2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 20

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Lobbyists Registration Act (Bill

20). Hon. G. Plant

Introduction and first reading

Health Authorities Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2001 (Bill 9). Hon. C. Hansen

Introduction and first reading

Skills Development and Fair Wage

Repeal Act (Bill 22). Hon. G. Bruce

Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions

Government action on U.S. decision on

Canadian softwood lumber exports

J. MacPhail

Alaska Highway gas pipeline project

B. Lekstrom

Government action on U.S. decision on Canadian

softwood lumber exports

J. MacPhail

Nursing initiatives for B.C.

P. Bell

Tabling Documents

Health ministry and Ministry Responsible

for Seniors, annual performance report,

2000-01

Petitions

Proposed development permit applications

for drug service centres in Vancouver

Chinatown area

Tabling Documents

Report regarding Nis g a'a Highway

Energy and Mines ministry, performance

report, 2000-01

Skills Development and Labour

Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 18).

Hon. G. Bruce

Committee stage

J. MacPhail

P. Bell

Third reading

Provincial Court Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2001 (Bill 17)

Second reading

Hon. G. Plant

Royal assent to bills

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2001

(Bill 2)

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act,

2001 (Bill 3)

Balanced Budget and Ministerial

Accountability Act (Bill 4)

Budget Transparency and Accountability

Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 5)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2001 (Bill 11)

Crown Corporations Governance Statutes

Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 14)

Skills Development and Labour Statutes

Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 18)

[ Page 585 ]

THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2001

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Campbell: Hon. Speaker, all of us in this chamber know how important it is

that citizens involve themselves in public life and public issues. Many times,

as I've talked to young people particularly, they'll say: "What difference

does it make if I do something, if one individual does something?"

Well, today

I'm very pleased to introduce one person who was a leader, one person who

contributed an immeasurable amount to his community. His name is Michael

Holland. Michael is a Comox lawyer who consistently fought the previous

government's efforts to expropriate a community facility without compensation.

Michael is a lawyer who single-handedly took on the goliath of government and

fought day in and day out on a pro bono basis to make sure that his community of

Comox and Parksville and Port Alberni was protected from the heavy hand of

government.

[1405]

Michael is

joined today by his family: his wife, Carol, and his daughters Rosemary and

Laura. I want to thank Michael Holland and Michael Holland's family, on behalf

of all of us here and all of the people of British Columbia, for remembering

that in a democracy what one person does counts. Today Michael Holland's journey

is going to reach what I hope will be a successful conclusion. Welcome to the

Legislature.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It is an honour for me to welcome to the House and to introduce some

friends from the Comox Valley who fought together with Michael Holland to save

that facility. I'd like to introduce, first of all, Marty Tapp, who is the chair

of the board of Glacier View Lodge. Next I'd like to introduce Lawrence Burns,

who's on the board of directors; Barry Bowen from the board of directors;

Michael Pontus, who's the CEO; Russ Hammond; and Nell Francis. Also, we have

with us today Rose Knight, who is a member of the Women's Institute. In 1946 the

Women's Institute took the proceeds that they had earned through sales of war

bonds during the Second World War and started the first Glacier View home with

that money. I'd also like to introduce Sandy Woiden and her husband, Ron. Sandy

is the head nurse and administrator at Glacier View Lodge.

Last but

not least, and I'd better not forget this one, we have a famous historian from

the Comox Valley in our presence today. Her name is Judy Hagen. She's married to

a really neat guy.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'd also like to introduce Dr. Douglas Begg from the Arrowsmith Lodge

in Parksville. Would the House please make them welcome.

Trumper: It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you two members of

the Alberni-Clayoquot Continuing Care Society, which was also one of those

facilities that the previous government tried to take over from a non-profit

society. They hung in and were grateful for Glacier Lodge to take the leadership

in it. I would like to introduce to you Gerry Koning, who is the Chair of the

board, and Andrew Blake — both of whom have been longtime volunteers in the

community.

Also, at

this time I would like to recognize Dr. Douglas Begg, who is a close friend

of our family and used to practise with my husband.

Hon. S.

Bond: I am pleased today to introduce two constituents that are actually in my

colleague's riding, Prince George–Omineca, but I'm going to introduce them

because they're very special to me. I'm very excited today to introduce in the

House my niece Brittney and her mom, Sandy. Please help make them welcome from

Prince George today.

Locke: In the House today we have a special lady who is an entrepreneur in

the city of Surrey and has a small business called Little Munchkin Preschool Day

Care. She is with us today. Her name is Shelley Meyer, with her two children,

Tessa and Spencer, and her mother, Anna Sykes. Would the House please make them

welcome.

[1410]

Chong: Joining us today are several community leaders from the greater

Vancouver area. Over lunch we had an opportunity to discuss issues of concern to

them. Now they're here to watch question period. I'm pleased to introduce three

of these nine visitors. Firstly, I'd like to introduce Mr. Syrus Lee, the

charter president of the Vancouver Chinatown BIA Society; secondly, Ms. Yvonne

De Valone, representing the Strathcona BIA; and thirdly, Mr. Richard Lee, who is

Chair of an organization, the Community Alliance, which is watching out for the

interests of Gastown, Chinatown, Strathcona and Victory Square. I would ask the

House to please make them very welcome.

B. Kerr:

This has been a rather chaotic week in the Kerr household as two of our

grandchildren have come, and they have brought their moms and dads with them to

stay with us. I would like to introduce one of the moms and dads; that is, my

daughter Deborah and her husband, Harry Jussinoja, who are somewhere in the

gallery. I'd like the House to make them feel welcome.

Hon. J.

Reid: It's my privilege today to introduce to the House a young man from my

constituency who has a keen interest in politics. Travis Paterson is here today

accompanied by his mother, Florence Paterson, and

[ Page 586 ]

James Dunbar. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming and thanking five persons

who have worked for or contracted with the Ministry of Children and Family

Development and who have given a great deal of their lives to making the lives

of our children in this province better. Would the House please join me in

welcoming Jack Duke, Stewart Smith, Anne Alexander, Mike White and Terry

Townsend.

Chutter: It is my pleasure to introduce today my very capable CA from

Merritt, Allan Sanders. Allan has a business administration and forestry

background and has been working with his dad and four brothers and numerous

employees in the heavy construction and forestry industry. Certainly, with his

particular skills, his experience in the riding of Yale-Lillooet and his great

enthusiasm for his new CA job, Allan is an excellent addition to our government

team. Would the House please welcome Allan.

R. Lee:

I would like to introduce three visitors in the House today. Mr. Sang Lee, a

neighbour of my parents in Vancouver, is also Chairman of the Strathcona

Property Owners and Tenants Association. We also have Mr. Thomas Lam, assistant

to Mrs. Lillian To, the executive director of SUCCESS. SUCCESS is a very

successful community organization helping immigrants settle in this province. I

would also like to introduce Mr. John Bal, director of the Chinese Benevolent

Association of Canada. John is very talented with languages; he can speak

them welcome.

Christensen: This is my first opportunity to welcome some guests from the

sunny Okanagan. It's very difficult to pull people out of there in the summer.

I'm pleased to introduce three guests who have come to Victoria for the week.

Two of these guests, in particular, represent the future of this great province

and are part of the reason I am very much looking forward to the new opportunity

we are going to create in British Columbia. I'm very pleased to welcome my wife,

Jennifer, my son Theodor and my daughter Grace, who is the first baby born

during the thirty-seventh parliament to a member of that parliament.

Locke: I would like to welcome in the gallery Jesse Hangarten, a friend of

my daughter. I hope he enjoys the afternoon. Will the House please make him

welcome.

P. Wong:

I have the pleasure of introducing several community leaders and volunteers from

the Vancouver-Chinatown community: first, Mr. Charles Lee, vice-Chairman of the

Vancouver-Chinatown Merchants Association; second, Dr. Kwok Chu Li, director of

SUCCESS, the United Chinese Community Enrichment Service Society; third, Mr.

Yung Quon Yu, Chairman of the Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver. Would

the House please make them welcome.

[1415]

Krueger: It's my pleasure to introduce a young woman from Kamloops today,

Shannon Terrant, one of those rare and very special people in British Columbia,

a nursing student at the University College of the Cariboo. She's highly prized.

I asked my legislative assistant to make sure she enjoyed Victoria, and she

stayed for about three weeks. Would you please make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Lobbyists Registration Act.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to introduce the Lobbyists Registration Act. This act

will establish a registry for lobbyists in the office of the information and

privacy commissioner. The act will require the registration of anyone who is

paid to lobby the government to influence government legislation, regulations,

programs, policies, the awarding of contracts or the awarding of financial

benefit. Registrars will have the power to verify the information provided, and

updates will be required. Lobbyists will pay a fee to register, and the register

will be accessible to the public.

This bill,

a throne speech promise of the government, opens lobbying to the scrutiny of the

public and is evidence of this government's new-era commitment to open and

accessible government. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2001

Hon.

C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[ Page 587 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: This bill makes two small amendments to the province's statutes,

small amendments that we believe will make a very big difference to British

Columbia's non-profit societies and their relationship with the province's

health care system.

Bill 9 will

repeal

section 16.1 of the Health Authorities Act. This

section currently gives

the Health minister the power to order the amalgamation of a non-profit society

with a government-appointed health authority.

Bill 9 also

repeals the related portion of the Expropriation Act,

section 2(5), which

prohibits such a society from claiming compensation under that act for property

or other assets it's forced to give up as a result of a forced amalgamation with

a health authority. Our government believes that there should be no cause for

non-profit societies and the dedicated volunteers who support them to worry that

their hard work will be swallowed up by government.

[1420]

This is a

new-era commitment that we are delivering on. It is part of our commitment to

that new era of health services. We promised to support community volunteers and

repeal this legislation that allowed government to expropriate community health

facilities without compensation. This bill sends a strong signal that this

government welcomes non-profit societies and volunteers to play an integral role

in the delivery of health care. I am pleased to table this bill, which will

repeal the pertinent sections of the two pieces of legislation.

I move that

Bill 9 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Bill 9

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.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND

FAIR WAGE REPEAL ACT

Hon. G.

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

intituled Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal Act.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: This bill fulfils yet another of our government's 90-day agenda

commitments to repeal the fixed-wage legislation that restricted competition on

public construction projects in British Columbia.

We are

committed to open tendering and allowing the competitive marketplace to operate.

The bill repeals the 1994 Skills Development and Fair Wage Act, which did not

serve the interests of taxpayers, contracting companies or employees. Taxpayers

failed to benefit from a fully competitive bidding system. Some contractors

avoided bidding on public projects because they could not operate efficiently

within the fixed-wage rates and other restrictive practices, and the fixed rates

limited the free choice of employees to negotiate their own working conditions.

