one thing in mind: re-election politics.

I've mentioned the involvement of the now Premier in the Hydro fiasco. I think we should also cast our minds back for a moment to comments that the now Premier made on May 30, 1993, when he and others participated in the debate, which, of course, ended the Vancouver school strike.

Here are some surprising thoughts from the now Premier. He said: "My background -- and I make no apologies for this -- is in the labour movement." Well, isn't that a surprise! I wonder if he and Ken Georgetti are talking today after Ken said he would burn the bill.

The now Premier went on to say: "The labour movement is the reason that I'm in politics today." I think I might add that it is also the reason, among others, why he is now the leader of the NDP and the Premier -- because of the involvement of the labour movement. There were other comments from the now Premier on May 30, 1993, when he commented on the education bill at that time. He was commenting then about the right of parliament to convene an emergency session and order unions back to work. He said: "It is a right which should be exercised very, very carefully. It is something which parliament should exercise as infrequently as possible." That's all I'm going to read into the record from the Premier's remarks, but I would add "as infrequently as possible."

Isn't it interesting that it suddenly had to become one of those very infrequent times yesterday when the Premier and cabinet decided to drop a bill on us at 11 o'clock in the morning, or whenever it was, and then got to their feet and said: "This is an emergency, hon. Speaker. We have to deal with it today"? Of course, happily, the Speaker made the correct ruling, pointing out that there are things in this bill which are not in any way an emergency; the only thing that we should be dealing with and we will address today is the Surrey situation, which, of course, could re-escalate and rekindle itself into a strike.

[4:45]

At the moment, the parties seem to have resolved their differences -- through no help from this government, no help whatsoever. The Surrey situation has been resolved because the parties were able to sit down at the bargaining table and recognize that there are rights and responsibilities on both sides, and they worked out their differences. This government only came in at the last second and said: "Well, if you guys can't sort out your differences, because of the election that we're going to call next week, we're going to hold this club over your head and pound you into submission." That's what this bill is about; that's the only thing it's about.

I think we should also add that we know other deals have been made out there. This bill also deals with post-secondary institutions. I reminded the House that the 23 colleges have already resolved their differences with their employer. It also, of course, deals with health employees. We know that this government would love to put another health accord into place and more job security in the public sector -- more job security, which I would remind all members, we cannot afford. In this day and age, when times are tough and we have to be very careful with our public dollars, all these people opposite want to do is ensure that their labour friends have job security. It is not on. That is not the route to go.

I just want to make one other observation about the management, or mismanagement, of education in general and in the particular. This bill, in part, has something to do with the mismanagement of public education by this government. As members will know, I live in North Vancouver, and I have children in the North Vancouver school system. Of course, it's well documented that my school board ran into some difficulties. On January 18 the previous Minister of Education made the decision to remove the trustees and appoint an official trustee in their place.

But going back to 1993 -- that's the same year, of course, when we were debating this special bill that I've already made reference to, which dealt with the Vancouver strike -- the technical distribution report came out from the Minister of Education. This government commissioned it to look at public school funding. It recommended, I believe, that 17 school districts -- including my own district of North Vancouver -- were underfunded in the operations and maintenance budget, function 5 in the budget.

They recognized that, and this government did nothing. Do you know why it did nothing? It did nothing because to give extra money due to certain school districts would mean that other school districts, all of which were held by NDP members, would have to take a cut in their budget. So they said: "Well, obviously we can't do that." So they discarded the technical distribution report. That was 1993. Well, isn't it curious that just two weeks ago in North Vancouver and in 17 other districts, including West Vancouver, the government was able to find some more public school funding? Wow! The timing is curious. I'm wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier -- who, of course, happens to be a North Vancouver MLA -- had anything to do with that.

[ Page 17078 ]

An Hon. Member: He's that good guy who was on the Hydro board.

J. Dalton: I believe he was on the Hydro board, hon. member. I believe he was in the chair in the estimates last June 22, when the question was put to the now Premier about Grand Cayman. Yes, all of this seems to be a great loop, and I don't think this government can get out of the loop. I think they're stuck. They're stuck in neutral; that's what they are stuck in.

