1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th 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)

MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 3

[ Page 11443 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: From my riding today are visitors Lawrence Greef, Susan Palmer, Caroline Hilland Wallace and Murray Helmer. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Edwards: It is a great pleasure today to introduce His Excellency Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, the Ambassador of Brazil to Canada, and his wife, Mrs. Maria de Lourdes Duarte, accompanied by Mr. Lucio Pires de Amorim. These people were here in Victoria today visiting a number of ministers and the Lieutenant-Governor. I certainly would ask you all to give them a very warm welcome to the legislative chamber.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to introduce two visitors from Halifax who are with us here today: Elsie Riley and Marie Riley. Marie lived in Burnaby for a few years, but I think their visit to the coast will hold special memories. Marie received her doctorate degree at Simon Fraser University. I'd ask the House to welcome them both and to wish Mrs. Riley a very happy birthday.

B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I am honoured today to introduce three people from the great riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale: Councillor Barbara Sharp, firefighter Brian Pollitt and exchange student Katell LeJouan. Would the House join me in welcoming these individuals.

J. Weisgerber: It's my pleasure today to welcome nine teachers from the great Peace River region to the Legislative Assembly. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you can probably gather they haven't travelled that far to congratulate the government on the legislation it's bringing in today, but I am sure that they would like me to welcome them here today. Please join me in welcoming Brian White, Margaret Little, Matt Treit, Stu Sevard, Linda Burkholder, Jim Oliver, George Knight, Yvette Taylor and Ken Tontsch.

Hon. E. Cull: I too would like to extend a welcome to some teachers in the galleries today. The president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Ray Worley, and the incoming president, Alice McQuaid, are here along with other members of their executive. I've just had a brief meeting with them, and I know they're here to hear the debate on Bill 52.

V. Anderson: It seems important today that we recognize an event that happened 150 years ago, when George Williams and 11 other young men started the YMCA, which is now in 100 countries around the world and in many of our communities. That is something we should recognize and remember today.

Hon. D. Miller: I wish to introduce some members of the teaching profession who have travelled from various parts of my constituency, from the Bella Coola Valley and Hagensborg, Charles Endicott and Susan Osmers. I just noticed -- I think my eyes are still good enough to see that far -- Pat Fraser and Les Pritchard from Prince Rupert. I ask the House to welcome them.

E. Conroy: I rise today to welcome to the House an old school chum of mine, Bill Gorkoff, and Mike Rogers, Frank Santesso and Anne Davies from Trail in the heart of the Kootenays. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I ask the House to please make welcome the president of the Richmond Teachers' Association, Mr. Barry Morley.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. E. Cull: I am pleased to introduce Bill 53, which will amend each of the statutory public sector pension plans. The affected acts are the Pension (College) Act, Pension (Municipal) Act, Pension (Public Service) Act and Pension (Teachers) Act. This bill is the culmination of 18 months of dialogue between the government and plan member representatives, in which many pension issues were discussed.

The bill forms the basis for the new partnerships established to manage the diverse range of public sector pension plan issues. First, the bill establishes a governance model in which both government and plan members are actively and jointly involved in the management of each of the public sector pension plans through the establishment of pension boards. Second, the bill establishes a funding policy for each of the public sector pension plans that will ensure that pension plans have a sound financial base, thus providing benefit security for participating plan members.

Third, benefit changes are being made to each plan. These changes will enhance the internal equity of the plan benefit rules as they apply to the various plan member groups, particularly women and those with short service.

The changes are being financed within the constraints imposed by this government. There is no increase in the employer contribution requirements or the unfunded liabilities of the plans, because the changes are being financed by reallocating a portion of the contributions and assets that are currently earmarked for the provision of future indexing to pay for the benefit changes.

I believe that these changes are very progressive and are advances in the way that we manage a very valuable asset on behalf of plan members. With that, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 53 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.

Ministerial Statement

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Hon. E. Cull: Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day, the day the Allies landed on the beaches at Normandy with the goal of liberating Europe. As a consequence of D-Day and the ensuing battles, Canadians from all walks of life have been able to enjoy a heritage of freedom. If we are to continue to be worthy of this heritage, it is our duty to remember those who gave their lives. It is important to remember their courage, their dedication and

[ Page 11444 ]

their devotion to freedom. We too must embrace these same qualities to ensure that their battles were not fought in vain. We must remember this day not only as an expression of thanks to those who made sacrifices but to ensure that history does not repeat itself. War is not an event to be glorified. There should be no pride taken in the loss of life. But we must remember the past in order to protect the future. We are eternally grateful to those who died in order to show us that we must strive to find other ways to resolve conflict.

[2:15]

It is of great importance that all British Columbians, and indeed all Canadians, remember this occasion and be thankful for the legacy of those who made sacrifices both here and overseas. As a tribute to them, after the opposition parties have had their opportunity to reply, I would ask all to rise for a minute of silence.

G. Campbell: It's indeed an important and historic day for all of us to remember. It is important for us to remember the D-Day events because it was a time when an entire generation sacrificed themselves and put their principles to the test so they could free a continent -- the continent of Europe. They liberated them so they could pursue their lives and their own choices as they saw fit, without being under the yoke of a dictatorship and governments that hold individual citizens down.

I believe that we all live better lives because of the sacrifice of those men and women during the assault on D-Day. I believe that we should all celebrate the sacrifice they made, and we should learn the lesson of D-Day. The lesson of D-Day is that one generation always has a legacy that they can leave to the next. All of the D-Day veterans today would tell us that they look for the same kind of leadership from this generation, so that we can provide succeeding generations with the kind of world that has freedom and that allows individuals to pursue their own goals and dreams.

On behalf of the official opposition, I join with the Deputy Premier in calling for a minute of silence to commemorate the incredible deeds of those individuals who gave us the world that we live in and the freedoms that we enjoy.

J. Weisgerber: As we rise and recognize the tremendous contribution and sacrifice -- the sacrifice of life and of youth -- that was made on D-Day, I think it's an appropriate time for us to recognize the contribution by all Canadians not only on D-Day but in various conflicts around this world, that have made Canada a better place to live and have given us the freedom and the opportunity to be here today in what is, I believe, the best province and the best country in the world. It is the sacrifices of Canadians that have, at least in part, made this possible for us.

Those at D-Day faced a particularly trying time, but the entire conflict was a difficult one for Canadians, and indeed other conflicts were also ones where Canadians sacrificed themselves.

I'm delighted to join with all members of the House in paying tribute to the people who were there on D-Day and to all British Columbians and Canadians who have served their country with such dedication and such sacrifice.

The Speaker: Would all members please rise.

Please be seated.

Oral Questions

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Last week the Minister of Energy justified her decision to overturn the Motor Carrier Commission's decision on Kimber Cabs, saying: "The facts I saw were supportive of the decision I made." My question to the minister is: what were the specific facts that you saw in one and a half hours behind closed doors that were not seen by the Motor Carrier Commission in three days of public hearings?

Hon. E. Cull: I think that we should deal with the fundamental hypocrisy of the questions that have been coming from the opposition. Last week this opposition said that the Motor Carrier Commission was more fit to decide, that appeals were an interference and that Motor Carrier Commission decisions -- and I assume that means all of them -- must stand. But that is absolute hypocrisy when you look at the letter written by the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Delta South, who was an interim leader. He said that even if it is true that there are far too many taxis in the lower mainland, this decision should be overturned. This opposition wanted to avail itself of the...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. E. Cull: ...ability to appeal a decision by the Motor Carrier Commission when it suited them. Last week they were saying that shouldn't be the case anymore. Which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I can only assume from that answer that the Minister of Energy didn't gain any facts at the meeting behind closed doors.

The letter that has been referred to has been put in my hands. I think it's important to note that what this letter says, in fact, is that an MLA was advocating that a constituency appeal be given consideration. That is hardly the same thing as overturning an appeal on behalf of some fundraisers who are close inside friends.

My question to the Minister of Energy is: what were the specific facts that you learned in one and a half hours of closed-door meetings that were not learned by the Motor Carrier Commission in three days of public open meetings?

Hon. E. Cull: Let's set the record right. This letter is signed by the member for Delta South in his former capacity as the Leader of the Official Opposition. What that member cites in the letter are over 400 letters of support for this innovative company. What he's talking about in this letter is community support for a different kind of service. That's exactly what the minister who heard the appeal earlier this year said when she responded. There were community letters, there were...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

[ Page 11445 ]

Hon. E. Cull: ...letters from the City of Richmond. There was community support for this. The situation was one of making a decision in the best interests of the disabled community in that part of Vancouver.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I'm amazed by this performance of the government. We had the Premier telling us last week that cabinet had nothing to do with these decisions -- nothing to do with it. The minister responsible, over there, refuses to stand up and tell us what facts she dealt with before she made the decision. The fact of the matter is that behind closed doors, in one and a half hours, there were no facts...

The Speaker: The question.

G. Campbell: ...except that there may have been an NDP friend and fundraiser, who is the appellant. What were the facts? We would like to know, from the minister responsible for overturning that Motor Carrier Commission appeal, what the facts were that you dealt with, in one and a half hours and behind closed doors, that were not available to the Motor Carrier Commission in three days of public meetings.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. E. Cull: Last week in this House the minister who heard the appeal gave a complete ministerial statement outlining all of the facts of the case, all of the things she heard. She made a decision based on the interests of expanded community services over the interests of a monopoly cab company. The minister made a fair decision, one that was in the guidelines that govern these appeals, and we stand behind that decision.

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission. So far we have not heard whether there was any involvement of the minister's office in this cab-caper affair. Can the minister tell us when she became aware that her Premier was attempting to overturn the decision of his Energy minister?

Hon. J. Pement: I'll let the member know, quite upfront, that as minister responsible for MCC, the Motor Carrier Commission, I do not become involved in the application or appeal processes.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: But that wasn't my question. My question, really, was what her knowledge was of the Premier's involvement in this situation. This situation would never have come up if the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act had been fully enacted from the start. The Premier said that the Motor Carrier Commission provisions were delayed because the Minister of Transportation wanted to revamp the whole process. Can the minister explain to us what her proposed changes to the act were?

Hon. J. Pement: As the member is well aware, I cannot speak of potential legislation.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: I assume that she hasn't yet been told what these proposed changes were. Has the minister had contact at any time with Paul Gill or other Kimber Cabs representatives? Did she make the Premier and the cabinet aware of this ticking time bomb?

