2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 28

[ Page 863 ] 

FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2002

           The House met at 1:07 p.m.

           Prayers.

Introductions by Members

           Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to make a couple of introductions today of people who are joining us: Reggi Balabanov, who's the president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils; Kathleen Thomson, who's the president of the local teachers union in district 43; Gordon Comeau, who's the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association; Lee Southern, the executive director of the School Trustees Association; Stu Dale, who's the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association president; Stanley French, who is the manager of that organization; Don Goodridge, who is the president of the B.C. School Superintendents Association; Wendy Lee, who is its executive director; and, of course, Cathy Abraham, who is the co-chair of the North Vancouver district parent advisory council.

           I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

Tribute to Peter Gzowski

           J. MacPhail: My apologies for not getting up quickly. I want the House, if I could ask, to join me today in recognizing and honouring the life and now the passing of Peter Gzowski.

[1310]

           I think most of us in this chamber are old enough to have grown up with Peter Gzowski. Some of us were born during Peter Gzowski's wonderful reign. He is literally the voice, or he literally was the voice, of Canada. He loved every aspect of Canada, and he loved every single aspect of all Canadians, whether they be rich or poor, whether they be Inuit, new Canadians or new Asian Canadians.

           I'm going to miss him personally very much. He always brought great comfort. I hope the Legislature, through you, Mr. Speaker, will send a note of condolence to his family.

           Hon. G. Collins: I, too, wanted to add condolences to Mr. Gzowski's family from the members of the government side of the House and, indeed, I guess, the whole Legislature. I think the comments by the member for Vancouver-Hastings are pretty reflective of what many people are thinking, for those of us who, for the last decades, it seems like, remember listening to that little song that would come on at the beginning — I won't sing it for you — which always reminded me of sitting down with a coffee with a good friend.

           You could hear the discussions and the way he would interview people, the way he seemed to have an incredible ability to reach into someone he may never have seen before — reach into their heart and soul and pull some of that out so we could learn a little bit about the person who was there. Always enlightening. He always had an amazing sense of the country of Canada, its communities from one end to the other, from the top to the bottom.

           He certainly talked to people for decades from right around this country. He had an amazing sense of what makes us tick as a people. Sometimes, in a new country such as Canada, that's a pretty hard thing to define. I think he was great at holding up a mirror to ourselves, introducing us to ourselves right across the country. I know he'll be sorely missed.

           I know how devastated I was when he decided to retire. It really left a big gap in the day, a real highlight of the day. He was also tireless in his pursuit of the improvement of literacy in the country. He spent years and years with his golf tournaments, raising money. I think the count was some $6 million that he raised to promote literacy in communities across the country.

           He will be sorely missed by, I'm sure, his family and by, I know, his colleagues at CBC, who came to know and love him over the years — and, indeed, by all Canadians right across the country who used to tune in at 9 a.m. and hear what was going on and listen to the heartbeat of the nation. I want to extend our condolences to his family, his colleagues and everybody.

Introductions by Members

           P. Bell: Joining us today from the beautiful riding of Prince George North are my father-in-law and mother-in-law, Clarence and Charlotte Lapp, who will be celebrating their fiftieth anniversary this year. Will the House please make them very welcome.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of introductions to do. The opposition joins in welcoming all of the guests listed by the Minister of Education. As well, joining us today are some other outstanding British Columbians in the field of education and also in health.

           Barry O'Neill, who is the president of the B.C. division of CUPE, is joining us today, as well as many of his activists. Chris Allnut and Stephen Howard, from the Hospital Employees Union, are joining us today, along with many of his members. We also have some very hardworking bargainers who have been sitting with other educators, the hardworking bargainers of the BCTF — Neil Warboys. He is accompanied by many people.

           Secondly, my introduction is to one of our long-serving staff members in the constituency, whose workload has doubled. Cate Jones and her daughter Shayla are with us. Lastly, it's a reintroduction. It comes as a shock when I look up there and see Justine Hunter in the gallery. I would like to welcome Justine Hunter back to beautiful British Columbia. She couldn't stay away.

[ Page 864 ]

[1315]

Introduction of Bills

EDUCATION SERVICES
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

           Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Services Collective Agreement Act.

           Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27, intituled Education Services Collective Agreement Act, be read a first time now.

           J. Kwan: First of all, I'd like to say that at the sitting today, there is nothing pro forma in terms of the recalling of the House today. We know that there are important issues before us. Before the first reading vote on the bill is voted on, I'd like to request a short recess so that my colleague and I could look over the bill and make an informed decision on the first reading vote.