I have one other observation about the mismanagement of education, just to remind these members opposite, because many of them have children in the public school system, as I do. They must be ashamed at times of the massive foul-ups in public education over the last four and a half years. Remember the Year 2000? Well, that was sure discarded in a hurry by the former Premier when it was convenient to do so. What happened to the year-round schooling discussion? "Oh well, cast that out. That's not convenient now. We might get around to that later, but not likely."

Then, of course, there's the infamous amalgamation fiasco. What a farce that was! Last year, in the spring, the former Minister of Education discarded amalgamation. He said it wasn't convenient at that time to go ahead with it, so they put it in mothballs and on the back burner. Then last November 17 the former Minister of Education brought it onto the front burner. We were going back and forth between whether we would have 37 school districts or, as we ended up with, 57 school districts. I can tell you that school districts out there in the interior, many of which are represented by NDP MLAs, must be going through pure chaos right now. They don't know what the funding is, what their budget deadlines are or who the new trustees will be in the fall.

Interjections.

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, I am pointing out to the members opposite -- who, of course, care not -- that, as my colleague from Matsqui told them, they will be hearing from the students and the parents next week when that writ is dropped.

Public education has been mismanaged from the day this government took office, and what we're doing today is just another example of it. This bill is strictly for political convenience. It has nothing to do with the good management of the Surrey School District or the post-secondary system or the health system or anything else -- nothing. It only has to do with the opportune time to bring it in. They force us back here on a weekend because they couldn't even get it right yesterday. We would have dealt with the Surrey situation yesterday as an emergency if this bill was drafted correctly. This bill was mismanaged, misdrafted, like everything else this government has done.

I will close by saying one thing for certain: the people of British Columbia are looking forward to this election. If you want to call it today or tomorrow or whenever, it would be even better than next Wednesday.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't intend to take a great deal of time, but I do intend to enter into the debate to some extent. It's been interesting to listen to people talk here today. I found the comments by the member for Victoria-Hillside particularly interesting in giving a bit of insight into the motivations of the government, given that he sat on that side and in meetings with the very people who now occupy the government seats.

As the debate has been going on today on this bill, I had to think back to the presentation the Premier did on Tuesday. I think it was Tuesday evening or some night this week, when we had 22 minutes of the Premier -- interestingly enough, in a school, in a kindergarten class -- talking about how he's on the side of British Columbians, and how he really stands up for working families and students and parents, and all of that sort of stuff. Then the mask fell down, because for the last five or seven minutes they ran the NDP's "Solidarity Forever" video, which really showed the people of British Columbia -- in black and white, without all the gimmicks -- exactly where these people stand. They don't stand for the working families; they don't stand for children and schools; they don't stand for patients. They stand for big unions and socialism. That's what was in that video; that's what that video said. To think that they actually paid to run that video across British Columbia and completely debase everything the Premier had just said, and to put the lie to everything the Premier had just said. I think it was interesting.

Because if you look at this bill today, it has some parallels. This piece of legislation is designed like the first 22 minutes, so that the government can stand up and say: "We're standing up for students; we're standing up for parents; we're standing up for patients." But when you really look at what they're doing and at the motivations, and you strip away all the rhetoric, you find out what they're really up to and whose side they're really on.

I think that what was most enlightening about all this was the little document -- CUPE's "Table Talk," the internal CUPE document that they send around to their members to tell them how the negotiations are going. I found it amazing that in there, it says the Premier phoned them to wish them well; the Premier phoned them to wish them luck; the Premier phoned them to tell them exactly whose side he was on.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: No, it's not a crime; it's enlightening. I would love to ask the Premier how many parents he phoned to wish good luck, how many students he phoned to wish good luck -- how many students in Surrey, who didn't know two weeks ago, or a week and a half ago or whatever it was, whether or not the exams for the next day were going to take place, because the newspaper on their doorstep said there was a strike, and the radio station was saying there wasn't a strike. Forty percent of the students showed up and dwindled in throughout the day.

Was the Premier on the side of those students? Was the Premier on the side of the parents? No, the Premier was on the side of the union. He picked up the phone, not to tell the students to go to school because school would be open, not to tell the parents: "Don't worry; your kids are going to be in class." He picked up the phone to say to CUPE, to say to the president of the union: "Good luck. I wish you well in your negotiations. Stick it to them. Let them have it. I'm on your side." He told the people of Surrey exactly whose side he was on. Now we all know.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. The member for Okanagan-Penticton, on a point of order.

