2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 28

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark

Tribute to Peter Gzowski

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Introductions by Members

P. Bell

J. MacPhail

Introduction of Bills

Education Services Collective Agreement Act

(Bill 27)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Collins

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act

(Bill 28)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Collins

Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act

(Bill 29)

Hon. G. Bruce

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Bruce

Adjournment Motion

Hon. G. Collins

Kwan

MacPhail

[ Page 863 ]

FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2002

The House

met at 1:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm delighted to make a couple of introductions today of people who

are joining us: Reggi Balabanov, who's the president of the B.C. Confederation

of Parent Advisory Councils; Kathleen Thomson, who's the president of the local

teachers union in district 43; Gordon Comeau, who's the president of the B.C.

School Trustees Association; Lee Southern, the executive director of the School

Trustees Association; Stu Dale, who's the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals

Association president; Stanley French, who is the manager of that organization;

Don Goodridge, who is the president of the B.C. School Superintendents

Association; Wendy Lee, who is its executive director; and, of course, Cathy

Abraham, who is the co-chair of the North Vancouver district parent advisory

council.

I hope the

House will make them all very welcome.

Tribute to Peter Gzowski

MacPhail: My apologies for not getting up quickly. I want the House, if I

could ask, to join me today in recognizing and honouring the life and now the

passing of Peter Gzowski.

[1310]

I think

most of us in this chamber are old enough to have grown up with Peter Gzowski.

Some of us were born during Peter Gzowski's wonderful reign. He is literally the

voice, or he literally was the voice, of Canada. He loved every aspect of

Canada, and he loved every single aspect of all Canadians, whether they be rich

or poor, whether they be Inuit, new Canadians or new Asian Canadians.

I'm going

to miss him personally very much. He always brought great comfort. I hope the

Legislature, through you, Mr. Speaker, will send a note of condolence to his

family.

Hon. G.

Collins: I, too, wanted to add condolences to Mr. Gzowski's family from the

members of the government side of the House and, indeed, I guess, the whole

Legislature. I think the comments by the member for Vancouver-Hastings are

pretty reflective of what many people are thinking, for those of us who, for the

last decades, it seems like, remember listening to that little song that would

come on at the beginning — I won't sing it for you — which always reminded

me of sitting down with a coffee with a good friend.

You could

hear the discussions and the way he would interview people, the way he seemed to

have an incredible ability to reach into someone he may never have seen before

— reach into their heart and soul and pull some of that out so we could learn

a little bit about the person who was there. Always enlightening. He always had

an amazing sense of the country of Canada, its communities from one end to the

other, from the top to the bottom.

certainly talked to people for decades from right around this country. He had an

amazing sense of what makes us tick as a people. Sometimes, in a new country

such as Canada, that's a pretty hard thing to define. I think he was great at

holding up a mirror to ourselves, introducing us to ourselves right across the

country. I know he'll be sorely missed.

I know how

devastated I was when he decided to retire. It really left a big gap in the day,

a real highlight of the day. He was also tireless in his pursuit of the

improvement of literacy in the country. He spent years and years with his golf

tournaments, raising money. I think the count was some $6 million that he raised

to promote literacy in communities across the country.

He will be

sorely missed by, I'm sure, his family and by, I know, his colleagues at CBC,

who came to know and love him over the years — and, indeed, by all Canadians

right across the country who used to tune in at 9 a.m. and hear what was going

on and listen to the heartbeat of the nation. I want to extend our condolences

to his family, his colleagues and everybody.

Introductions by Members

P. Bell:

Joining us today from the beautiful riding of Prince George North are my

father-in-law and mother-in-law, Clarence and Charlotte Lapp, who will be

celebrating their fiftieth anniversary this year. Will the House please make

them very welcome.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of introductions to do. The

opposition joins in welcoming all of the guests listed by the Minister of

Education. As well, joining us today are some other outstanding British

Columbians in the field of education and also in health.