Repealing

this act will restore competition and workers' rights, open new opportunities

for companies and their employees, and reduce costs. This is a way to make sure

that taxpayers of British Columbia get the most for their hard-earned tax

dollars. We all benefit from the flexibility of the free market, and we want to

encourage all qualified bidders to participate in public sector bidding. By

getting better value for taxpayers' dollars, we will be able to fund a wider

range of initiatives.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22

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.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON U.S. DECISION ON

CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS

MacPhail: The Premier keeps saying that we need to take our case against the

softwood lumber duty directly to the consumers in the United States. He's

probably overlooking the fact that many consumer associations, homebuilders and

home supply companies have already come out in support of the Canadian case and

the B.C. case actively, and they continue to do so.

Of course,

we all know that the best way to fight against the softwood lumber tariff is to

actually help the companies and the workers that are affected by it now,

particularly in the area of helping the small companies, help them post a bond

against the tariff and allow them to survive over the coming weeks. Yesterday

the Minister of Forests finally admitted that he was considering that option.

My question

to the Minister of Forests is this. The clock is ticking. Every day hundreds of

workers are laid off directly as a result of this action by the United States.

When's the minister going to actually make a decision?

[1425]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mr. Speaker, is there anything more disruptive for a family than to

face the possibility of having their ability to earn a living put in jeopardy?

It is particularly frustrating when that is caused by a foreign power punitively

manipulating its own trade rules. I would like to think that all members of this

House are acutely aware of and sympathetic to the plight of those families. I

know the government is.

I am

mindful of an address made in this House only a few months ago, in slightly

different

[ Page 588 ]

circumstances, when the Premier of the day said: "We will stand united

with our fellow lumber-producing provinces and our country to present a common

front on this issue critical to…ourselves." He said that it won't be easy

to find a solution, that it will be difficult, and called on his colleagues

across the way to join with him.

The Leader

of the Opposition, now the Premier, said on that day: "Let me start by

saying that the opposition unites with the government in taking the interests of

British Columbia first. British Columbia," the Premier said then,

"will speak with one voice firmly, unequivocally, on behalf of our forest

industry and the thousands of people that work in it."

We are

following through on that undertaking now in government. We are considering all

of the options. We will work, we will stand, and we will speak with one united

voice. The invitation to this member remains. She can work with us, or she can

continue to lob accusations that do nothing but assist the Americans in their

stated desire to divide and conquer an industry that is so important to British

Columbia.

MacPhail: Unfortunately, the situation has changed so that the only

solutions are now coming from the opposition. Thousands of workers are being

laid off daily — hundreds of workers — directly because of the softwood

lumber dispute. Each one of these layoffs could have been avoided — each one

of them — if the government had simply acted, if the government had moved to

post a bond to protect the industry. Those people want to work; the towns want

to survive.

How can the

minister do anything but assist and put them back to work? He can simply provide

assistance by posting a bond now for companies that are forced to deal with the

softwood lumber tariff. To the minister: how many workers have to be laid off

each and every day before the minister decides to act?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I just want to make sure I understand this. The member whose former

government's negotiating expertise brought us the fast ferries, an empty Trade

and Convention Centre parking lot and the loss of over $100 million at Nanoose

Bay is now presuming to stand here and lecture this government on how to conduct

negotiations and intergovernmental relations.

We have

laid out the three-track approach that we intend to follow. The member is

welcome to provide suggestions along the way. We are going to fight this in the

courts. We are going to determine whether or not the Americans are serious about

engaging in a meaningful discussion. We are going to proceed with an intensive,

focused public campaign so that American consumers understand that their

politicians have driven up the cost of housing in their country.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further supplementary question.

[1430]

MacPhail: Let's just try to figure out where that three-track approach takes

us. The Premier said that he's going to take the case to the Americans and that

he's going to argue that our forest industry is not subsidized. Yesterday the

Minister of Forests said that we're going to move to a market-based system and

that we're going to do that in order to appease the Americans, and he's going to

argue that our forest industry is not subsidized.

Yesterday

the Minister of Forests said that we are going to move to a market-based system,

and we are going to do that in order to appease the Americans' concerns. Today

the industry is saying it's getting no support whatsoever from this government.

That's the three-track approach that this government is taking.

While the

Premier and the minister try to get their story straight about what track it is

on and where it's going, jobs are being lost each and every day. My question is

to the Minister of Forests. In the interim, instead of shooting from the hip

with one day floating one balloon and the next day floating another balloon, why

doesn't he take action to protect B.C. jobs? Why doesn't he put forward a plan

right now to post a bond, and why doesn't he throw the weight of the government

behind a B.C. exclusion application?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

de Jong: My comment about the member's negotiating acumen is revealed and

unfolds right there. The Americans target British Columbia, and her approach is

to go down there on bended knee and say: "Please exclude us." That

will really work.

Let me use

the opportunity to provide some meaningful information, Mr. Speaker. There is a

mechanism by which companies can apply for an exemption.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Listen up; you might learn something here. There are two grounds

upon which to do that: a company-specific exemption or a product exemption. In

both cases, it's the companies that have the standing to make that application.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

de Jong: This ministry processed over 50 of those applications on the long

weekend to facilitate those companies making those applications.

There are

deadlines coming on September 5 and September 28 for applications for exemptions

by companies for the final determination, if we get that far. This government

and this ministry will do everything we can to facilitate those applications.

[ Page 589 ]

If this

member found out tomorrow for the first time that this government wants to move

towards a market-based stumpage system, is it any wonder there's only two of

them left — because she didn't read our election platform very well.

ALASKA HIGHWAY GAS PIPELINE PROJECT

Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Dwindling

energy supplies and power shortages across the country have prompted governments

across North America to begin looking for new sources of energy. One option is

building a pipeline along the Alaska Highway route, and it has the potential to

trigger an economic boom in northern British Columbia, benefiting all the

constituents of northeastern British Columbia as well as all British Columbians.

Will the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us what his ministry is doing to

ensure that our support for this project is there?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Well, south of the border they have some dwindling supplies, but I

can tell the member that north of the border, specifically in northeastern B.C.,

we have all kinds of natural gas that we're developing and selling into the open

market. In fact, I just can't get over talking about Ladyfern. It's just

developed about 60 miles north of Fort St. John. What they put out there is

larger than Sable Island, so there are huge opportunities there.

But the

member is right: there has been a pipeline planned to bring Alaskan gas to

southern markets along the Alaska Highway. It's about 3,200 kilometres in

length, and about 700 kilometres of that would be in British Columbia. It's a

$10 billion to $12 billion (U.S.) investment. Companies that would make that

investment are looking at the economics of it right now. When they determine

which route they want to use, the Alaska Highway or the Mackenzie Valley route,

we will certainly facilitate and work with those companies to make sure we get

all the benefits we can in British Columbia. We will remember to respect the

environment in every way, but we will work with those companies to make sure we

get jobs for British Columbians in British Columbia.

[1435]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Peace River South with a supplemental question.

Lekstrom: My question is again to the Minister of Energy and Mines. There

are going to be a number of jurisdictions that will likely be involved in any

construction of an Alaska pipeline. Different governments are going to attempt

to position themselves to ensure that their citizens derive jobs and other

economic benefits from this project. Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell

us what his government will do to ensure that British Columbians gain the

maximum benefit from the construction of such a pipeline?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This government has already moved to make sure that we get all the

investment we can in British Columbia. The Minister of Finance introduced two

tax reductions, one a personal tax reduction so that we have a low income tax

that's comparable to all jurisdictions in Canada. Secondly, we started to move

down on our business tax, something that the previous government had upped and

chased all kinds of investment out of British Columbia. We know that those lower

taxes will bring investment into British Columbia and the resulting jobs. We

will work with those companies as hard as we can to get all the development we

can in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON U.S. DECISION ON

CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS

MacPhail: Back to the real issue of the day, Mr. Speaker, the softwood

lumber dispute. The Minister of Forests seems to indicate that the whole world

should know about all the wonderful action he's taking to help the industry.

Well, as recently as today the industry has no idea what help he's giving them

— none whatsoever.

Let's try

to figure out all of the confusion. Let's try to make our way through all of the

confusion created by this minister with his balloons that he floats. Yesterday I

asked the Minister of Forests if he stood by his stated position that our energy

exports should be linked to the softwood lumber dispute. He waffled, and of

course he didn't answer the question. So again, to the Minister of Forests, a

specific question. It just requires a technical answer. What energy exports is

the minister considering linking to the softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think some of these questions from the member reveal her

limitations in dealing with technical information of any sort as it relates to

this file. The standing offer for a briefing remains.

This matter

is going to continue to evolve. We are working with the federal government; we

are working with all of the provinces. There's a novel concept: actually working

cooperatively with other Canadian jurisdictions. That process is taking place.

It is moving forward in the days ahead. I guess the difference between that

member and her former government and this member and this Premier and this

government is when we confront the Americans, we'll actually have some prospect

of doing it as a united, confident country.

NURSING INITIATIVES FOR B.C.

P. Bell:

Yesterday the Minister of Health Planning announced a $21 million program

designed for international recruitment, retraining and retention programs. As my

colleague from Prince George–Mount Robson knows, Prince George has been in a

health care crisis for quite some time, going back seven or eight years. Would

the minister please tell us exactly how

[ Page 590 ]

this program might alleviate the problems that we're having in Prince George?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: We were very delighted to announce some initiatives for nurses in

this province. They were speaking out for the last ten years, and although there

has been some criticism that they aren't new measures, I would say that they are

new measures. The previous government had talked about it, but we actually

delivered it yesterday.

[1440]

We are

investing $21.4 million in nurses, and we expect to have 470 nurses trained and

into the system for this fiscal year. I would hope that some of them are for

Prince George. We are going to go offshore and recruit specialty nurses, which I

know the member's riding requires as well. On top of that, we have some specific

initiatives for rural areas. One of those is a nursing grant that the health

authorities can access to train either mentors or teaching buddies for their

nurses on the wards or for other kinds of programs that are needed in the rural

areas. We also, through the Minister of Advanced Education, have a program for

forgivable loans. Those are targeted especially for areas like yours, member,

for those hard-to-service or underserviced areas. And I'm very proud to say that

the Minister of Health Services redirected funds for patient lifts and beds.

That $15 million will all be for outside the Vancouver area, so your area will

benefit as well.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C.

Hansen: On behalf of the Ministry of Health Services and the Ministry of

Health Planning, I have the honour to present the 2000-01 annual performance

report of the former Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.