J. Beattie: It's all very well for the member to suggest or to read literally what was in the document. But to suggest that the Premier said to the unions, "Stick it to the people of Surrey," is completely inappropriate. He should retract that statement, because the Premier did not say that.

[ Page 17079 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member, for your intervention. That is not, however, really a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, we have to look at the litany of the government. This isn't the first time we've been sitting here on a weekend going through this; we've been here before. You can all remember three years ago. We had the same sort of thing. The NDP grappled and struggled with this issue of school strikes, to prove to students, teachers and parents around this province whose side they were on. They struggled with it for weeks. Powell River was out, I think, for eight weeks; Bulkley Valley was out for six weeks; Vancouver was out for six weeks; Surrey was out for a whole bunch of weeks -- I can't even remember. Two million student-days -- two million days of individual instruction for individual students -- were lost in 1993.

We know whose side they were on, because day after day, the cabinet, under the astute leadership of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- the brilliant member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- as Minister of Labour, dillydallied and fuddle-duddled through trying to deal with the education strikes to somehow make it look like they were doing something.

The minister stood out in the hallway here and lambasted the school boards. He didn't say anything about the unions. He didn't say anything about the students missing their school; missing their exams; losing, in grade 12, their one opportunity to qualify for post-secondary education by getting a scholarship in the scholarship exams. He didn't say one word about them -- not one. He stood out in the hallway, out in the corridor, and talked over and over again about how terrible the school boards were.

Time after time the Labour Relations Board would come just up to saying that education was an essential service -- just up to declaring it -- and the minister would step in and squash it, because he didn't care about the students. He didn't care about education being made an essential service. He didn't care about those students who had to show up and write their exams to try to get their one chance to get into a post-secondary institution. He didn't care about them. What he cared about was offending the people in the trade unions by telling them that they provided an essential service.

[5:00]

We know by proof, we know by example, we know by time, we know by Hansard, we know by television clips, and we know by ads whose side the NDP are really on. The Premier can stand up and say whose side he's on. He can stand up and say he's defending students and patients in British Columbia, but we know whose side he's on. This bill isn't just about education; this bill's about health care, too.

I can remember the first session we had in this House. Six months after the NDP were in power, we had a health care strike in this province. Day after day the opposition got up in the House and talked about those people -- we even gave their names -- who'd been spending days in the hallways on gurneys because of the health care strike. This government didn't do a darned thing. They didn't care. They weren't going to come down hard on the HEU or say: "Let's get back there. Let's make sure that health care's available." They didn't say that. They let it drag on and on. So we know whose side they're on. Those people who sat on the gurneys and those grade 12 students who were trying to get into post-secondary school and their parents know whose side the NDP is on, because they've experienced it. They've experienced the back hand of the NDP. They extend their palm to the trade unions and the back of their hand to the people of this province. They know, because they've experienced it. Not rhetoric -- they lived it; they experienced it. That is their record.

This government has had numerous opportunities to deal with pending strikes in the education system. They have had time after time, session after session. The opposition has brought in legislation -- private members' bills -- to make education an essential service. All they had to do was call that bill once, and in one day -- any day for the last four years -- we could have made education an essential service, and we wouldn't be here now. We wouldn't have this deathbed repentance of the NDP, despite all the records, despite all past examples, despite all history, trying to prove, days before an election: "Really, we weren't on the side of the BCTF; we weren't on the side of the unions; we weren't on the side of health care. We were really on the side of those patients who were sitting on the gurneys. We were really on the side of the students" -- who couldn't get post-secondary education because they couldn't get a scholarship because these guys wouldn't let them write their final exams. We wouldn't have this piece of legislation being rammed through in one day after four years of nothing from the NDP. The truth and the facts speak for themselves.

It goes back even further than that. They had an option earlier on that they could have brought in that wouldn't have required this legislation to come forward. They could have accepted the amendment we put forward during the debate on the Labour Code to keep the cooling-off period in there. This government pulled out the cooling-off period. This is an exact example of when a cooling-off period is needed. You've got an election, the Legislature isn't sitting, all heck breaks loose in the school system or the health care system because the government can't manage it properly, and we have strikes. The government, without the Legislature sitting, could order a cooling-off period -- not impose a settlement, not destroy the collective bargaining process, not impose a settlement that the taxpayers in that district can't afford to pay. Let everybody settle down, go back to the drawing board, think about it a little bit and come back with an agreement.