Barry

O'Neill, who is the president of the B.C. division of CUPE, is joining us today,

as well as many of his activists. Chris Allnut and Stephen Howard, from the

Hospital Employees Union, are joining us today, along with many of his members.

We also have some very hardworking bargainers who have been sitting with other

educators, the hardworking bargainers of the BCTF — Neil Warboys. He is

accompanied by many people.

Secondly,

my introduction is to one of our long-serving staff members in the constituency,

whose workload has doubled. Cate Jones and her daughter Shayla are with us.

Lastly, it's a reintroduction. It comes as a shock when I look up there and see

Justine Hunter in the gallery. I would like to welcome Justine Hunter back to

beautiful British Columbia. She couldn't stay away.

[ Page 864 ]

[1315]

Introduction of Bills

EDUCATION SERVICES

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. G.

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

intituled Education Services Collective Agreement Act.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27, intituled Education Services

Collective Agreement Act, be read a first time now.

J. Kwan:

First of all, I'd like to say that at the sitting today, there is nothing

pro forma in terms of the recalling of the House today. We know that there are

important issues before us. Before the first reading vote on the bill is voted

on, I'd like to request a short recess so that my colleague and I could look

over the bill and make an informed decision on the first reading vote.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm assuming that's a point of order. I would be pleased to offer

that ability to the members. The minister introducing the bill will speak to it,

I assume, and then before the question is put to the Speaker, the government is

fine with there being a five-minute recess to give the members of the other side

a chance to look at the bill.

Mr.

Speaker: The Minister of Skills Development and Labour will make a short

statement, then we will recess for five minutes.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Services Collective

Agreement Act. This bill settles the current teachers dispute and provides for

the constitution of a collective agreement between the parties.

We have

dedicated teachers in our public education system who commit hours and hours of

voluntary time to the education and development of our children. Having had four

children go through our schools, I know firsthand how dedicated so many are.

This

dispute has gone on for ten months and, in fact, has involved two governments.

Throughout this time, only three minor items, of 45 issues, have been resolved.

It's clear the two parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement.

This bill

provides for every teacher in the province to receive a 7.5 percent increase

over three years. This bill also provides for consolidation of contracts and

amalgamated districts.

Since 1994

these parties have been unable to reach a negotiated settlement. In this bill I

have made provision for the appointment of a commission to review the structure

and procedures for collective bargaining in the education sector.

I move that

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

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, before we take the vote on first reading, we will

recess for five minutes. I will ring the bells at the end of the recess.

The House

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

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Motion

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 66

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Bell

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

[1330]

Bill 27

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

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

PUBLIC EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY

AND CHOICE ACT

Hon. G.

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

intituled Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act.

Mr.

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

order.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to advise the House that after the

minister moves the motion on first reading of the bill, we would like to also

request a five-minute recess.

[ Page 865 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Noted. Thank you.

Hon. G.

Collins: Just so we don't have to do that each time, we're fine with that.

So if you want that for each bill, we're glad to have the five-minute recess

after the minister's made his comments.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Education Flexibility and

Choice Act.

Education

is the cornerstone of our society, and this bill continues in our commitment,

this government's commitment, to put students first. This bill puts class size

into the School Act so that it is clear that it is a matter of provincial public

policy. This bill protects special needs students by returning decision-making

to teachers, parents and local districts.

This bill

returns flexibility to local districts by removing fixed and rigid ratios for

non-enrolling teachers, such as counsellors and librarians. The bill allows

local school boards to decide how the school day and the school year will be

structured.

In British

Columbia's colleges and institutes we are providing better access for students

by ensuring that control of the classroom is returned to the institutions, along

with class size, constraints on distributed learning and semester scheduling.

These

changes put the needs of students first and help our education dollars go

further by giving the locally elected school boards and college boards the

flexibility to create a top-notch education system.

I move that

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

Mr.

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

The House

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

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the question before the House is introduction and

first reading of Bill 28, Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act.