Petitions

P. Wong:

I would like to table a petition on behalf of 326 residents and a large number

of organizations in the Vancouver Chinatown area — namely, Vancouver

Chinatown Merchants Association; United Chinese Community Enrichment Service

Society, SUCCESS; Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver; Chinese

Cultural Centre of greater Vancouver; Vancouver Chinatown BIA Society; Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association; Wong's Benevolent

Association; Chinese Entrepreneurs Society of Canada; Mon Keang School;

Silk Road Task Force; Yue Shan Society — Property, Social Club, Cheung Han

Tong and General Assembly; Sam Yup Benevolent Association.

Enclosed

with the petition are two attachments. One was dated February 2001, with 6,019

signatures. The other was dated in September 2000, with an overwhelming number

of 32,639 signatures. The petitioners are concerned about the overconcentration

of drug activities in the area. There are already four proposed development

permit applications for drug service centres, yet in the Vancouver Chinatown

area there are two additional multilevel drug centres being proposed. These

sites are to be purchased by the Vancouver-Richmond health board.

Hon.

Speaker, your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House order an

immediate review of the above applications and property purchases as mentioned

and impose forthwith a moratorium until the review is completed.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J.

Reid: I have the honour to present the report of the Nis g a'a Highway

for the Ministry of Transportation, in accordance with requirements of

section

14 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I have the honour of presenting the performance report, year

2000-01, of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

[1445]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continuing committee stage on Bill 18.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND LABOUR

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:45 p.m.

On

section

MacPhail: Could the minister tell me about the regulatory impact statement

that was done for

section 8?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I would just like to introduce another member of staff, Mr. Patrick

Stanton, here for this section. He's the senior policy adviser, and I welcome

him to the floor.

We did not

undertake a regulatory impact statement.

MacPhail: Why not?

Hon. G.

Bruce: We didn't think it was necessary.

[ Page 591 ]

MacPhail: Well, perhaps the minister could explain the

section that

substantially changes the bargaining council, particularly on the employers

side. What exactly was the intent here, if it wasn't to affect the economy?

Regulatory impact statements were the law of the land and are supposed to

provide advice to cabinet about the economic impacts of various legislative

changes. Is the minister suggesting that somehow this clause is separate and

apart from what he purports the rest of the bill to do, which is to affect the

economy?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Our view of this was quite clear; it was part of our New Era document.

The consultation was done through the course of the 28-day campaign. It was well

known to all the voters of British Columbia. Again, I come back to the very

resounding mandate that was given us to go ahead and do those things that we

thought needed to be done to improve the economy in the province. This was one

of those items that was clearly enunciated, and we're following through and

doing just that.

[1450]

MacPhail: I fully appreciate that the minister was part of a government that

won an election. I fully appreciate that, and the whole public understands that.

What we're actually trying to do now, though, is discuss the specifics of

legislation that's introduced into the chamber. That's what this chamber is

about; it's a place for debate. No one else is participating in the debate

except for me.

understand that it may upset the minister that I was elected. I understand that

it may upset the government that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

and I were elected. But we were, and here we are just asking questions to try to

get the information about the legislation: (1) what it will do for what they

said they introduced it for, which was to improve the economy; and (2) what

impact it will have on people that are affected by the legislation.

If the

minister wants to actually continue down the path of saying, "We won; you

lost," I expect that the people watching and the people reading and the

people who will be contemplating the effects of this legislation six months down

the road won't be happy with that kind of answer. I exist. Try to, please, have

some sort of debate in the chamber. Or would it be better if I tried to get the

assistance of some of the colleagues of the minister to actually put the

questions forward? Would that help? They're straightforward, legitimate

questions.

I asked the

question. Let me put it in context for the minister, then. The elimination of

part 4.1, which is what this

section does, combined with the legislation that he

introduced earlier today — the fair wage legislation that governs public

construction, which he eliminates — is bound to have an effect on the wages

and working conditions of both union and non-union construction. It's bound to

have an effect. That's part of the economy.

That has a

major contribution to the well-being of shopkeepers, of apartment owners, of

housebuilders, of shoe shops, of fast-food outlets. That's part of the economy.

The elimination of

part 4.1 and his fair-wage bill elimination affect the

economy. The reason why the last government introduced regulatory impact

statements as being mandatory was so that cabinet would have the guidance of how

their actions would affect the economy. That's why I asked the question.

understand the outcome of the election. I expect that the Minister of Labour

didn't have a debate during the election with union workers about how his

legislation would affect their wages and working conditions. So let me be very

specific in my questions, then. Does the minister have any research regarding

the amount that construction workers' wage rates will be reduced by these

changes?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let me be very clear that I'm pleased that you're in the House.

Democracy took place. There were 77 B.C. Liberals elected and two NDP members

elected. Such is the case, and this is your House just as it's my House.

I wasn't

trying to be flippant. You were asking me about what the consultation process

was. You can do consultation in a number of ways. This happened to be, as I've

mentioned before, the ultimate of all consultation in the fact that the general

public as a whole had an opportunity to vote on it and did so in a very

resounding way. This isn't going to de-unionize any part of the process. The

negotiation will take place.

[1455]

Your

reference to the impact statements…. Again, I don't offer this flippantly,

because it impacted us tremendously. If you as a government in the past had

undertaken those impact statements — and I don't know whether you did or you

didn't — obviously you got completely poor information, or the information

that you got you interpreted improperly, or philosophically you just don't

believe or understand how a good economy and a free market operate.

The changes

— let's be clear on this, and you're quite right to join them together —

that we are talking about are those things that we think are necessary to

undertake to again restore a healthy and efficient economy in British Columbia.

To do that, there has to be change. We were very clear on that. This was not an

election campaign where we said, "Hey, elect us, and we'll do all the same

things that the government of the day had done," because it was absolutely

disastrous. So these are changes. You're correct to join them together.

All the

legislation that we're bringing through this House is a reflection of our

campaign platform and of those things that we think need to be undertaken to

restore the economy of the province, to make our trades more competitive, to put

our citizens in a situation where there are jobs for them — to allow for that.

There's no hidden agenda with any of this sort of stuff. It's very clear what we

are doing, and you and I, as would be the case, are philosophically opposed on

how we think that ought to be done. I make no apologies for that and for how I

and my government

[ Page 592 ]

feel, and I'm sure you won't make any apologies for how you and your members

feel.

The fact of

the matter is that we had ten years of a very, very difficult time in this

province and an economy that was absolutely devastated. All of those things that

were undertaken by the government of the day, the NDP, were those things that

helped to contribute substantially to the crashing of our economy and the loss

of jobs, the loss of competitive operations. That's fine. I can understand where

you're coming from. You philosophically believe in a different way of doing

things. I, as Minister of Labour, and the rest of my caucus colleagues think

differently. Obviously — and I mean this in no way flippantly — the people

of British Columbia felt that it was time to try another process, and that's in

fact what we're following through with in spades here as we bring through our

90-day agenda. We're getting the job done, and we're doing those things that we

said very clearly to all the people of the province needed to be done to restore

our economy. This is part of that.

MacPhail: Nobody ever receives a mandate from the public to say that they

can lurch blindly without substance to change things in the economy. No one

does. The Minister of Labour didn't get that right, nor did we — ever.

One of the

reasons why regulatory impact statements were put in place was that after major

consultation with the business community, they said: "Why don't you put a

business lens on things when you change things?" In fact, the business

community helped design the regulatory impact statement. Did the previous

government do regulatory impact statements? Yes. And the minister knows that.

Yesterday

the Minister of State for Deregulation outlined a government regulatory strategy

that I referred to earlier — you know, the two-for-one sale: we'll give you

one regulation if you give back two. One of the government's promises was that

there would be an analysis of the impact of regulatory and legislative changes.

The reason why they made that promise was because the business community

demanded it. The business community said: "Don't put in place changes that

aren't good for the economy, and if you are going to put in place changes, then

do an analysis." So?

[1500]

The reason

for that was so the public could make informed decisions about the costs and

benefit of the regulation and the change. So the fact of the matter that

absolutely no impact study or statement was done makes his changes ideological.

I'm not standing up here from an ideological point of view. I'm taking at face

value the

minister's statement that this is good for the economy.

So that's

why I'm asking for the research that leads, one, him to eliminate the fair wage

legislation, which we will be…. Just in case the House Leader wants to run in

here and say, "Oh no, we're not discussing the legislation," I'm

saying it's the combination of both. The elimination of

part 4.1 will have a

direct impact on the economy, as will his fair wage legislation. So I assume

that there has been no impact study done, or the minister doesn't have any

research about how the workers in the industry will be affected in terms of

wages and working conditions.

Let me ask

this question, then: does the minister have an analysis of the impact on small

businesses, about the effect that this legislation will have on the wages of

construction workers?

Hon. G.

Bruce: This just promotes the competition amongst business. It's been part

of the cornerstone of how our economy has functioned or tried to function. It

functions in most other parts of the country. Small, medium, large, unionized,

non-unionized.... What they do, as projects are up, is take a look at those

projects, decide whether or not they are projects they can undertake, set

up a bid and tender it. They do it in a way they think is the most competitive way

they can go about bringing through that tender. They lay it before the parties that

they are attempting to do the work for, and a judgment call is made. That's what

this allows for. It allows for that competitive bid process to flow.

MacPhail: What the elimination of 4.1 does is put bargaining in the

construction industry back into chaos, I would suggest. That's what some people

are suggesting. Did the minister consult with the Construction Labour Relations

Association about the advisability of eliminating

part 4.1?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I had conversations with CLRA, and of course they would certainly

have appreciated that it remain as it was, because it was a legislated body. But

that's just not what we believe in, philosophically. This is a philosophical

difference. We don't believe in the fact that there has to be legislation to

force groups of people together. The bargaining unit for the CLRA will continue

to exist. Let's be clear on what we're doing here. We're returning the situation

to pre-1998. This is the way it was; it existed up until 1998. We're not doing

anything irregular or different than what was there prior to 1998.

[1505]

MacPhail: Things have been moving very quickly here. I've been trying to

keep up, but I'm just trying to see whether the government has repealed the

Regulatory Impact Statement Act. That's the one that requires regulatory….

Maybe staff could help.

Hon. G.

Bruce: The act does not require regulatory impact assessments.

MacPhail: I'm sure the business community…. I'll be delighted to talk

afterwards with the Business Council, who lobbied for this long and hard and

helped write it and supported it. It'll be interesting to see how they view that

this current government — the new era, the newly elected government — feels

they don't have to live up to the spirit of this legislation.

Why am I

pursuing this line? Because there are many people out there who feel that

part

4.1 actually

[ Page 593 ]

brought order to the economy — not, as the minister has admitted, that the

deletion of this

section is a philosophical issue, which is an interesting

corollary to his statement that the legislation is good for the economy.

I'm taking

an approach that's based on the economic well-being of the province, not about

philosophy. I'm trying to find out how we can give assurances to those who are

already troubled about the tension and instability that's been created in the

last few weeks — how we can give assurances to the public that this is good

for the economy. A philosophical answer won't work. There are those who think

that getting rid of

part 4.1 will actually increase the likelihood of strikes in

construction. Has the minister done an analysis of how this will bring labour

peace, as opposed to labour chaos, to the construction industry?