They could have done that then, and what's more important, they could have done it on Friday, rather than have a bill like this one which goes in and says: "We're going to impose a collective agreement on you; we're going to tell you." The cabinet and -- more importantly, as we all know -- the Premier are going to sit down, look at what the mediators have done, and say: "Here's your collective agreement. I'm writing it for you." If they really wanted to deal with this for the duration of an election campaign when there is no House sitting, when there is no Legislature in existence, they could have brought in a cooling-off period, but they didn't. That also is enlightening.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast entered the debate and did a good job today, but he miscued it a little bit. He talked about 1975 and how outraged the unions were with the heavy-handedness of the government of the day -- how nasty they were and how upset the unions were about it. This one's different. This is far craftier, far slyer, far more sneaky than the blunt action that was taken in 1975. They had 20 years in opposition to consider their mistakes, and what they did. . . .

This act is different. It doesn't go in there and order a cooling-off period. It doesn't go in there and retroactively 

[ Page 17080 ]

extend the contracts that have expired. It says: "We're going to put a mediator in there" -- we all know that the government, the Labour minister, gets to pick the mediators, and we've seen what happens when they pick the mediators -- "and he or she is going to say to give them this, this and this." CUPE will say: "Yahoo! This is what we want. Look at the good stuff that's in this deal. Look what we got from the mediator. It's everything we wanted." And rather than have the government come in and order a cooling-off period and retroactively extend those contracts so they can actually go through the collective bargaining process and come to an agreement -- ensuring that the students are in school and the patients are being cared for -- the Premier, with a stroke of his pen, can do something that Dave Barrett never could do: he can give them a collective agreement that extends for one year or two years or three years or four years -- or 25 years, quite frankly, if he wants; he can give them everything that the unions demanded, things that they would never get from a strike, that they would never get from a lockout; he can give them everything they're asking for.

If this government was sincere that all this legislation is about is making sure that if, in the midst of an election campaign, when there isn't a Legislature to rely upon, there were a strike in education or health care, the government could take bold action and stop it until the Legislature got back. . . . That isn't true, and they know it isn't true. This is a payoff, a big payoff, a huge payoff. The taxpayers aren't going to have to pay for it for just 60 days; they're going to pay for it for one, two, three or four years.

There has been an array of options available to this government to solve this problem of theirs -- an array of options that fit better with their ideology. They talk about free collective bargaining, and I would suggest that a cooling-off period is far less intrusive to the collective bargaining process than stepping in and legislating a collective agreement. I can tell you that if the tables were reversed, and it was CUPE that was angry about the mediator's report and the board that was supporting it, you wouldn't have this type of legislation. The government, in its infinite creativity, would come up with another one. I suspect what they would have done would be what they did in 1993, which was similar to what they did in 1975, which is to bring in legislation that retroactively extends the collective agreement until an agreement can be hammered out. That's what they would have done.

But this bill is more than what happened in 1993; it's more than what happened in 1975. This is a deal that allows the Premier to create, to write and to sign into law collective agreements to pay off the people who supported him in his campaign for leadership and who are supporting them in their campaign for re-election. That's what it's about. So to hear the government stand up and say that they're doing this because they're on the side of students, on the side of parents and on the side of patients rings pretty hollow. We know whose side they're on.

Another way you can tell that this is so politically motivated is that yesterday evening it became clear in Surrey that. . . . Well, if the decision hadn't been reached, there was a further offer from the board which the CUPE union decided they would look at and discuss next week with their members. That, I would say, removes the urgency of getting this bill passed on the weekend. We could have come back on Monday and Tuesday and debated it -- second reading on Monday and third reading on Tuesday. We could have passed the bill and got it through.

The fact that it is being put through on the weekend is enlightening also. What it means is that the budget is coming out on Tuesday and the election is going to be called shortly thereafter. The bus is ordered, the planes are ordered, the signs are printed, and they are ready to go. Not only don't they give a hoot about the students and the parents and the patients in this province; all they really care about isn't just the fact that there will be no provisions during an election to deal with and protect them in the event of a strike. It comes down to the timing of their election. It's not even just that there's going to be one; it's that they don't want the timing of their election disrupted. There's no reason that we can't come back on Monday or Tuesday and finish this off. There's no reason that on Friday, if it looked as imminent as it did that there was going to be a strike in Surrey, we couldn't have brought in a bill to deal with Surrey, much like the government did in 1993, as inept as it was and as insufficient as it was. We could have dealt with it, we could have had it in place on Friday, and everybody -- all the parents -- would have known that on Monday morning the kids would be back in school. It's election timing that's important now, not just the fact that there's going to be an election.