           Hon. G. Collins: I'm assuming that's a point of order. I would be pleased to offer that ability to the members. The minister introducing the bill will speak to it, I assume, and then before the question is put to the Speaker, the government is fine with there being a five-minute recess to give the members of the other side a chance to look at the bill.

           Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Skills Development and Labour will make a short statement, then we will recess for five minutes.

           Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Services Collective Agreement Act. This bill settles the current teachers dispute and provides for the constitution of a collective agreement between the parties.

           We have dedicated teachers in our public education system who commit hours and hours of voluntary time to the education and development of our children. Having had four children go through our schools, I know firsthand how dedicated so many are.

           This dispute has gone on for ten months and, in fact, has involved two governments. Throughout this time, only three minor items, of 45 issues, have been resolved. It's clear the two parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement.

           This bill provides for every teacher in the province to receive a 7.5 percent increase over three years. This bill also provides for consolidation of contracts and amalgamated districts.

           Since 1994 these parties have been unable to reach a negotiated settlement. In this bill I have made provision for the appointment of a commission to review the structure and procedures for collective bargaining in the education sector.

           I move that the Education Services Collective Agreement Act be read a first time now.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, before we take the vote on first reading, we will recess for five minutes. I will ring the bells at the end of the recess.

           The House recessed from 1:18 p.m. to 1:25 p.m.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           Motion approved on the following division: 

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

[1330]

           Bill 27 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.

PUBLIC EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY
AND CHOICE ACT

           Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act.

           Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant rises on a point of order.

           J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to advise the House that after the minister moves the motion on first reading of the bill, we would like to also request a five-minute recess.

[ Page 865 ]

            Mr. Speaker: Noted. Thank you.

           Hon. G. Collins: Just so we don't have to do that each time, we're fine with that. So if you want that for each bill, we're glad to have the five-minute recess after the minister's made his comments.

           Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act.

           Education is the cornerstone of our society, and this bill continues in our commitment, this government's commitment, to put students first. This bill puts class size into the School Act so that it is clear that it is a matter of provincial public policy. This bill protects special needs students by returning decision-making to teachers, parents and local districts.

           This bill returns flexibility to local districts by removing fixed and rigid ratios for non-enrolling teachers, such as counsellors and librarians. The bill allows local school boards to decide how the school day and the school year will be structured.

           In British Columbia's colleges and institutes we are providing better access for students by ensuring that control of the classroom is returned to the institutions, along with class size, constraints on distributed learning and semester scheduling.

           These changes put the needs of students first and help our education dollars go further by giving the locally elected school boards and college boards the flexibility to create a top-notch education system.

           I move that the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act be read a first time now.

           Mr. Speaker: Before I put the question, the House will recess for five minutes.

           The House recessed from 1:34 p.m. to 1:40 p.m.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question before the House is introduction and first reading of Bill 28, Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act.

           Motion approved on the following division:

           Bill 28 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.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
DELIVERY IMPROVEMENT ACT

           Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act.

           Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. This bill puts patients and social service clients first. This bill gives health employers and social service agencies increased flexibility to deliver cost-effective and improved services to the very people that need them.

           In the health sector, it gives health authorities the flexibility to reorganize the delivery of services by transferring functions or staff to meet patients' needs. It allows them the flexibility to find the most cost-effective and efficient ways of delivering administrative and support services.

[1345]

           This bill alters notice and layoff provisions and simplifies them so that reorganization in one area of a health care agency is much less likely to cause disruption throughout other areas. It eliminates three side deals that were signed by the previous government and the social service unions outside of the collective bargaining process. This means that it will be possible to increase flexibility, enable the open tendering of contracts and better serve the social service clients, those who could be considered some of the most vulnerable in our society. I am prepared to table draft regulations which are proposed should the bill become law.

           I move that the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act be read a first time now.

           Mr. Speaker: Before I put the question, the House will take a short recess of five minutes.

           The House recessed from 1:46 p.m. to 1:52 p.m.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 866 ]

[1355]

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

           Bill 29 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.

Tabling Documents

           Hon. G. Bruce: I ask leave to table a copy of the proposed regulations for this bill for the information and benefit of the members.

           Leave granted.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.

           J. Kwan: I am very disturbed and very concerned about the situation that we find ourselves in today. The government has called an emergency session back into the House and has just introduced three bills. The Government House Leader has just moved the motion for the House to adjourn until tomorrow.

           This is coming from a government that says they're open and accountable to the public. Yet we see in the legislation…. I'm not going to enter into debate about the legislation, but we know that the emergency nature of the debate that's going on today and for the coming weekend is one that can be dealt with when the House resumes on February 12.

           In fact, the government had campaigned on openness and accountability to the public. With this dramatic legislation that has been introduced, there's no opportunity for members of the public to actually review the matter and comment on the matter. Some of that information is unexpected, in some of the sectors of the educational system particularly. There's been zero debate around any of that matter.

           Instead of calling the House back tomorrow to engage in further debate around this issue, the government could actually choose to allow for this information to go out to the public, for the public to have informed information around these bills, around the operation of the House and the matters that are before the House now, and for them to examine these matters and provide input. Instead, the government has decided that they will rush back tomorrow and truncate that opportunity, so members of the public will not have an opportunity to review this information.

           I think there's plenty of time between now and February 12, when these matters could be brought back for debate. It doesn't have to be debated this weekend, right now. It does not have to happen in that way.

           It goes right to the notion of openness. I wonder if members in this House remember that when they went out and campaigned on the notion of openness, they were going to ensure that members of the public are consulted and will have input into the government. I know it's only been since May, since the election — less than a year — since that time. Perhaps their campaign promise to be open and accountable is long forgotten for members who've been elected in this House on the government side.

[1400]

           I wonder what the member for Burnaby North thinks about this government's commitment to openness and accountability, when this government, right now, brings forward matters where the public will not have an opportunity to provide input into the matter.

           I know we'll be debating in the coming days on some of these issues, so I'm not going to get into substantive matters on the issues. I will, rather, say that the universities, the colleges, weren't expecting any of the changes to be introduced in this bill today. I know, in fact, that they weren't even consulted on the matter. They weren't even informed that there would be changes impacting them, yet these matters are before the House.

           The government wants to rush through these debates so that people are not consulted and have no opportunity whatsoever to provide their input, never mind consultation. They're not even going to get the opportunity to be informed that this is going to impact them in a very dramatic way. This legislation is going to have tremendous impacts for every single British Columbian throughout the entire province.

           Instead of rushing through by calling the House, by continuing tomorrow and for us to continue on the debate tomorrow, the government could decide to adjourn the House today and have the matter dealt with

[ Page 867 ]

in two weeks, when the House is called back on February 12. The government has that choice and can have the choice to provide at least some element of the openness they had campaigned on throughout the entire election. The government has chosen not to do that.

           In fact, even today I would argue that the House doesn't necessarily have to be called back today. The Premier himself, I guess, is out there keeping busy, trying to argue for federal dollars, transfer payment dollars, in the area of health that were already argued for by the previous government and obtained and promised from the federal government to British Columbia.

           Interjection.

           J. Kwan: The House Leader asks: "You don't want any more?" You know what? I'll refresh the memory of the House Leader. It is actually your leader, the leader of the Liberal Party, the current Premier, who said, when the previous government went to the federal government and asked for additional dollars in transfer payments to British Columbia in the area of health, when it was the previous government that said to the federal government that the transfer payment cuts in social services, in the area of health, were too deep and that he should not make those cuts…. It was in fact the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader that the House Leader is following, who said that those federal transfer payment cuts were not deep enough. In fact, that's what the member has said.

           But back to the question on….

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, please direct your remarks to the motion of the time and adjournment.

           J. Kwan: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker — back to the question. I'm sorry. I did digress for one moment, because the House Leader had challenged the question about whether or not the cuts were deep enough, and I felt I had to respond. It was the current Premier now who said that those cuts weren't deep enough.

[1405]

           Instead of calling the House back over the weekend, imposing costs to British Columbians, the matter we're dealing with today could be dealt with on February 12. The Premier could be here to engage, but he has chosen not to. You know, the fact of the matter is that this government has created the notion of emergency, the notion of urgency, all by themselves, contrary to their promise to ensure that there is openness and accountability from the new era with the Liberal government.

           You know, the health care funding that could have been retrieved from the federal government could actually have settled many of the matters we're dealing with today. If that had happened, and if the government had chosen to take that action with the moneys that were brought back from the federal government by the previous government, the matter could be resolved. Then there would be no reason, in fact, for the sitting of the House today, tomorrow or Sunday. The government can choose to do that, and they have chosen not to do that.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Please continue, hon. member, but please stick to the terms of the motion: the time and the adjournment.

           J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

           The extra expenses that have been incurred by calling the House back and moving off to further debate tomorrow…. The government could have chosen to save the taxpayers the cost of that by not calling the House to sit tomorrow but, rather, waiting until February 12 for the matter to be debated then. The government would then have given an opportunity to British Columbians to provide their input and to be informed.

           I know that perhaps the member for Peace River North is not interested in their promises, because it has been the practice of the government to date to break promises. He's not concerned, I know, about consultation, about the openness and accountability that they campaigned on. Therefore, I know he's of the view that there is no need to ensure that members of the public would have an opportunity to review the matter that has been placed before us, to comment on it and to give some time between now and February 12 to do that.

           Actually, the government could easily do that: give it some time between now and February 12. That's something the government can do right now instead of calling the House to continue tomorrow. The government has refused to do that. The government has refused to ensure that they will live up to their promise of openness and accountability to British Columbians. I think that's a shame.

           The matter that has been introduced before us today has widespread impact across the entire province, I would argue, impacting every single British Columbian, whether you are a teacher, a student, a parent, a patient, a health care professional or a community care service provider. Irrespective, it impacts every single one of us.

           The changes that are being introduced can in many instances, I think, be very devastating. Instead of ensuring that there is proper input from the community…. The government members know that they could provide for that opportunity today by not bringing the matter back tomorrow for further debate but, rather, giving it some time so that members of the community can analyze the information, absorb the information and reflect their views back to government — allowing for that time. The House is going to be sitting. The 12th is not too far away. The government members can choose to do that.

[1410]

           I would urge the government members to rethink their commitment to openness and accountability to British Columbians, to ensure that they have an opportunity to respond and so that members of the community can express their views to the government with respect to these matters instead of rushing through and

[ Page 868 ]

going in, calling the House back for tomorrow and continuing on throughout the weekend.

           Mr. Speaker, I object, and I am speaking against the House being called back tomorrow. I think it's unnecessary. I think matters could be dealt with on February 12, when the House is being resumed. I think the government could save taxpayers a lot of money over the course of the weekend.

           The government can utilize that money toward hot lunch programs, services that they have just cut, audio books that have just been eliminated in the announcement on Black Thursday — any one of those things. You could actually redirect those dollars in a more valuable way that would benefit British Columbians.

           I rise to speak against the motion. I would urge the government to rethink their time line and have the matters that have been introduced in the House today be debated on February 12.

           J. MacPhail: Speaking to the advisability of the House coming back tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I think now is the time for a great deal of calm and a thoughtful approach to what's happening in our province. Much of this legislation is going to come as a surprise to British Columbians, and communities are going to react in unique ways throughout the province.

           I can't imagine what the necessity is for a government that ran on openness and accountability and consultation to want to ram such legislation through without thoughtful debate and consultation. I don't know whether this is true; I only heard the Premier's voice clip saying that he was going to allow a free vote. The first opportunity that this entire chamber had to have a thoughtful vote, and they voted en masse.

           I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that it's because these Liberal MLAs don't know what is in the legislation. It does seem to be a bit contradictory — and I'm sure many MLAs will have to answer for it — that all of a sudden, on the one hand, the Premier is saying there's going to be a free vote, and we're all supposed to go: "Oh, hallelujah!"

           If they are saying they know all the content of it, then where the heck is the free vote? Or else what every single one of these Liberal backbench MLAs is saying is: "Aye, aye, Captain. I agree with the destruction of my community based on this legislation." They can't have it both ways. They can't say: "We're proceeding with the debate, and we're going to have a free vote."

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

           Please continue.

           J. MacPhail: If, indeed, these Liberal backbench MLAs are going to give a considered vote and have a free vote, then they need to go to their communities and find out what their communities feel about this legislation, because this legislation has never been discussed before. I urge every single one of these Liberal backbench MLAs to stand up, take their Premier at his word and have a free vote. We assume that first reading wasn't a free vote, because they all stood up en masse like good little ugly ducklings.

           Interjections.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "ugly."

           They've all voted in favour of this legislation, so I can only assume that they, too, don't know what is in it.

[1415]

           It's time to take a break, time for every MLA to go back to their community and find out what's going on and what this legislation means. Everything my colleague has said about the technicalities, the logistics, the expense and the grandstanding of the Premier applies, but now it's time, really, to get back into our communities and have an honest debate. Have an honest debate with your constituents this time. Tell them the truth about what this legislation means. Have at it. Meet with your constituents, and then come back after you've had time. Meet with your constituents, come back in here, and let's have a real, honest-to-goodness debate, where the Liberal back bench don't have to just be good little soldiers, and they can actually have a free vote.

           Hon. G. Collins: I just want to let the member know that members of this House on our side have been in our communities talking to the people of this province for the last ten years, and we heard loud and clear. I know that MLAs continue to be back in their communities listening to what the people that voted for them and voted against them and talked to them have to say. The job we have all been challenged with, the job we were elected to implement, the job we were all elected to move forward on, is to get British Columbia back on track, manage the dollars appropriately and deliver care to students and patients in the community.

           I won't take a lot of time here today. I do notice that if the members want…. I know the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said she thought that there was a problem with the cost of having the House sit over the weekend. We're glad to sit for the rest of the day and complete the legislation if she wants that to happen. She can move that motion or ask for leave if she'd like that to happen. That'll avoid the cost. I don't believe she'll do that.

           It was a little hard to hear the members opposite talk about openness. It was a little hard to hear them talk about openness, and I'll tell you why. I'll give you a couple of examples of why.

           The issues we're dealing with here today, the challenge we're dealing with today, the problems that have been created for the people of this province who need health care and need to get social services and need to get educated in their classrooms, are something we're all dealing with. Those issues that we're grappling with here today are the issues which, when they couldn't be negotiated at the bargaining table over the last number of years…. When the union leaders didn't get what they wanted at the bargaining table, they dialled the Premier's office.

[ Page 869 ]

           In fact, very little real bargaining went on this province for the last decade. What happened was that if the leaders, particularly in the public sector, didn't like what they got, what they did was to phone the Premier's office. They cleared the Premier's schedule. They would open it up. "Come on over to Victoria." Then they'd sit down in the Premier's office, and they'd do a deal, a side deal, an accord, outside of the free collective bargaining process. They'd make those arrangements outside the collective agreement. If that is….

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Hon. G. Collins: Then what they did, just prior to the last election, was to take those side agreements, those accords that were negotiated behind closed doors in the Premier's office, and insert them into the collective agreements — right before the election. Is that open? Is that honest? Is that transparent? No, Mr. Speaker.

           In fact, the previous Premier, Mr. Dosanjh, when he became the leader after taking over from Glen Clark, was astounded to find out what was in these accords and these agreements. I recall him standing up in the House and tabling the billions and billions of dollars that had been added to the cost of these programs during the context of Mr. Clark's mandate.

           It's a little hard for the members opposite to talk about openness. This government is fixing that problem, and we're not doing it in the Premier's office. We're coming into the Legislature, we're putting it in the open, and we will be accountable for what's in the legislation.

[1420]

           It is important to deal with this, this weekend. Let me tell the members opposite why. I don't know if they've been paying attention or not, but there has been a labour dispute in the education sector for ten months. It started when the members opposite were in government. It has continued through this process. The teachers didn't want to bargain for the months of July and August. I don't know why. We were all working July and August. But they chose not to bargain in July and August, and that was fine. So it's a little hard to take when we hear that the employer hasn't been negotiating, when there were two months in the summer that they could have been negotiating but they weren't.

           Now we come to the point where the teachers have made it very clear they intend to escalate their demands for a significant wage increase above and beyond what anybody else in the private sector has received. I know the minister will deal with that later.

           What we have here before us today is the need to solve this dispute, to get a settlement before Monday. We know that the teachers are saying they are going to walk off the job on Monday. This issue needs to be dealt with by Monday, in the interests of the students, not the teachers. That's why.

           As a last-minute reality check — beyond hope as much as it is, beyond hope that it will register — I want to recall the memories of the two members opposite, who talk about governments bringing stuff into the House and putting it through before anybody has had a chance to look at it. If I remember correctly, in 1996 the previous government introduced a budget and called an election within days — a budget, it turned out, that wasn't exactly what it seemed to be.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The Government House Leader has the floor.

           Hon. G. Collins: Then on the Friday before the election, Premier Clark came into the House, legislated a settlement to the last teachers strike and called an election on the Monday. How much time…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please.

           Hon. G. Collins: …was there for the members of the NDP to go back to their communities and discuss that legislation before it went through the House?

           The government has to get this dispute settled by Monday. It's what the students want; it's what parents want. That's what needs to be done. The government is going to proceed with that.

           Mr. Speaker: The question, hon. members, is adjournment of the House till 11 a.m. tomorrow.

[1425]

           Motion approved on the following division:

           The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2001: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175