2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18)

Hon. J. Reid

University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Hazelton Secondary School

D. MacKay

Prince Rupert container port

B. Belsey

Joint strategy for downtown Victoria

J. Bray

Oral Questions

School-based education funding

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Hogg

Affiliation of B.C. Teachers Federation with B.C. Federation of Labour

K. Krueger

Hon. C. Clark

Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets

B. Penner

Hon. R. Neufeld

Availability of foster care for youth

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Hogg

Marijuana grow operations and electricity theft

D. Hayer

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 15)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 15)

Standing Order 81 Motion

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Hon. G. Bruce

Standing Order 81 Motion (Speaker's Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Bond

Committee of the Whole House

University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

Report and Third Reading of Bills

University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21)

Royal Assent to Bills

Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 3)

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2003 (Bill 6)

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 7)

Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 8)

Auditor General Act (Bill 9)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 11)

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13)

Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 15)

University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21)

[ Page 5457 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J.

Reid: Joining us, I would like to welcome today Ray Whitehead and Tom

Harris, who are both members of the B.C. Ferries board of directors. I would ask

the House to give them a warm welcome.

[1405]

J. Bray:

Being half Scottish, it's my pleasure to introduce three of my constituents:

Roger and Sally McGuire and their son, Harry. They're joined today by Roger's

parents, Frank and Diana. Roger, a recipient of the Queen's Golden Jubilee

Medal, is the well-known pipe major of the regimental pipe band in the Canadian

Scottish Regiment — Victoria's famous highland militia unit — and a founding

director of the Victoria Military Music Festival Society, which arranges

popular, exciting band concerts and tattoos in our capital city. I would ask the

House to please make them all very welcome.

W. Cobb:

With us in the House today is Sharon Whitely, a longtime resident of Cariboo and

a 28-year employee of the government. She is presently with Land and Water B.C.

In all those years, this is only the second time — and I understand it was

only earlier this year — she's been in the precinct. Sharon is one of the

hardest-working and most conscientious employees I know, and her attitude is not

why something cannot be done but how we can make it happen. I ask the House to

please join me in making her welcome.

Hawes: Today in the gallery we have Lt.-Col. Don Copple, the division

commander of the Salvation Army, and Capt. John Murray of the Salvation Army,

who are here to hold some meetings with MLAs. Could the House please make them

welcome.

Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce a constituent who is visiting the

House today. Carole Helter is a member of the parents advisory committee at the

l'École des Pionniers de Maillardville. Would the House please make her

welcome.

Chong: In the gallery today are two young adults whom I have had the

pleasure of working with over the past year. The first person, Miss Lindsay

McCray, began as a volunteer in my constituency office in Gordon Head and then

went on to be a part-time constituency assistant. Now, here in the Legislature

buildings, she is an assistant legislative assistant doing, I know, a fine job.

The

second individual is Mr. Rowan Shaw, another young man who has worked in my

office since the beginning of this year, again providing invaluable service to

my constituents. They're here to watch question period. I know it's exciting for

them to see it in live, real action as opposed to on television, so I hope the

House would make them both very welcome.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Mr. Harry Chesher, the general manager of the Penticton Convention

Centre, retires today after 22 years of service. Harry started with the city in

1981, and during his employment he was a driving force in the redevelopment of

the convention centre in Penticton and spearheaded the 1988, 2000 and 2002

expansions of the centre. Over his 22 years of service he has worked in bringing

over 2.5 million delegate-dates to Penticton. Harry plans to remain in Penticton

and become even more involved in the community of the South Okanagan. Would this

House please acknowledge Harry Chesher's contributions to the tourism industry

of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, it is indeed a pleasure for me to introduce to you a

former Speaker of this House, who is sitting on the floor with us today. He's

here in Victoria with his wife, Ella Mae. She is in the gallery and is otherwise

known as Little Red. Harvey is a former Speaker and was elected to represent the

riding of Chilliwack in 1972, '75, '79 and '83. He served as Deputy Speaker and

then Speaker from '78 to '82. In August of '82 his political career suffered a

setback. He was made Minister of Agriculture and Food. He has rallied from that

and is looking good, and he's always welcome on the floor of this House. Please

welcome Harvey Schroeder.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

COASTAL FERRY ACT

Hon.

J. Reid presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Coastal Ferry Act.

Hon. J.

Reid: I move that Bill 18 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Reid: In December we announced a new future for B.C. Ferries and its role in

our province's growing economy. B.C. Ferries is being transformed into a modern,

safe, reliable ferry system that is designed to provide superior service with no

additional financial burden on taxpayers.

With the

introduction of this legislation, we will be establishing a new regulatory

framework for coastal ferry services — an independent regulatory framework —

and a new service delivery model. Coastal communities and ferry users will see

improved service and greater customer choice, guaranteed service levels and fair

rates, an

[ Page 5458 ]

independent regulator to protect the public interest, economic development

and job creation, continued public ownership of ferry terminals, no new public

debt and new mechanisms to ensure ongoing accountability.

Fulfilling

a new-era commitment, B.C. Ferries will also be designated an essential service,

ensuring that coastal communities receive the service they need. The legislation

will provide for a long-term contract between the province of British Columbia

and B.C. Ferry Services to establish a marine transportation system, while

ensuring that B.C. Ferry Services becomes a financially viable service provider

for the first time in more than four decades.

While

designed to protect consumers, the new structure has enough flexibility to allow

B.C. Ferry Services to encourage strategic private sector partnerships and

entrepreneurial ingenuity, which will transform our ferry services into a

customer-focused, financially stable marine transportation system that will

ensure the ongoing safety of its vessels, passengers and cargo.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18

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.

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. G.

Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 21 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It is out of concern for students at UBC that I present Bill 21, the

University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act, for first reading.

Our first

and most important priority is the 23,000 students impacted by the current

labour dispute between UBC and its striking CUPE members. This dispute poses a

very real threat to students being able to complete their academic term. This

could mean they cannot progress in their studies or, in some cases, graduate.

That outcome is not acceptable.

Government

does not want to see students hurt by this labour dispute, but at the same time,

we want to see bargaining succeed. With the possibility of a long-term harmful

impact to students' education, government can take some steps to help the

process along and do what it can to end this impasse.

The

University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act will give government

the authority to impose a cooling-off period at the University of British

Columbia. This cooling-off will also see the parties return to the bargaining

table within 72 hours and will allow students to get on with their studies.

[1415]

In crafting

this legislation, we have sought a reasonable balance that will allow the

parties to continue to work on a resolution while students get to their classes.

The last collective agreements that were in force have been extended for the

period of this legislation or until the parties come to a new collective

agreement. Finally, the legislation includes a sunset provision that will see

the legislation expire on March 31, 2003.

It is my

sincere hope that the parties will use this time creatively and responsibly but,

most of all, in a manner that no longer makes students the focal point of

negotiations.

The

government wishes to seek today, under standing order 81, that Bill 21 be moved

through all stages in one day. The reason for this is twofold. First of all,

been on strike since February 10, 2003. Secondly, on March 7, 1,400 support and

library staff joined that strike. The Minister of Advanced Education has

informed members of government that 23,000 students are in jeopardy of losing

their school year. That is why the government believes that given the urgency of

the issue, this legislation should be put through this House at the earliest

possible opportunity to ensure that students can get to their classes.

I move that

the University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act, Bill 21, be placed

on the orders of the day for second reading today.

Bill 21

introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading

forthwith.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I request a clear 15-minute recess in order to

examine this bill. I note the minister suggested the government was going to try

and ram this through in one day under standing order 81. I need time to prepare

an argument for your consideration before you make that determination.

Mr.

Speaker: By agreement, would it be all right with the Leader of the

Opposition if we proceed through question period and then take our recess?

MacPhail: That's fine, as long as it will be a clear recess with no other

business. Is that your determination?

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

MacPhail: Fine.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) HAZELTON SECONDARY SCHOOL

MacKay: Ensuring that our children are provided with a good education is

very important to the

[ Page 5459 ]

people in the north. As a government we have protected education funding and

ensured that the resources are directed into the classroom, where they belong.

We have developed a system that allows for all voices to be heard — parents,

teachers, students and principals. We believe educating children needs to be

shared by all.

The Fraser

Institute's recent report on B.C. high schools revealed that Hazelton Secondary

is one of the most improved schools in the province. I would like to take this

opportunity to recognize the staff and students of Hazelton Secondary for their

hard work and dedication. The results are starting to show, and I have every

confidence that the improvement is only the beginning.

Not long

ago Hazelton Secondary was ranked zero out of ten and near the very bottom of

the school rankings. In 1995 nearly one in four students didn't graduate. Last

year only one in 20 failed to graduate. While this is not precisely where we

want to be, we are definitely heading in the right direction.

In part

this progress can be attributed to Hazelton Secondary implementing a number of

creative programs to better connect students to their school. For example,

monthly recognition assemblies and homework clubs offered by teachers have

improved the school culture. This flexibility and innovation is an example of

the combined commitment our students and staff have shown to improving their

education environment. They're doing their part, and I congratulate them. We are

doing ours. Further, our government has pledged an additional $50 million to

school boards across the province to meet increasing financial demands. Examples

such as these demonstrate our government's commitment to rural education by

focusing resources on students. We are starting to see the results.

PRINCE RUPERT CONTAINER PORT

Belsey: I rise today to speak about a pending development of a world-class

container port to serve northern British Columbia, a container port that will

open the world to a northern British Columbia cargo route but, more importantly,

will open northern British Columbia to markets around the world.

[1420]

Prince

Rupert anchors North America's shortest and most efficient land-sea route to

Asian markets. Small wonder that shippers increasingly look to Prince Rupert to

solve their transportation problems. More than 400 hectares of industrial land

are open for development, while modern truck and rail infrastructure links this

existing port to North America's industrial heartlands.

Prince

Rupert is 30 hours sailing time closer to Asia than any other port of western

Canada or the west coast of North America. This reduces both the time and the

costs of shipping and allows carriers an additional route, one round trip each

year. The Port of Prince Rupert is accessible to the entire continent on

all-weather roads and rail connections. As a western terminus of CN Rail

shippers, again the added advantage of the lowest rail grade through the

mountains of any Canadian rail route and faster railcar turnaround time and

access to 80 percent of CN's total capacity on state-of-the-art northern

lines…. It is an ice-free harbour, one of the deepest in North America. It can

accommodate not only the vessels of today but also the superships of tomorrow.

If you are a specialty grain producer in the Peace or a log home manufacturer in

Prince George or a sawmill owner in Terrace or Smithers or maybe a pulp mill

operator in Prince Rupert, a container port in northern British Columbia will

open the world of opportunity for marketing your raw product or your value-added

product.

JOINT STRATEGY

FOR DOWNTOWN VICTORIA

J. Bray:

Over the last few weeks I have been speaking in this House about the city of

Victoria, the Vancouver Island health authority and the Victoria city police and

their joint strategy to deal with the problems of drug use and homelessness in

Victoria's downtown core. In their strategy, they call on the other levels of

government — including the province — to work in partnership on several

short-term and long-term strategies.

I have been

talking regularly with Mayor Alan Lowe over the last several weeks on where the

province can assist with some immediate solutions. I also did a walkabout with

Rev. Al Tysick from the Open Door to meet many of the 65 permanently homeless

persons living on the streets in the downtown core. Through these discussions, I

have learned several things:

(1) The

problem, although growing and more visible, is solvable.

(2) We need

to increase treatment and supportive housing for these individuals and improve

access for the person with a mental illness and substance abuse issue to

actually get into the system.

(3) This

problem is not limited to downtown but is, in fact, throughout many family

neighbourhoods in my community.

(4) The

city, regional, provincial and federal governments must all be part of the

solution.

This is why

I am so pleased to advise this House and my constituents that the provincial

government has agreed to provide funding for one of the key short-term

strategies identified by the mayor. This is the training and education of

volunteers to expand needle collection services in the downtown area and

adjacent neighbourhoods. Intensifying the needle cleanup program is one of the

six short-term goals listed in the downtown action plan. This provides increased

public safety and also a visible sign to citizens and tourists alike that

downtown is, in fact, safe. I am pleased to be able to work in cooperation with

the city of Victoria and Mayor Lowe. Tomorrow night I will be on a panel

discussing the issue of street drugs and treatment at the screening of the movie

FIX: The Story of an Addicted

[ Page 5460 ]

City . I will continue to work with the city to find other opportunities

to partner with the province on real solutions for all concerned.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL-BASED EDUCATION FUNDING

MacPhail: The Minister of Children and Family Development is cutting the

budget for specialized programs for poor kids by $7 million this year. Yesterday

we heard how the government is attacking poor seniors. Today it's poor kids. How

can the minister justify this draconian cut when the Premier's budget for public

affairs has been increased by that very same amount?

[1425]

Hon. G.

Hogg: I assume that the member is referring to the issues with respect to

the school-based programming. I want to point out to the member that there is a

reorganization of these figures. We're actually providing funding this year at

rates higher than we have in previous years because of the refocus of the

programming that we've been doing. We've been meeting with parents, with school

trustees, with principals, with vice-principals associations, with community

service providers and with teachers. We are developing a program which more

accurately addresses and focuses on the needs of the high-risk children.

There are

705 schools in this province where there are children coming from families which

have over 10 percent of those children on income assistance…. We are now

addressing a program which focuses on and addresses the needs of those children

in more effective ways than we ever have in the past.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, a cut is a cut. This government has cut school-based

programs to help poor kids by $7 million. Just like yesterday when they refused

to tell what's really happening to poor seniors, they refuse to tell exactly

what's happening to poor kids today — $7 million less. Over 140,000 kids

depend on this funding. They depend on it for hot lunches. They depend on it for

counselling. They depend on it for activities. These are at-risk kids who need

specialized support and help.

Again to

the minister: will the minister ask the Premier to show some compassion and

spend a few less bucks on misleading Pharmacare advertising so that poor kids

don't have to go to school hungry?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The auditor general in 1998 did a review of some of these programs and

pointed out that, in fact, one of the programs that was provided by the last

government was inefficient, ineffective and not focused on the outcomes

necessary to assist children.

We have

done a review, and we've looked at all of the countries and the organizations

for economic cooperation and development. They've told us that there are three

criteria that have to meet an effective program. One is that it's locally

focused. A second is that it has the participation of parents, and the third is

the community. Those are the important criteria in terms of making sure that a

program has some impact on the educational performance of children.

We are

refocusing these programs so that we do measure and look at those outcomes that

we found the international studies suggest must be there. In the past, when the

NDP government was in power, there was not a focus on those types of outcomes.

There was not clarity of expectation. We are having a chance now to involve a

coordinated, integrated service delivery model that includes our local

authorities meeting with school boards so that we can have a coordinated

approach which will make a difference for children in their educational

performance.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: There isn't one poor kid, one poor family, one inner-city school

or one inner-city organization that supports what this government is doing to

these programs. Every single group, parent and child is bemoaning and decrying

the $7 million cut, no matter what this minister likes to say. As always with

this government, they find a problem, and what do they do? They don't correct

the problem; they cut funding. They penalize the poorest of the province.

There are

over 700 schools in British Columbia where more than 10 percent of their kids

are in families on income assistance, just as the minister said. It's been shown

over and over again that school-based funding improves academic achievement for

these youngsters. These programs help support learning. They help student

achievement, parents and teachers. School boards across the province say these

programs help. So what does this government do? They cut the program, and they

say to every poor kid: "You're going to get less."

Does the

minister agree that funding is essential, and if funding is so essential, like

all of his caucus is saying now, why did he cut the program by $7 million?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I'd like to point out that in the past, when these programs were

funded by the past government, there was no rationale for the way the funding

went out. In fact, those school districts that were provided….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. G.

Hogg: We have used the research of Dr. Clyde Hertzman to look at how we

could actually reorganize this funding so it would have a maximum

[ Page 5461 ]

impact to work at and improve the educational performance of children. That

was not done in the past.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

Hon. G.

Hogg: For the first time, this government is using evidence-based research

to make decisions around how this money should be allocated so it will be far

more effective. In the past, I don't know — and no one can find out — how

that was done. We are actually improving by moving to evidence-based research

that will suggest how those should be allocated. We will see better outcomes

because we can measure how these programs are going forward. We can measure them

and know we're having the improvements we wanted so that this money will be

expended in ways which will have a far better impact than it's ever had in the

past.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

AFFILIATION OF

B.C. TEACHERS FEDERATION

WITH B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR

Krueger: The word today is that approximately 9,900 members of the B.C.

Teachers Federation have voted to affiliate all of British Columbia's teachers

with the B.C. Federation of Labour. To many of my constituents, my colleagues

and many teachers, this presents a choice between being independent

professionals and being trade unionists. My question is to the Minister of

Education: what does this mean to the integrity of the B.C. College of Teachers

and the issue of whether membership in the BCTF should be mandatory?

Hon. C.

Clark: I think it's important to point out that while it was a minority of

teachers — I think it was about 23 percent of teachers in the province who

actually voted to support the affiliation with the B.C. Fed — an election is

an election. Whether or not it has a low turnout, it's still conducted by all

accounts as a democratic process. Individual teachers, who I've heard from quite

a bit this morning, who don't support this move and may regret the fact that

they stayed home and didn't vote are nonetheless bound by the result.

The issue

that arises for government is an interesting one, because while the BCTF has

made no secret of the fact in the last little while that it intends to move to a

very aggressive, very partisan and highly political stance — one that includes

funding political parties and engaging intimately in taking sides in elections

— that is very much at odds with the role of the College of Teachers.

The College

of Teachers is required to be an independent, non-partisan, standard-setting

organization. The issue, though, is that the College of Teachers' membership on

the board is elected. Fifteen of them are elected in elections conducted by the

BCTF. Given that the aims of the two organizations are so irreconcilably at

odds, apparently, the government will certainly have to give some consideration

to how we might try and resolve the situation.

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS

Penner: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Earlier this

morning the B.C. Citizens for Public Power, a politically charged advocacy

group, released a report once again alleging this government is privatizing B.C.

Hydro's transmission assets. This group, tied to longtime NDP supporters and the

B.C. Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair, has consistently

misrepresented the truth about the B.C. government's energy policy to the people

of this province.

Can the

Minister of Energy and Mines tell British Columbians if the B.C. Citizens for

Public Power is fearmongering to promote the political interests of their NDP

friends? Or have they simply failed to bother reading the new energy policy for

B.C. released last November and available on the ministry's website?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: To the member: I want to assure him and all British Columbians —

and if some of the NDP are listening, I want to assure them too — that B.C.

Hydro is not for sale. B.C. Hydro and all its core assets are a great benefit

for British Columbia and will stay publicly owned in this province as long as

this government is in place. The fearmongering that continues to go on from

individuals is unfair. It's unfair to the people of British Columbia, and it's

untrue.

Actually,

what you have to do is go back in history a little bit, so I went back to some

minutes of B.C. Hydro. Of course, regional transmission organizations have been

talked about for quite a long time — in fact, back to 1994, when B.C. Hydro

started talking about them. In 1994 there was that real good NDP-supported group

on the board: Angela Schira, Marjorie Griffin Cohen and Sharon Manson Singer.

When it came to vote…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Wrap it up,

please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …the only one that would vote no was Angela Schira — that NDPer

who at least stood up for what she thought. Who didn't stand up were Marjorie

Griffin Cohen and Sharon Manson Singer, who abstained…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …from voting and today try to fearmonger.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

[ Page 5462 ]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: That's unacceptable and should be….

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you very much.

[1435]

AVAILABILITY OF

FOSTER CARE FOR YOUTH

MacPhail: Yesterday seniors; today poor kids. Not only is it a group of poor

kids who go to inner-city schools that they're cutting funding for, the

government is now cutting funding for the poorest and most vulnerable kids in

B.C. When they become teenagers, this Liberal government is making life no

easier for them.

According

to news reports, some 15-year-olds who turn up at the Ministry of Children and

Family Development are being sent away to collect welfare rather than being

placed in foster care. The ministry started diverting youths as young as 15 to

welfare offices six months ago, the same time as there was a dramatic increase

in the number of street youth.

Can the

Minister of Children and Family Development, the man who is supposed to be

responsible for protecting vulnerable children, explain why foster care

advocates are saying that kids are being denied the care they need and thrown

onto the welfare rolls?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I can assure you that this government and this province's primary

responsibility is ensuring the safe care and protection of all children in this

province. I can further assure you that there have been no changes to the

criteria in terms of addressing that. We have more social workers now working in

protection in this province than we've had before. We don't have the shortages

that we've had in the north in the past. We are now equipped with social workers

at full complement, and we have not changed the criteria for ensuring…. If

children are coming forward in need of protection and support, then that

protection and support is found for those children.

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS

AND ELECTRICITY THEFT

Hayer: My question is to the Solicitor General. Lately it is difficult to

watch the evening news without seeing a story about another marijuana grow

operation being discovered. The growers are increasingly moving to the

family-oriented neighbourhoods to conduct their operations. My constituents are

concerned about this illegal activity in their neighbourhood and the related

issues that it brings along with it. Can the Solicitor General please tell us

what is being done to combat marijuana grow ops in our communities?

It is

widely known that marijuana grow ops generally use a large amount of

electricity. In many cases, the criminals running the grow ops steal power in

order to avoid large hydro bills. Can the minister tell us what is being done to

crack down on the illegal practice of electricity theft with regard to marijuana

grow ops?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, the member is right. Grow ops are an increasing,

insidious problem in our society. They are the base of organized crime in

British Columbia. They fund the illegal gun trade. They fund the cocaine. They

fund the methamphetamine labs. As a matter of fact, they are responsible for in

excess of 60 homicides that we are presently investigating in the province. They

are an insidious problem. What do we do?

Our study

shows that 82 percent of the people that are charged with marijuana grow ops in

British Columbia do not receive either a punitive fine or a jail sentence. In

Washington State, south of us, the minimum sentence on first offence is three

months in jail. In Whatcom County, south of the Fraser Valley, they will deal

with maybe a handful of grow ops this year. In British Columbia we will deal

with thousands of grow ops in the Fraser Valley.

We need

help. We need help from our justice system. We need help from our federal

prosecutors. We need help from our communities to raise this issue so that we

can deal with it. That's why we're going to have a dialogue on crime, because we

are going to raise the bar so people start to understand how we're going to

fight crime in the future in British Columbia.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: By agreement between the opposition and the government, what we'll

do is call committee stage of the Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003. Once

that bill is complete, we'll have a 15-minute recess.

I call

committee stage debate on the Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1

to 26 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

[ Page 5463 ]

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

15, Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Mr.

Speaker: The House will now recess for 15 minutes. We'll ring the division

bells and reconvene at 3 p.m.

The House

recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 3:03 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 81 Motion

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair will now hear arguments on the motion put

forward by the Minister of Labour under standing order 81.

MacPhail: Just to clarify, were the Minister of Labour's comments during

first reading the argument the government made for standing order 81?

Mr.

Speaker: I believe so, but other speakers may wish to be heard.

MacPhail: Well, I would rather reply to what the government's argument is.

That's all.

Mr.

Speaker: Well, it is the wish of the Chair to hear all arguments, pro and

con, and we will not cut debate off. You can proceed, and you will have an

opportunity to speak again.

MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's fine. Thank you very much for that.

I've had an

opportunity to examine the legislation, and I make the following arguments about

standing order 81. For those who are not familiar with the toings and froings of

parliamentary procedure that guide us in this legislation and which are

extremely important in the democratic process, standing order 81 says this:

"Every Bill shall receive three readings, on different days, prior to being

passed. After the second reading it shall be ordered for committal on a

subsequent day. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice

or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day."

[1505]

The British

Columbia government has asked that this bill, Bill 21, University of British

Columbia Services Continuation Act, be considered as an urgent — I assume

urgent or extraordinary — bill and therefore must be passed through all three

stages today. There will be arguments made that I'm not familiar with by the

government. I hope to have a chance to respond to those arguments.

It's

interesting to note that the government actually named this bill, Bill 21. We

had another Bill 21 back in 1996, brought in by a previous government of which I

was part. That bill was called the Education and Health Collective Bargaining

Assistance Act. It's interesting because the government of the day argued that

the legislation was extraordinary and that the three stages of the bill needed

to be passed within one day. The reason why I say it's interesting to note the

same numbered title is because the Speaker of the day ruled that there were not

extraordinary circumstances that would allow the bill to pass through all three

readings.

I want to

begin by making reference to that debate. I'd be happy to give anybody in the

House a copy of this debate. It's straight from Hansard . The first

speaker is the now Minister of…. Well, first of all, it was the Minister of

Finance of the day who introduced the legislation. Then the Opposition House

Leader of the day, now the Minister of Finance, replied to that, arguing

that…. Sorry. It was quite an interesting debate, and there was a lot of

extraneous wrangling, including an order by the Speaker that I lower my voice,

which was the first time I'd heard that, and I don't want to ever have to face

that again.

Indeed,

there was a lot of procedural wrangling, but then there was a point made by the

member for Okanagan-Vernon of the day, who said: "As I understand

section

81, it deals with matters of an emergency nature. If you look closely at the

bill, you find that the emergency nature is specified in one particular case;

but it extends the authority of the cabinet for some time to deal with a number

of other issues that are not at this time of an emergency nature —

whereas if

the bill handled only the difficulty of the emergency that is imminent, it would

probably be appropriate under

section 81. But the way the bill is worded, it's

another piece of legislation that gives the cabinet extended powers in

anticipation of emergencies…."

In fact,

that was the nub of the argument put to the Speaker, and the Speaker absorbed

that argument and actually used that as the point to suggest that the

legislation was not of an extraordinary or emergency nature. In fact, the now

Minister of Finance, then Opposition House Leader, went on to say: "The

point of order has been raised by the member for Okanagan-Vernon that in his

opinion

section 81 doesn't apply, given the nature of the bill in itself. I

guess the next step is a ruling from yourself on whether or not that is the

case. To make this a little easier, because there are concerns, now that we have

the bill, as to what the contents are and its application under standing order

81…." My apologies — it was just the Opposition House Leader asking for

a recess, which he got.

[1510]

Anyway,

then we recessed and came back, and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast

made an argument to say that the bargaining had gone on, and the House hadn't

sat during any of that time — had not been recalled — and that there was

absolutely nothing that had changed that would make it of an emergency nature.

In fact, he said: "This government, if it had concern over this issue, has

had ample opportunity to recall this Legislature, put in place this piece of

legislation and have adequate notice and debate on this matter. It is an

absolute outrage to the process of democ-

[ Page 5464 ]

racy," said the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, "that we

would recall this Legislative Assembly on a Friday morning and, without prior

notice — certainly to this member and our party — introduce this bill and

expect to ram it through in one day, with the ramifications it may have. It is

an absolute outrage to our democratic process."

The

government then goes on to make its argument that it wasn't of an urgent nature.

In fact, I entered the debate at the time to suggest that Surrey was on strike

at the time, that that was of an urgent nature and also that the union had

received no indication from the employer that there was any settlement

whatsoever. Finally, halfway through the debate, the Opposition House Leader

said: "I'm a little shocked, quite frankly. If we want to talk about

urgent, hon. Speaker — and I think that's the matter for discussion right now

— the last time this House legislated somebody back to work was in 1993, and

it was by this government."

At that

time in the discussion about urgency, after we had gone through some 12 hours of

debate in this House, after six weeks of strikes around this province and two

million student-days lost in this province, I remember that this government

finally started to care about students just slightly a bit more than they did

about the unions. The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain stood up in this

House at midnight — it was a different Vancouver–Little Mountain member —

and said how terrible it was that the opposition didn't realize the urgency of

getting this bill through.

He then

goes on to talk about how there was ample opportunity for legislation to come

forward for them to make their point. Then he goes on to say: "I'm making a

point. We have an urgent crisis in Surrey. We had it last week; we had it two

weeks ago. But it's come back again because they haven't dealt with it, so we've

got another crisis in Surrey. But with this bill, once it goes through and looks

at it, one realizes it's not just for Surrey." The Speaker then absorbed

all those arguments and ruled that the bill was wide-ranging and not specific in

its nature.

In fact, I

would argue that Bill 21, while trying to be downplayed by the Minister of

Labour both in his talk with the news media after him tabling the legislation

and in this House, failed to point out that in the way the definition exists of

who this bill applies to, it's not just dealing with people who are on strike.

It's not even just dealing with people who have served strike notice. Let me

give the definition of the act.

The

definition is of trade unions, and it means…. In

section 1,

"Definitions," the definition of trade unions is: "(a), the

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2278" — which is the

administrative section, who have served strike notice; "(

b) the Canadian

Union of Public Employees, Local 2950" — the teaching assistants who are

on strike, and this is the key part, Mr. Speaker; "(

c) any other trade

union representing employees of the employer that is designated by

regulation."

We have a

situation now where this bill is going beyond application to anyone who is on

campus, so it much extends beyond the emergency — whatever the government

might define as emergency or extraordinary situation. The act is wide-ranging in

that it applies to people who may not even be at the bargaining table, who may

not even have served any strike notice, who may be doing nothing other than

simply working.

[1515]

My first

point is that this legislation is of the same nature in terms of its broad

application, beyond any argument the government could make of there being an

urgent or extraordinary application, and that the Speaker in 1996, examining the

same such language, ruled that indeed the legislation did not qualify for being

considered urgent or extraordinary because of its application beyond anything

that was occurring at the moment in terms of job action. That's the first point.

The second

point I would make is that, just as the Opposition House Leader said back in

1996, this situation has been going on for not weeks but months. The collective

bargaining breakdown has occurred for months. Bargaining itself was attempted to

be started even before the collective agreement expired. The collective

agreement expired August 30, 2002. The teaching assistants of one local actually

invited the employer to the bargaining table before the collective agreement

expired, and the employer refused to do that. Eventually the union had to go to

the Labour Relations Board and bring forward a charge of bargaining in bad

faith. If this government of the day had been the least bit interested in the

welfare of students, it would have been at that point to intervene — when this

matter was before the Labour Relations Board — about a breakdown in

bargaining.

Yesterday

the Labour Relations Board examined the effects of job action at UBC, and they

came to the conclusion…. This is an independent administrative tribunal that

examined an application brought forward by the employer about the ill effects on

students of job action, and the Labour Relations Board said they're not going to

interfere. The Labour Relations Board has full authority to judge and make a

ruling on the ill effects of collective bargaining on education, on student

outcome. In fact, the Labour Relations Board in the past has ruled that job

action in the education sector that affects student outcome cannot continue. The

Labour Relations Board has made a ruling that where grade 12 students facing

examinations are affected in a negative way by job action, the LRB has the right

— and has exercised that right — to order people back to work or declare

them an essential service.

Yesterday

the LRB…. I'm sorry. I think it was yesterday. It could have been Monday or

Tuesday. It was one of those two days that the Labour Relations Board heard this

matter and came to the conclusion that they would not interfere with the job

action at UBC. Again, at no time did this Liberal government interfere in the

Labour Relations Board matter.

I also note

that the basis upon which the Minister of Labour made his case — that this was

an extraordinary urgent matter, that 23,000 students are negatively affected and

that their education outcomes would be negatively affected by this job

action…. In fact, there's

[ Page 5465 ]

no evidence whatsoever that 23,000 students are affected by it. In fact, the

employer — UBC — when asked to present that evidence at the LRB earlier this

week, could not in any way demonstrate the ill effects on any given number of

students. The reason for this was that the job action is of such a nature that,

in fact, there's only been a very short period of time — less than a day —

in which more than one building at the campus is affected at one time. After

that one action where more than one building was affected, the teaching

assistants reverted to, at most, affecting one building for a specific period of

time.

[1520]

I also want

to make one remark in my opening comments about how extraordinary and how urgent

this is. Did the government wake up this morning and say: "Oh my God. How

could this have happened? We had no idea this could have happened"? How

could the government not have known the difficulties of collective bargaining at

universities? How could they not have understood there was going to be difficult

bargaining occurring at the universities?

I'm going

to choose my words carefully here, because this issue is so important. I don't

want to get into an argument with anybody on the government side about whether

funding was increased or decreased. Let me just say this. Every single

university and college itself has acknowledged that its funding is frozen and

that there are implications for frozen funding with the requirement to increase

access and with increased costs. There isn't one institution that has not put

forward that statement itself. At a minimum, the House will acknowledge that. I,

of course, would like to go much further in suggesting that's the best spin

anyone could put on funding. Nevertheless, I will leave it at that — at what

the post-secondary institutions themselves have described.

How could

the government not have known there was going to be a bargaining crunch?

Clearly, by tacit approval they accepted that. By tacit approval of the funding

levels, they also tacitly accepted that bargaining was going to be difficult and

challenging. Yet until now the right to strike, under most circumstances,

prevails. The government also — I heard it over and over from the Minister of

Advanced Education — said it's up to the individual institutions to raise

tuitions or to set their tuitions. So how could the government not have known

tuition rises would become a bargaining issue with teaching assistants?

It's of

their own creation that this matter is here today. It's not urgent; it's not

extraordinary. It is troubling — the collective bargaining that's occurring at

UBC. It's very troubling. We have a situation now…. Well, whenever we debate

second reading, I'll get into those details about the circumstances that exist

in terms of the troubling nature of collective bargaining — how this

government has pitted administration against students in a way that is not of

the administration's making but of this government's making.

I will

conclude my second argument in my initial comments by saying that instead of

arguing that this is urgent and extraordinary, I would say exactly the opposite.

This kind of collective bargaining situation and strike action that is happening

at UBC is exactly what the government has had in mind. It is exactly the

strategy of this government to have a confrontation at UBC, and perhaps at other

universities, of this nature. When they froze funding and allowed tuition to

increase, in fact, the government was well aware that this is the kind of

struggle that would happen.

So, far

from it being urgent or extraordinary, it is by design. It would be a terrible

miscarriage of parliamentary procedure to suggest in any way that these

circumstances are extraordinary or urgent.

Hon. G.

Collins: I wish to address some of the comments made by the member opposite

with regard to the request of government to have this bill move through all

three stages today under standing order 81. I'll try and deal with them perhaps

not in the same chronological order as the member opposite but in a different

order.

[1525]

First of

all, this isn't just about the unions and the employer. That will be contained

within the legislation itself. The reason for the urgency is the impact on

students. It is the impact on the public and the public interest that drives the

urgency of this matter. There are some 3,500 students across the campus at UBC,

where the teaching assistants normally actually teach the courses. They have not

been taught now for two and a half or almost three weeks. There are over 20,000

students who would normally have the services of the teaching assistants in

their labs and seminars, etc., and they have been unable to have access to those

classes as well. That is part of it.

There is

also the fact that the administrative union, the clerical union, has gone on

strike as well, and that is impacting the students' access to the libraries. All

of that is important for this reason. It's final exams for these students for

their year's worth of investment in time, energy and finances in this education

year. It comes down to a process that starts on April 1, which is the exam

period. The exams start April 1. There will be term papers that are probably

currently due, which will certainly continue to be due. Students are unable to

receive the course instruction they require and to do the labs they require.

They are unable to access the library and the documents they need in an effort

to complete their courses. This has become very urgent, and in fact, each day it

is becoming more urgent.

Today we

are nearing a point where we are advised by the university that the students'

whole school year is now becoming at risk. That is the urgency. The bargaining

that's happened before and whether it's worked or not, the bargaining mandate of

government, the process of bargaining, who's right and who's wrong, who's got a

good offer on the table, who doesn't have a good offer on the table…. That is

a process for debate perhaps in legislation but probably more appropriately at

the bargaining table.

What we're

here today to try to deal with is a piece of legislation that will order those

parties back to the

[ Page 5466 ]

table where they can now, with the assistance of a mediator, try to engage in

constructive bargaining and complete a collective agreement. In the intervening

period they would also return to work, and students would return to class and

therefore not forfeit an entire year's worth of work, energy and financial

investment in their university education. That's what drives the urgency. It is

the impact on the students and the need now for government, having been advised

that those students' education is at risk, to step in and deal with that.

If I can

deal with a couple of the items that the member opposite raised about the impact

on students. She mentioned the Labour Relations Board hearings that happened

last week. That was with regard to the location of pickets, and the location of

pickets being in one building or another. Should they be at the entrance of the

campus so that there's some predictability, and students would have to cross one

picket line if that's what they chose to do? The issue that the Labour Relations

Board dealt with did not deal with whether or not they were getting access to

their classes or whether TAs were actually teaching them, or whether or not

there was a picket in front. The issue was where the location of the picketing

was. I think that's an important distinction.

I want to

focus, if I can for a moment, on the comments of the member opposite with regard

to the debate that took place in this House on April 26, 1996. I remember that

debate very well, because the legislation that was introduced to the House had

two components, really. There was, at that time, a longstanding strike that was

taking place in Surrey. Certainly, this was on a Friday that this debate took

place, so the House was being asked to deal with legislation on Friday in order

to ensure that Surrey was resolved — and I'll deal with that part of the act

first — so that the students in Surrey could get back to school. Well, they

weren't going to be going to school on Saturday. They weren't going to be going

to school on Sunday. They were going to be going to school, hopefully, on the

Monday.

[1530]

There was

more to that act than what was presented at the time. The Speaker can certainly

go back and look at the content of the legislation that was introduced at that

time. Certainly, the decision of Speaker Barnes at the time leads one to go and

actually look at the legislation, because the decision on April 26, 1996, from

Emery Barnes goes as follows:

"…on

the matter of an emergency which was raised this morning, I have considered

with very great care all of the submissions made by all hon. members. I accept

that there may indeed be a most serious situation in Surrey. I feel, however,

that the bill in its present form goes well beyond the situation in Surrey and

does not satisfy the stringent guidelines — and I must emphasize 'stringent

guidelines' — applicable to standing order 81 to permit this bill to proceed

through all stages on this day, and therefore it fails."

Mr.

Speaker, that's important, because if you go and look at the debate and you

look at the bill that was presented to the House, not only did it deal with

Surrey students, but it dealt…. It was called, if I remember correctly, the

Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. Not only was it not

just Surrey, it was not just education, but it was also health care.

Perhaps I

can remind members of this House of the significance of the day, April 26, 1996,

because it was the intent of the government at that time to drop the writ and go

to the polls on the Monday. They wanted this legislation through the House and

passed — all three stages — on the Friday so they could start their campaign

on the Saturday and Sunday and draw up the writ on Monday.

What

happened at the time, with the rejection of the request of the government for

standing order 81, was that the House sat on the Friday. It then did second

reading on Saturday and committee stage on Sunday. On Monday morning the writ

was dropped, and we were into an election. The motivation by government to pass

that legislation and do it in an urgent way was suspect at the time.

Subsequently, I think, it was proven to have other motives — if I can put it

that way. Mr. Speaker, that is an important issue.

It is

important also to go back and look at the words of Speaker Barnes at the time,

because he makes reference to the broad-ranging nature of the bill. There was

another part of that bill, aside from Surrey, that allowed for the government,

by that legislation — I think it was by regulation by the order of the

Minister of Labour — to order the cessation of any job action in the education

or the health care sectors for a period of time, which would have allowed the

government to get through the election period. That act was very broad-ranging.

It was collective bargaining across the education sector, across the health care

sector, and I think Speaker Barnes appropriately rejected the request for an

exemption under standing order 81.

If I can

look at another example, if I may. On April 2, 2000, Speaker Hartley made a

decision with regard to an attempt by the government at that time to pass a bill

to deal with collective bargaining in Surrey again. The legislation that the

government brought forward at that time…. Sorry, I think I have the wrong

location. There was a piece of legislation which was brought to the House in

April 2000, which was narrowly focused to one area, and the Speaker actually

made a ruling that, in fact, it should proceed through all three stages in one

day. That was because of the impact on those students. It was not a

broad-ranging piece of legislation. It was a relatively narrow piece of

legislation dealing with the situation at hand.

Now the

question arises as to whether or not the piece of legislation before us is a

narrow piece of legislation or a broad piece of legislation. I use the example

quoted by the member opposite, Speaker Barnes's ruling in 1996, and compare it

to the piece of legislation that we have before us. The legislation in 1996, as

I mentioned, dealt not only with the school strike in Surrey but with any school

strike anywhere in the province and any health care strike anywhere in the

province — real or perceived or possible in the future.

Bill 21

that's before us has a couple of provisions. The one point I want to make, and

the one

section of

[ Page 5467 ]

the bill that I want to point out to the members and to the Speaker, is in

the

definitions section. It is the definition of "employer." The

employer is not any university or any college or any school district or any

health authority or any hospital. It is restricted to the University of British

Columbia. The reason for that is that the students who are being impacted by

this strike are the students at the University of British Columbia. This

legislation, and indeed the call for standing order 81 exemption for this

legislation, is driven by the needs of those students at the University of

British Columbia and the impacts on them.

[1535]

In another

section,

section 2 following, the bill talks about not only those unions and

bargaining units that are currently striking but also those that might strike or

those that have been on a strike but may not have the direct impact that perhaps

the TAs have. The legislation and the call for the urgency are determined by the

urgent need of the students and the public interest. It's not directly to do

with the process or the stages of process for other negotiations that may be

taking place. That is a matter of debate for the bill itself. The issue of the

urgency is the impact on those students.

For

example, if the legislation were to be passed through the House today — or

even, for that matter, in three days' time — and the students were back in

class and the teachers or the TAs and the clerical workers were back at work,

there would be nothing stopping another labour dispute, at that very narrowly

defined employer of the University of British Columbia, from occurring, which

might have exactly the same or worse impacts upon those very same students. The

issue isn't the unions; the issue is the impact on the students. That is the

public interest that's driving the urgency that requires this legislation to

pass through all three stages today.

With the

narrow parameters that are around the

definitions in the act, I think one can

compare this legislation with the previous Bill 21 from 1996 that the member

refers to, which was the Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance

Act. One can compare those two pieces of legislation, note the broad scope of

the legislation in 1996 and the reference of Speaker Barnes to the nature of

that bill and the reasons the standing order 81 exemption request failed, and

then look at the narrow provisions of this Bill 21 to that workplace and those

students who are impacted and see that in fact this legislation does qualify

under standing order 81, as has been done on previous occasions. The one I

mentioned, which I think is a good example, is the decision by Speaker Hartley

on April 2, 2000.

With that,

I think one can look at the rulings, the legislation and the debate and can

determine quite clearly that this bill is in the interests of the students who

are affected by it. As well, the urgency impacts those students directly. It's

time we got them back into their classrooms so they can complete their school

year. They have about two and a bit weeks left, and it's very urgent that they

get back, conclude their studies, finish their exams and put this school year

behind them, because it's very much at risk.

MacPhail: My comments in reply will be brief. The Government House Leader

makes, as I can tell, three arguments: that public interest is served by this;

that exams are approaching; and that the university, being the employer, has

stated that the school year is at risk.

To address

the issue of public interest, it is a bit galling to hear that this government

has the public interest in mind, when it comes to advanced education or the

interests of students. Far be it from us to be fooled by that headline in the Vancouver

Sun this morning, which says how well British Columbia is doing in

graduating people from college. All of that was in the 1990s, due to good,

excellent education policy then — all of which has ground to a halt in 2001

with the election of this government. There's lack of appropriate funding. There

are increases in tuition. There's increase in debt load, so it's a bit

galling…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1540]

MacPhail: …to hear that this government has the public interest in mind at

all in relation to this bill.

The

Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader, suggests that somehow the LRB

matter — the decision of earlier this week — is irrelevant. In fact, when

the LRB was listening to the effects of picketing, they made exactly the

arguments about the ill effects of building-by-building picketing. They made the

arguments about the ill effects that they claimed building-by-building picketing

would have on campus. They judged at the time…. They ruled in their silence

that they could not determine ill effects, because as I said earlier, it is

absolutely within the purview of the LRB to the determine ill effects of

picketing on student outcome. They've made that ruling before. They did it in

terms of grade 12 examinations in the K-to-12 system. It was exactly on point

that the Labour Relations Board examined that issue and came to the conclusion

not to interfere.

My comments

about the university. Let's be clear. It's not the university; it's the employer

making this argument, which the government has bought completely. The employer

says the school year is at risk, and therefore the situation is urgent or

extraordinary. In fact, this bill exacerbates the impending exam

schedule for

this reason and puts it at risk. The bill expires March 31. Classes continue

until April 9, and the examination

schedule starts the week after that.

anything, this legislation puts the whole…. The fact that it expires, that

there's no mediation order, that there's no return to bargaining ordered, that

exactly all there is, is an IIC…. There's an IIC.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes, there is.

MacPhail: I heard the Minister of Labour say: "Yes, there is."

There's an industrial inquiry commis-

[ Page 5468 ]

sioner that has no settlement powers. There's no ability to make a

determination or impose a determination. This bill, if anything, moves the time

line, in fact, to put the examination

schedule more at risk, which goes back to

my point in my argument. It is by design that this government has set up the

bargaining structure and brought in this legislation to indeed, I would say,

actually make the situation at the beginning of April urgent and extraordinary

in a sense that the public would be pushed to such a determination to say:

"Oh yes. This cannot continue if strikes resume at that point or job action

resumes."

I know, Mr.

Speaker, you have your work cut out for you. Regardless of what the…. Not

regardless — I don't mean that. My apologies. In response to the Government

House Leader's argument about how you must differentiate this Bill 21 from the

1996 Bill 21, the principle is the same. An application of legislation broader

than the circumstances that exist as we speak makes the bill not of an urgent or

extraordinary nature.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, because of the importance of this decision and this

motion, I will hear further arguments, but I would ask speakers to keep their

comments brief and try not to repeat everything that has been said here.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I'll take your guidance on that.

Just to

point out a little bit more in respect to the urgency, the teaching assistants

— that's the CUPE Local 2278 — are actually responsible for approximately 40

percent of the teaching load at UBC. That means for this last…. I think it was

February 12 when, in fact, they went onto the picket lines. That's had a

substantive impact on the students that have not been receiving the tutorials,

marking of exams, laboratories, grade assignments and essays. These education

services to this point for that period of time have been withdrawn.

[1545]

We've

mentioned the aspect that we are very close to the end of the year in regard to

the teaching. The other aspect that the Leader of the Opposition had brought out

was that there is, in fact…. She didn't mention this. I'd like to clarify

that. There is within this bill a determination that the parties will return to

the table within 72 hours of this bill being passed. We are working to assist in

the facilitation of a negotiated settlement. We've put that time limit of sunset

of March 31. I've required that my Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour will be

the one who will be facilitating these discussions, and we are hopeful that

these discussions will, of course, result in a resolution.

With those

two points, the matter itself is one of an urgent nature, and it is, as the

House Leader has mentioned, very focused and specific to the resolution of this

dispute.

Hon. G.

Collins: I have one other late-breaking piece of information which I wish to

make you aware of in your deliberations, Mr. Speaker There's an e-mail from CUPE

2950 to its membership. The subject is: "Urgent. Please read and pass to

CUPE 2950 members." Importance: high. "Effective immediately, we are

on full strike. Please collect your personal belongings and leave your office

immediately. All members are to go to gate 1 at Westbrook, the University

Boulevard, for a protest rally."

Mr.

Speaker, I just think that gives an indication of the kind of escalation that

not only has been happening but is currently happening. That was sent at 2:42

p.m. today.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to thank everyone for their

contributions to the debate. It is a complex issue. I will retire forthwith to

peruse all of the arguments and consider everything that's been said. I want to

make members aware that I am very much aware of previous rulings by Speaker

Barnes and Speaker Hartley and others, and I will take those into consideration.

Is it the

wish of the House to continue business, or shall we recess until we come back

with a ruling? Government House Leader?

Hon. G.

Collins: I would prefer at this point that we recess. I will check with the

Minister of Education, whose estimates are next on the agenda, to see if she has

staff available; and if so, perhaps we could reconvene when she's available.

Mr.

Speaker: We will recess now for a short time. I can't put an exact time on

it, but it's while we consider all arguments and deliberate over this important

ruling.

Thank you.

We're in recess for a short period. We'll ring the division bells to call the

members back.

The House

recessed from 3:48 p.m. to 4:49 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 81 Motion

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the question before me is whether, under standing

order 81, an urgent or extraordinary occasion exists wherein Bill 21, intituled

University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act, may be advanced

through more than one stage in one day. I have examined the bill and listened to

the arguments which were ably presented by both sides of the House.

The bill

deals with the labour situation at one institution only — namely, the

University of British Columbia. It is limited in effect to the period from the

present to the end of the month — namely, 19 days — at which time it

expires.

[1650]

The

Government House Leader states that students' exams are scheduled to commence in

20 days and that

[ Page 5469 ]

a strike will have a direct impact on the academic year of a large number of

students. In their arguments, both House Leaders dealt with Speaker Barnes's

ruling of April 26, 1996, wherein he ruled that standing order 81 would not be

applied where a bill was too broad in scope. The bill in that case, Education

and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, extended beyond the scope of a

labour dispute involving the Surrey school district. The Opposition House Leader

argued that this bill is too broad and, in particular, that the definition of

"trade union" in

section 1 allows the government to designate a union

by regulation.

It is my

view that the definition of trade union must be read in the light of the

definition of "employer" in

section 1, which is limited to the

University of British Columbia. It is my view that the limitation of the scope

and duration of the bill at hand distinguishes it from the bill considered by

Speaker Barnes. I am also of the view that the actions with which the bill is

concerned will have an immediate and detrimental effect on the academic year of

a large number of students.

Accordingly,

I am of the view that the case has been made out for application of standing

order 81 so that Bill 21 may advance through all stages.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 21 be read a second time.

As I stated

in first reading, it is out of concern for the UBC students that I've introduced

Bill 21. Negotiations at UBC began more than one year ago. As Minister of

Labour, I want to see free collective bargaining work. However, when

negotiations break down and an impasse results, it is my responsibility to step

in, and I have a responsibility to do so in a measured and reasonable manner

that encourages the parties to also respond reasonably.

To that

end, before I took these steps, I in fact met with both parties for

approximately three hours on Monday to try and ascertain where these

negotiations were at and how one could best help in bringing the parties

together and reach a negotiated settlement. The legislation will ensure that

during any cooling-off period or periods prescribed under this act, every

employee must resume his or her duties and work

schedule of employment with the

employer.

Any strike,

declaration of a strike, authorization of a strike or direction to go on strike

given before or during the cooling-off period is a breach of this legislation.

Officers or representatives of trade unions must not in any way impede, prevent

or attempt to impede or prevent any persons from returning to his or her duties.

Likewise, an employer must not seek to prevent any person from continuing or

resuming his or her duties. An employer must also not discharge or discipline a

person because they were locked out or on strike before this act came into

force.

I've

directed that within 72 hours of this act coming into force, the trade unions

and the employer, UBC, must recommence good-faith collective bargaining and must

make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement. To assist the

parties, I will be appointing my assistant deputy minister, Richard Longpre, as

an industrial inquiry commissioner under the Labour Code. His job will be to

facilitate discussions and to report to me on the progress of these

negotiations.

The act

calls for an extension of the last collective agreements to remain in force

between UBC and its striking teaching assistants and support and library staff

until such time as collective agreements are concluded or until the act is no

longer in force. This bill will expire on March 31. As I said in my first

reading, I hope the parties will use this time wisely. With good faith by both

parties and with the good offices of my assistant deputy minister, I am hopeful

we can reach a negotiated settlement during the time that has been allotted.

I move that

the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered….

Actually, I'll leave that.

[1655]

Mr.

Speaker: We're at second reading stage of Bill 21.

MacPhail: I eagerly await the comments of every single Liberal MLA to see

whether or not they actually care about what's going on here. We are debating in

one day…. This government is ramming through legislation to once again take

away the right of workers to strike. There's no other way to read this

legislation.

This

Liberal government, first of all, sets up circumstances that pits a public

sector administration against its workers because the government has so

hamstrung the administration through funding cuts. I'll be anxious to see how

every Liberal MLA in this House stands up and defends the actions of their

government. I can hardly wait to hear the arguments they can make in defence of

this legislation.

I think

this is the fourth time — I could be wrong; it could be the fifth time — in

21 months that this Liberal government has used its overwhelming majority to

take away collective bargaining rights from working people. It's the fourth or

fifth time. It is with unprecedented frequency that this government has used

this kind of legislation.

I did a

quick search in preparation for this to see what other Canadian jurisdiction at

any time in history has legislated workers back four times. I just did a search

for four times, not five times, across Canada in a period of 21 months, and you

can't find a jurisdiction that in one parliamentary term has ever legislated

back workers that frequently — ever.

We're only

halfway through this government's mandate, and they — this Liberal government

— have set a record for imposing draconian legislation on working people.

That's if you take into account Mike

[ Page 5470 ]

Harris. That's if you take into account the Thatcher days in Saskatchewan.

That's if you take into account the Tory days in Manitoba. It's if you take into

account the Duplessis days of Quebec. Never before has a government used this

draconian legislation as frequently as this government. My gosh, I guess we're

on the way into a Guinness Book of World Records by the time this term is

finished.

Let's

examine exactly what this legislation is about. In fact, I fully understand the

embarrassment of this government that they somehow have to accuse anybody who is

against this legislation that they somehow don't care about the university.

Well, we'll get to what university presidents have said about this government.

Interjections.

MacPhail: I think they had better just stop their heckling, because we will

be reading into the record what university presidents think about this

government.

An Hon.

Member: Oh my.

MacPhail: Exactly.

The

government likes to think it takes an approach that actually helps the employer

all the time. Well, we'll get to what this employer thinks about this government

and their commitment to advanced education. I take great pride in standing up

here on behalf of working people as probably — I'm not going to say for sure,

but probably — the only MLA at this point, in the absence of my colleague from

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who cares about working people and their rights to

collective bargaining.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Go home.

MacPhail: Pardon me? Mr. Speaker…

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1700]

MacPhail: …I don't mind heckling, but the kind of heckling from the

Minister of Energy is just downright rude when he suggests that I should go

home. Maybe the public should hear this. I'm the only person here to stand up to

the draconian legislation of this government, and the Minister of Energy and

Mines suggests I should go home. I guess that would clear the path. I guess that

would clear the path for everything this government would like to do on its own,

without scrutiny, in secrecy. I'm sure that would make the Minister of Energy

and Mines as happy as anything. He could then privatize B.C. Hydro without any

scrutiny.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us return to Bill 21.

MacPhail: I'm happy to be the only person to hold this government to

account, but it is outrageous. I say this to every member of the B.C. public.

They are represented by a government that suggests that the only person who will

hold this government to account should go home. That's exactly what he just said

— exactly.

But we will

get to the debate about how the universities actually think about this

government. I stand with pride to defend working people in this province who are

under attack each and every day by this government. Let's go through how they're

under attack. We have a piece of legislation that the Minister of Labour tries

to very quietly present, but he is extremely cynical in his presentation to say:

"Gosh, we tried everything. We just tried everything, and now we have to

intervene."

I had a

three-hour meeting with the parties. It will be interesting to have put on the

record the contents of what that three-hour meeting was actually about, and we

will do that at committee stage. But why has this dilemma, this bargaining

situation, come as a surprise to this government? It is of their very own making

that the employer and the unions find themselves with irreconcilable

differences.

It was this

government that deregulated tuition. It was this government that said to the

universities: "If you want any extra money, you've got to raise it

yourself. You can increase tuition." It was this government that said:

"Universities, you're on your own in terms of getting any more money."

In fact, I will go through right now about how this Liberal government has

completely cut any adequate funding to any post-secondary institutions. That cut

in funding has given rise to this labour dispute.

Let me just

go through some of those figures. The Ministry of Advanced Education's budget

was frozen at $1.899 billion in the year '02-03. That was the funding that they

received in '01-02. Then this government came in and froze it at that level. It

will stay at that level until right through the year '04-05. Then, in the year

'05-06, the funding will increase to $1.929 billion — an increase of $30

million. It's such an insignificant increase. It's got a whole bunch of zeroes

to the right of the decimal point to even determine what that increase is, and

that's an increase after the budget has been frozen from '01-02. That's '01-02,

'02-03, '03-04 and '04-05 — four years of exactly the same funding. Then they

get a bit of a little reprieve in the fifth year, getting $30 million across a

budget of almost $2 billion.

[1705]

We have

institutions that have all sorts of pressures on them — pressures that come

from collective bargaining…. But I know this government doesn't care about

working people's wages, so that's just one pressure. This government couldn't

care a whit about compensation for working people. It's only the very wealthy

that they care about and the corporations, and that's demonstrated in their

budget. But there are other pressures on post-secondary institutions, and let's

look at those pressures.

Although

the budget for the entire ministry is frozen for five years, the funding

provided to the educa-

[ Page 5471 ]

tional institutions themselves will actually decline. That funding to the

institutions declines for the next two years. In the '02-03 budget year the

funding was $1.4 billion — $1.407 billion. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. When you're

dealing with these large numbers, it's important to go to those decimal points.

In the year '03-04 that funding will be $1.401 billion. In '04-05 that funding

will be $1.379 billion. That's a decline in funding. While all of the other cost

pressures are going up, this government is cutting the funding to the

post-secondary institutions. In the context of cutting that funding, they're

imposing, by their own actions, huge cost pressures.

Let's not

even deal with wage negotiations. Let's talk about MSP premium cost increases

and gas tax cost increases. Let's talk about ICBC premium increases and sales

tax increases brought on by this government, which affect institutions. Those

are direct costs brought on by this government's actions at the same time that

they're cutting the funding to institutions.

Of course,

we also have to think about the fact that these institutions operate in the real

world, where inflation in this province is increasing at 3.3 percent. We don't

even have to go to wage negotiations to figure out that this Liberal government

has put institutions in an unbelievable squeeze play — cut their funding and

then cut them loose in terms of how they're going to survive.

Over the

next two years funding to post-secondary education institutes will be cut by

$28.3 million. That's less money, I'd say. I know the government doesn't

actually like to talk about "worse off" — for instance, when they

make Pharmacare recipients worse off. But the institutions are worse off. The

little pittance that the institutions are promised three years down the road,

after four years of funding decreases, is an increase in the institutions of $10

million in the year '05-06. Even then, educational institutions and

organizations will receive $18.9 million less in '05-06 than they did in '02-03.

Oh, there's a government that cares about students, isn't it? There's a

government that wants to put the students' best interests first. Balderdash. By

their own actions, they are the ones that have made students worse off and the

institutions themselves as well.

In the next

four years B.C. is expected to experience a 5 percent increase in the amount of

post-secondary-age British Columbians. That's defined as the group of

18-to-29-year-olds. Our demographics show that population group will increase by

5 percent. The number of British Columbians in this age group is expected to

increase at least until the year 2014. Post-secondary schools will be expected

to serve an additional 9,652 full-time-equivalent students by the year '05-06.

So, at the same time that they're having their funding cut, these same

institutions will have to serve almost 10,000 more students.

[1710]

The

Ministry of Advanced Education has set a baseline of total credentials awarded

— that's the number of full-time students who graduate from post-secondary

institutions — at 54,052 for '01-02. That's right out of the service plan.

That's expected to increase to 56,484 by the year '05-06, by the ministry's own

service plan. That means that universities and colleges are being asked to hand

out an extra 2,432 degrees, diplomas and certificates by the year '05-06. Well,

what does anybody care about that? This government is imposing those quotas on

the institutions at the same time that it's actually reducing real funding as it

stood in '02-03. It's more degrees that the universities and colleges have to

award and with less funding.

addition, the government wants to increase student spaces in computer science,

electrical and computer engineering, social and child protection, nursing,

residential care workers and medical students, for a combined total of 16,596

extra student spaces in those areas — all with the reduced funding. Even

within their own service plan, the bare minimum that universities and colleges

must do…. They'll do it with reduced funding, and then this government sets an

additional almost 17,000 degrees and certificates that they want the

universities and colleges to deliver with less money than they had in '02-03.

Funding is

down, and demands, expectations and accountability measures are up. Universities

and colleges are being asked to do so much more with so much less. The

government is surprised that collective bargaining broke down. The statistics

I've given you here haven't even begun to approach the situation of paying

working people who work at the universities and colleges a fair wage.

The

Minister of Energy and Mines heckles and shows disdain for working people. The

member for Kamloops–North Thompson shows absolute disdain for working people.

The Minister for Deregulation takes great pride in having absolute disdain for

working people in this province. He suggests that he's for students. The

Minister of Labour himself gave the statistic that teaching assistants provide

40 percent of the teaching to students, and that member, the Minister for

Deregulation, says he's for students. How can he possibly be for students when

he attacks the people who teach those students? Absolutely.

He's

typical of his government. He's absolutely typical of his government. He thinks

students learn on their own. He thinks students can show up in crowded

classrooms with less funding and just learn on their own. That's what he thinks.

I'll tell you something: his view is shared, if not by every member — and I'm

unwilling to go that far…. His view of absolute disdain for those people who

teach students is shared by the vast majority of this Liberal government.

[1715]

Well, let's

see what the universities think of this government and the terrible situation

they've been put in. Let's just see. Let's hear the catcalls when we read from

the University Presidents Council news release. Now, these are the university

presidents, a conservative bunch of people who know…. These are the very top

people in the universities, who know how important it is to have a working

relationship with the provincial government. Here's what they said on February

[ Page 5472 ]

18, 2003, after this government introduced its last budget. The University

Presidents Council…. By the way, this didn't get reported in the media. It's a

news release, though. It wasn't a secret document. Every Liberal got it. The

Minister for Deregulation got this: "Universities disappointed in

provincial advanced education budget." I quote:

"'The

provincial government's 2003-04 budget fails to address the growing public

concern about access to post-secondary education,' said Dr. Charles Jago,

chair of the University Presidents Council of B.C." I'm quoting from the

news release. "'At a time when the age cohort for post-secondary

education is growing rapidly,' Jago added, 'it is disappointing to see the

lack of an overall plan, let alone adequate funding, to address the already

critical shortage of capacity in the university system.'

"'We

know that the fastest-growing occupations require the most education,' Jago

said, 'and that British Columbia already graduates significantly fewer degree

recipients than the rest of Canada.'"

I continue

with the news release from the University Presidents Council:

"'A

wave of additional students is now reaching university age, and because of

limited funding growth from the province, our institutions will not be able to

keep up with the demands,' said Don Avison, president of the University

Presidents Council.

"'The

most troublesome part of this is, it was entirely predictable,' said the

University Presidents Council. Population demographics for British Columbia's

youth population show the second-highest growth rate in the country over the

next decade.

"According

to Avison, 'Those extra K-to-12 students that were housed in portable

classrooms in the mid-nineties are now making their way to the door of

post-secondary institutions across the province. Unfortunately, governments

are not moving with sufficient speed to get ready to accommodate those

students. This has resulted in ever-increasing entrance requirements. The

capacity crunch is already serious,' said Avison, 'and there was little

indication today to believe that we are moving in the right direction.'"

Mr.

Speaker, never before have I seen such a damning commentary from the University

Presidents Council, but I welcome…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

MacPhail: …any Liberal MLA to stand up and demonstrate that there was such

a damning news release from the University Presidents Council. In fact, I think

they'll see exactly the opposite — exactly the opposite. But I'm willing to be

challenged. Let the member for Kamloops–North Thompson put his foghorn where

his mouth is. Let him do that. Let him stand up and show how his record is not

the worst — his government.

Let's go to

those other people that the Minister for Deregulation condemns, maybe because

they're faculty. Maybe that's a level that that minister respects, being into

class war every time he speaks. Let me read from the Confederation of University

Faculty Associations of British Columbia. These are the faculty that teach at

our universities. Let's read what they have to say.

[1720]

This,

again, was released on February 18, 2003, the day of this Liberal government's

last budget: "'Funding down for universities and colleges; further tuition

increases inevitable,' say profs." I pause for a moment because one of the

major issues in the dispute between the teaching assistants and UBC, on which

this government is now siding with the employer, is the fact that teaching

assistants have to pay the massive tuition increases out of their own pockets

where before they did not have to do that, nor do they have to in other

jurisdictions. So tuition increases being inevitable is absolutely key to

understanding how absolutely expected this bargaining dispute was and how this

bargaining dispute is absolutely the creation of this Liberal government.

Here's what

the Confederation of University Faculty Associations said after this

government's budget of February 18:

"'Funding

for post-secondary education will continue to decrease over the next three

years,' the organization representing B.C. university professors noted today,

February 18. 'By the year '05-06, B.C. universities and colleges will receive

$19 million less than they do today — this despite a government-mandated

enrolment increase of 9,850 students.

" 'Despite

a small increase in '05-06,' said Richard Coe, president of the Confederation

of University Faculty Associations of B.C., 'after accounting for inflation,

government funding per student that year will be near an all-time low.'"

Oh, where's the member for Kamloops–North Thompson now? "Funding will

be near an all-time low." That's exactly what it says here. Then the

concluding paragraph:

"'Tuition

fees will have more than doubled in the first three years of their

mandate'" — meaning this Liberal government's mandate — "'if

government carries through with its plans,' Coe said. 'At a time when the

knowledge economy needs more university and college graduates, government cuts

and tuition hikes are sending the wrong message to B.C.'s young people.'"

Okay,

here's a group that I know hardly anybody…. Well, no. Actually, this is a

group that represents students, but I know that many members in this chamber

say this organization has no right to exist. The member for Burquitlam

actually spends, as far as I can tell, his entire political career trying to

put the boots to the Canadian Federation of Students. He's contributed

absolutely nothing else to the well-being of the province, but he spends his

entire time putting the boots to here. But they do represent students, they

have democratic elections, and they absolutely have a voice.

This might

come as a surprise to the members in the chamber. Here's what the Canadian

Federation of Students said, and it's important that I say "I quote"

because they actually use Liberalspeak that I just find reprehensible. They

mimic Liberalspeak, so I am quoting: "Rural College Funding Cuts Undermine

Heart-

[ Page 5473 ]

land Strategy; Students to Pay More for Lower Quality Post-Secondary

Education."

"Students

today condemned the provincial budget for cutting $7 million in post-secondary

institution operating grants in the coming year" — this was dated

February 18, 2003 —"'It takes some nerve for the Premier to talk about

a heartland strategy, when he continues to cut funding to rural colleges,'

said Canadian Federation of Students chairperson Jaime Matten. 'The Minister

of Finance and the Premier can't seriously expect people in rural B.C. to

believe that a minuscule boutique program that will fund six researchers makes

up for college funding cuts.'

"B.C.

national executive representative, Summer McFadyen, said that the budget

wasn't just bad news for rural students. 'This budget continues the pattern of

cuts that have led B.C. universities and colleges to pass the largest tuition

fee hikes in Canada in the past two years,' she said. 'The Premier promised

B.C. students he would improve the quality of post-secondary education, but in

two years we have seen class sizes increase, wait-lists grow, and services and

programs cut at colleges and universities across B.C.,' said McFadyen. 'This

budget means that not only will students be paying higher tuition fees, but

the quality of education will sharply decline.'"

Funding cuts for rural colleges and rural universities — wow. Let me see.

How is that good news for this government's so-called heartland strategy?

[1725]

I pause for

a moment to refer to the articles that appeared in the newspaper in recent days,

showing that there was an explosion of college graduates and university

graduates throughout the 1990s in British Columbia. In fact, the increase in

post-secondary graduates in the 1990s in British Columbia led the country.

That's because in that so-called decade of decline that the Liberal government

likes to talk about all the time, there was a tuition fee freeze. Student

financial aid increased. Funding to universities and colleges increased.

Programs expanded. Single parents got child care so that they could attend

university and college. People on social assistance got extra assistance to

attend college and university. Gosh, even kids in foster care were mandated that

they had a right to go to university and college after 19. All of that's gone.

All of that has been legislated out of existence by this government.

One last

comment on why this bargaining dispute should come as no surprise to this

government and why this draconian legislation is not in any way in the public

interest or in the interest of students. In fact, this government's attack on

students is exactly what's given rise to this bargaining dispute. The College

Institute Educators Association — more people who teach students and had that

wonderful success record throughout the 1990s…. Here's what they said on

February 18.

"B.C.

students can expect high tuition and a continued decline in access with the

2003-04 provincial budget. College Institute Educators Association of B.C.

president Cindy Oliver expressed disappointment that overall funding for

post-secondary institutions will decline in the coming year.

"'We

understand that budgets for colleges, university colleges and institutions

will remain frozen at last year's level, and while this is better news than a

decrease, increased student enrolment pressures will not be met within this

coming year's budgets,' said Oliver."

There's

pretty much everybody who is at the university condemning this government —

university presidents, faculties, instructors, students condemning this

government for making funding cuts in post-secondary education.

What's the

result of this? What's the result of this government deregulating tuition,

telling universities that they're on their own for getting money, and then

making funding cuts? Well, we see it here today. This Liberal government,

because of those actions, is pitting workers, staff, students and administrators

against each other. That's exactly what they're doing here today. The reality is

that this government has passed the buck to universities to pass their agenda of

cutbacks. The government makes the cuts, and then they say — to the University

of B.C. in this particular case: "Hey, University of B.C. Make sure you

pass those funding cuts through to everybody you deal with, including the people

who teach your students."

[1730]

Not only do

they have to deal with funding cuts, but the institutions have to deal with the

inflationary cost pressures, staffing cost pressures and government-imposed cost

pressures at virtually every turn.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

I think UBC

is, if I'm not mistaken, an institution with an operating budget in excess of

$400 million. In fact, it may be closer to $500 million now — larger than

many, many, many private corporations in the province. They have to deal with

the increased taxes that this government has imposed on them, like everybody

else. They've got increased benefit costs, not because a big, bad union went in

and went on strike and said, "We want more benefits" — not because

of that. They've got increased benefit costs because this government has

downloaded those benefit costs onto the employer.

Hiking

Pharmacare, hiking MSP premiums. They're getting out of the business of allowing

ordinary British Columbians to have eye physician care and out of the business

of providing any sort of supplementary physician care. All those costs now are

downloaded onto the employer.

The

gasoline tax increase — a 3.5-cent-per-litre increase. The Minister of Finance

stood up and said: "I have no idea what those cost pressures will be on

public institutions." Well, isn't that interesting? He knows exactly how

much he's going to collect, but I guess he doesn't know who he's going to

collect it from. Gee, that's a bit of a stretch. He knows full well what the

cost pressures are on public institutions because of their tax increases.

ICBC

premium increases. UBC has a fleet of vehicles in the hundreds to serve their

students and do the work of the university, and their insurance premiums have

skyrocketed. UBC, in their operating of almost

[ Page 5474 ]

$500 million per year, has to pay — I bet you — millions in increased

sales tax charges because this government jacked up the sales tax. This is only

the beginning. This government's off-loading of costs onto universities will

increase and increase.

In that

context, I think one could say if somehow…. In fact, let me make this

challenge. Let the Minister of Labour stand up and prove that these cuts in

funding are not about union-busting. Let him stand up and prove that, because he

and his government entered this chamber with yet another draconian piece of

legislation knowing exactly the effect of his government's funding cuts. Yet he

comes in here today and says: "Oh gosh, this is at an impasse." It's

at an impasse that his government created, so how is this not about

union-busting? How is it not?

As usual,

they all run and hide behind the skirts of someone else. That's what they do.

These Liberal MLAs don't actually go directly and say: "Well, you know

what? We don't value your institution, we've cut funding for it, we're going to

face you dead-on, you're not getting any money, and we're going to legislate you

back to work." No, they don't do that. They force the administrators of

these institutions and the administrators of UBC to bear the brunt of passing on

these funding cuts. They hide behind the skirts of UBC. That's exactly what

they're doing.

This is not

a beef between university administrators and the teaching assistants. It's a

assistants are angry about tuition increases and the need to pay a larger

percentage of their income on tuition. They are absolutely dismayed that tuition

increases brought about by this government have had the effect of translating

into a wage cut for teaching assistants. Let's see this government stand up and

say how they value students, when the very people who are teaching these

students are actually getting a wage cut.

[1735]

I couldn't

believe that the Minister of Labour had the gall to stand up, when he was trying

to describe this as an emergency situation, and say: "Well, these teaching

assistants do 40 percent of the teaching." Exactly. That's exactly right.

They do 40 percent of the teaching, and this government is imposing a wage cut

on them. If it's an emergency, it's entirely of this government's own making —

nobody else. Not the UBC administration and not the teaching assistants. This

government created this dispute.

Now, I must

say that the university employer has exacerbated the situation. Nobody likes to

talk about this because, of course, this government is so anti-worker that

they'll never, ever chastise the employer if they can just legislate on behalf

of the employer. But here's what this employer did right in the middle of

bargaining with their teaching assistants. The University of British Columbia

employer said to PhD candidates: "Oh, you get your tuition free. Yes, we're

going to give you your tuition free. By the way, your children can have free

tuition as well." Right in the middle of this bargaining the employer

creates winners with free tuition for PhD candidates, but if you're an MA your

tuition costs skyrocket. How's that for good bargaining? How's that? Somehow the

university employer thought that was good bargaining strategy.

Let's just

be very clear. Yes, it's coming as a surprise to some Liberal MLAs, I see. It's

coming as a shock that perhaps this dispute is entirely of the employer's own

creation. If you're a teaching assistant that's a PhD candidate, not only are

all your tuition costs, including the risen tuition costs, taken care of, but

your children get free tuition. Yet if you're an MA TA — a master's candidate,

and you're a teaching assistant — you've got to take a wage cut. But gee, this

is all coming as an emergency situation, is it? Well, when did the university

employer make that great decision? Right in the middle of bargaining with the

teaching assistants — right in the middle of it. They didn't create an

emergency. They created a disaster, a disaster that's been in the making for

weeks. There's nothing extraordinary about this at all.

When the

government, after making their funding cuts, hid behind the skirts of the

employer and said, "Oh, make sure you pass this on to those teaching

assistants," they also knew that the employer had made a huge, huge

negative impact on the whole bargaining climate with their giving of free

tuition — picking winners and therefore making losers.

[1740]

Now, I'm

happy that PhD candidates are getting free tuition. That's the way it should be.

That's the way universities do it around this country and attract the excellent,

skilled, best talent. Yet why is it now that teaching assistants who are not PhD

candidates have to go on strike just to prevent their wages from being cut? How

does that occur? There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about this. In fact,

this government knew exactly what was going to happen when all of these events

came together. In fact, I submit that this is the government's strategy.

This is

exactly the government's strategy. It's exactly their plan: to be able to come

in here and legislate an end to the workers' rights. I bet you the Minister of

Labour will get up and say: "Oh, we're not taking away workers' rights —

absolutely not. We've got an IIC here. We've got an IIC that's going to go in

and do business." Is it an IIC that either party had input into? I'd be

happy to know. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could make clear that the IIC, who

is an assistant deputy minister reporting directly to this government, was

mutually agreed upon. Perhaps he can make it clear.

I expect

the answer is that no, he can't make it clear, because the IIC of this

government's choosing was not mutually agreed upon. I expect the minister will

have to admit that the parties who objected to the person who's supposed to get

bargaining on track were the TAs. So we have a third party, who is not mutually

agreed upon, going in. The working people lose their right to job action, and

then it all comes to a grinding halt on March 31. It all comes to a grinding

halt. The bill expires. The IIC is not mutually agreed upon. There

[ Page 5475 ]

are no third-party binding recommendations, and the government isn't going to

restore their funding cuts.

The

University of B.C. employer isn't going to treat TAs in a fair manner in the way

they did some TAs — PhD candidates — so there's nothing in this bill that

works in the public interest — absolutely nothing. What does happen, though,

is that it will stall the workers' rights until March 31. Exams start the second

week of April. Then nothing will happen except that working people's rights will

have been taken away for 20 days.

The

government will come back into this Legislature and bring in its fifth — I

think it might be sixth, but let's say its fifth — piece of draconian

legislation imposing a settlement on these working people. Why? Because of the

public interest. Exams are nine days away, they'll say. It's a grand strategy,

and of course none of the Liberal MLAs…. Well, maybe they do see through it,

and maybe they support this. So this is about union-busting, and this is about

taking away working people's rights to free collective bargaining. Make no

mistake about it, because there is nothing in this bill that leads to a fair and

balanced settlement — absolutely nothing.

Now, let's

just see for a few minutes who these big, bad TAs are, who these awful teaching

assistants are that are wreaking havoc on the university. Well, they're students

themselves. They are some of the best and the brightest at the university.

They're students who have a huge commitment to the university. Actually, while

they're learning themselves and making a commitment to the future of our

province, they're also teaching undergraduate students. These are the big, bad

people from whom this government is taking away the right to strike.

[1745]

Let me just

read some of the reports on these students. This is from today, in the

Province :

"UBC

Pickets Try Politeness.

"Striking

teaching assistants at the University of B.C. have turned down the volume

after surviving a legal scrap with administrators. The teaching assistants

took

part in a 'politeness picket' yesterday outside the Buchanan Complex, UBC

's largest teaching building. On Monday the Labour Relation Board ruled that

the teaching assistants, members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees,

have the right to picket on campus property. Administrators had complained the

pickets were noisily distracting students and wanted an injunction. UBC plans

to appeal the LRB ruling."

I'll tell

you, it's very interesting that the teaching assistants go to the LRB and win

the right to continue to picket as they did before, but they actually listened

to the employer's complaint. They stopped the drumming. They stopped banging on

garbage cans. They stopped the whistles, and they only handed out leaflets and

talked to people. Even though they won at the LRB, they completely accommodated

the administrators' concerns. These are the big, bad people we're legislating

today, taking away their right to free collective bargaining.

Let me

actually describe what it was. There's another

article in the Vancouver Sun

on March 11, which was yesterday, about what the LRB ruling actually was about.

I quote from the article, page B3 of that paper: "UBC pickets can remain

inside campus, LRB rules. Striking University of B.C. workers can continue

picketing buildings on campus, the Labour Relations Board ruled Monday."

I pause

just for a second here. The Labour Relations Board — whoa, there's a

socialist, commie, pinko organization, isn't it? There we have an independent

tribunal that's had its funding cut drastically by this government, but its job

is to hear the complaints in terms of collective bargaining matters and job

action matters, and then to rule. It was the LRB who made the ruling that the

teaching assistants can continue to picket as they have been.

I also, for

a moment, will advise the House that the LRB has every right and a legislated

responsibility to examine picketing in the context of the public interest. The

Government House Leader tried to say: "Oh, the LRB yesterday was just

ruling on the location of pickets." Well, it actually…. Oh, I'm going to

try and take a new approach of not personally attacking any MLA, so I will only

say this. It perhaps is through inexperience that the Government House Leader

somehow suggests that location of pickets is decided in isolation from the

public interest. The location of pickets and rulings by the LRB have everything

to do with the public interest — completely.

The LRB

determines whether picketing is interfering with the education of students in a

way that is harmful to the public interest. The LRB in previous rulings in years

past has made exactly that determination — that job action and picketing and

withdrawal of services by teachers have adversely affected the public interest

by undermining the ability of grade 12 students to graduate. They've stopped the

job action. They've ordered teachers to stop the job action. The LRB ruling has

everything to do with the public interest.

[1750]

I continue

on that…. Well, anyway, I don't have to continue here on this particular

article.

Interjections.

MacPhail: I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I take complete offence to

any Liberal member in this House who objects to me speaking — absolutely. I

don't mind the heckling and the fair comment. I can give as good as I get. But

there are members, particularly on the executive council side, who absolutely

abhor anyone having a democratic right to speak against their government in this

chamber, and the Minister for Deregulation epitomizes that.

Yesterday

we had a ruling from the LRB that says that the teaching assistants have every

right to carry on picketing as they were. In fact, the teaching assistants then,

after they won the ruling, accommodated the University of B.C.'s interests. The

employer is now appealing that ruling. The

article in the Vancouver Sun

on March 11, page B3, says:

[ Page 5476 ]

"The

effect of the strike on students at UBC varies widely. Some are missing

classes sporadically, when pickets target their building; others have had labs

or discussion groups cancelled for a month because those courses are taught by

TAs.

"The

union says it has sympathy for the students, especially the ones who may be in

jeopardy…but blames the university for not addressing concerns about hiking

tuition fees and slashing health benefits."

So there we

are. The employer, by seeking an injunction against the TAs' right to picket,

exacerbated the situation. We see from an

article — again in the Vancouver

Sun , page B1, March 10 — that the University of B.C., the employer seeking

the injunction against the teaching assistant pickets, may have made the

situation worse.

"The

University of B.C.'s attempt to force striking workers off campus and restrict

their picketing to UBC's perimeter could lead to the entire university being

shut down, a union official said Sunday. 'They're almost asking us to

escalate,' said Alex Grant, president of Canadian Union of Public Employees

Local 2278, which represents teaching assistants who for the past two weeks

have been picketing different university buildings every day."

Now,

what kind of job action have the teaching assistants been doing? The

government stood up today — the Minister of Labour — and said that 23,000

students are adversely affected by that. They have absolutely no evidence of

that whatsoever — absolutely no evidence. In fact, the teaching assistants

were allowed to continue their picketing on campus because of the nature of

their picketing. They picket one building a day. There was one time when the

teaching assistants shut down more than one building, but that was for one

day, and they then immediately reverted to their picketing of one building per

day.

A fortnight

ago this

article from the Vancouver Sun said: "The teaching

assistants withdrew all marking and teaching services and began a series of

daily pickets in front of different buildings on campus." It was very

interesting, though, that the injunction brought forward by the university

shifted ground. First, the university said that teaching assistants had no right

to picket the administration building, as they did not work there, and began

seeking the injunction on those grounds. The next day, though, the employer —

UBC — had to shift its argument because Local 2950, representing the library

and clerical workers, was in a legal strike position. They hadn't gone on

strike, and even then the employer was in, trying to take away job action rights

from that local. Of course, the other argument the employer made which

exacerbated the situation was that the campus is private property. Is that new

— that our publicly funded institutions are now private property? Anyway, that

didn't wash either.

[1755]

I have

about 15 minutes more of comment. Of course, I am the designated speaker on

this, so perhaps I will move adjournment of debate now. No. I'm sorry. I move

that the House — I want to make sure about this — recess until 6:35. I

assume I hold my place in second reading debate by doing that.

Motion

approved.

The House

recessed from 5:56 p.m. to 6:34 p.m.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, we are at second reading stage of Bill 21. The Leader

of the Opposition adjourned the debate.

MacPhail: Just for the information of the Labour minister and his staff,

I'll be about ten more minutes, and that's it on this matter right here.

Before we

recessed, I was talking about what kind of jobs the teaching assistants do, and

perhaps in a bit of a sarcastic way, I tried to determine why the government

felt so threatened by the teaching assistants.

[1835]

Let me read

this letter into the record from a person who knows very well what teaching

assistants are. It's a letter to the editor by James Doheny. I'll just read his

letter to the editor. It's March 6, 2003, in the Vancouver Sun .

"UBC's

policy toward graduate student teaching assistants is as riddled with

contradictions as your March 4 editorial 'TAs Should Jump at UBC's Generous

Offer' was. UBC's TAs are indeed permitted to work 30 percent more hours for up

to 60 percent lower pay per hour than as at many peer universities.

"The

fact is that at universities where graduate students must pay tuition,

U.S. and European universities don't usually charge them. TA wages are carefully

balanced to offset expenses to give them the minimum amount needed to live on.

Hence, higher pay in Ontario (higher tuition) and lower pay in Quebec (lower

tuition). UBC TAs have accepted lower wages until now only because their tuition

was lower. If UBC tilts this balance by charging up to 50 percent more in

tuition over the next three years, it must either give the TAs an equivalent

increase in pay or exempt them from the increases.

"Twenty-one

UBC departments have already passed resolutions asking the administration

to do this. The so-called 'generous' 10 percent increase offer would still leave

them at a significant net loss. Furthermore, the previous TA contract included

an agreement to exempt them partially from tuition hikes. Further proof of the

contradiction is that the faculty association has already negotiated tuition

waivers for professors' own children, and other UBC employees are also entitled

to take up to 12 credits of course work a year for free."

That's from James Doheny of Vancouver.

I've

already referred to the fact that in addition to all of this, the administration

at UBC then gave — in the middle of TA bargaining — PhD candidates who are

TAs free tuition.

I want to

read one other thing into the record. It was sent to me…. I know that the

Minister of State for Community Charter said he fell asleep while listening to

my speech, and I know he was just joshing. This was sent in….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, I assume he was, because that would be to ridicule the

people who are actually

[ Page 5477 ]

watching the debate, who sent this in to me over the supper hour. These are

people, actually, that live in the North Island. I have no idea — I can never

tell — whether Vancouver Island is part of the heartland according to the

Liberals or not. My heartland, of course, is in Waco, Texas, where the term was

invented, but this government….

I don't

know whether the Liberal members think that the heartland is Vancouver Island,

but here's what an

article in the Courtenay–Comox Valley Record had to

say about tuition fees. It's dated…. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't have the date

here, but I'll get it for Hansard. The title is "North Island College

Tuition Fees Jump by a Third."

"Tuition

for courses at North Island College will rise 35 percent next year, the

post-secondary institution announced Thursday. Earlier in the week in a split

decision, the North Island College board of governors approved a 35.6 percent

increase in tuition fees, claiming that the North Island College's tuition is

still the lowest on Vancouver Island." The circle gets ever, ever smaller

about the comparison as these institutions jack their fees.

I won't

read the whole article, but we go on down here: "'Tuition fee increases are

hurting people in the North Island,' said North Island Students Association

spokesperson Pat Barbosa. 'People have been thrown out of work by the crisis in

the softwood industry, and now they're being told to pay tuition fees that are

twice as high as they were two years ago. Some heartland strategy.'"

Clearly,

this

article is dealing with the second tuition increase that happened in '03.

Nobody even knew — not a Liberal, not a British Columbian — to use the word

"heartland" until this government embraced it with a passion that has

never been seen before.

[1840]

The

article

then goes on to say:

"The

board was split, four in favour and four