You have to ask yourself again about the commitment of the government to the parents and students and patients in this province, and how far that commitment really goes. I'll tell you how far it goes, hon. Speaker. It goes 60 days. At the end of 60 days, all the tears that the government has been shedding for patients and students and parents; the crocodile tears coming from the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Government House Leader; the crocodile tears coming from the Premier; the rhetoric we've heard from the member for Port Coquitlam; the crocodile tears we've seen about how terrible it is that there'd actually be a strike during an election campaign. . . . Those tears dry instantly at the end of 60 days, much like they did at the end of the last bill that the government brought in to deal with the last strike that we had in this province. It lasted for a while. Their commitment to getting students back into school, their commitment to assisting the collective bargaining process where it wasn't working, to fixing it where it's not working. . . . That commitment lasted until the bill expired, and we're right back here dealing with it again.

Hon. Speaker, I bought a blender once. I think everybody has had this experience. In my case it was a blender; in other cases it's something else. You buy the thing, you get it home and it breaks. You pull out the warranty, and you find out that the warranty has just expired. Well, what we've got from this government is a plan to stand up for students, a plan to stand up for parents, a plan to stand up for patients in British Columbia, for 60 days, until the warranty expires. Then, who cares? We'll see it all over again, just like in 1993: students on strike, health care workers laying on gurneys in the hallway. We'll see it again, because the commitment of this government lasts 60 days. They're on your side, come hell or high water -- until the 60 days are up. Then you're on your own. When the election is over, you're on your own. They go right back into the pocket of big labour, and when the BCGEU or HEU or BCTF or CUPE yells jump, they'll jump -- until another election.

We know whose side they're on. The public knows whose side they're on. The students know whose side they're on. They're on the side of the unions who pay their bills, and the people of this province -- the students, the parents and the patients -- be damned. That's the truth, hon. Speaker.

They had options. They could have made education an essential service. They could have done it yesterday morning. You could have made it an essential service today. You could make it an essential service tomorrow. But you're not willing 

[ Page 17081 ]

to do it; you're only willing to let it go 60 days. They're not willing to make education an essential service. They're not even willing to bring in a bill to bring in a cooling-off period. What we've got is probably the last option -- the worst option -- that allows the Premier to create collective agreements, to make collective agreements, to write himself a collective agreement and go from that. That's what we've got left.

As usual with the NDP, there were opportunities that could have been taken, and they were missed time after time after time, and we're seeing it again today. Every opportunity they had to make it an essential service, every opportunity they had to bring back a cooling-off period, they've missed. Every opportunity they've had, they've missed. So what are we left with today? We're left with the worst option possible: a 60-day provision where the Premier can sign into agreements that help all his union buddies -- the taxpayers be damned, the patients be damned, the students be damned. At the end of 60 days, all bets are off for their protection, but the sweetheart deals and the sweetheart collective agreements will go on forever -- the gift that keeps on giving. We've got the worst of all options, so what do we do? If we vote no, I'll tell you what will happen.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: You're the Minister of Health, and you should know. Let me tell the minister what will happen. We then have no option, because you people -- the NDP -- have refused to deal with the good option. They've refused to deal with education as an essential service. They've refused to bring in a cooling-off period, and we have this. It's all that the people of British Columbia have left. If this is the best the New Democrats can offer them, they should be ashamed. This is the worst of it, but it's all there is.

[5:15]

If the students, the parents and the patients of this province want real leadership and want to make sure that their interests are put first, ahead of the unions, they won't be voting for another four years of the NDP. They can't afford it, they can't trust them, they know whose side they're on, and it ain't theirs.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to Bill 21. Briefly, I think it is obvious that Bill 21 has been attacked from almost every direction possible. It's an absolute sham. It's a lousy piece of legislation, and it's a lousy time to bring it forward.

We're fairly fortunate that the member for Okanagan-Vernon was able to bring out what the bad part of this bill was when the government first brought it into the House yesterday. He was very astute and brought forward that this bill has some ramifications that I don't think are fair to be applied to all British Columbians. The last member spoke about it quite eloquently.