Hon. J. Pement: Just for the member's information, I do not deal with Motor Carrier Commission applications or appeals.

PACE OF CLOSER TO HOME INITIATIVE

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Health. Last week the UBCM expressed concerns about the government's New Directions strategy. Indeed, our party passed a resolution two weekends ago, voicing our concern at the pace at which the New Directions strategy is proceeding. Will this government now admit that its Closer to Home initiative is moving too quickly for the good of British Columbians? If so, what steps has the minister taken to slow it down?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased that the UBCM has been a party to the design and implementation of New Directions, and the regionalization initiative that is part of that, from the beginning. I expect that they will continue to advise us as we move forward to empower the communities and regions of this province to make decisions about the design of their own health care system and about administrative responsibilities for delivering health care to their citizens.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: It's obvious that the minister hasn't yet read the May 30 letter from the UBCM, in which it points out very correctly that in fact the Closer to Home initiative, as it's presently being implemented, is a failure. Will the minister not recognize that there is a need to properly plan and develop regional boards in order to meet its objectives? Why doesn't he slow down the process and implement pilot projects so that we can develop a model which will work and is acceptable?

Hon. P. Ramsey: When the previous minister announced the New Directions initiative back in February 1993, communities around this province began the task of forming groups to plan for their own community health councils and regional health boards. That process is now well over a year old. We have set a firm deadline, saying that we expect regional boards to be in place on an interim basis by October of this year, and authority for administering health facilities will be phased in as those regional boards are ready to assume that responsibility. Designation of community health councils and their operation will be completed by April 1995. That, hon. member, is nearly four years...

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. P. Ramsey: ...after the royal commission recommended establishing these councils and boards and nearly two years after they were announced.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Final supplemental, hon. member.

[ Page 11446 ]

L. Fox: The minister is determined to bull ahead, knowing that the regional health boards will take the fall for his health cuts next year. He doesn't want to do the dirty work of slashing the hospital budgets, so he's telling hospitals to run deficits that will mean huge cuts next year in rural hospitals.

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

L. Fox: If the minister doesn't want to cut rural hospital services....

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

L. Fox: Why doesn't he at least have the courage to do it himself?

[2:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I am somewhat amazed that this member from a rural community does not see the opportunity to empower community people to design and deliver health services in their own communities and their own regions. For my part, hon. Speaker, I see the fragmented system that we have now as a disaster for health delivery in the remote and rural regions of this province, and New Directions will help change that.

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

M. de Jong: Last week we heard the Premier explain that the legal investigation he ordered into this MCC matter was justified because he was "curious" about the role of cabinet in the decision-making process. We've already heard from the Employment minister that these decisions are routinely overturned. My question to the Minister of Energy, quite frankly, is: when did she become aware that the decision she had rendered on appeal was being reviewed by outside legal counsel?

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. A. Edwards: I've answered the question a number of times. I...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. A. Edwards: ...probably became aware weeks ago, certainly not at the time.... The opinion had been given to the Premier, and the Premier had had it. I learned later.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: To the Minister of Energy. At the same time she was advised a decision had been taken to review her decision on appeal, I presume that she was advised why outside counsel had been hired to review her decision. Can she indicate to this House when and why she was told her decision was being reviewed?

Hon. A. Edwards: There was no review of my decision. There has been no review of my decision, and I still know of none. There was an opinion about process, but there was no review of my decision.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: Now that the hon. minister is up and feeling more comfortable in discussing the issue, maybe she can answer the original question. What facts were before her in one and a half hours of submissions that weren't before the Motor Carrier Commission in three days of hearings? On what basis was her decision to overrule that MCC decision taken?

Hon. A. Edwards: They were basically the same, hon. Speaker.

PROVINCEWIDE BARGAINING FOR TEACHERS

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for provincewide bargaining for teachers. Can the minister tell us if she has been following the three-week strike in Newfoundland to see what a disaster provincewide bargaining has been with respect to teacher bargaining in that province?

The Speaker: Is that a bill before the House, hon. member? Do you have a different way of phrasing your question to have it in order?

G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the bill that is before the House, my question has to do with the government's commitment to fair collective bargaining. Can the minister tell us whether, under PSEC, this government is still committed to fair collective bargaining at a local level?

Hon. E. Cull: That's exactly what this bill is all about: protecting the rights to fair collective bargaining for all teachers. With respect to the question that you raise about Newfoundland, you should have a look at exactly what's going on in that province. They are looking at 5 percent cuts -- rollbacks in pay. That's what that's all about there; it's not about free collective bargaining. It's about legislation that imposes a contract on them -- not what we're looking at here, which is legislation that protects the right to free collective bargaining.

G. Wilson: A final supplementary to the minister. Could the minister tell us, then, why her government has gone back on its word, provided in the last election to the B.C. Teachers' Federation when they put this question: "Will your government retain locally based collective bargaining for teachers on all issues?" The New Democratic Party official position was yes. Can the minister tell us why she has gone back on the word given in the last election?

Hon. E. Cull: We're going to have an awful lot of opportunity to talk about this when we get into second reading debate on this particular bill. But let me give the answer very simply and in very few words: it's because this government stands up for the rights of students, and that's the most important part of what this legislation's all about.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

SENIORS' WEEK

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to report that the week of June 6 through 12 has been

[ Page 11447 ]

proclaimed as Seniors' Week in British Columbia. I'd like to read the proclamation:

"WHEREAS seniors are a diverse group, with different lifestyles, talents, aspirations, needs, and resources, and

"WHEREAS every citizen of British Columbia, regardless of age, has a right to live with dignity, safety, and security, and

"WHEREAS the Government of British Columbia is committed to ensuring that seniors' voices are heard, that seniors' diversity is understood, and that seniors are full partners in shaping the future of this province, and

"WHEREAS Seniors' Week is dedicated to recognizing these principles of equity and diversity, and

"WHEREAS our Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, has been pleased to direct by Order in Council on that behalf that a Proclamation be issued designating June 6 to 12, inclusive as 'Seniors' Week' in British Columbia...."

As Minister Responsible for Seniors, I am committed to ensuring that British Columbia seniors have access to the best possible quality of life and that they are supported in their efforts to remain active and independent. It is government's responsibility to provide practical support to seniors in need, but it is perhaps even more important that government lead the way in helping to change attitudes about aging and the elderly.

Ageism -- discrimination based on age -- is a problem at the very heart of many seniors' issues. As a society, we have tended to ignore, categorize or marginalize our older people. Ageism is rooted in misconceptions and stereotyped perceptions of seniors. We must remember that seniors are a diverse group, as different from each other as they are from people of other ages. We must resist the tendency to define this heterogenous group according to any one characteristic, whether that be activity, illness or appearance. The only identifiable characteristic of the group we call seniors is its diversity.

We must all learn more about what it means to grow old, we must deepen our understanding of that aging experience, and we must work together to correct our prejudices against and misconceptions about seniors.

This government is committed to seeking the advice of seniors, to helping to change attitudes about seniors by ensuring that their voices are heard and their diversity is understood, and to making seniors full partners in shaping British Columbia.

L. Reid: I will say that talk is cheap for this minister. Standing up and proclaiming Seniors' Week again is not addressing the issues that are pertinent to seniors today. This is the same minister who stood up and talked about Pharmacare changes that directly impact the health and economies of seniors. This is the same minister who is talking about New Directions making some kind of difference in care and levels of support. It's not appropriate -- a weak response from the government benches.

There is an issue today.... Seniors in this province fear for their health and for their safety in their communities. Proclaiming Seniors' Week will not help unless this minister is prepared to follow that paper up with some concrete action. We do not see that today, we have not seen that under New Directions, and we do not see that in terms of the comments he just made. There are some significant issues that need to be addressed, not the least of which is the cost to seniors for Pharmacare, and not the least of which is the volunteering time that they must feel is questionable now, based on New Directions.

Whether or not this government values seniors is the issue for today. I wait for this minister to indicate whether or not the talk is going to be followed up by concrete action that seniors can believe in.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

L. Fox: As tempting as it is to come out as the opposition critic did and suggest that talk is cheap, and so on, let me just say that I want to congratulate the minister on recognizing this as Seniors' Week. Our seniors had a vision, and if it hadn't been for the contribution, dedication and commitment of many of our seniors, British Columbia would not be where it is today. We have a lot to be thankful for with respect to the contribution of our senior citizens. It's only right that we should have a week set aside that helps us focus on the contribution they have made to society.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Unlike the Minister of Employment and Investment.... I'm not a senior citizen just because I don't have a lot of hair.

Once again we congratulate the government on setting aside this week as Seniors' Week, and we look forward to more positive action by this government regarding the needs of seniors in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimates. In the main House, I call second reading stage of Bill 52.

PUBLIC EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Hon. E. Cull: I rise to speak to second reading of Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act. As the minister responsible for the Public Sector Employers' Council and the act, I will be giving the second reading speech on this.

On March 10, 1994, I announced our government's intention to legislate this restructuring of collective bargaining for school boards and teachers in the province, and Bill 52 is the expression of that intention. We decided to make the change because we believe it's in the public interest to do so. We came to the conclusion that the existing system of local-by-local teacher collective bargaining had failed. We sought to create a more balanced bargaining structure that will help alleviate the district-by-district disruptions to the classroom.

Bill 52 embodies a number of principles important to this government, and I want to take a few minutes to talk about each of them. First, it reflects the commitment to protect the public interest and, in this case particularly, the welfare of students. There have been three rounds of teacher collective bargaining since teachers were given the same rights as other employees in 1987. This bargaining on a school-district-by-school-district basis has resulted far too often in labour disputes, and in each round the intensity of these disputes has grown.

In addition, the very system of local-by-local bargaining has created a whipsawing between school boards and teachers. Under this system, demands achieved in one district are pressed upon employers in another district, and in some cases to the point of dispute. This factor has contributed to the number of disputes that have occurred under the current local bargaining system.

The system that was introduced by the former government did not have the balance of authority and power

[ Page 11448 ]

between the union side and the employer side that is necessary to ensure that any system of collective bargaining works. The frequency of the disputes has in many cases created an acrimonious relationship between the school boards and the teachers, particularly between trustees and the teachers who have been involved in bargaining, and I believe this has jeopardized the day-to-day working relationships that are necessary for successful school districts.