Hon. G.

Bruce: You know, there doesn't have to be a fight all the time in respect to

labour and management and companies. I mean, the whole idea here is that you

want competitive bids. You want well-paid jobs. You want to get the best value

for the taxpayer. We believe this process does just that. We're returning it to

what it was prior to 1998. There are all sorts of ways for companies and unions

to negotiate contracts. This isn't anything irregular. As I say, it really just

returns us to pre-1998 and allows a party to negotiate a contract.

MacPhail: For the benefit of the record, so the public can judge whether the

philosophical approach of the minister or my approach about what's good for the

economy…. What proves to be the test? What was the logic behind

part 4.1,

which brought order to the construction industry? And let's be clear.

Part 4.1

wasn't dropped into the collective agreement because of a philosophical matter.

Labour

relations in the construction industry were reviewed by two eminent, neutral

labour experts: Vince Ready, I think, and Stephen Kelleher. It could have been

Vince Ready and Stephen Kelleher, or it could have been Stan Lanyon and Stephen

Kelleher. I'm not sure. Stan Lanyon and Stephen Kelleher are two eminent,

non-partisan, neutral labour relations experts. There was chaos in the

construction industry, so the government appointed Stephen Kelleher and Stan

Lanyon to review labour relations in the construction industry. They made

recommendations on how to bring order to the construction industry. They didn't

just talk to one group; they had wide-ranging consultations. They brought in

recommendations by consensus that led to the incorporation of

part 4.1 into the

Labour Relations Code.

[1510]

Here's why.

The construction industry is short term. It's seasonal; it's cyclical. Without a

standard contract, non-union construction workers were actually affected in the

negative just as much as union construction workers were.

What

happened in the construction industry was this. A new unit would organize, but

the job would be seasonal, and employers would prolong negotiations to the end

of the project so that no agreement was ever reached. So any concerns that

construction workers had about their wages and working conditions never got

addressed, and then they were laid off.

Certainly

that government of the day didn't deny a worker's right to join a union and to

negotiate freely. What was put in place by recommendation was that a standard

industry agreement had to be negotiated. That made it a level playing field for

everybody in the industry — fair competition.

Did that do

away with competition? No. What happened then was that there were standard rates

in the industry, and then competition took place on the basis of innovation and

efficiency, two excellent indicators of productivity. Competition didn't take

place on the basis of low wages; it took place on the basis of innovation and

efficiency. And many, many employers did extremely well in those circumstances.

They didn't have a leg up. It's just that they weren't allowed to use wages as a

basis for spiralling downward in terms of the bid.

That was

why it was good for the economy. That's why there was major consultation done

before the changes happened. That's why the whole venue under which construction

on the ICI sector…. This has never affected residential construction at all.

Only the ICI sector was affected by this. That's why the industry flourished in

that era, and that's why there were no strikes — none.

Let me ask

this: now that the level playing field is gone and the stability of the industry

will be gone, does the minister have an economic analysis of how many skilled

construction workers are likely to leave the province as a result of the lower

wages and benefits that will now form the basis of competition?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's recap a couple of things here and see if we can get the

historical perspective correct.

There was a

bill, Bill 44, that the prior government of the hon. member opposite brought in.

I believe it was tabled. I'm not sure how far it got, but it got absolutely

blown out of the water because it didn't meet any of what was necessary in the

construction field. I wasn't here, but I'm pretty sure what happened was that

then, after whatever consultation and all of the impact assessments and so on

that the hon. member opposite speaks about, they came along with Bill 26. So

Bill 26, which is what we're talking about to an extent here, was in place in

1998, three years ago. The system that the member opposite talks about was

working. Since 1998 the parties, even in this situation now, have yet to reach a

collective agreement.

So first of

all, we had Bill 44 blown out of the water. We brought in Bill 26, put Bill 26

in, and the two parties that were supposed to be together couldn't make it

happen together. And you question why we're doing it and the impact on the

economy? The impact on the economy as part of all that, and what you did or

didn't do as a government in regards to assessing the impact

[ Page 594 ]

on the economy…. Your impact on the economy was huge, quite frankly —

negatively so.

Now we come

to skilled workers and the prospect of jobs in British Columbia. Let me assure

the hon. member that with the direction that this province is taking and the new

feeling of optimism in the community, be it small business, medium business,

large business; be it a forestry worker, a miner or a construction worker; be it

an industrial construction worker or a housebuilder…. There is a whole new

feeling out there since we had a change. That comes from the fact that they know

now that we are going to undertake those things necessary to restore the economy

and make this economy grow once again. And with that will come projects and

jobs. You can see it starting to take effect right now.

[1515]

So from the

standpoint of the skilled trades, from that aspect of the impact, you bet there

will be a significant impact. The other

part I have to get busy on and get a

handle on is making sure we have those programs available and working so that we

have apprenticeships coming along, and we have opportunities in those fields and

all aspects of our economy, because this economy is going to start to grow. So

yes, there will be an impact. There will be a very positive impact.

MacPhail: Does the minister actually have any evidence that…? While there

is not a collective agreement in place right now, the wages and working

conditions are agreed upon. There are other technical aspects that have not led

to a collective agreement, but the wages and working conditions are agreed upon.

Does the minister have any view on or has he talked with anyone about, the removal

part 4.1 leading to greater labour peace in the construction industry or less

labour peace?

Hon. G.

Bruce: We get into this peace-and-war stuff and all this sort of thing.

Prior to 1998, there wasn't any great disruption. To a certain extent things

were working as best they could, given the circumstances they were faced with

and the lack of economic activity. Maybe that's why; I don't know. But the fact

of the matter is that post-1998 this legislation that was brought in was an

abomination to begin with.

Let's understand how it all started. You basically

were trying to find some way as a government to force more people into a

unionized field. It wasn't really what was going to do anything for the economy

— whether it was going to make this economy grow and provide more jobs. That

wasn't the point of what your administration had been, hon. member, for the last

ten years in this province. It had never really been looking at how to make the

economy grow. It had never been looking at how we would make life in British

Columbia better. It basically thrashed the place.

Now we are

here, and we have to start changing things to rebuild the economy in the

province of British Columbia. So, hon. member, these things that we are doing

are doing just that. Will there be a positive impact? There will definitely be a

very positive impact. You will see, in short order, the economy starting to

turn. You will see jobs and people working. You can see that in the faces and

expressions as you go through the communities of British Columbia today. They

feel a whole pile better today than they did earlier on in this year before

this last general election.

MacPhail: In the rhetorical flight, the minister might want to read the Globe

and Mail today. There was a very succinct

article about flights of fancy

that this government is already taking about the economy. It's a very succinct

article, not by that left-wing Daily Worker , but by the Globe and Mail .

All of his rhetoric and all of his flights of fancy will be put to the test in

the economy. In just the same way that his government is lurching to make

changes in an extreme way in the area of a very important part of the economy,

that will be put to the test too.

When things

go awry and when things don't prove out the way the minister wishes it to be, he

will have nothing to rely on. He won't be able to say: "Well, you know, we

did consult with business and working people, and they recommended that we go

this way." He won't have any neutral labour relations expert to rely on to

say: "It may not have worked out, but we did receive the best possible

advice before we made these changes." None of that will be in place. All he

will have are the flights of rhetorical fancy that he stands up and offers the

people sitting here. He will have nothing to turn to but his own rhetoric, and

all I am trying to do is put on the record something that is a little more

substantive than his own rhetoric.

Changes

that were made to the Labour Relations Code throughout the 1990s were done on

the basis of consultation. The minister is quite right: where they weren't done

on the basis of consultation, they failed. The government of the day had to back

off. He is absolutely right on that, but that was when consultation wasn't done.

So perhaps that is an indication that doesn't bode very well for the minister of

the day. I must say that this

section will be proven out very quickly, about

whether it works or not.

[1520]

Section 8

approved on division.

On

section

MacPhail: Can the minister outline all of the parts of

part 4.1 that he's

repealing?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Besides the bargaining councils, sections 55(11) to 55(17).

MacPhail: What takes the place of that — free market? Is that the

philosophical imposition that we have?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The Building Trades Council will bargain on a voluntary basis with

the CLRA or with other companies that are not part of the CLRA.

[ Page 595 ]

MacPhail: What does the minister expect in terms of the advisability of

labour disruption?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Thank you again for that question. Flights of fancy notwithstanding,

the simple fact of the matter is that this economy is going to turn around. The

construction sector, from one end of it to the other — big and small — will

be very, very busy, and I don't anticipate disruption. I think that the members

of the unions and the companies will be looking to help build a new and bright

future for the province of British Columbia. Perhaps if we can get into

the rhetoric of working together rather than the old rhetoric of class warfare,

this province will again assume its rightful place as the leader in Canada.

Section 9

approved on division.

section

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, we'll be spending some time on

section 10.

Could the

minister explain

section 10(a), please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: What this does is add education as an essential service in the code.

MacPhail: Who does it cover?

[1525]

Hon. G.

Bruce: This, of course, covers the school districts in the province of

British Columbia. The unions that are involved in this would be the British

Columbia Teachers Federation, CUPE, International Union of Operating Engineers,

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America — these are small

locals in various districts throughout the province — International

Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and

Pipe Fitting Industry, West Vancouver Municipal Employees Association, British

Columbia Government Employees and Services Union, and the IWA. These are all

different smaller locals that are found as bargaining units for different school

districts.

MacPhail: Is home schooling impacted by this?

Hon. G.

Bruce: No.

MacPhail: Is e-bus learning impacted by this?

Hon. G.

Bruce: To be clear, it's K-to-12 in the public school system.

MacPhail: Well, I'm just wondering. I'm just trying to figure it out,

because I have a series of questions, and I don't want to waste time on

questions of areas that aren't covered. E-bus is distance learning for children

through the Internet. Is that covered?

Hon. G.

Bruce: No.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, just to put the Chair on notice, I will be tabling an

amendment to this section. Perhaps I'll provide it to the Table now. I'm not

moving it right at this point, because it may not be necessary, based on a

series of questions that I have to ask of the minister. But again, it may be

necessary.

One of the

most respected experts on labour law is Prof. Paul Weiler. He wrote the book Reconcilable

Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law . Professor Weiler wrote:

"When a government starts out to make substantial changes in labour

legislation, both the process it uses and the package it proposes have to be

seen as decently responsive to the interests of both sides in labour-management

relations." I think it's clear that this act amending the Labour Code

simply doesn't meet that standard. In particular, teachers in the province don't

in any way agree with the legislation that designates education as an essential

service. Teachers made that very clear during the election — just so I can

prevent another rising up by the minister saying: "We won; you lost. There

was an election." During the election teachers made it very clear that they

thought designation of education as an essential service was unnecessary.

Professor

Weiler continues to explain why it's vital that both parties accept changes to

the labour legislation: "While such an approach is actually in the

long-term interests of each side, there's an even stronger public interest

served by it." That's back to where it says that the package has to be seen

as decently responsive to the interests of both sides in labour-management

relations. He continues: "If the process of labour law reform is perceived

to be one-sided and unfair, this will have a corrosive effect on the legitimacy

of the law it produces and on the degree of voluntary acceptance of that law by

those whom we are trying to control with it." Professor Weiler continues:

"I cannot overemphasize the importance of this simple point."

So here in

B.C. we've already seen the initial negative consequences of the Liberal

government's introduction of legislation that's not accepted by both labour and

management. We've had the strike action by both nurses and health science

professionals. That was deemed illegal by the Labour Relations Board. We've had

declarations of an ongoing campaign against the government by essential health

care workers — in fact, the campaign is going on today — because they don't

accept the legitimacy of the government's unfair denial of their right to strike

and their right to collective bargaining.

Now we have

the Liberal government going even further down the wrong path, this time with

teachers. Once again, we've not even had the decency of a fair, open and

transparent public process that would allow teachers to actually make their

case. There was a minor meeting between the parties, and nothing else has

happened since this Liberal government took office. I think that now it's

probably safe to say that the Liberal government is setting the stage for more

confrontation

[ Page 596 ]

instead of cooperation with teachers. That's the same as it did with nurses

and health science professionals.

So let's

try to use this chamber as an opportunity to shed some light on what the

government's actually trying to achieve here. I have a series of questions on

that basis.

[1530]

Section 10

is a rather extensive

section that talks about adding the K-to-12 system as part

of an essential services designation. But the

section does something much

different too. It changes the definition of essential services.

It says

that

whereas previous essential service legislation and designation was where

the board would rule on what it "considers necessary or essential to

prevent immediate and serious danger," this government has changed the bar

and said that the Labour Relations Board will rule on what it

"considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious

disruption to the provision of educational programs." The word

"danger" is changed to "disruption."

So let me

just start with a series of questions on that. What constitutes a disruption as

contemplated by this amendment?

Hon. G.

Bruce: That would be either a lockout or a potential strike action.

MacPhail: So is a disruption in the K-to-12 system — because you also have

to read "disruption" in the context of "immediate and

serious…?" Is a disruption, defined as a strike or a lockout, one that is

a period of eight weeks' duration? There's already a disruption in our education

system of eight weeks' duration.

Hon. G.

Bruce: In respect to "disruption," disruption is either the

prospect of a lockout or a strike due to a labour dispute. Then, of course, the

board would have the responsibility of establishing those levels of essential

service.

The other

thing I just want to come back to here for half a minute on this…. You

generalize quite a bit in respect to what teachers may think or may not think.

In fact, you sort of tend to take the approach….

The

Chair: Member, just to remind you to go through the Chair, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Sorry. I'm happy to speak to the Chair. I just wanted to make sure

that our communication was on the same wavelength.

There are a

great number of teachers involved in the school system in British Columbia, and

there is a distinction, to a degree, of what the BCTF…. I wasn't sure whether

you were meaning all teachers or whether you were just meaning the B.C. Teachers

Federation. I think there may be some distinction, and I wasn't sure what your

comments were in that respect.

I think the

B.C. Teachers Federation have indicated that they're not in favour of this

legislation, but I've actually heard from a number of teachers who are. So I

just wanted to draw that…. I believe there is a distinction, and I wasn't

quite sure that the member opposite was meaning teachers in the broadest context

or just the B.C. Teachers Federation.

MacPhail: Well, we'll get to that. I'm sure the minister will be able to

describe for me the teachers who support his legislation, as I will be able to

provide for him information of not only teachers but parents and trustees who

disagree with the legislation. That's the ongoing debate that's occurred just

today, as a matter of fact.

The Labour

Relations Board will need to seek guidance from this debate in the Legislature,

because the minister is substantially changing the law around essential

services. On the one hand, he's saying, "Don't worry, public, we'll turn

this over to the good graces, the goodwill and the good expertise of the Labour

Relations Board," but on the other hand, he's changing the law so

substantially that the Labour Relations Board will have nothing to guide itself

by. That's why this debate is very important.

[1535]

I don't

think the minister can just stand up and say, "A disruption is a disruption

due to a strike or a lockout," because that doesn't work. In the case of

other situations around the designation of essential services — like, for

instance, in the health system or the firefighting system — it was proposed

where there was an immediate and present danger to the health and safety and

welfare of the public. A danger was very easy to establish. In this

case, the government said: "It's a disruption. If a disruption occurs, then

the essential services legislation can be invoked." In the education

system, I'm sure those who are parents will be troubled by that.

That's why

I need to ask this series of questions. The reason why I ask whether a

disruption in our education system that will be declared essential is a time

period of eight weeks is because, of course, that's the time students take off

for a summer holiday. Is a disruption a period of two weeks? That's how long

students take off for Christmas holidays, unless, of course, their parents

actually take them out for longer. I confess. Well, actually I didn't do that,

but his father did that. And I know other MLAs here have taken their

children out of school for an extended Christmas holiday. That's a disruption.

So is a disruption defined as two weeks?

Hon. G.

Bruce: To be clear, what we consider to be a disruption is that which is

associated with job action — a potential of job action. I'll repeat that

again. To be clear, what we consider disruption to be is that associated with

job action, either lockouts or strikes. It's not holidays.

The other

point, to be very clear, is that we as a government said…. Again, this is part

of the campaign commitment. If we were looking at this for an

interpretation for

the board, we were very clear that the rights of students would come first, that

their

[ Page 597 ]

education must come first, that learning must continue and that the school

year must not be impacted by those disputes — on any grade achieving the results.

We have

said through all the campaign period and with this legislation we're bringing

through that we believe that the students' right to an education must come

first. That is the strength of what we're putting forward today in this

legislation.

MacPhail: The government's breaking new ground in Canada in this area. No

other jurisdiction has essential services designation for the education sector.

So it's very important that we have a thorough debate in this area. It's very

important that we have a specific debate about this, because the Labour Relations

Board — or the public or parents or teachers — will have nothing to guide

itself by but this debate.

The term

"disruption" has to be read in the context of…. Let me just read it.

This is the legislation.

"If

the minister (

a) after receiving a report of the chair respecting a dispute, or

(

b) on the minister's own initiative" — that's why it's very important to

know what is in his mind — "considers that a dispute poses a threat to

the provision of educational programs to students and eligible children under

the School Act, the minister may direct the board" — the Labour Relations

Board, that is — "to designate as essential services those facilities,

productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential to

prevent immediate and serious disruption to the provision of educational

programs."

[1540]

That's why

we're having this discussion, because you have to read it all together.

"Disruption to the provision of educational programs." We have to look

at what kind of disruption to the provision of educational programs is of

immediate and serious consequence. That's why we're doing this.

Again, as I

say, in the health care system if a person needs heart surgery and is in crisis

and the heart condition may lead to death or serious disability without the

provision of that heart surgery, there are all sorts of rulings that decide that

issue. It's very easy to determine the immediate danger, which is what the

legislation says. In this case, the only

precedents we have for disruptions to educational programs are how the system

operates now. So let me carry on.

Again, you

see, the reason why we have to know what's in the minister's mind is because the

minister actually has the ability to decide this issue all on his own, according

to (2.1)(b): "if the minister…on the minister's own initiative." So

what's in his mind is extremely important. Is it a disruption of a period of

time of several days spread over a day at a time, over a few months? That might

be what would happen in a rotating strike.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Again, what's in my mind — and I'll state this — is that students

do not lose a school year. That's extremely important. We're putting students

first. If the LRB and others that would review why it is and what it is we're

doing…. I think they need to take not only the comments in this House…. I

say this not flippantly; again, it's very important. This was a very widely

canvassed and discussed aspect of the campaign. This really is an expression of

the will of the people of British Columbia, who clearly said that they wanted

the students of the province in school. They wanted their education protected.

They wanted to make sure that their learning continues even in the face of

lockouts or strikes. This isn't just some flippant, quick-thought type of thing

that the general public have expressed by virtue of the general election and the

government's delivering on that campaign commitment — the aspect of education

being an essential service, of putting the children first, putting the students

first.

When the

LRB came to deliberate on what levels of essential service…. They're trying to

get some measure of what we're talking about here. We're saying that their

school year can't be impacted, that the students should be in the classroom,

that the learning should continue even in the face of a potential lockout or

strike. I think that's fairly clear and fairly strongly stated.

MacPhail: Yes. I can take the minister at his word that this was well

thought out, and that's why I'm pursuing these questions. I did check the New

Era document. The language that the minister is proposing was not contained

in the New Era document. The only way that the public or teachers or

trustees would have had the discussion would have been to refer to essential

services in the Labour Relations Code. That's why we're having this

discussion.

Of course,

what it says in the Labour Relations Code, which is standard language across the

country, is:

"If

the minister

(

a) after receiving a report of the chair respecting a dispute, or

(

b) on the minister's own initiative

considers that a dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of

the residents of British Columbia, the minister may direct the board to

designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services

that the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and

serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British

Columbia."

I didn't

actually meet any teachers that thought this was necessary. It's absolutely true

that disruptions in our children's time in school are very inconvenient and

should be avoided, but they don't pose a danger. So perhaps the teachers or the

public that he meant may have thought: "Well, indeed, if the minister's

just going to include teachers under the essential services legislation that

currently exists, then really it's probably just another philosophical thrust

but won't have any practical application."

[1545]

Well,

that's all changed now that we see the real legislation, now that we see in the

legislation that the minister has changed the test from being danger to

disruption. That's why my questions are absolutely key to know what's in the

minister's mind.

[ Page 598 ]

I guess

I've asked the question enough so that we…. Really, I'm not sure that the

public has any great comfort in knowing what his definition of disruption is.

His definition is a disruption due to a strike or a lockout. Does the LRB weigh

that against other disruptions that occur in our school system? That's why I was

asking the minister about that.

Anyway, let

me try another approach to see whether we can clarify the debate around this, to

give some comfort to the public. Before the last election the Liberal Party's

Education critic — I think it was the member for Surrey–White Rock — said

that strikes and picket lines would continue under the essential services

legislation that a Liberal government would pass. "Answering the phone

would not be considered essential. There would be some degree of reduced

cleanliness. Several senior classes might be put together and taught by one

teacher," said the MLA for Surrey–White Rock in an interview with a

newspaper. Could the minister confirm that the former critic's views are

correct, in the view of the government today?

Hon. G.

Bruce: By this legislation, what we are doing is letting the Labour

Relations Board determine, on a case-by-case basis, what is essential. It's very

clear; it's not confusing. That's what we're doing.

MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but that's not good enough. Every classroom

in the province of British Columbia is disrupted. Every single classroom is

disrupted. So that's not good enough.

Let me just

carry on. I guess these questions will go on the record, and there will be a

lack of answers to them. But it may help the minister to eventually support the

amendment that I'm seeing more and more I may have to move. I haven't yet,

though.

The MLA for

Surrey–White Rock said that a Liberal Education minister would help give

direction to the LRB on essential services level. The MLA for Surrey–White

Rock was the Education critic. It was his words on which the public relied

during the election. Can the minister tell the House exactly what directions to

the LRB are being contemplated by the government?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The directions are within the body of the legislation: the reflection

of some of what we've talked about in this debate, of how important education

is; the fact that we believe that students should be in the classroom and that

the labour disputes that may evolve should not disrupt a student's school year.

This is the type of direction we're giving. We're not pinpointing and telling

the Labour Relations Board: "Thou shalt do bing, bing, bing, bing."

We're saying that education will be an essential service, that students need to

be in the classroom, that their rights come first — an expression by this

party, by this House, by the province of British Columbia. It's pretty clear.

The LRB will take that into consideration as they try to determine, depending on

where the disputes are and the extent of them, what levels of essential service

need to be kept in play so that the students are able to achieve their school

year and achieve the continuous learning that we here today are saying needs to

be there.

[1550]

MacPhail: Then let me continue along that vein. If the minister is saying

now, in contrast to what they said before and during the election, that they

won't be telling the LRB what to do…. We have a hint. The former Education

critic said that people could be combined in one classroom. That was envisaged,

and that was what was debated during the election. What does the minister feel

is an acceptable number of students in a classroom for this government during a

labour disruption?

Hon. G.

Bruce: We're very clear. We're going to allow the Labour Relations Board,

through this legislation, to make the determination over time, as they had done in health. It was done area by area. Such would be the case in respect to

education.

MacPhail: I have to continue, Mr. Chair, although I'm not getting any

answers to my questions. Let me just ask one that, because of the debate that

has occurred…. I mean, the debate isn't just occurring in this Legislature,

although I'm trying to clarify the debate. It occurred earlier on, and the

former Education critic said that people could be combined in one classroom.

There are existing guarantees of classroom size that have been negotiated

between teachers and employers, and those guarantees are incorporated into the

collective agreement. I want to see the

relationship between an essential services designation and the current

conditions outlined in a collective agreement. What's the relationship? Another

prominent Liberal MLA, before the election, also had a view on essential

services.

Before I

proceed there, does the minister see classroom size as one avenue of determining

essential services — not overriding, in an essential services designation, the

current conditions of a collective agreement?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The board will hear from both the employer and the bargaining unit.

Through their discussions they will determine what levels are necessary to

sustain the education system to live to what we're discussing here today: the

fact that students, in our view, should be in the classroom. What this

legislation is doing is putting students first. The parties are going to discuss

in front of the LRB. The LRB is going to look at each party, perhaps at

others. They may look at what was said here today. With that, they are going to

determine what that level is to be. This isn't new. This has been done in

respect to the health care system, and this is being done here in education.

MacPhail: With the greatest of respect, this is new. The minister has

changed the rules. In fact, prior to this amendment which the Liberal government

has

[ Page 599 ]

introduced, the LRB had all of the rights to do exactly what the minister

just described and had done it. The Labour Relations Board has applied essential

services rulings to the education system. They did that under the previous

language. I believe the ruling was that a certain aspect of education…. Under

the previous ruling, where it was an immediate danger, the board ruled that

grade 12 students on the verge of finishing their year and going on to

university were in immediate danger. Therefore, an essential services

designation was made during a labour disruption.

For some

reason, that isn't good enough, and the government has decided not only to

introduce special legislation but to change the wording for teachers. That's

what we have to explore here. There must have been something in mind for the

government to bring in the change. So let me go to another Liberal MLA who

discussed his views on essential services before the election.

[1555]

The

Minister of Labour says that all of this was thoroughly discussed during the

election. Let's see what was discussed during the election. The member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, the Premier, said that the essential services law would

"protect workers' right to strike while ensuring students are able to

safely access school and classroom services throughout the collective bargaining

process." Now the rubber's hit the road. The government actually has to

explain what that means, and that's what I'm trying to find out here. They

actually have to say, in detail, what that means.

I'm trying

to find out how long a teacher or a support worker gets to exercise the right to

strike before a disruption becomes a problem. I'm trying to find out how long a

trustee gets to lock out a group of workers before the disruption becomes a

problem. What do you think the Premier meant when he said that workers have a

right to strike but that students get to safely access school and classroom

services? What does this legislation do differently that the previous

legislation didn't achieve?

Hon. G.

Bruce: What this legislation does is very clearly define in the minds of the

Labour Relations Board the attitude of the public that it represents. The

general public has clearly and overwhelmingly stated that they want the students

in the classroom. Students are the highest priority; they're first. If there's a

labour dispute of some sort, that labour dispute is not to interfere with

putting the students' education first. That's a very strong commitment that was

given by this government, and it was reaffirmed by the vote of May 16.

Now, the

Labour Relations Board are the ones that will determine the levels of essential

service. The member opposite is quite right in what happened under her former

administration with respect to the grade 12 year. But we believe, as obviously

does the general public, that it ought to go further than that, and we've taken

it that step further. We're not just going to leave it now to the

discretion…or to the debate of whether education is essential enough. We're

saying it is essential. We said that to the board via this legislation. Then the

board is going to determine what levels are required under the knowledge of

what's been said here and our attitude that students ought to be placed first.

I think

that's all pretty clear. I think it's a measured approach, an approach that the

people of British Columbia clearly wanted to see. And I think you'll find that

from the standpoint of education, the professionals who teach in the school

system will feel that this is a good way to go.

MacPhail: Courts and independent tribunals don't get to make law. If somehow

the minister thinks that it's okay for him to stand up and repeatedly say that

the LRB will decide these issues, that's not the way it works. The LRB

interprets the law, applies the law to circumstances.

Right now

we have a very, very fuzzy discussion happening here. We have a discussion that

isn't nearly as precise as the one that the Liberal members were offering prior

to and during the election. Yet that's the premise on which this minister rests:

that all this was discussed during the election.

Well, I've

put questions to him about what various Liberal MLAs said during the election,

and he can't respond to say: "Oh yes, those are essential services."

He can't do it. I put to him what the Premier said about what essential services

meant, and now he can't explain it in the context of his own legislation. So I'm

just trying to find out what it was that the public voted for and what it means.

Let's go on

to some other things. What defines an essential service in each school? Will

that essential service designation be determined on the basis of each school,

each classroom or each student?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Excuse me; I apologize to the member. I had one ear that was taking

in some information. Could you just restate that for me? Thank you.

MacPhail: I fully understand. I was asking how the essential service

designation for disruption will be applied. Will that be applied on the basis

of each school, each classroom or each student?

[1600]

Hon. G.

Bruce: That would depend on the actual dispute that's occurring. If it were

a support workers' dispute taking place that was affecting one particular

district, that would apply to that district. Obviously, these are bargaining

units that work in and around our school system. Some of them are provincewide;

some others localized. It'll be determined relative to the dispute itself as to

which group is having difficulty in the negotiations in coming to this point.

That's where the LRB will make that decision.

MacPhail: Maybe I could pursue this a little bit further. There are programs

that are unique to a school in a district. There are district programs that may

[ Page 600 ]

unique to that district. There are students that are unique to a classroom

that have…. There are some students in our education system that have

one-on-one educating. There is a possibility that one student in the classroom

could be affected by a labour disruption. There's a possibility that one program

could be affected by a labour disruption. Does math, history, biology, chemistry

or phys ed qualify?

Let me just

go on with a couple of other examples. Somehow the minister thinks that this is

all going to be left up to the LRB. Well, the LRB doesn't have the right to

decide these issues out of context from what was in the minister's mind. If the

LRB is going to decide, they'll go back to the record of what the Premier said

in the election or what the Education critic said in the election. We need to

know what's in the mind here.

In my

riding we have this fabulous audiovisual program, absolutely

fabulous. It's got a theatre. What if students are on the verge of entering

some sort of technical training program that leads to an apprenticeship? If they

don't enter it, the apprenticeship is gone. Is that essential services? And

because there's one-on-one education in this province, will the legislation

allow an individual student or his or her parent to make application to

designate their courses at school as essential?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm just going to reiterate that we've made it very clear that

students' rights must be first. If the LRB is looking for some direction when

they're making their determination as to the

interpretation of essential

service, they're going to see that this is now paramount. The student in the

classroom is paramount. In the general sense, we're also saying that students

will not lose a school year regardless of age, regardless of school year, K-to-12, and that learning continues even in the face of some

sort of dispute that's taking place, whether it's provincewide, districtwide

or school-specific. I think that's pretty clear, pretty succinct. Those

definitions, in regards to the essential service relative to that, will be

determined and can be by the Labour Relations Board if and when a dispute is put

to them.

[1605]

MacPhail: That matter has already been determined by the Labour Relations

Board. The minister didn't need to bring in legislation. That matter about

losing a school year has already been determined. The Labour Relations Board

ruled that the only way a student could lose a year without making it up was if

they lost provincial exams in grade 12. That's why it was considered to be an

essential service designation under the former legislation. Students in grade 12

were having their year put at risk because there was a requirement to complete

provincial exams in order to get the year. Does that exist in any other grade?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes, that is clearly the distinction. We are not limiting it to the

grade 12 year. We are saying the year for all students, K to 12 —

kindergarten, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, all of those. Their

school year can't be lost by this. That's a clear distinction. It isn't just the

interpretation of whether it's grade 12 and provincial exams. We're saying it's

the school year. We're also saying — and don't lose sight of this; I know you

won't — that continuous education ought to be taking place in the face of a

dispute or a lockout.

There is

direction that has been given for the

interpretation of the Labour Relations

Board as they come to deem the level of essential service for the educational

system.

MacPhail: Well, again, because the minister is imposing the legislation on a

particular sector that is well established and has its own laws and its own

mandatory requirements, we need to be specific. As a parent, I want my child to

have a continuous education without disruption, but….

Maybe it's

time for me to just make a couple of comments about a philosophy of

how our children are educated and what the purpose of education is. The minister

is somehow saying that we can just rule that education will continue and that everybody will know what that means. I guess he assumes that everybody, then,

has an understanding of what the purpose of education is. He's not offering

an explanation, on the basis of these detailed questions, of what he means by

education.

The

government has said: "We won't interrupt education." You can't talk

about education as an essential service without talking about the purpose of

education as something different from what schools do. We know schools do many

things. Schools take custody of our children for a specified period of time

during the school year. They attend to the well-being of the children who are in

their care, they bring children together in a common facility, they educate

them, they administer funds, they prepare financial reports, and they purchase

supplies, lease property, employ people, hold meetings. Many if not most of the

things schools do are derived from the main purposes of schooling.

There's

actually a statement of education policy. I hope the minister and the members

have time to listen to this, because as I researched this, I found it of great

interest. It helped me decide this. This is actually a statement of

education policy from 1989. The minister was an MLA at the time. It became

effective in 1989, and it's still in effect. It states: "The purpose of the

British Columbia school system is to enable learners to develop their individual

potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to

contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy."

It turns out that that still makes sense today.

I think the

vast majority of British Columbians think that that statement of education

policy can best be achieved through a public education system. I'm sure there

would only be a small minority of British Columbians who'd say we don't need a

public education system to achieve that, that it could all be done through the

marketplace. For the majority of the population, public education is essential

to enabling

[ Page 601 ]

learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge

and skills and attitude needed to contribute to a healthy society and a

prosperous and sustainable economy.

[1610]

The policy

statement on public schools contained in the statement of education policy order

in 1989 makes clear that within the three goals of education — intellectual

development, human and social development, career development — human and

social development and career development are the shared responsibilities of the

school, the family and the community as well. Intellectual development is

considered the prime goal and is supported by, rather than shared with, the

family and the community. So intellectual development is the primary goal of the

schools.

Most of us

agree that prolonged absence from school might jeopardize the development of the

potential of learners and might interfere with the acquisition of knowledge,

skills and attitudes. So provision is made for the education of students who are

confined to hospitals or are home-bound, because prolonged absence would

interfere with that. There has been specific provision made for that. But

short-term absence from school isn't seen as deleterious to the educational

interests. Those absences are not encouraged, but they're not seen as

deleterious, otherwise our children would be in school continuously.

That's why

I was pursuing the initial line of questioning. If an interruption

of a child's schooling would threaten her education, we'd make it illegal or a

violation of the law for parents to remove their children during the school

year. Of course we don't do that. There have been MLAs who are decent parents

and want the best education for their children and who remove their children from

school during the school year, during the school day.

We make

allowances for parents who wish to have their children excused from school to

take

part in other activities, because we recognize that while essential to a

child's development and to the acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitudes,

purposeful interruptions to their education of a short duration during the year,

and for longer periods during holidays, don't adversely affect the education of

most children. We don't encourage it, but it's not an adverse effect.

So the

question now is — and that's what we're trying to get at here; that's what

this debate is about: do the interruptions to the education of children that

arise within the context of the process of collective bargaining constitute

immediate and serious danger to the welfare, health and safety of the residents

of British Columbia? The reason why I use the former definition is because

that's the discussion that took place during the election. That's why I use the

word "danger," because I am just relying on the minister's assertion

that this was thoroughly discussed during the election.

It is, of

course, absolutely the responsibility of the Legislature to be concerned about

the negative and deleterious impact on the education of students that would

result from prolonged management-labour conflict. That is something that the

Legislature has to concern itself with. Does this legislation do it? Of course

it doesn't, because it abdicates responsibility for determining how prolonged a

disruption is. It says, "Oh, the LRB will decide," and gives us no

guidance. That's why I'm trying to pursue the guidance.

We know

that there is every avenue available for this Legislature to judge whether a

prolonged absence as a result of a labour disruption is deleterious to the

education of the students. The Legislature can reconvene and pass legislation to

require the parties to return to work. God knows it's been done in the past,

much to the chagrin of some members. So the

government says: "Oh no, we don't want to actually assume our

responsibility for balancing the interests of working people in the education

system and the needs of our children for the best education possible. We don't

want to do that on a case-by-case basis ourselves where we could recall the

Legislature. We want to turn that over to the LRB with no guidance

whatsoever."

[1615]

I thought I

might not have to use my research in that area because we would actually get to

answer the question about what the minister sees as deleterious — what

prolonged absences are deleterious to our children. But those questions aren't

being answered, so I have to go to my specifics. There is certainly a situation

that could arise where an individual student's attendance at school is affected

on an individual basis due to a labour disruption. Is it possible for that

student — I'm talking about a special needs student — to make application to

have the disruption of her education declared essential?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It would have to be either of the parties that were in dispute, or it

would have to be the Minister of Labour to make that appeal.

MacPhail: Does the minister know whether the Labour Relations Board hears

from individuals in the area of health care disputes when determining essential

services?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Predominantly, the board appoints a mediator, and the mediator speaks

with the parties — obviously those parties are individuals — and then brings

that back to the board.

MacPhail: It's actually not a trick question. I don't know the answer to it.

I'm trying to seek information here, because it is key. So it's the minister's

point that parties who are not party to the collective agreement process cannot

make application for essential services designation.

Hon. G.

Bruce: That's correct.

MacPhail: I want to move on, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering whether I should….

At this point in the

[ Page 602 ]

debate I'm going to move my amendments, which, under

section 72, changes the

wording that's currently before us —

section 72(a)(1)(i). I'm sorry. I can

go through all this, or…. The minister has a copy of it.

The

Chair: Yes.

MacPhail: Okay. Let me just explain this, then. This is to say that the

definition of…. It still specifies that the definition of essential services

covers students and eligible children under the School Act, covered by essential

services specifically, but it uses the definition of essential services that was

in existence during the election and that has a well-founded body of decisions

at the LRB attached to it. This is exactly a return to what people voted on for

the Liberal government during the election. This amendment is actually the real

language that delivers on the promise of the Liberal government during the

election.

I would so

move.

[SECTION 72 is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) If a dispute arises after collective bargaining has commenced, the chair

may, on the chair's own motion or on application by either of the parties to

the dispute,

(

a) investigate whether or not the dispute poses a threat to

(

i) the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British

Columbia, or

(ii) the health, safety or welfare of students and eligible

children under the School Act, and

(

b) report the results of the investigation to the minister.

(

b) by adding the following subsection:

(2.1) If the minister

(

a) after receiving a report of the chair respecting a

dispute, or

(

b) on the minister's own initiative considers that a dispute

poses a threat to health, safety or welfare of students and eligible

children under the School Act, the minister may direct the board to

designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services

that the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and

serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of students and eligible

children under the School Act, and

(

c) in

subsections (3), (5)(a), (6) and (7) by striking out "under subsection

(2)" and substituting "under subsection (2) or (2.1).]"

[1620]

On the

amendment.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. Is this amendment in order? On

reading, it would seem that it changes the intent of what we're trying to do. It

doesn't amend it; it virtually reverses it back to the way it was.

The

Chair: It appears to be in order, unless the minister can clarify otherwise.

MacPhail: It's interesting to note the words the minister said. He said that

this changes the words back to the way it was. Well, that's what people voted on

during the election. The government didn't say during the election: "We

have a different view of essential services." Actually, they did say a

whole bunch of stuff about essential services, none of which I can get an answer

to. They didn't say: "Oh, but guess what. The language that exists now,

which is well defined on essential services, isn't what we really mean."

That was what the debate was about.

All I'm

doing here is tabling an amendment that puts…. It's like one of those lob

questions that the backbenchers of the government caucus ask of the ministers of

the day: "Did you really mean what you said during the election?"

That's all this amendment does. This amendment asks that very question. If you

vote against it, you're breaking your promise. That's exactly what you're doing.

If you vote against this amendment, then you misled the public during the

election, because this is what the discussion was about during the election.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I won't belabour the amendment, but basically, as I read the

amendment, it takes the whole issue back to one of safety and welfare and not to

the provision of educational programs. I think there's a fairly significant

difference obviously.

The general

public are looking that we would put students first, that they would have the

continuance of learning within the school system in the face of a labour dispute

and that they wouldn't lose a school year. This amendment doesn't speak to that,

so we'll be voting against the amendment.

MacPhail: This is for posterity. I am voting in favour

of the amendment. I hope that the amendment won't be defeated, because it will

have serious consequences for the Liberal government. But if the amendment is

defeated, I will be noting my vote for the amendment by calling a division.

Amendment

negatived on division.

MacPhail: That was an interesting discussion. Let's carry on with another

aspect of essential services, then. The minister should know that the LRB

already deals with an enormous number of essential service hearings. In 1998 the

LRB held 557 essential services hearings. Those were 557 separate hearings. The

LRB dealt with a total of 3,981 applications or complaints that year.

The

minister refused earlier in the debate to recognize any sort of assistance for

the LRB in terms of

[ Page 603 ]

now having to do representation votes — refused to give relief for having

to do those representation votes by reducing the number of unfair labour

practices and shortening the time period for the vote. So there's been no relief

given for the LRB. Their workload is increased today by having to have

representation votes on every single certification application. I would expect

that the essential services hearings will increase hugely at the LRB with not

only the addition of education to the application of essential services but also

by now changing the definition completely so that no one knows what it's about,

so that there's no body of evidence or law to which the LRB can refer.

[1625]

They

certainly can't turn to this room, with the record of the MLAs in this chamber

giving help to the LRB, about what it means — certainly nothing. So I imagine

these hearings will be prolonged and costly, and I imagine these hearings will

involve lawyers. We know that just in this last round of bargaining from health

care, there has been a substantive body of evidence for health care designation

as essential services. The government, the employers, spent $360,000. That

doesn't even take into account the bargaining agents of the workers. That's

$360,000 where it's tried-and-true practice of essential services and where the

definition is consistent with other

definitions across the country.

So now we

have a brand-new definition and no body of law, no body of decisions to rely on,

no new resources and no new staff, and the LRB is going to have to deal with a

huge volume of hearings to make education an essential service. I'm not

speculating on this. The potential for this is facing us in three weeks. As a

parent I'm worried about what it means, come Labour Day plus one. I'm certainly

worried about it for the children who are educated in my…. There's an

opportunity for lockout as well. I'm worried about it.

Collective

bargaining is taking place right now. The government has given absolutely no

comfort that they have any money available for teacher bargaining. They've

drained the coffers away to the large corporations. So I expect this issue will

face us. I expect the LRB is probably watching today, saying: "My gosh,

what are we going to do?" And I expect there are lawyers rubbing their

hands in glee, saying: "Oh my gosh, what are we going to do now? Isn't this

great?"