Briefly, this allows this government and the Premier, by OIC, to sign in contracts that can be totally uneconomic. You cannot pay them. And the next government of the day -- and it's guaranteed there will be another government here next time around in not too long a time, in about 30 days -- won't be able to live up to those obligations. That's the scary part.

I guess the part that bothers me the most is that this government constantly uses children, people who are in need of health care and people who are disabled -- and the handyDART system, from the member for Victoria-Hillside -- to their advantage all the time. I wonder who really cares about the children. Who really cares whether the children get their education? When we see the crass movement of this government doing what they've done yesterday and today, it's absolutely unacceptable.

When we had strikes in the Vancouver school districts before -- I think two million school days were lost over three weeks or four weeks -- I didn't see this government all of a sudden come in, before the strike even happened, with legislation to stop it. We didn't see that happen then. We saw a Minister of Labour stumble through the House constantly every day, trying to answer questions about why he wouldn't look after the issue about education.

But today, at the eve of an election, we've got a government that brings in legislation that can totally stymie any kind of negotiation that's presently taking place. It absolutely amazes me that this government would have, shall I say, the guts to do something like this.

An Hon. Member: The gall.

R. Neufeld: That's a better word -- the gall to do something like this.

If there were something in this bill that said there was a cap or maybe a cooling-off period, which I think is a good idea -- any of those things -- or that just extended the agreement until the next government came into power and then dealt with it, I don't think we would have had the debate we had today or yesterday. It would have been fair to all concerned.

When I look through the list of members in this House. . . . I've heard some of them stand up and strongly, strongly talk about their labour ties. They've made no bones about it. One of the loudest but probably most ineffective is the now Minister of Forests, the member for Mission-Kent. The past Minister of Labour just entered the House -- another one who didn't stand up to speak to this bill.

We had the Minister of Education stand up and talk and cry and carry on about how concerned the NDP were about education, but I remember it wasn't that long ago when we were trying to get UNBC off the ground in Prince George, and that person, who was then working at a college in Prince George, was the loudest naysayer against UNBC. All of a sudden, today, as Minister of Education, he's really concerned. That's a little hard to take for almost anyone. Obviously they are paying off their friends.

We just can't have this. It's totally unfair. Where is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing? Did that minister stand up and speak? No. How about the Minister of Transportation and Highways, from Nelson-Creston? You talk about somebody who is union-oriented and talks about it all the time. Where has that member been? I don't think he's even been in the House since we called the House yesterday.

How about the rest of them? How about the member for Cariboo North, who never spoke up? All he did was sit there and heckle all day long. How about the member for Skeena? Where were his words of wisdom, his pearls of wisdom, that he gives us every once in a while? Where were they? How about the member for North Coast, the Minister of Employment and Investment? Where was his speech? Are they afraid to stand up and talk to this piece of legislation? Obviously they are.

How about the member for Rossland-Trail? I believe he was here earlier -- another union organizer. The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke -- where was he? Maybe he's back learning how to run a train again. Where's the member 

[ Page 17082 ]

for Alberni? Why didn't that member stand up and speak to this piece of legislation? Not on your life.

How about the member for Kamloops-North Thompson? Another great organizer. Where was he? How come he didn't stand up and speak to this piece of legislation? The one that really bothers me is the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. He never stood up and spoke to this bill at all. In fact, I think he has a hard time even sitting in the House today. I think he's having a hard time dealing with this.

What we'd like to see is that member for Burnaby-Edmonds. If there is anyone who is a union organizer, it's that gentleman right there. Let's have him stand up and tell us why this is such a good piece of legislation.

I don't know how anyone can believe this present government about anything. If you go back to 1991 and see the promises they made. . . . I think they made 49 of them, and they kept one or two, and those were rewarding their friends and insiders. They weren't going to have any friends and insiders, but obviously they rewarded them all -- and quite handsomely, I might add.

I'm not going to take too much time, because I think all the words have been said. But I would really like to hear the member for Burnaby-Edmonds stand up in support of this lousy piece of legislation.

C. Serwa: I was hoping that some of the government members would, in fact, speak with respect to Bill 21, but perhaps I hoped in vain.