Under the new system there will be a greater balance between the employer side and the union side, and it's our belief that this will make collective bargaining more effective and that it will help to avoid the bitter relations at the local level that have become in many cases an obstacle to quality education in districts.

[2:45]

In the discussions we've had with various groups since the March 10 announcement, the employers have rejected third-party intervention as an alternative to the right to strike, a perspective that I would note they share with the teachers represented by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Bill 52 permits the use of strikes and lockouts in the bargaining process, but these disputes can only occur after a province-wide strike or lockout vote.

Bill 52 recognizes that there are local as well as provincial issues. This legislation allows the parties, through collective bargaining -- the schools boards represented through the employers' association, and teachers represented through their provincial organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation -- to sit down and negotiate what matters are provincial and what matters are local. In making the decisions, the parties must be guided by the principle contained in the bill that major cost items are provincial matters.

But this system allows the boards and the teachers to make a rational allocation between the issues that are common to all boards and those that are unique to a particular community.

Bill 52 respects the decision-making of elected trustees. The employers' association established under the Public Sector Employers Act will be the accredited bargaining representative for the trustees under this act. The majority of members of the employers' association on the interim board that is in place right now, and on the permanent board that will soon be in place, are school trustees elected by local electors. In addition, the system of two-tiered bargaining ensures that trustees elected by the community will continue to make important decisions about education in their own communities.

Trustees have consistently told government that they have spent so much time focusing on bargaining that they haven't been able to devote themselves to educational issues, which is the reason that most trustees run for elected office in the first place.

Bill 52 also recognizes the B.C. Teachers' Federation as the provincial union representing teachers. Most school districts have successfully bargained that all teachers have to be members of both the local teachers' association and the BCTF as a condition of employment, so the BCTF is initially recognized as the provincial union to represent teachers in collective bargaining.

We believe the legislation provides for greater cost-effectiveness, and we think this can be achieved in three ways. First, the new system will be a more cost-effective system of bargaining. The major economic issues of bargaining will now be at one table. Local bargaining continues, of course, but with a smaller agenda. Where local parties are unable to reach an appropriate agreement, the conclusion of local bargaining is then made at the provincial table.

When Judi Korbin looked at the public sector, she estimated in her report that the cost of the existing system of bargaining is approximately $9 million for each round of bargaining. There will be cost savings associated with this new bargaining structure. Yes, there will also be costs, but we believe that the cost savings will exceed the cost of the new system.

Second, under the new system there will be a common language on major issues and improved coordination by employers on those common issues. This too will result in cost savings in the long run.

Third, the system will provide for a more uniform result and better fiscal management of provincial education expenditures. Over the last seven years labour costs as a percentage of total school district operating expenditures have risen faster than the increase in school district operating budgets. B.C. has seen one of the highest rates of increase in education funding of any province in Canada. This result is, in part, a reflection of the bargaining system. Under Bill 52, the parties at the provincial table -- teachers and school boards -- can be expected to understand the provincewide fiscal implications of their decisions for students in British Columbia.

Finally, the bill respects the negotiated agreements in the transition from the old system to the new system. With any major change -- and Bill 52 is certainly a major change in the education bargaining system -- there is the need for a transition. In accomplishing these changes, Bill 52 respects the agreements that parties have entered into. Changes to existing agreements will occur through freely negotiated provincial or local arrangements, not through legislative intervention.

This means that both teachers and school boards are going to have live with the provisions that they have negotiated at the local level -- those they like, and those they don't like. The opportunity to make changes to them is through collective bargaining.

During the course of preparing this legislation, since the announcement on March 10, the PSEC secretariat has met formally and informally with many interested parties in the public education system, including the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the new B.C. Public Schools Employers' Association, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the B.C. School Trustees' Association, the Council of B.C. School Districts, the B.C. School Superintendents' Association, the B.C. School District Secretary-Treasurers' Association and the B.C. Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association.

As much as possible, we have tried to incorporate in the legislation the ideas and concerns brought forward by these bodies.

This legislation reflects not only the government's commitment to the public interest and to protect the rights of employees to free collective bargaining, but also a pragmatic balance of competing views and interests. Bill 52 strikes a fair balance between the interests of teachers and school boards, with a clear view to protecting the interests of students.

With that, I move second reading.

[ Page 11449 ]

A. Hagen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf I would like the members to welcome grade 6 students from Bayview School in Burlington, Washington. They are visiting our session with their teacher, Mr. R.I. Adeline.

G. Farrell-Collins: I rise today to add the comments of the opposition. I know other members of the caucus intend to speak to Bill 52, which will extend bargaining rights at the provincial level; or rather, change the bargaining rights that have been in existence on some issues to a provincial style or a provincewide type of bargaining.

Before the minister rose to speak on this in response to a question in question period, and once her presentation began, we heard about how her government stands up for students in the province. About a year ago, this government was doing anything but standing up for students in British Columbia. In fact, they were sitting down and not moving, and being as intransigent as possible with respect to standing up for students in British Columbia. We had one of the worst labour disruptions in the history of the K-to-12 education system that this province has ever seen.

Two million instruction hours were lost last year because of this government's inaction, and because of their lack of leadership and misguided leadership.

In the last election this government promised everything to everybody. The former Minister of Finance said that balancing the budget would be the easiest thing he could possibly imagine doing. And they promised all sorts of money for just about every school district that you can imagine. The first thing they did after becoming government was to settle the nurses' dispute for 7 percent.

In many cases it was the teachers who helped elect this government, because of the promises they were given before the election -- promises that they hoped would improve the education system in the province; promises that would put an end to portables in British Columbia; and promises that would increase the salaries and benefits and reduce the class sizes for teachers in the province. When it came time for the teachers to turn to the government for the fulfilment of the promises that were made to them before the election, there was nothing there.

Whether intentionally or not, the government had broken promises that they had made to the educators, parents and students of British Columbia. So how do you expect to make millions and millions of dollars' worth of promises and then expect to have no reaction when you don't follow through with them?

The real reason this bill is before us today and the real reason that we had Bill 31 last year, which legislated teachers back to work, is not what went on with the teachers but what went on with this government and the promises they made that they had no intention of fulfilling. When a minister stands up and says that her government speaks on behalf of the best interests of students in British Columbia, we know that to be false. We know that that's not what this government really stands for.

Rather than stand up for the students of British Columbia, this government has finally run straight into the brick wall of fiscal reality. It realizes that the public is demanding that they try to do something with their budget deficit, with their spending, and that they hold taxes to a line. Because of that reality, the government -- and, I imagine, all members of the NDP caucus -- now realize that those promises, each and every one of them, were beyond the ability of the government to fulfil. Now they have to answer for it.

Instead of standing up and apologizing, saying, "We blew it, we made a mistake; we shouldn't have promised all of the things we did before the last election," instead of being honest and upfront about it, we saw what happened last year.

The government dragged its feet and tried to convince the opposition, as the labour disputes in the K-to-12 education system around this province continued day after day, week after week, month after month, that the collective bargaining system was working in education and that -- I can't remember the number -- 57 out of so many collective agreements had been reached without any disruption. They went on and on at great length in the House, in the media and in the corridors of this chamber, telling everybody what a wonderful collective agreement process they had put in place.

Today we have the Minister of Finance, acting on behalf of the Minister of Education -- whom I don't even see in the House today -- standing up and saying that that collective bargaining process wasn't working; it was a sham; it was unbalanced. Who are we to believe? Are we to believe the Minister of Labour last year, who said that it was a great system, or are we to believe the Minister of Finance now, who says that it's a terrible system? Which minister is the public supposed to believe? Which minister is telling the truth?

I would say that this government has not stood up for the students but has finally come to the reality that they can't deliver on any more of the promises that they said they would, and they're having to deal with it.

We need to look at some things with this bill. Is this bill going to address the problems we saw last year? Is it going to go any distance at all along the way to ensuring that the type of disruption we had last year won't happen again? I hope it does. I hope some of the changes being made to the collective bargaining process are going to have some sort of impact. But I'm not convinced, because I think the government has done a halfway job on it.

We now have some items -- we're not sure which; those that sort of deal with finance, and those that sort of have cost implications -- that are going to be dealt with at the provincial level, and the ones that normally would have an impact at the local level are going to be done at the local level. Maybe that will work; maybe it won't. We'll give it a try and see what happens.

[3:00]

At the end of the day, when this bill becomes law -- either in its present state or with amendments -- I hope we're going to have a system that's a little better than the one we had last year. Are we going to be able to achieve some efficiencies and some stability by bringing in provincewide bargaining on some issues? Perhaps we will. Perhaps that will add some financial stability.

I really do believe that this is a trial, an attempt. I don't think the government really knows how this is going to work yet, because there are a whole list of things that are still to be debated and defined at the local level. Indeed, with this act, that process of determining what exists at the local level and what exists at the provincial level is going to take some time, and that in itself is going to take negotiation. We may well end up with a whole series of things being bumped up to the provincial level or bumped down to the local level.

What we're going to be dealing with is still very, very loose and very, very undefined. We need to know, in more concrete terms, which items are going to be provincial issues and which items are going to be local issues. The trustees need to know that, the teachers' associations need to know that, the

[ Page 11450 ]

students need to know that and, indeed, the parents need to know that.

I think we're headed for a very risky period of time and for some very rough water as far as education negotiations in the province are concerned. We have this legislation sort of taking this bold step into a darkened room. They're hoping that they're going to find a door at the other end of it somewhere and that when they open that door there's going to be some sort of semblance of organization and coherence to what this process is going to bring to us.

Right now we have a lot of people concerned about how this is going to work. We have trustees who, one can only assume, were elected for the best of intentions. They want to participate in their community, they are concerned about the education of young people in the province and they want to contribute. We have teachers who got into the field for exactly the same reasons. They're concerned about the education of students, they enjoy being with young people and they enjoy imparting knowledge to them. Everybody's there for the right reasons. But it seems everybody has concerns.

Teachers and trustees over the last three years have negotiated -- sometimes very successfully and very smoothly, sometimes very poorly and very unsuccessfully -- a series of collective agreements that exist right around the province. Those contracts have changed every year we've gone through in that collective bargaining process. They've differed, split off and become unique to their own or another area. Now the result is that we have 75 collective agreements. Big chunks of them are still virtually the same, but huge sections -- a lot of very detailed issues -- have become different, specialized and unique to their own district.

Both trustees and teachers have concerns about how we're going to reconcile that. How are we going to go through this process with 75 districts and try and arrive at some sort of collective agreement that's going to be acceptable to all? In some districts, teachers may well have given up certain provisions as a trade-off for something else they felt was important for them in their district. In other districts, trustees may have acceded to certain demands in the hope of getting concessions in other areas.

Now we're going to mix all that up again and try and start over. I'm not saying that can't be done, but I am saying it's going to be difficult. I am saying we're going to have a very long and protracted series of debates and negotiations take place right around the province...

Hon. E. Cull: What's your position?

G. Farrell-Collins: ...in 75 districts and at one central negotiating table. It's going to be very difficult for them to do it. The Liberal opposition has said a number of times -- and that member who's speaking over there should be aware, because she was part of it at that time -- that for the education system in this province to operate properly, there needs to be some provincewide bargaining on at least some issues -- which is what the government has done, and I wish them luck. As I said earlier, I hope it works. But it's fraught with danger. It's going to be a very difficult transition period.

Once again we are going to see that those people who are really going to suffer, because of the government's half-measures and attempts at trying to do things, are the students. Once again....

F. Garden: What's your position on essential services?

B. Jones: How are you going to vote?

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member sitting over there wants to keep his mouth shut and wait for about two minutes, he'll hear my position and be able to see how we vote. If he wants to wait his time, we'll get to it.

We're going to see once again that the students in British Columbia -- who I really don't even see being mentioned anywhere in this bill -- are the ones who are going to suffer. Because of the rough water and the difficult transition that we're going to see with the implementation of Bill 52, it's the students who are going to suffer yet again.

We have called for and asked for education to be designated an essential service. That doesn't necessarily mean you remove everybody's right to strike; that's not what essential services means. As every member in this House who sat through the debate on Bill 84 knows -- as that member knows -- the implementation of an essential-services designation means much as it does in the health care system: you determine a level of essential services that will continue, for a number of reasons to be negotiated. That may well be a complete designation of all education as an essential service; that may be the final designation. I don't know that. That's one of the extreme options.

The other extreme option is that almost nothing is designated as an essential service. That member knows that. It's the same process that takes place in the health care system. I know we're going to be hearing from some of the independent members, who are going to argue against this -- that it's an infringement of rights. That's fine; they're entitled to make those kinds of statements. But they should realize that the public interest always must come first, as it does in the health care system and the welfare system, and -- I hope -- as it will some day in the education system.

The interests of the students and parents must come first and be paramount over the interests of the trustees and teachers.

There is a way to balance that. There is a way to ensure that grade 11 and 12 students aren't losing their ability to compete and participate competitively in trying to achieve access to post-secondary institutions in this province, around the country and internationally. When they lose six weeks of their schooling in grade 12 or grade 11, that has a direct and measurable impact on their ability to get into post-secondary institutions right around the country and the world. It is a tough fight. Ever more and more, it's becoming harder and harder for students to get into those institutions.

The GPA level is going up and up. All that the members in this House have to do is go and talk to those grade 11 and grade 12 students from last year who went through those disruptions. See what they feel. See if that had any effect on their ability to get into institutions and any effect on the grades they're going to live with for the rest of their education careers. At the very minimum, we have to look at providing some level of essential services for grade 11 and grade 12 students -- and for students in the lower grades.

Whether people want to say or admit it or not, the teachers are the primary caregivers when those students are at school. I'm not saying they should be babysitters. But people have to be aware of the safety of those students in the event of education disruptions -- as members in this House rose in debate and talked about during the debate on Bill 84, on the safety and security of young people in the province. I encourage members in this House to go back and look at the comments they and their colleagues made during the debate on Bill 84, as it relates to education as an essential service.

As they look at this piece of legislation, I encourage them to think of the students and the best interests of the future of this province, both economically and in the education sector, and realize that there are more people at stake here than

[ Page 11451 ]

teachers and trustees. The students, the young people and the future of this province at stake. It's incumbent upon not just the government but members of the opposition to do well by them, to speak for them because they can't be here. They can't vote yet, either. It's up to the members of this House to speak on behalf of the students and the parents, and indeed, on behalf of the teachers and trustees. But always keep in mind the public interest, which is what we were elected to do in this House.

B. Copping: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Copping: On behalf of my colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville I'm very pleased to welcome into the House today several grade 6 students from Vanier Elementary School. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Leonard, and several adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak to this legislation, and I rise to speak in support of the legislation insofar as it moves the province into provincewide bargaining.

I believe it's important for us to recognize that the current system of bargaining simply wasn't working. The process whereby school districts were played off against each other resulted in settlements that were uneven and unequal across the province. It saw school districts whipsawed against each other. School districts that had perhaps less resolve than some others were settled with first, and then those results were used to obtain higher and more expensive settlements in other districts.

Last year alone, we saw at least two school districts -- one of them in Vancouver, one in Campbell River -- with long, protracted strikes. We saw children in certain parts of the province disadvantaged against those in other parts of the province. That wasn't the first time. There was a strike in Fort St. John three or four years ago that seriously disrupted the education of young people there. So I believe the decision to move to provincewide bargaining was obviously the right solution, and I commend the government for having made that decision.

Now, I do believe that the government has only gone halfway. I believe that other problems will result from the legislation as it now exists. Instead of small groups of students having their education disrupted by strikes, I expect what's going to happen is that all of the kids in the province -- perhaps for not as long a period of time -- will be affected by strikes under this legislation. It seems to me that the prudent thing for the government to have done in bringing in this bill would have been to restore -- not to designate, but restore -- education as an essential service, as it was previously in British Columbia.

I don't have any trouble at all defining what essential service means. It means that school teachers would not be allowed to strike. It means that you would simply designate education as an essential service, as police are an essential service, as ambulance operators are an essential service, as I believe education is essential. Surely to goodness, I believe government is essential.

[3:15]

There is an opportunity here to bring in real changes. I think they are changes that are defensible and changes that parents would support. I expect they are changes that teachers, on an individual basis, would support. I don't think teachers want to be on strike. I think teachers, parents and students would all welcome some innovative ways of dealing with the differences that exist on issues around salaries, wages, class size and all of those things. Strikes aren't going to be the solution to this. There has to be a better way, and the government has to have -- and should have -- the courage to find a better way to resolve these problems.

I know that this enormous amount of turmoil exists within government ranks in relation to teachers. They remember 1974 and the fact that teachers were angry with them and, indeed, led to their defeat in 1975. But they made up, and the BCTF supported the government pretty aggressively and actively, particularly in 1983, 1986 and 1991. The BCTF was out in front as a champion for this government.

Now the government, having at least in part repaid the BCTF -- none of us will forget the big retroactive pay increases that this government gave to teachers shortly after the election -- is finding that the BCTF is more interested in representing its members than in its political affiliations with government. Perhaps that's the way it should be.

F. Garden: That's baloney.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Cariboo North says this is baloney, which I guess would mean that their ideological connections to government overweigh their self-interest. The member may well have been privy to conversations that those of us on this side haven't. But I'm going to continue to believe that the BCTF thinks its first responsibility is to teachers -- its members -- and this government is finding that the BCTF is a tough negotiator when it comes down to matters of interest involving its members.

I've got no criticism of the BCTF for that, but I do believe that as the BCTF understands its responsibilities, this government must recognize that its obligation is first of all to students, parents and to all British Columbians -- and not, particularly, to the BCTF, regardless of what favours may have been traded back and forth in those many long years that the NDP were in opposition.

The slate has to be cleaned. The government has to be there to represent British Columbians. If they were to do that, if the government were to fulfil that obligation properly, it would have brought in legislation that both introduced provincewide teacher bargaining and designated education as an essential service in British Columbia. We have a bill that's only halfway there. Only time will tell whether that half-measure improves the situation or causes a wider and larger problem to emerge.

I don't want to see us back here sometime next fall or next year debating another bill to order teachers back to work. The government, to its credit, did it once before. This government, which purports to believe in free collective bargaining, came back, brought in legislation that effectively took away the right of those teachers, at least, to strike. But it did it on a knee-jerk reactive basis. If they were to look at the situation that led them to that painful decision, they would recognize that the fair and appropriate way to do it is to declare education an essential service, take away the right to strike and introduce some appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.

I think it's pretty clear that that is an option the B.C. Reform Party and caucus supports. I'm going to be very keenly interested in listening to members of the government, who have been rather keen to interject, to hear what they believe and how they feel about this legislation. I want to hear these members stand up and support the legislation they've brought in. I know that they're not really comfortable with this. We've got some members on the

[ Page 11452 ]

government side with some experience in these matters. They may well want to stand up and share with us the wisdom they have and tell us how vigorously they support this legislation. If we're going to learn something, it should be for all British Columbians and all members of the Legislature. I would encourage all government members not to hide behind party discipline but to stand up individually in this House and support this legislation verbally. If they do that, we will find out whether or not there is the consensus in the government caucus that many would have us believe does exist.

G. Wilson: What a sad day it is in British Columbia today! We see the introduction of a bill that does three things: it removes individual rights and freedoms of people who have negotiated and developed a sense of collective bargaining freedom in this province; it removes local autonomy from school boards and parents' involvement in the development of programs that are measured to meet the needs of students in those areas; and it provides a greater centralization of authority and power in the hands of this government to direct education in the province.

This is shameful legislation, and every single member of that government knows it. This was an issue in 1991 when the then minister, Mr. Hagen, stood up and said he was going to bring in provincewide bargaining. Let's see what this government had to say when they were opposition. The then Education critic from Burnaby North said: "This announcement today is a continuation of the thoughtless approach this government takes to education." That's what they thought about provincewide bargaining then. What did the minister who now sits as the Minister of Finance and who brings this legislation into the House say then?

"This government is now taking a flip-flop approach to education that will only serve to erode local autonomy for school boards." It was a bad idea when that minister was sitting in opposition, but today that minister spearheads it in the name of students.

Let's see what kinds of promises were made to the people of British Columbia in the last election. A survey was done to put all of the political parties on record -- this government, that opposition and Social Credit, who are now with us in the guise of the Reform Party. The question was simple: will your government retain locally based collective bargaining for teachers on all issues? The New Democratic Party position was one word: yes -- a sound, firm and solid commitment. Guess what. The Liberal Party position was yes.

G. Farrell-Collins: That was your position.

G. Wilson: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove says that was my position. He forgets, but I was....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Indeed, he says I was the Liberal Party, and he should be thankful that I was, because if I wasn't he more than likely wouldn't be sitting in this House today. How fast they forget.

If you look at what the position is.... The member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who sat on education and helped draft this material, might want to look at the Liberal Party position before the last election with respect to the mandate that we took before the electorate -- and which those members opposite took before the electorate on this question.

The mandate of this New Democratic Party, which now sits in government, was to maintain collective bargaining at the local level. They have abandoned that promise and that strategy. When they were in opposition, they said it was bad legislation; now they laud it as being the right thing to do. Goodness knows where the official opposition's got this essential-service legislation. That was never taken before the people of this province. Now that that position has been advanced here under new leadership, we can only say, and thankfully so, that that new leader has no provincewide mandate on that issue or any other issue that that opposition brings forward.

Let me say this. If we are going to have the electorate of this province trust in politicians, then politicians should take a thoughtful position when they stand before them in the election. When they are asked these questions, they should put forward a thoughtful response that they are committed to and prepared to support.

We do not need the kind of finger-to-the-wind politics that says, because we had a difficult time in negotiations in some school districts last year, because we had some protracted strikes last year, therefore we need to abandon the very basic, fundamental principle that individuals have the right at a local level to collectively bargain and to provide at the local level for their individual rights.

We don't need provincewide bargaining, because it is not good for education and it is a complete contravention of the promise that this member and every member over on that side of the House took before the people in the last election.

Let's look at this legislation in principle. What does it say? It says that the government has the right to determine the bargaining agent for a collective bargaining process. The right to determine a bargaining agent lies with the members who are bargaining, not with the government. This is a clear matter of labour; it's a labour bill that's got little or nothing to do with the soundness of education. The right of an individual member of a trade union to choose their bargaining agent is something that's pretty basic in British Columbia.

It's removed here with a stroke of a pen, with virtually no negotiation and with very limited or no consultation. Powers are provided to this minister -- not even the Minister of Education but the Minister of Finance -- with respect to the derogation of duties and the provincial matters that are going to be negotiated by this agency determined by the government.

What else does it do? Let's see. It also suggests that this government is going to direct the collective bargaining with respect to the employer bargaining agent. When this was touted around in 1991, it's curious to see what the position of the BCSTA was. Back in 1991, when this was touted around by the former minister, the BCSTA suggested that province-wide bargaining erodes local autonomy and limits the opportunity for local school boards to determine, with their teachers and parents, the appropriate levels of education to be delivered within their communities.

F. Randall: What's the 1994 position?

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Burnaby-Edmonds ask: "What's the 1994 position?" The BCSTA is an organization that is losing its membership. Why is it losing its membership? Why is it now looking toward this centralized government?

[3:30]

We might look at Bill 14 and see one reason why: with the introduction of Bill 14 this government put arbitrary caps on administration and on special program funding, it removed autonomy from local school boards, it took a position

[ Page 11453 ]

contrary to the legal authority put forward by the BCSTA and it centralized power in the government in the same way that Bill 52 centralizes power into the hands of the government. It removes autonomy currently existing at the local level for parents, teachers and duly elected members. I might remind the member for Burnaby-Edmonds... And I've got many comments here about the need for locally elected school boards and the autonomy they should have with respect to the delivery of education.

What happened? We had a few difficult contracts last year, and instead of this government turning around and asking what is wrong and what is happening in the educational system that we've got this conflict, instead of saying that the real problem lies in the fact that we are trying to finance education through an antiquated, backward, formula funding system that doesn't work and doesn't meet the needs....

We need to introduce four-year-based funding so that there can be long-term financing, long-term planning,appropriate curriculum development and an ability for local school boards to have some vision down the road as to the dollars they'll have so they can adequately budget for delivery of the education the parents, the students and the teachers in a community feel they need. Instead of doing that, they decide they're going to remove individual rights of workers.

This government, that's supposed to be a labour government, is removing the rights of workers to chose their own bargaining agent and is removing the right to freely negotiate contracts at the local level. We've heard a lot about this whipsawing. What utter nonsense! The whipsawing is because the school boards are kept in the dark; they don't have authority and they don't have ability and funding.

Look what's been going on with respect to it. One of the most sophisticated communication networks is set up between school boards and school districts in this province with respect to the provision of information on collective bargaining -- a 24-hour electronic service. It's not as if one school board doesn't know what the next is doing. It isn't as if there isn't some coordination. Of course there is, there always has been, and there's been coordination with respect to contract negotiation with the BCTF. I say that whipsawing notion is rubbish. That's not the reason.

It's not to try and remove work stoppages with the removal of the right to strike, because it doesn't remove the right to strike.

If there is an intransigent position taken by one side or the other in this collective bargaining process, you won't just have Powell River or Fort St. John or even the city of Vancouver out; you'll have the whole province out on strike. That's good news? We won't just have one community that will have to be negotiated back to work in that shameful piece of negotiation that only I voted against, as the one member present in this chamber.... You don't bring down the heavy hand of government like that, with the removal of collective bargaining rights in a free society.

Now we're going to have to negotiate provincewide, and when you have a provincewide strike you can just legislate them all back to work and yield to the position of this newly constituted Liberal opposition and say: "Well, why don't we just make them an essential service and remove their right to strike entirely?" If we believe the Reform.... Let's get rid of the teachers' right to strike -- and why not have the police, and the fire, the ferry and the health workers and...? Hell, while we're at it, why stop with public sector unions? Let's just remove the right to strike entirely. Let's just get rid of it.

We are witnessing a scary trend toward reactionary politics in this province, politics that bash the poor because they happen to be in need. We make all kinds of mileage from bashing the poor, and call them welfare cheats and all kinds of other things because they happen to be in need. Shameful!

We've witnessed now the movement toward this notion of the removal of individual rights of workers, because we have a difficult time with respect to financing and funding education -- instead of finding a solution to the financial problem, removing the financial burden currently put in place and finding a better, more streamlined and progressive way of financing education that it is affordable and accessible and provides flexibility for each community to meet its needs. Well, you're going to remove the right to strike, if you're in the Liberal opposition. Or, in this government, you're going to remove the right to bargain locally.

This legislation is flawed in many other ways. First of all, it says there's going to be a two-tiered bargaining process. That's nonsense as well -- clear nonsense. Why? There's no provision for them to strike locally. And there's no provision for them to settle locally on matters that they can't agree on, save and except to take it back to the provincial table. So how is it two-tiered? It isn't two-tiered. If a school board decides they're going to put their back up, or if this government decides that they're going to, or a future government....

Lord save us from the official opposition ever being government, with their attitude toward the working people of British Columbia. But if they should be, then they'll be able to negotiate with a heavy hand. They'll simply say: "If you can't discuss and agree locally, bring it to the table. We'll tell you what you've got to do." There's no two-tiered system. This removes local autonomy.

I don't stand here to defend just the right of teachers, although that's an important component. I stand here to defend the right of parents, school boards and local communities to determine the kind of education they need for the students who live in those communities. There is no homogeneous British Columbia with homogeneous students who happen to be the same in Vancouver as they are in Fort St. John, Nelson, Prince Rupert, Powell River or Port McNeill. The needs are different. The school districts need different solutions to those different problems.

They need flexibility to make sure those solutions are arrived at, and arrived at adequately, in accordance with the way those communities wish to have their needs met. This takes that away -- forget it.

Parents of British Columbia, if you think this bill is going to do you any favours, think again. It isn't. If you think your new provision for an elected board is going to provide you anything other than a conduit through which this government, through a centralized bargaining process, is going to bargain for people, think again.

B. Jones: Gordo knows best.

G. Wilson: The member for Burnaby North says: "Gordo knows best." That's nonsense.

This government.... I challenge this minister: free your back bench. Free them up. Let's have a free vote in the government on this question. That's progressive; that's good legislation. Let each one of these members vote their conscience. Let them stand up one at a time, in a free vote, and vote in favour of the removal of collective bargaining at the local level and the removal of autonomy of locally elected school boards. Stand up and vote for it individually. Tell your Whip to stay home that day. Let's see where your opposition is. There are members in this government, surely to goodness, who have enough integrity to say: "We didn't

[ Page 11454 ]

run on this, campaign on this, believe in this or take this to the people." So how are we now going to put it into effect?

This is an abrogation of the rights of workers. It is also the removal of local autonomy of school boards. It is also the removal of flexibility of school boards to be able to provide services. For those who would say, "No, no; we're only talking about salaries here," I suggest that they read the bill. It doesn't just remove salaries; the cost provisions that this bill allows to be negotiated on a provincewide basis include salaries and benefits and workload. Anybody who knows anything about the provision of special education programs knows that workload is a key component. And then it says "without limitation."

Time worked and paid leave. Hon. Speaker, let me tell you something. Paid leave and the need to constantly upgrade our teachers is something that we need to look at here. That is all going to be negotiated provincially as well.

It is sad indeed, because some school boards have had a wonderful working relationship with their teachers. They've been able to negotiate effectively and put very good collective bargaining programs and packages in place that meet the needs of communities, students and parents, and teachers. Where is that going to leave us?

Let's also recognize that in order for this to even get off the ground, there has to be agreement on what is going to be included and what is not going to be included.

How on earth are the parties sitting at the table going to be able to trust this government in that negotiation process? Two things were asked for when it became evident.... This member and members of the Alliance party knew of this legislation back in January. It was being drafted in February and March.

Two things were asked for, and they were to make sure that protection was provided for locally bargained contracts, and that those items that had already been bargained in good faith, that had already been agreed to and were in collective agreements that this government holds sacrosanct, would not be opened up and put on the table again. And this government wouldn't commit to it. Remember, this is the government that went back on their word to doctors. Even though when they were in opposition they said that retroactive legislation is abhorrent, that wasn't quite the case when they got into government.

What are we going to have now? We're going to have duly negotiated collective agreements opened up, and all clauses and all matters are going to be before this new provincewide bargaining agent -- all matters. There will be no protection for those that are duly negotiated.

It's interesting that members of this government can find time to smile about this, because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there isn't anything to smile about.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The Minister of Employment and Investment said that he's smiling at me. I see the unity that comes from the members opposite.

Hon. Speaker, let me tell you, this is a serious matter, and I think the members opposite know that. They do know that, because I know some of them personally. I know some of them are people of integrity, who have a conscience and convictions. That's why....