So let me

ask a series of questions on the LRB and the practical application of this

legislation. Can the minister make a commitment that if the LRB finds itself

overwhelmed with essential service applications in three weeks, he will find

additional resources to ensure that the LRB fulfils all of its obligations, all

of its labour relations adjudication functions, in a timely manner?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The hon. member presupposes that we're going to have an escalation of

labour unrest in the province. I don't actually believe that's going to be the

case. Granted, we've had to do some things in this session in regard to labour

disputes that are not ones that I was particularly happy to undertake, nor was

any other member in this House. But they were disputes left over by the hon.

member's government, inadequately handled, poorly bargained. They hadn't looked

after the health care resources as they should have. They couldn't figure out

what to do with respect to the transit issues, and they had moved into a strike.

So those issues were left for us, and we dealt with them.

Now there

are negotiations that have been undertaken with respect to the British Columbia

Teachers Federation. Although I understand that the leadership of the British

Columbia Teachers Federation is concerned about all of this, if they concentrate

on the negotiations with the parties that are present, I think we can reach a

negotiated settlement. I would hope that to be the case. The Labour Relations

Board will do what it has to do with regard to the duties on hand as a board, if

and when it's faced with that.

[1630]

MacPhail: Every time this minister has stood in the House and predicted that

free collective bargaining would prevail and that a freely negotiated settlement

would be reached, given the context of the heavy hand of their laws, he's been

wrong. So while I appreciate that he's predicting once again that everything

will go fine, his record of prediction is abysmal.

Again I go

back to my opening statements about what Prof. Paul Weiler said. He said:

"If the process of labour law reform is perceived to be one-sided and

unfair, this will have a corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the law it

produces and on the degree of voluntary acceptance of the law by those whom we

are trying to control with it." That's Paul Weiler saying that.

Well, one

side has already indicated that it's not happy with this. The other side, the

public, who the minister says supports this, was voting on something that the

minister has changed radically. And the government members just defeated an

amendment that would have returned the law to what they promised during the

election. I can hardly wait for one of them to stand up and say: "Minister,

why did you vote against the amendment tabled by the opposition? Now you've

broken a promise." I can hardly wait for that question to come up during

question period.

I predict

that the minister's record of forecasting that collective bargaining will

prevail and that there won't be labour disruption is wrong. He's put everything

in place to ensure that his prediction will be wrong.

Then we

also have to look at the record of collective bargaining in this sector anyway,

between teachers and school trustees. They've needed a great deal of help over

the last two rounds of bargaining. In fact, they've needed a great deal of help

to the point of intervention. So there's actually nothing, historically or

currently, that supports the minister's premise that a negotiated settlement

will prevail. Well, there is one thing, I predict — that is, if the government

can actually find some money to pay teachers. But they've hamstrung themselves

with that. They've tied both hands behind their back with their huge, massive

tax cuts, and

[ Page 604 ]

they've put forward an economic forecast that's absolutely ridiculous.

They've given themselves no room whatsoever to resolve it on that basis.

Let me ask

this, then, because this is something that the minister will be directly

responsible for, in that his government funds school boards. Has he discussed

with school boards how making essential services applications will affect their

bottom line? The cost of legal fees alone could be enormous, and perhaps it's

money that could be spent in the classroom. Could the minister indicate what

research he and his staff have done to estimate the cost to school districts of

essential service legislation?

[1635]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I, too, would like to have a whole pile more money and be in a

position in this province so that we had coffers overflowing, as we should have.

But I think the member opposite has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The

spot we're at in the province today is because of a completely inept,

inefficient…. There you go, by your leave, spending the money of the taxpayer.

It's just gone, with no consideration for the taxpayer and their dollar — no

consideration in that respect at all. You're quite right: there isn't money

there.

We can get

back into the old class warfare, but it just doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

It's not relevant. People of the province of British Columbia want the economy

rebuilt. But primarily, in this particular debate, what the people of the

province want is to know that students will be first, that education will be

first, that labour disputes will no longer hold up the education of students.

That's what they want. They made that clear.

As the

member has so openly said, there have been disputes in the last ten years. There

have been disputes where the member's own government had to come back and

legislate returns and so on. I mean, it was great. Just leave the system as it

was; let's have the disruptions. It's no clear expression as to how important

one considers education to be in the K-to-12 range. This government has made it

very clear, and the general public have made it very clear.

I think

we're at the point now where the member ought to accept that. That judgment was

given. This legislation is there to allow the parties to determine those

essential levels. It is not a question of us coming along and taking away their

right to strike, putting in binding arbitration. We're saying: "No. We

still believe in a negotiated settlement between the parties." We believe

that the parties as a group are mature and professional and can reach those

agreements. There are a number of parties involved in these, be they the

teachers' organization or the support workers. What's clearly said here in this

legislation.... What we are doing is demonstrating to the people of the

province that we said, and they restated it — the voters, that is — that the

rights of students will come first, that students will be in the classroom, that

they will get a continuing education and that they will not lose a year to a

labour dispute.

MacPhail: Could the minister actually answer the question that I just asked?

He's the one that hasn't moved on. I'm asking practical questions as if the

legislation is in place. I'm moving on. Perhaps the minister could as well.

Will the

minister indicate what research he and his staff have done to estimate the costs

to school districts of essential service legislation?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The hon. member opposite, of course, was involved in a number of

disputes in respect to education, and there are costs associated with that.

There's no doubt about it. But she presupposes that we will have continuing

labour disputes, that this will escalate and so on, and I don't believe that

will be the case. I guess we

could go back and add up the costs that the former government incurred through

the handling or mishandling of these disputes in the past.

What we're saying is

that education will be an essential service. We're saying that the students need

to be in the classroom. We also believe, through saying that, that the parties

involved in the disputes, the parties involved in negotiating contracts, will

also understand that society as a whole has increased its measure, has said that

education is truly…. It's not lip service anymore; it's not the old so-called

common denominator. No, education is important to us.

What

we're suggesting here is that those who work in the education system will

treat this process of the negotiation in that light. It isn't just: "Hey,

we can't get a settlement, so we're going out on strike, and we're going to

close the schools down." No, that's not going to be the case. We've said

that. In fact, as a government, the hon. member's actions in the past got

involved in a number of educational disputes. We're just laying it on the line,

and the general public are right there. The whole business of cost analysis,

what does it cost and so on, I don't think is germane to this discussion. I

think it's bigger than that. I think it's the fact that people want to know that

we treat and respect education at a very high level in our society and that we

want our students in the classroom. I think it's very clear.

[1640]

MacPhail: I doubt that the public will accept that as an answer: that costs

aren't germane. I doubt that the public, who want education dollars spent on the

classroom and on their children, would be happy to hear that hundreds of

thousands or perhaps millions of dollars are spent on determining a piece of

legislation that's unworkable. That's why I'm trying to pursue this.

Let me just

make it clear, because the minister clearly doesn't understand how essential

services legislation works. Essential services legislation doesn't work so that

you apply it after the dispute has started. That would defeat the whole purpose

of this. Somehow the minister thinks: "Oh God, let's not predict that

there's going to be a strike and the legislation would be invoked, because

that's being very, very uncharitable." Essential services designations

occur before a dispute, a

[ Page 605 ]

labour action, takes place. Whether indeed a labour withdrawal takes place or

not, the legislation has to be invoked and the dollars have to be spent.

The

essential services designation for health care takes place much before. All of

the money is spent and the LRB hearings are done before job action is taken

either by trustees or by teachers. This isn't a figment of imagination or a

what-if. If this legislation is passed, I can guarantee you that the LRB will be

taking action on this immediately. So these questions are germane.

What if a

school board can't run a band program because they're spending money on legal

fees at the LRB? What's the back bench going to say then? What if there are

children who can't get special needs education because the money is being spent

on lawyers' fees at the LRB? The minister doesn't even understand how the

application of his own legislation works.

Well, let's

talk about his supporters and what they think about this. Let's talk about it in

the context of not a teacher but a trustee. This is a trustee, actually. My

gosh, this is a trustee that's a member of the B.C. Public School Employers

Association, the bargaining agent for the employer — a school trustee. It's a

public letter. I know the government's kind of worried about leaks already, I've

heard, but this is a public letter published in the Comox Valley newspaper. It's

from Len Morrow of Comox. He's a veteran trustee who's a member of the B.C.

Public School Employers Association. It's a letter published today. His letter

begins:

"While

I am a supporter of the new B.C. government, their announced intention to

make education an essential service is both silly and simplistic.

Unfortunately, like many such ideas, it's also popular. Most people would

agree that education is important, a cornerstone of our free democratic

society and the basis for much of our wealth.

"What

is it, however, about our public education system that makes it essential,

when it operates between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. for 182 days a year? We wouldn't

accept that kind of service from any of our institutions that are truly

essential, such as hospital or police services, which must operate every

hour of every day to ensure that lives are not at risk. What part of the

education system now equates with that level of risk?"

The letter

goes on:

"Those

who continue to advocate for essential services legislation should look over

the horizon a bit to see what the likely result of such action might be.

Firstly, they should remember how teachers got the right to strike in the

first place. They initiated a Charter challenge to the old School Act, which

provided only for compulsory arbitration to resolve a bargaining impasse. I

am sure that they will mount a similar challenge to essential services

legislation, and they will be just as successful, because — as asked above

— what part of education is essential?"

This is a

school trustee. The letter also raises the issue of how essential services will

affect parents. That's why I was pursuing a line of questioning in that

area. He asks:

[1645]

"Will

parents who choose to withdraw or pull their children from school for a few

days to take a vacation or look after a sick sibling be facing prosecution

for withholding essential services from their child, in much the same manner

as a parent would face legal action if they denied their child needed

medical services?"

Is that

going to be part of the discussion perhaps — this is not from the letter —

under the new Parental Responsibility Act?

That's from

a school trustee who's a long-serving school trustee, and he actually sits on

the bargaining committee for the employer. Well, actually, I don't know whether

he sits on the bargaining committee. I'm sorry. He's a member of the B.C. Public

School Employers Association, so he's a member of the employers association that

establishes the bargaining committee. It's on that basis that I am asking the

minister the question for school trustees such as this. What impact will having

to attend the LRB have on school board budgets?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Could you just tell me the name of the author of that letter again,

please?

MacPhail: Len Morrow.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Society goes through changes, and we go along in different

directions. Things are accepted. Society says okay to a certain extent. Then we

get to a crossroads. Clearly, like no other time in the province of British

Columbia, we came to that crossroads on May 16. There was a very clear

expression by the people of British Columbia, overwhelmingly, for a new

direction. That new direction also applied to education. Whether the hon. member

wants to refer it as life and death or not, for a society to grow and prosper,

for us to have doctors and nurses, lawyers, construction workers — whatever

the field may be — we need people to be able to get through a good public

school education system.

As the

member opposite speaks about the past, we saw time and again where there were

disputes in the school system. What we are doing here is reflecting that change

that society in British Columbia has determined. To them, yes, education is

essential. They made it very clear. Education is essential to our collective

well-being in the province and the individual well-being — the students that

go through that school system.

appreciate that there may be comments by people who