Nevertheless, I spoke extensively on the hoist motion, which I supported, but I will speak a little bit on the philosophy and principles of Bill 21. I've had the honour and pleasure of representing the former constituency of Okanagan South -- now the constituency of Okanagan West -- for some nine and a half years. In all those years in the Legislature, I have never witnessed a piece of legislation brought forward by government, either our government or this government, that has had absolutely insignificant defence -- no defence, no promotion of the validity or the value or the necessity of that. . . .

The Speaker: Just a moment, hon. member. There are quite a few conversations going on in the chamber, and I'd like to bring the members' attention to that fact. We do require some quiet, and members are having difficulty making their remarks. Please proceed, hon. member.

C. Serwa: I'm personally disappointed -- not that that's a very significant or substantial matter; I've been disappointed before. But I'm disappointed because of the arrogance and the indifference and the contempt that have been exhibited by government. I'm not going to single out any individual, be they a minister of the Crown or a private member. But there is arrogance, indifference and contempt for the process, for the Legislature, for democracy and for the people of the province of British Columbia in this particular exercise.

We're elected to represent citizens of the province. We're elected on the basis of our capacity, our knowledge, our commitment and certainly partially on kindred souls joining together in party disciplines. But what is being evidenced today is that we're governed by a party that is indifferent to the public interest at large. Who is their master? Is it the first minister, the Premier? Is it the unelected hired advisers? Or is it the NDP provincial council? I have never seen a group of members so muzzled that all they can do is yap or make comments or demonstrate with letters, but not stand up and say anything in the promotion of what they consider a valued piece of legislation.

I think that the opposition collectively has done a good job in opposing this legislation. I sincerely hope that the message that I got from the Opposition House Leader is not going to be proven true, where they have debated all day in opposition to this legislation and will then vote for that legislation. That is precisely the type of hypocrisy that leaves the public of British Columbia virtually no choice in the next provincial election. Do you vote for the devil you know or for the devil you don't know? Do you vote for the socialists or do you vote for the near-socialists? Vive la différence. And that is the problem today, so I await the vote with interest.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

This is a particularly important issue. The issue is far greater in its importance. We cannot have in this forum, in leadership, the amount of hypocrisy that has been demonstrated here today. As a matter of fact, I will be devastated if the Liberals vote in support of the government members and in support of this legislation.

What we're witnessing is a buffalo stampede. We have government members all racing as rapidly as they possibly can for the precipice, be they private members or ministers. I suppose the utopian goal that they hold in their mind is a cabinet post, but I think that the Valhalla they will achieve is simply the happy hunting ground.

Not too long ago, an arrogant, indifferent federal government treated the population of Canada with contempt. Going back in our memory but a short distance, the Charlottetown accord was supported by every political leader in every province across Canada, the territories, the federal government and by big business. But you know what? In the ensuing debate, which was poorly funded, which depended on common sense. . . .

[5:30]

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Point of order. I don't want to detract from my colleague's excellent speech, but to clarify one point, as the leader of one political party, I did not support the Charlottetown accord and, in fact, actively campaigned against it.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that was not a valid point of order.

C. Serwa: That certainly signifies that I must clarify what I said. It was supported by the leader of every government in every province across Canada, as well as the territories and the federal government and big business. But the common sense and the wisdom of the public at large, albeit in a relatively unorganized fashion, and certainly funded in a very sparse manner compared to the Yes forces, won the day.

In this particular piece of legislation, I think we will see the same thing transpire. The government always wins. They have more members. They haven't demonstrated or won the right to win: that's the tragedy of today's debate. They will win simply by sheer numbers. There is no validity to this piece of legislation. The fact of urgency or emergency has been 

[ Page 17083 ]

dismissed completely. All it is doing is covering your backside for the duration of the election campaign. If I were a government member, I would not only be embarrassed by the representation that you have given to the people who elected you, but I would be absolutely ashamed of the representation that you have given.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: You have an opportunity, hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton, to stand up in debate if you so wish. I encourage you to do so.

The Speaker: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale rises on a point of order.

D. Schreck: Considerable latitude has been shown in this debate, but the member again drifts radically off the topic. The same member who interrupted my speech with points of order is now complaining of the fact that government members haven't spoken. He was chief in trying to shut down government members. Perhaps the member could return to the topic under debate.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

C. Serwa: So I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill 21, debating the validity and the value of the philosophy and principles. I find it virtually devoid of either from my perspective and, I think, from the perspective of British Columbians. It has subverted the free bargaining process that exists in British Columbia. It has subverted the right of other elected jurisdictions, such as school boards and their trustees, to represent the best interests, from their perspective, of their local communities.