Motion

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 66

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Bell

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 28

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

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

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES

DELIVERY IMPROVEMENT ACT

Hon. G.

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

intituled Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health and Social Services

Delivery Improvement Act. This bill puts patients and social service clients

first. This bill gives health employers and social service agencies increased

flexibility to deliver cost-effective and improved services to the very people

that need them.

In the

health sector, it gives health authorities the flexibility to reorganize the

delivery of services by transferring functions or staff to meet patients' needs.

It allows them the flexibility to find the most cost-effective and efficient

ways of delivering administrative and support services.

[1345]

This bill

alters notice and layoff provisions and simplifies them so that reorganization

in one area of a health care agency is much less likely to cause disruption

throughout other areas. It eliminates three side deals that were signed by the

previous government and the social service unions outside of the collective

bargaining process. This means that it will be possible to increase flexibility,

enable the open tendering of contracts and better serve the social service

clients, those who could be considered some of the most vulnerable in our

society. I am prepared to table draft regulations which are proposed should the

bill become law.

I move that

the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act be read a first time

now.

Mr.

Speaker: Before I put the question, the House will take a short recess of

five minutes.

The House

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

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

Motion

approved on the following division:

[ Page 866 ]

YEAS — 67

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

Reid

Bruce

Santori

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Bell

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[1355]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29

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

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

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Bruce: I ask leave to table a copy of the proposed regulations for this bill

for the information and benefit of the members.

Leave

granted.

Hon. G.

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

tomorrow.

J. Kwan:

I am very disturbed and very concerned about the situation that we find

ourselves in today. The government has called an emergency session back into the

House and has just introduced three bills. The Government House Leader has just

moved the motion for the House to adjourn until tomorrow.

This is

coming from a government that says they're open and accountable to the public.

Yet we see in the legislation…. I'm not going to enter into debate about the

legislation, but we know that the emergency nature of the debate that's going on

today and for the coming weekend is one that can be dealt with when the House

resumes on February 12.

In fact,

the government had campaigned on openness and accountability to the public. With

this dramatic legislation that has been introduced, there's no opportunity for

members of the public to actually review the matter and comment on the matter.

Some of that information is unexpected, in some of the sectors of the

educational system particularly. There's been zero debate around any of that

matter.

Instead of

calling the House back tomorrow to engage in further debate around this issue,

the government could actually choose to allow for this information to go out to

the public, for the public to have informed information around these bills,

around the operation of the House and the matters that are before the House now,

and for them to examine these matters and provide input. Instead, the government

has decided that they will rush back tomorrow and truncate that opportunity, so

members of the public will not have an opportunity to review this information.

I think

there's plenty of time between now and February 12, when these matters could be

brought back for debate. It doesn't have to be debated this weekend, right now.

It does not have to happen in that way.

It goes

right to the notion of openness. I wonder if members in this House remember that

when they went out and campaigned on the notion of openness, they were going to

ensure that members of the public are consulted and will have input into the

government. I know it's only been since May, since the election — less than a

year — since that time. Perhaps their campaign promise to be open and

accountable is long forgotten for members who've been elected in this House on

the government side.

[1400]

I wonder

what the member for Burnaby North thinks about this government's commitment to

openness and accountability, when this government, right now, brings forward

matters where the public will not have an opportunity to provide input into the

matter.

I know

we'll be debating in the coming days on some of these issues, so I'm not going

to get into substantive matters on the issues. I will, rather, say that the

universities, the colleges, weren't expecting any of the changes to be

introduced in this bill today. I know, in fact, that they weren't even consulted

on the matter. They weren't even informed that there would be changes impacting

them, yet these matters are before the House.

The

government wants to rush through these debates so that people are not consulted

and have no opportunity whatsoever to provide their input, never mind

consultation. They're not even going to get the opportunity to be informed that

this is going to impact them in a very dramatic way. This legislation is going

to have tremendous impacts for every single British Columbian throughout the

entire province.

Instead of

rushing through by calling the House, by continuing tomorrow and for us to

continue on the debate tomorrow, the government could decide to adjourn the

House today and have the matter dealt with

[ Page 867 ]

in two weeks, when the House is called back on February 12. The government

has that choice and can have the choice to provide at least some element of the

openness they had campaigned on throughout the entire election. The government

has chosen not to do that.

In fact,

even today I would argue that the House doesn't necessarily have to be called

back today. The Premier himself, I guess, is out there keeping busy, trying to

argue for federal dollars, transfer payment dollars, in the area of health that

were already argued for by the previous government and obtained and promised

from the federal government to British Columbia.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The House Leader asks: "You don't want any more?" You know what? I'll

refresh the memory of the House Leader. It is actually your leader, the leader

of the Liberal Party, the current Premier, who said, when the previous

government went to the federal government and asked for additional dollars in

transfer payments to British Columbia in the area of health, when it was the

previous government that said to the federal government that the transfer

payment cuts in social services, in the area of health, were too deep and that

he should not make those cuts…. It was in fact the leader of the Liberal

Party, the leader that the House Leader is following, who said that those

federal transfer payment cuts were not deep enough. In fact, that's what the

member has said.

But back to

the question on….

Mr.

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

and adjournment.

J. Kwan:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker — back to the question. I'm sorry. I did digress

for one moment, because the House Leader had challenged the question about

whether or not the cuts were deep enough, and I felt I had to respond. It was

the current Premier now who said that those cuts weren't deep enough.

[1405]

Instead of

calling the House back over the weekend, imposing costs to British Columbians,

the matter we're dealing with today could be dealt with on February 12. The

Premier could be here to engage, but he has chosen not to. You know, the fact of

the matter is that this government has created the notion of emergency, the

notion of urgency, all by themselves, contrary to their promise to ensure that

there is openness and accountability from the new era with the Liberal

government.

You know,

the health care funding that could have been retrieved from the federal

government could actually have settled many of the matters we're dealing with

today. If that had happened, and if the government had chosen to take that

action with the moneys that were brought back from the federal government by the

previous government, the matter could be resolved. Then there would be no

reason, in fact, for the sitting of the House today, tomorrow or Sunday. The

government can choose to do that, and they have chosen not to do that.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please continue, hon. member, but please stick to the terms of the

motion: the time and the adjournment.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The extra

expenses that have been incurred by calling the House back and moving off to

further debate tomorrow…. The government could have chosen to save the

taxpayers the cost of that by not calling the House to sit tomorrow but, rather,

waiting until February 12 for the matter to be debated then. The government

would then have given an opportunity to British Columbians to provide their

input and to be informed.

I know that

perhaps the member for Peace River North is not interested in their promises,

because it has been the practice of the government to date to break promises.

He's not concerned, I know, about consultation, about the openness and

accountability that they campaigned on. Therefore, I know he's of the view that

there is no need to ensure that members of the public would have an opportunity

to review the matter that has been placed before us, to comment on it and to

give some time between now and February 12 to do that.

Actually,

the government could easily do that: give it some time between now and February

12. That's something the government can do right now instead of calling the

House to continue tomorrow. The government has refused to do that. The

government has refused to ensure that they will live up to their promise of

openness and accountability to British Columbians. I think that's a shame.

The matter

that has been introduced before us today has widespread impact across the entire

province, I would argue, impacting every single British Columbian, whether you

are a teacher, a student, a parent, a patient, a health care professional or a

community care service provider. Irrespective, it impacts every single one of

us.

The changes

that are being introduced can in many instances, I think, be very devastating.

Instead of ensuring that there is proper input from the community…. The

government members know that they could provide for that opportunity today by

not bringing the matter back tomorrow for further debate but, rather, giving it

some time so that members of the community can analyze the information, absorb

the information and reflect their views back to government — allowing for that

time. The House is going to be sitting. The 12th is not too far away. The

government members can choose to do that.

[1410]

I would

urge the government members to rethink their commitment to openness and

accountability to British Columbians, to ensure that they have an opportunity to

respond and so that members of the community can express their views to the

government with respect to these matters instead of rushing through and

[ Page 868 ]

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

the weekend.

Mr.

Speaker, I object, and I am speaking against the House being called back

tomorrow. I think it's unnecessary. I think matters could be dealt with on

February 12, when the House is being resumed. I think the government could save

taxpayers a lot of money over the course of the weekend.

The

government can utilize that money toward hot lunch programs, services that they

have just cut, audio books that have just been eliminated in the announcement on

Black Thursday — any one of those things. You could actually redirect those

dollars in a more valuable way that would benefit British Columbians.

I rise to

speak against the motion. I would urge the government to rethink their time line

and have the matters that have been introduced in the House today be debated on

February 12.

MacPhail: Speaking to the advisability of the House coming back tomorrow,

Mr. Speaker, I think now is the time for a great deal of calm and a thoughtful

approach to what's happening in our province. Much of this legislation is going

to come as a surprise to British Columbians, and communities are going to react

in unique ways throughout the province.

I can't

imagine what the necessity is for a government that ran on openness and

accountability and consultation to want to ram such legislation through without

thoughtful debate and consultation. I don't know whether this is true; I only

heard the Premier's voice clip saying that he was going to allow a free vote.

The first opportunity that this entire chamber had to have a thoughtful vote,

and they voted en masse.

I can only

assume, Mr. Speaker, that it's because these Liberal MLAs don't know what is in

the legislation. It does seem to be a bit contradictory — and I'm sure many

MLAs will have to answer for it — that all of a sudden, on the one hand, the

Premier is saying there's going to be a free vote, and we're all supposed to go:

"Oh, hallelujah!"

If they are

saying they know all the content of it, then where the heck is the free vote? Or

else what every single one of these Liberal backbench MLAs is saying is:

"Aye, aye, Captain. I agree with the destruction of my community based on

this legislation." They can't have it both ways. They can't say:

"We're proceeding with the debate, and we're going to have a free

vote."

Interjections.

Mr.

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

floor.

Please

continue.

MacPhail: If, indeed, these Liberal backbench MLAs are going to give a

considered vote and have a free vote, then they need to go to their communities

and find out what their communities feel about this legislation, because this

legislation has never been discussed before. I urge every single one of these

Liberal backbench MLAs to stand up, take their Premier at his word and have a

free vote. We assume that first reading wasn't a free vote, because they all

stood up en masse like good little ugly ducklings.

Interjections.

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

They've all

voted in favour of this legislation, so I can only assume that they, too, don't

know what is in it.

[1415]

It's time

to take a break, time for every MLA to go back to their community and find out

what's going on and what this legislation means. Everything my colleague has

said about the technicalities, the logistics, the expense and the grandstanding

of the Premier applies, but now it's time, really, to get back into our

communities and have an honest debate. Have an honest debate with your

constituents this time. Tell them the truth about what this legislation means.

Have at it. Meet with your constituents, and then come back after you've had

time. Meet with your constituents, come back in here, and let's have a real,

honest-to-goodness debate, where the Liberal back bench don't have to just be

good little soldiers, and they can actually have a free vote.

Hon. G.

Collins: I just want to let the member know that members of this House on

our side have been in our communities talking to the people of this province for

the last ten years, and we heard loud and clear. I know that MLAs continue to be

back in their communities listening to what the people that voted for them and

voted against them and talked to them have to say. The job we have all been

challenged with, the job we were elected to implement, the job we were all

elected to move forward on, is to get British Columbia back on track, manage the

dollars appropriately and deliver care to students and patients in the

community.

I won't

take a lot of time here today. I do notice that if the members want…. I know

the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said she thought that there was a

problem with the cost of having the House sit over the weekend. We're glad to

sit for the rest of the day and complete the legislation if she wants that to

happen. She can move that motion or ask for leave if she'd like that to happen.

That'll avoid the cost. I don't believe she'll do that.

It was a

little hard to hear the members opposite talk about openness. It was a little

hard to hear them talk about openness, and I'll tell you why. I'll give you a

couple of examples of why.

The issues

we're dealing with here today, the challenge we're dealing with today, the

problems that have been created for the people of this province who need health

care and need to get social services and need to get educated in their

classrooms, are something we're all dealing with. Those issues that we're

grappling with here today are the issues which, when they couldn't be negotiated

at the bargaining table over the last number of years…. When the union leaders

didn't get what they wanted at the bargaining table, they dialled the Premier's

office.

[ Page 869 ]

In fact,

very little real bargaining went on this province for the last decade. What

happened was that if the leaders, particularly in the public sector, didn't like

what they got, what they did was to phone the Premier's office. They cleared the

Premier's schedule. They would open it up. "Come on over to Victoria."

Then they'd sit down in the Premier's office, and they'd do a deal, a side deal,

an accord, outside of the free collective bargaining process. They'd make those

arrangements outside the collective agreement. If that is….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: Then what they did, just prior to the last election, was to take

those side agreements, those accords that were negotiated behind closed doors in

the Premier's office, and insert them into the collective agreements — right

before the election. Is that open? Is that honest? Is that transparent? No, Mr.

Speaker.

In fact,

the previous Premier, Mr. Dosanjh, when he became the leader after taking over

from Glen Clark, was astounded to find out what was in these accords and these

agreements. I recall him standing up in the House and tabling the billions and

billions of dollars that had been added to the cost of these programs during the

context of Mr. Clark's mandate.

It's a

little hard for the members opposite to talk about openness. This government is

fixing that problem, and we're not doing it in the Premier's office. We're

coming into the Legislature, we're putting it in the open, and we will be

accountable for what's in the legislation.

[1420]

It is

important to deal with this, this weekend. Let me tell the members opposite why.

I don't know if they've been paying attention or not, but there has been a

labour dispute in the education sector for ten months. It started when the

members opposite were in government. It has continued through this process. The

teachers didn't want to bargain for the months of July and August. I don't know

why. We were all working July and August. But they chose not to bargain in July

and August, and that was fine. So it's a little hard to take when we hear that

the employer hasn't been negotiating, when there were two months in the summer

that they could have been negotiating but they weren't.

Now we come

to the point where the teachers have made it very clear they intend to escalate

their demands for a significant wage increase above and beyond what anybody else

in the private sector has received. I know the minister will deal with that

later.

What we

have here before us today is the need to solve this dispute, to get a settlement

before Monday. We know that the teachers are saying they are going to walk off

the job on Monday. This issue needs to be dealt with by Monday, in the interests

of the students, not the teachers. That's why.

As a

last-minute reality check — beyond hope as much as it is, beyond hope that it

will register — I want to recall the memories of the two members opposite, who

before anybody has had a chance to look at it. If I remember correctly, in 1996

the previous government introduced a budget and called an election within days

— a budget, it turned out, that wasn't exactly what it seemed to be.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

Hon. G.

Collins: Then on the Friday before the election, Premier Clark came into the

House, legislated a settlement to the last teachers strike and called an

election on the Monday. How much time…

Interjections.

Mr.

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

Hon. G.

Collins: …was there for the members of the NDP to go back to their

communities and discuss that legislation before it went through the House?

The

government has to get this dispute settled by Monday. It's what the students

want; it's what parents want. That's what needs to be done. The government is

going to proceed with that.

Mr.

Speaker: The question, hon. members, is adjournment of the House till 11

a.m. tomorrow.

[1425]

Motion

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 63

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

J. Reid

Santori

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Bell

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

The House

adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright ©

2001: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175