L. Fox: Point to one.

G. Wilson: Many aren't here for this debate today, I'd say to the member for Prince George-Omineca.

That's why I'm challenging this government to free them up. Let's have a free vote, so we can see exactly where each one of these members stands. Not only was the protection of agreements that were already in place asked for, the second thing that was asked of this government was a recognition that there was a mechanism to solve issues at the local level; that wasn't given, either. That's why this notion that it's a two-tiered system is rubbish.

In this session this government introduced Bill 14, a centralized system of capping, of directing funds, with respect to administration of education regarding aboriginal and special education programs -- the heavy hand of this government taking control.

With respect to Bills 22 and 23, we are again seeing a movement to centralized authority and centralized control by this government in order to put in place employment agencies with respect to the community college system, and the removal of academic freedoms at that level of education: centralized, big government, telling us how we're going to run what should be locally developed curriculum boards. This legislation basically removes any local autonomy or authority of local school boards, and they must now bargain provincially; it puts a centralized power base in the hands of this government.

I say to the member for Burnaby North: it is not this member who thinks he knows best, but this government that clearly thinks it knows best for all school boards, teachers, parents and students, and will determine for all British Columbia how education should be delivered.

The members of the Alliance are not strong in numbers, but we will not provide this easy passage through this House. While we may not have large numbers in this House, we are committed to the protection and provision of some fundamental, basic rights of working people in British Columbia. We will reject the notion of big government determining the workers' bargaining agent, and removing local autonomy in their right to organize and their right to strike.

[3:45]

Let me close by saying two things. First of all, it's a pretty trendy thing right now. That's the reason, I would assume, that the Liberal opposition have abandoned their program and policies put before the electorate -- and their mandate put before the people. It was interesting to hear the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove telling everybody that they ought to read what was said. I would suggest that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove better go back and read the Liberal policy that was put before the people of British Columbia when I was leader of the Liberal Party and took that party to opposition.

That's the mandate, notwithstanding what these members may think now. They didn't believe then....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for West Vancouver-Capilano is laughing. Let them laugh.

With respect to imposing referendum systems on boards, it is clear that in the matter of providing local control over local school board budgets....

An Hon. Member: On bargaining.

[ Page 11455 ]

G. Wilson: And on bargaining.

...in all cases the Liberal Party was very clearly in favour.

When you have such a certain question put to you -- will your government retain locally based collective bargaining for teachers on all issues? -- and the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party say yes, that's a pretty firm commitment. It's in campaign literature, which I could show you. It's in campaign speeches, which we have researched and could show you. But my intention is not to further embarrass the individual members elected to this assembly, who are now going to change their opinion and change their minds.

Do you know why the public becomes cynical about politicians? It's because politicians put forward a position, campaign on it, and have the public vote for it. Then when they get into power, they change their mind, they change their opinion, they throw out whatever they said before, and they do whatever they choose based on political whim. In the case of this particular government, only it knows why it has abandoned its promise; only this government and every one of its members know why they are now working against the individual rights of workers in this province, and they'll have to account for that.

With respect to the official opposition, it's fairly clear that they have moved to a far more right-wing agenda. They're now further right than the members of the Reform Party, formerly members of the Social Credit Party, on issues like essential-service legislation. They don't understand that while access to sound and properly funded education is essential for all British Columbians, teachers -- unlike what the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove said -- are not primary caregivers.

Have you ever heard so ludicrous a statement made by an official spokesperson for any party in this legislative chamber as that primary teachers are primary caregivers? No, teachers are dedicated professionals who need and should be treated with respect in order to do the job they are trained to do.

Members of this government should recognize that there is a fundamental right of all individuals in this province, at a local level, to control the educational developments, needs and desires of their people. This is going to cost the people more, not save them money. This is going to be a fundamental removal of individual rights. And it is the first step, in my judgment, toward the removal of school boards entirely. Centralized government with the power to remove the local community's right to control educational delivery in their community -- that's what the hallmark of this government is going to be.

This is shameful legislation. While there may be a popular right-wing sentiment out there saying that essential-service legislation for teachers and the abrogation of individual rights are trendy things to do, everyone in this province who is dedicated to the freedom of individuals and their fundamental right to self-determination should stand up and fight against it.

The movement toward this new right-wing concept of government is a scary proposition. It doesn't just begin and end with teachers, who have been the whipping post of politicians in this province for far too long. If we start with teachers, we might as well move to health care workers, and then we might as well move to any other public sector worker. And as I said before, if we're going to move there, why stop at the public sector? Let's move to the private sector as well. Let all of us throw our individual rights and freedoms in a can and simply look at what's good on the bottom line of a ledger.

Let's rule our lives simply by the dollars; let's not concern ourselves with what is most appropriate for the people who live in our communities.

Hon. Speaker, we will not provide this easy passage through this House. I hope the people of British Columbia will have an opportunity to make sure that they have fully apprised themselves of the facts of this bill.

J. Dalton: I expected I might be following a government member on this bill, but perhaps their endorsement of this bill is not as dramatic as one might expect. It's perhaps the most important bill before the House this session, in a sense. If no one else, I'm hoping that at least we may hear from the Minister of Education later in this debate. But we will have to see. I might comment, as well, that I didn't feel any conviction or tone of commitment from the Minister of Finance when she got on her feet and introduced this bill in second reading. However, my comments will address not only the bill but the mood of the public with regard to public education.

I think I can speak firsthand on this topic. I hope I can, given that I have three children in the public system; given that for many years I have had a personal interest and, of course, now have a political interest in the delivery of public education; and given that as best I can, I have an ongoing dialogue with my own school district in North Vancouver on many educational issues.

Quite frankly, I think that what's built into Bill 52 is not just a knee-jerk reaction, as some might think, to labour relations, funding issues, local autonomy and other things that are, of course, a major concern to all of us as we consider the direction of public education. I think the public is now asking questions that have to be answered, and they don't just fall within this bill.

Although it does say in the bill that there's only one purpose, it lists three individual ones. I might note that perhaps the most significant one, which is really not directly tied to the two-tiered collective bargaining process that this bill introduces, and does not directly deal with the so-called improvement of collective bargaining -- we're hoping that that will prove to be true -- is the third of the listed purposes: "...to promote positive working relationships in the public school system." I'm on my feet to address that issue and come at it from two or three different angles.

The public mood, quite frankly, is not a very happy one these days. Whether it is justified or not, and whether members of other unrecognized parties believe it or not, there is a public mood out there. Just to demonstrate by using clippings from major newspapers of this province, a Vancouver Sun headline today says: "School Teachers, Bureaucrats Had Better Beware." The story talks about the Surrey School District and the reaction to a back-to-basics school. The lead editorial in the Vancouver Sun is headed: "A Lesson for Teachers" -- today's editorial, same topic. Here's an interesting item. It's a headline from today's Province: "Back-to-Basics Bid Hits Burnaby."

This thing is growing by itself. That doesn't necessarily mean that this government or any other has to accede to what is being asked for in individual school districts -- obviously not. This government is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that public education, in its best sense, is best delivered. I am going to make some comments near the end of my remarks about how I don't feel that this government has the management capabilities to carry out this bill.

However, as I get into some detail in my discussion I will say that I personally support -- and the official opposition collectively supports -- the intent of this bill. At least there is one thing: we are prepared to get on our feet

[ Page 11456 ]

and say so. The government is not, and I think that's shameful. I challenge them. They bring forward a major bill in this session, and we're only going to hear from one government member on this bill, the Minister of Finance. It's also ironic that we're not likely to hear from the very minister who should be speaking on this bill, the Minister of Education.

However, let me get into my comments. First, there is a public mood, as I have already alluded to, which is reflected in a recent Angus Reid survey. This is a cross-Canada survey, not just of British Columbia, but certainly it applies to this province. Recent polling by Angus Reid showed that 46 percent of Canadians surveyed felt that today's public system provides a worse education than it did 25 years ago. That's a very disturbing survey.

That survey doesn't mean that the public has abandoned the system or is totally unsettled. It means that the public is saying they are thinking back and comparing the education and labour climate today and the almost endless local negotiations that go on. After all, if you have 75 school districts, a lot of time and money is going to be consumed in local bargaining. Korbin estimated that the cost of local bargaining is $9 million, give or take. I'm not going to argue whether that figure is totally accurate, but I think it's a fairly commonly held figure -- $9 million for 75 districts to bargain locally.

If it's properly implemented -- and I would remind this House that I have no confidence that this government can carry it out in its true effect -- this bill will in part go to address that issue. But that's not the importance of this bill. The importance is reflected in the public mood.

I am going to read some comments into the record from someone who is far more knowledgable than I on this topic, and probably far more knowledgable than anyone in this province. This is an

article written by Dr. Joe Freedman of Red Deer, Alberta. Dr. Joe Freedman -- God bless him -- is a parent who has taken upon himself an initiative of many years to raise $70,000 to produce an excellent 76-minute film, among other things. I have purchased it, and I'd be happy to lend it to any member in this House. I recommend it; it's excellent viewing. The film is entitled "Failing Grades." It's a sad commentary when it has to be titled accordingly. Through discussions and surveys, Dr.

Freedman and other people interviewed in that film demonstrate -- and it is not just one person's opinion; it's many people's opinions -- and set out in great detail the public mood and the public concerns. Now, let's hear from Dr. Joe Freedman. Dr. Joe Freedman, by the way, was in Victoria recently. I'm sorry that I didn't know he was here just a week ago, towards the end of May.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Another member suggests it was a little earlier than that. Joe Freedman is becoming more and more in demand. He was also in Vancouver, I believe, towards the middle of March.

[4:00]

What does Joe Freedman say? This is an

article entitled "The Sympathetic Critic," from the October-November 1993 issue of a publication called Teach. That publication is directed towards educators in Canada. Joe Freedman starts off by asking a question: "Who couldn't notice that Canadian education is under attack?" I have already cited three examples from today's newspapers that indicate that education is not necessarily under attack, but certainly under close scrutiny.

Joe Freedman goes on to say: "I am one of those critics." I -- and I'm now referring to myself, not Joe Freedman -- am also a critic, but I am not the critic who wants to rip the system apart, although some will disagree with me, and that's fine; I don't mind having shots taken at me. I am the critic who is prepared to sit down with my school board and any other school district -- and I have visited many in my two and a half years as an MLA -- and talk about education issues objectively and pointedly, and I will always continue to do that as best I can.

Joe Freedman goes on, and I think this comment is worthy of reading into Hansard.

He is referring to educators and trustees who would not sit down with him: "But they were curiously dismissive, as if there were no real grounds for my interest in the level of academic expectations and the standards of behaviour in our schools." Unfortunately, Joe Freedman is saying that in his town of Red Deer -- and I'm sure in other Alberta communities until recently, when the public mood or the government approach changed -- he met with resistance to simply wanting to sit down in a local community, as a parent and as a taxpayer, and talk about education initiatives.

Those things are changing, but they're not changing easily.

I now refer to the current example of the debate raging in the Surrey School District. I'm sure every member in this House knows full well the issue I am addressing. It is referred to in various articles and editorials in our newspapers. Here's an item from the Vancouver Sun, dated May 9. When the Surrey School Board -- in principle, at that time, and now it is a proposal that will go forward -- was asked by local parents to initiate a so-called back-to-basics public school in that district, what do we see in the headline?

"Teachers Aim to Block New School." It is a sad commentary -- and I'm not saying this critically, because this is true -- that the local teachers' union in Surrey is actually trying to block this initiative of parents and trustees. I say that it is shameful. That is shameful, not because the teachers....

Perhaps I should more correctly say it's the executive of the Surrey teachers' local, because I don't think the day-to-day, in-the-trenches teachers of Surrey are any different than the teachers in my own school district of North Vancouver. When I talk to them privately, they say that many of the things that are being talked about by Joe Freedman and others have full merit and should have full consideration. Unfortunately, it's the executive of locals like this that grab the headlines. Rightly or wrongly -- and I say wrongly -- they are trying to roadblock initiatives at the local level.

Let me just interject at this point. I feel -- other members have commented, and I am sure others will do likewise -- that the issue of local autonomy can actually be addressed through Bill 52 and not the reverse, as some members suggest: that local autonomy will be eroded by this bill. But it's not going to be an easy process. Local autonomy is under attack. It is probably under attack because of the funding problems. Of course, they were protracted. They have to be protracted. When you have 75 local bargaining sessions going on, it has to be a protracted exercise.

I'm going to comment later about local autonomy. If this bill is properly managed, it can address that issue, directly or indirectly.

So what do we see? Coming back to this Surrey example, we see local executives of school unions roadblocking, through legal and other means, the attempt of the public, concerned parents, the Joe Freedmans of Surrey and North Vancouver and Powell River and Prince George.... We see local executives trying to roadblock that. Well, it won't work, hon. Speaker. I can tell you that it won't work, because of the public mood. Some 46 percent of the public are saying that they don't feel the education system of today is doing the job it did 25 years ago. That has to be listened to.

[ Page 11457 ]

What else do we see about this Surrey issue? A June 3 Province editorial is headed "Chill Out." Again, that's a commentary on the Surrey situation. A headline in the Sun of the same day, June 3, reads: "Teacher Union Challenges Trustees Over Plans for 'Traditional' School." The Times-Colonist of the same day reads: "Union Warns Teachers to Snub Traditionalist, Public-Funded School." I'm hearing some of the Surrey representatives saying that this is really a private school. Well, it isn't a private school; it is publicly funded. I guess this is what we would probably, in the best context -- and the thing that Joe Freedman fully advocates -- describe as a charter school.

At this point I should make at least one comment about my own school district of North Vancouver. I can tell you, as a fact, that that school district is nervous about discussing so-called private schools, which are charter schools. I've also referred to them on occasion as school-based management. I say that my school district is nervous about this, because they're on record as stating that they felt they did not wish to sit down and discuss that particular issue with me, as an MLA and a parent in that school district.

Probably built into the North Vancouver trustee reaction is an element of change that people like Joe Freedman are introducing into our public education system, and it's a well-proven fact that people don't like change unless it's well documented and well set out as to what it's about.

My mission, as far as trying to discuss that charter-based or school-based management issue with my own district is concerned, is not to gut the system and invoke rapidly accelerating change. My mission is to sit down and discuss an issue which I feel can address the question of local autonomy and even some of the problems of local funding. Maybe later in the dialogue -- either in second reading or committee stage -- we'll have some discussion on that issue.

We see unfortunate examples even in our own school districts where, rightly or wrongly, trustees and teachers are somewhat reticent to sit down objectively and discuss the issues. Maybe it's fair for me to take a shot at myself; maybe some people feel that I'm not objective in my approach. That remains to be seen, but at least I'd like the opportunity to advance that cause.

Let me make some comments about provincewide bargaining, which of course is the essence of Bill 52. It is one of the three purposes set out in the bill -- to set up a provincial two-tiered system whereby, as we know, there will be the provincial tier dealing with economic issues, including class size, and then local issues which unfortunately are ill-defined, if they are defined at all. On that particular point, by the way, unless both sides are in rather refreshing common agreement on any local issue, it's quite unlikely that any local issue of any sense is going to get bargained, unfortunately.

As we know, either party can send a local issue in dispute to the provincial table for resolution. I'm predicting that significant local issues, whatever they may be -- and we know they will not be cost provisions, because those are maintained at the provincial table -- are unfortunately going to be abandoned.

It comes back to my particular point about charter schools or school-based management in a district. Again, I feel that's an approach that can be taken -- and there are more and more examples where it's working. Probably the lead jurisdiction in North America on that topic is in Minnesota, where they now have many school districts that have set up charter-based and school-based systems. They're working. We know they're working in Edmonds, Washington, in Red Deer and Edmonton.

This fall we're going to see an example of that in Surrey, in spite of the resistance of some of the heads of that local union. Langley has, in essence, had a school-based system or charter school functioning for 15 years. No one seems to want to talk about it, but that is a fact -- and it is publicly funded. It is not a private school; it is not an elitist school.

It's an opportunity for parents and students to say: "We would like to attend this school and have some local say in the management and functioning of this school." I see nothing wrong with that, and it does not compromise local autonomy; it enhances it. It doesn't compromise labour relations in a school district; it can improve it.

I'll tell you one thing: if we don't address the public mood -- and in its small part, Bill 52 helps -- it's going to get uglier. No matter what any member in the opposition or on the government side -- although we are not going to hear from them -- may say about party positions, promises and campaign statements, if the public mood identifies problems, the public mood has to be listened to; and problems may be funding-based, curriculum-based or labour-relations-based, I don't care. If the public is misinformed, then hopefully, in our capacity as elected representatives, we will try to clear the record. I do not believe the public is misinformed on some of these education issues.

Let's look at some of the background of provincewide bargaining. These are financial figures that come out of the Korbin report and the funding of education in this province. For example, these are 1993-94 Ministry of Education figures. There are 437 FTE employees in the Ministry of Education. The salaries for those employees total $22 million. Then you go down to the school districts: there are 1,500 administrators and 12,700 support staff. This is from volume 2 of Korbin, so members can look it up to refresh their memory. The total ministry budget for the 1,500 plus the 12,700 I referred to is 23 percent of the 1993 total budget of $3.66 billion, or $842 million. That is not small change.

There are many obvious cost factors in the delivery of quality education that we have to look at, and we cannot just sit back and say, "Well, let local bargaining play its course," because if there are problems built into it, and there clearly are.... In fact, in a moment I'll talk a little more about my own school district. I suppose the trustees and the administrators over there are starting to cringe. Well, too bad, because there are things that I have to read into the record that I have been long concerned about. If I am perceived as a naysayer or a basher of this or that, well that's tough.

I was elected to take a stand on issues, and I am prepared to do so. Korbin documents in great detail some of the financial and other problems with the current administration of Education in this province, and we have to listen to that.

[4:15]

Let me share with this House some of the experience I had with my own school district with regard to a threatened strike in the spring and early summer of last year. I think this is worthy of examination, not just to take shots where shots are deserved, but more to describe at least in one district that I know very well -- and this is not an unusual or isolated example -- what happens when you have protracted bargaining and at the end of the day you have reached an impasse. We know that there were, as I recall, six school strikes last year. Fernie was the first. It was actually locked out in January of last year.

Then we had a strike in Quesnel, which went on for several weeks. North Island was the longest. It was out for six weeks, I believe, before we ordered them back to work through the memorable Sunday members will remember last spring. Of course, Vancouver went down, and there were other districts. Some BCTF representatives

[ Page 11458 ]

will tell us that there were only so many student-hours lost, or this or that. But the fact is there were disruptions in the educational process last spring.

In my own school district of North Vancouver, teachers were in a strike position last June, and the then president of the North Vancouver Teachers' Association wrote to the superintendent of schools on June 15 to say -- and this is a quote from her letter: "The members of the North Vancouver Teachers' Association are on strike. Since we are in a legal strike position, we are under no obligation to perform any duties" -- and "any" is underlined.

Now happily, from one point of view, the teachers actually never left the classrooms. But one of the difficulties that I.... And I was not alone, although perhaps I was the leading spokesperson on this issue. The difficulty that came out of this was that the teachers of North Vancouver refused to produce the final report cards for last year. There was a ban on administrative paperwork, which included report card production. That was fair enough, because we got through the year. But it surprised me that last September my son brought home his high school report card from June.

What happened was that the high school teachers in North Vancouver -- and rightly so -- sat down at the end of September, prepared the end-of-June report cards and sent them home to the parents.

Naturally, as a parent of two elementary school children as well, I then asked at my elementary school when I might expect my report cards, and I didn't get them. I didn't get them because the teachers were "on strike" in June, although they were, of course, at work. It was part of the compromise agreement reached between the school district and the teachers of North Vancouver that they not complete June report cards. So what I actually had to do -- and I had my two daughters do the same -- was go to the school office and examine those school records -- which are there, quite correctly, and have to be there.

But I felt it was unfortunate, and this is where I took issue with both the school board and the teachers -- it wasn't a one-sided deal; I criticized both sides. I felt that it was improper and almost unprofessional that the teachers didn't at least make the effort to fill out a fairly simple list of letter grades. For example, my daughter is now in grade 7. Her letter grades are on file at that school -- I've seen them because I looked them up, and she's seen them because she looked them up -- but they were never sent home. So I took issue with that.

I refer to that example because I think it rightly demonstrates that sometimes local problems are not always satisfactorily resolved locally. I wish it had been handled differently. Rightly or wrongly, the now president of the North Vancouver Teachers' Association and I took issue over this subject. It really hasn't been until recently that we're perhaps starting to come back to where I believe we can sit down at the table and discuss educational issues of local concern in an objective manner. I'm hoping that is so, and I'll make the observation right now in Hansard that I'm prepared at any time to do that.

The reason I'm prepared to do that is that I have perceived problems in the delivery of public education, and I'm certainly not alone. I've got dozens of things in my files that I couldn't bring in with me today because I've got only another minute or two before I have to wind up. But those are the issues.

So let me now get to the issue of.... I believe the hon. Speaker is suggesting that I might be designated the lead speaker for the opposition. Well, I'm sure it would probably drive everyone to distraction if they thought that I was going to carry on for two hours. In fact, I'd have to ask for a two-minute adjournment and go out and get my other files, which are yea thick, so I could carry on.

One other observation I would like to make -- and it does come back to what I suggested earlier -- is that I think the intent of the bill is valid. It's long overdue, not because -- as some members are going to take shots at us -- of a so-called change in our opinion, but because the public mood has changed. The public now well knows about the things I have commented on in my remarks. If things aren't working as well as they might, let's consider alternatives.

I am hoping that this government will have the courage to stand on its feet in second reading and committee stage -- and publicly. Get out of this House and make your comments, and support the initiative behind Bill 52. But I'm also fearful. I don't believe that the government has the management skills to carry this out in its best form. We're going to have to see how that works.

I see that I've exhausted my time. I will take my place and look forward to comments from other members.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act. In one sense, it seems to me that it's almost a contradiction in terms. It was brought home to me a couple of weeks ago when I was in Saskatchewan talking with teachers about comparisons between their eduction system and ours. I asked about their process of negotiation, which is, in effect, what we're calling a two-tiered system here. It has been in place for a number of years and seems to be working out very well, from everybody's perspective.

I referred to them as a teachers' union, and the person I was talking to, who was a teacher herself, was very quick to correct me and say: "No, we're not a union; we're a teachers' association."

One of the shifts in this province in education and our attitude towards it came a number of years ago when Social Credit was the government. The Minister of Education at that time, Bill Vander Zalm, began to berate the education system and teachers. The negative attitude of government toward the education system seems to have been building up, from then until now. That's unfortunate.

Sure there are some problems in the education system. There are problems in any system; I don't care what it is. There's no perfect system anywhere that I'm aware of, under any government, particularly when we have a changing system. I'm always reminded that at one time it was portrayed that one of the best technical education systems in the world was in Germany, prior to the Second World War. Yet out of the perfection of that system came results that none of us want to see again. We live in times of rapid change. There will be change, and there must be change. Systems must change in order to respond to the circumstances around us.

As to the quality of the education of young people today, whom I have visited, by and large, it's good. By and large, they are as well qualified, or better qualified, than the people of my generation. Perhaps I'm a little older than some in this Legislature, but many in my generation went to one-room schools. They had students from grade 1 through to the end of high school in one room, and one teacher taught all of them. Some of them were able to work through correspondence, with supplemental help from the teacher. Many of those teachers were strictly out of high school.

Perhaps some didn't even have a high school education, because the need was so great. They were working with temporary certificates. Many of them had very little teacher training, yet those students did very well.

[ Page 11459 ]

I think we need to first indicate that there are many positive things to be said about our present educational system, and that the vast majority of our students are doing very well within our system. Many of our students are having problems not because of the educational system, but because of the social environment in which they are forced to live. The educational system has been placed in a situation where it is expected to pick up the deficiencies of the community at large and solve them on its behalf.

Too much has been expected of our educational system, with too few resources. The process we're discussing today in Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act, is one step in an ongoing process of adjusting to the change that is taking place in the community all around us. Unfortunately, many of these changes are taken in isolation from each other, so there does not seem to be an overall, comprehensive view of the changes that are needed.

We're very much aware of the disruption which has come into our educational system with the introduction of thislabour-management system. The labour-management system was developed in an industrial age, where we were dealing with workers in factories, mines and forests. When that model was developed, we were not dealing with workers who work with children. We dealt with workers who were dealing with widgets and things, rather than persons, and the system was developed to deal with those.

The labour-management relationship, which is a private relationship, for the most part, between management and a set of workers, is an entirely different model than what's appropriate in a community at large when we're dealing with the daily life of children and their families, and with what is necessary not only for their immediate well-being but also for their futurewell-being, and not only for their personal lives but also for our communities at large.

In this issue, we're dealing with how we deal with change, and how we take a model that was developed in another circumstance and try to continually remould it. It was mentioned earlier, in a negative way, that we will come back to this discussion again and again. Of course we will, because we're in a rapidly changing society. Even a decision that we make today will have to be reviewed next year, the year after and the year after that. We're in a reviewing process.

[4:30]

It has become very clear that at this point in time, the labour-management process in this province -- which is different from the teaching process -- has hampered the teaching and learning processes that go on between the teachers and their students. I want to be quite clear that for the most part, I'm very satisfied and pleased with the dedication of teachers who are at work in this province and with the interest of the students who are a part of that process.

With computerization and the change in work needs that are coming upon us very rapidly -- and with the international context in which we now live, rather than a strictly local context -- we must make changes. This bill is attempting to make those changes, and in this I would commend the government for seeing the writing on the wall, if you want to put it that way, and attempting to respond to it. We won't know until down the road whether their response has been totally adequate or not.

I daresay that I agree with other speakers that there will be problems, both provincially and locally, as the process goes into effect, but that's not to say that the process shouldn't be attempted, evaluated and changed as we go along.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

A broader context has been discussed and needs to be reviewed with some consideration. We currently have 75 school districts. Some of those school districts have fewer pupils in them than one school in the city, and whether or not that's an imbalance certainly has to be looked at. When we look at it from a provincial picture, how is it that one district is negotiating with a whole set of schools which are working together and others are only negotiating with a very small number? There's an imbalance there, and the province-wide picture is certainly going to take that imbalance into account.

I should say, before I go any further, that whether or not I'm in a conflict-of-interest situation may be up for discussion. My wife is a principal in the school system, my daughter teaches in the school system and my son-in-law teaches in the school system. I might say that the conflict of interest is within our family, because we certainly don't agree on many of the things that are happening or even on whether or not this bill should go forward. So I only need to go home and sit at my own dinner table to hear all sides of this issue and to know that there are many points of view.

So I'm not here to say that there is only one point of view, because that's not right, but I am here to say that when I talk to the students, the teachers and the parents within the community and try to represent the variety of views, it seems to me that we must experiment. The status quo is not good enough. Recognizing that the status quo hasn't been around that long -- this particular process hasn't been in place very long -- and the very fact that it was brought into being and has been found wanting, means that it now has to be revised and changed again.

It's not a matter of what the government brought into being in the final analysis, but it was tried, it was found wanting, it hasn't solved the problem, and so we have to take another look at it.

So we look at other places around the community and across Canada, and we see that some have gone to complete provincewide bargaining for everything, and that has not proved to be satisfactory. Some have tried to maintain complete local district bargaining, and that has not proved to be satisfactory. So we're trying to bring in, in this bill, a mix of those two systems to see if there can be a balance between them that everybody can be satisfied with. There are issues that need to be dealt with locally, and those issues must be defined.

That would be one of my difficulties with this bill: that those issues have not been clarified so that people could be clearer about the intent of that local-issue bargaining. Because the parents in rural and urban districts have certain needs and certain opportunities. There are certain circumstances that must be taken into account, but we must also realize that graduates are not likely to continue to live in the community in which they've grown up. They will travel to other communities; they will travel to other parts of Canada.

So there needs to be unanimity throughout the whole educational system -- across Canada and in our provinces.

During our years of study it was our experience to go to schools in the American school system. Every local school was autonomous. When you moved from one school to another, even within an area, you moved from one curriculum to another and from one set of principles to another. So that takes it to the opposite extreme.

We need to work out a balance. We also need to realize that you can't simply set finances apart from the system or the organization by which a school operates. The funding and the philosophical principles of operation and the teaching principles all interact, and that's something we need to be aware of. One of the concerns that we have raised in

[ Page 11460 ]

other aspects of bills coming through this Legislature at present is the development of the Public Sector Employers' Council. Under the Public Sector Employers' Council there is the health sector employers' council, the education sector employers' council and the social services employers' council. So there is a centralization in that employers' council system that we need to be very aware of and very concerned about. The very process of decision-making within that system can, in effect, take away from the local community's involvement and freedom to make choices.

When we're talking about education, this is not simply a labour bill, as we discussed it in other circumstances in other places. We must understand that this has implications for education, so it's a management bill. It's an administrative bill about how teachers relate to each other, to their students and parents, and to other community agencies which are part of the community life. The present system has formalized those relationships.

In many corporations and businesses, one of the realities of management today is to stress that products are produced when people work together effectively and cooperatively in the informal systems and relationships they have with each other, whether it's on the shop floor or in the classroom. As we have done with this labour-management model we have been working with, if we stress only the formal rules and regulations of how we live and work together, and cease to take into account the informal relationships which are so important, then we have destroyed the system and its essential self.

As I mentioned earlier, I am concerned that not only under the Social Credit system did we find that there was a downplaying and, as some called it, a bashing of the teachers in the educational system; we have also had it recently under the present government, when the Premier decried the Year 2000 program. We can do away with labels. If we use labels, we tend to ignore the people underneath those labels. The intent of the Year 2000 program was built by the experience of teachers, and it expressed much of what they were already doing within the school system.

When it was demoted in the eyes of the Premier and of the province, what happened was another demotion of the educational system itself. It seems to me that what we're trying to do in this process is not to demote the education system or the quality of teachers and the work they're doing in the community, but rather to recognize the validities in the education system, to make them better and support them, to recognize the strength and validity of teachers and their dedication and devotion, and to give them the opportunity and freedom to do that with integrity and strength.

Some particular questions in this bill will need to be answered in committee stage, because the intent is not clear in many areas. It could be very easily misinterpreted. Until we have that clarity from the presenters of the bill, there will be questions to be asked and questions to be clarified.

We must move ahead, because the present system is not working. We must experiment with this and be willing to review and change it again, as the case may be. But we cannot simply stay where we are, because it is not satisfactory. I encourage us to think -- not just to indicate who's doing right or wrong -- and work together to find a system, which will have to evolve over a period of time with the circumstances around us, and create a program and curriculum that helps give our students opportunities to learn -- an education system that prepares them not for yesterday and not even for today, but for tomorr