And it's all done simply because of the mandate of the provincial government and with the sort of Big Brother attitude, if I may use that particular phrase, that they know better and what is expedient in the short term. In the short term, the only thing that has become evident is that it is politically expedient.

But I know each of those individuals as individuals. I know them with their value system, and I know them with their sense of right and wrong. I feel sorry for them that they're going to have to tussle with their consciences in supporting a piece of legislation like this without speaking strongly in support of it. I have debated in opposition to this piece of legislation, and I will vote in opposition to this piece of legislation. I suspect today was a tragedy for the democratic system in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. E. Cull: I think we've had a good debate here today, and as usual it's always fascinating to listen to the opposition talking about a bill like this. They've gone on at length about how they and only they are concerned about kids. But let's look at what we've heard here today.

They've been speaking against this bill, a bill which will ensure that not only Surrey but kids in other school districts around the province and patients will have access to the services that they need. They are speaking against the very bill that will allow kids' interests to come first.

The other thing they've done throughout the debate -- and I was listening to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove just recently -- is they have over and over again bashed the very people who are providing education services in this province: the people who work in our classrooms, whether they're teachers or teaching assistants. They've been talking about their interests as if their interests have absolutely nothing to do with the interests of kids in our classrooms.

I don't know about the members opposite, but I have a child in a classroom in Victoria. When I go in there and talk to the people who deliver the education services to my son, I know that it is the teachers, the teaching assistants and the people who work in the school offices who provide that quality education. They are, each and every one of them, as important to education and to children and to their parents as any other part of the education system is.

The most incredible thing about the debate we've heard today, particularly from the official opposition as they go on and on about their concern about education, is that these are the people who are going to be, in a very short time, campaigning on a platform of cutting $3 billion out of public spending. They're saying to the people of British Columbia, to the children and to the parents: "Don't worry, we're not going to cut health care. We're not going to cut education." That's what Mike Harris said in Ontario before he ran for election. And what's happening in Ontario right now? Fifteen hundred teachers have just been laid off in Ontario this spring.

You know, they can't do their arithmetic when it comes to the $3 billion. You have to take a look at our budget. Eighty percent of our provincial budget is taken up by health care, education and essential social services. That leaves $4 billion left over.

C. Tanner: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands on a point of order.

C. Tanner: We've been hearing all afternoon from that side about our side speaking to the bill. This minister is not addressing the bill that's in front of us.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. minister, please proceed.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I'm speaking to the heart of this bill. The heart of this bill is protecting the services that kids and their parents count on in this province.

As I was saying, 80 percent of our budget is taken up by services like education, health care and essential social services. That leaves $4 billion left over. If you're going to cut $3 billion out of $4 billion, you're talking about a 75 percent cut to the jails, a 75 percent cut to Highways, and a 75 percent cut to Environment. Well, anyone out there who may be listening to this debate -- and I suspect there aren't many -- knows that you can't make those kinds of cuts to those areas. You can't cut 75 percent out of the jail budget or the Environment budget.

So what does that mean? It means that if they're going to cut $3 billion out of public spending in this province, they are going to cut it out of education, they're going to cut it out of health care, and they're going to cut it out of the services that children and patients and their families depend on in this province. It's hypocritical for these people to stand up and say 

[ Page 17084 ]

that they are going to be the only defenders of children in this province when in fact the heart of their political campaign is to cut the services that those people depend on.

This legislation is responsible legislation. It ensures that kids can go to school, that parents can plan their lives. It respects the rights of employers and employees to free collective bargaining, and it recognizes that when difficulties arise, we as legislators have a responsibility to act. We have a responsibility to act now in the case of Surrey, and we have a responsibility to ensure that when this House is dissolved and not able to come together like this, we can still act then.

The most interesting thing is that while we have been in here, the people out there, out around the province, know whose side we are on. They know that this bill is on the side of children, it's on the side of parents, and it's on the side of patients. That's why it's a good bill, and that's why I move second reading.

[5:45]

Second reading of Bill 21 approved on the following division:

Bill 21, Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House stand adjourned until 12 noon tomorrow.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada