1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

SUNDAY, MAY 30, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 13

[ Page 6625 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, our galleries are full today, and I recognize many faces representing provincial and district people -- teachers, trustees and support staff. On behalf of all the House, I would like to welcome those who have come to participate by listening to the debate of the Legislative Assembly this afternoon, in the interests of our children and their education.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, there are some advantages to meeting on a weekend: my wife is able to come. Will the House welcome Joyce Anderson.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, it was a surprise for me to see a good friend who, in these days of having difficulty finding good care for children, was responsible for taking care of my young son for three years when he was just a baby. He's a very fine man and a good friend of mine: Michael Lechinsky. Please make him welcome.

L. Stephens: My husband is also able to be here today. I'd like the House to please welcome Gordon Gladu.

J. Macphail: Hon. Speaker, I was delighted to look up in the gallery today and see a woman who is a good friend, a concerned parent and an educator: Trish Main. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to introduce my wife, Janet, my son Andrew and my daughter Carolyn, who are here visiting today.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I notice a number of ministerial assistants in the gallery, and they don't often have a chance to participate in the debate by listening in person. I'd like to make all of them and any other legislative staff welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I was just seeing if any more introductions are going to take place. I don't see any more, so I would like to seek leave to table a document, for the information of members, from the office of the commissioner of conflict of interest, who is with us today in the gallery.

Leave granted.

Introduction of Bills

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Educational Programs Continuation Act.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: The purpose of this bill is to support collective bargaining where it is working and to fix it where it is broken. This bill puts students and teachers back in the classroom in Vancouver and serves notice to those districts still bargaining that it is time to conclude their negotiations expeditiously.

We have reached a critical time in the school year in the Vancouver School District. For those students facing grade 12 provincial examinations and for all students coming to the end of their school year, it's time to get back into the classroom. Collective bargaining in Vancouver has collapsed. Despite repeated and significant efforts of the government to assist and support the bargaining process, the parties in Vancouver have shown that they are unable to resolve their differences and settle their dispute. Regrettably, students are the victims of the inability to conclude negotiations.

Clearly, the situation has reached a point where urgent action is required. The government, with this bill, must now support collective bargaining where it is working and fix it where it is broken.

Therefore I ask that this bill be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to advance through all stages this day.

C. Serwa: On the last statement of the Minister of Labour, hon. Speaker, asking you to consider the matter urgent, I rise on a point of order.

The Speaker: I will accept it as a submission on that request, hon. member. Please proceed.

C. Serwa: The matter was considered urgent by both parties of the opposition some months ago. The matter was considered urgent when we debated Bill 84. The matter was considered urgent more than five weeks ago with the North Island strike at that time. No action was taken by this government. In no way can rulings of this Legislature be supported with the concept of urgency.... It's only because of the magnitude of what's happening in the home turf of the government members from the greater Vancouver area that they wish to consider it urgent. It has no support in precedent.

We have been told repeatedly when we have brought up matters of urgency and importance that they should have been brought up at the first available opportunity. That moment has passed. In no way may this matter be considered urgent under the standing orders.

The Speaker: The Government House Leader on a submission on the request for urgency.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I just point out that the hon. member pointed to the situation in Vancouver. The government does not rest its case with regard to urgency on that matter, but rather, relies more heavily on the position that we take as a government

[ Page 6626 ]

that it is this time of the year and provincial exams are imminent for all students throughout British Columbia. As a consequence, urgency requires that the bill be dealt with through all stages today in this Legislature.

[2:15]

J. Dalton: I would make two points. Firstly, I'm surprised at the urgency of this matter this afternoon. We've been pressing for many weeks that this is an urgent matter. However, we'll probably deal with that in second reading. I would also point out, hon. Speaker, that in fairness the opposition has to have an opportunity to examine the content of this bill before we can accurately speak to its urgency. But if I am correct in what the Labour minister has stated in first reading, this is only going to apply as an urgent matter to Vancouver. What has happened to the other districts that are still on strike?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I have heard submissions from all three parties on the application for urgency. With the members' indulgence, I'd prefer not to hear further submissions. The Chair has reviewed the provisions of standing order 81, and given the circumstances before us today, the Chair is satisfied that this matter would qualify under standing order 81. Therefore I would suggest that we can proceed as requested.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'm mindful of the comments made by the Opposition House Leader. In furtherance of consultations between leaders, I suggest that it would be appropriate to have the bill distributed to all members of the House at this time and that the House then recess for 30 minutes so as to allow the opposition the opportunity to consider the bill.

The Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House, we will provide for the distribution of the bill at this time. We'll recess for 30 minutes and reconvene after that time.

The House recessed at 2:17 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:52 p.m.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 31.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 31.

With that said, I wish to make a few comments in support of this legislation which is now before the House. Our democratic institutions are predicated on the understanding that we, as individuals in a free society, have both rights and responsibilities. In fact, with all of the rights that are enshrined for us as individuals or as organizations, we also have responsibilities. No right in society is absolute.

The right to free collective bargaining, as a matter of public policy, has been part of our democratic institutions for some time. As a society we have always believed in the freedom to contract and in the freedom of parties to sit down across a table from one another to try to resolve their differences independently and freely as individuals.

It is largely because of the free collective bargaining system that working people have come to realize and enjoy many of the benefits that enhance the quality of life for so many British Columbians. Pensions and pension reform, employment security and health and safety provisions all have their origins within the free collective bargaining system. I think many would argue -- appropriately, in my mind -- that many of the advances in those areas would not have occurred had it not been for the benefits which flow from the free collective bargaining system.

The free collective bargaining system has existed in the public sector for some time. It is, with respect, however, different from free collective bargaining within the private sector. In a recent decision of the B.C. Labour Relations Board dealing with education -- a case involving the Board of School Trustees of School District 54 (Bulkley Valley), the Board of School Trustees of School District 39 (Vancouver) and the teachers' associations in both districts -- Stan Lanyon, chairman of the Labour Relations Board here in British Columbia, looked at public sector disputes.

I think what he had to say warrants repeating in this House in the context of public sector disputes. On page 15 of his decision, Mr. Lanyon said:

"Public sector disputes, by their very nature, will affect the services which the citizens of this province hold most dearly. Even a marginal reduction or restriction of those services will attract far greater concern and generate far more pressure than a full-scale withdrawal of services in the private sector. The result, of course, is that public sector unions may assert far greater bargaining power, even in a controlled strike, than most unions can bring to bear in a full-scale dispute."

Later on that same page, he talked about teachers, but I do believe these comments applied equally to trustees. He said: "Teachers must realize that their fundamental right to bargain and engage in labour disputes will be proscribed by the public welfare." Indeed, as I will say in a few minutes, there are occasions when the public interest and the demands of public welfare require action on the part of government.

On page 16 of his decision, if I may quote one more time -- and I think it is particularly poignant with regard to the situation that we find ourselves dealing with today in this Legislature -- he said:

"A lockout or strike in the public sector is primarily an exercise in political influence or impact. In a school dispute, for instance, the elected school board officials are viewed by the union as simply one of the `employers.' The union may in fact view the `true employer' as both the government and the public. These elected officials may or may not suffer the consequences from loss of services which the public feels more acutely. The public therefore puts pressure on elected politicians, and that pressure is voiced through public meetings of

[ Page 6627 ]

parents and children and duly reported by the media. In addition to the reporting of these events by the media, there may well be editorials and additional commentary. Many members of the public feel like innocent bystanders who are unfairly affected or inconvenienced by the dispute."

Hon. Speaker, during the free collective bargaining process, teachers, trustees and legislators must always be cognizant of the various responsibilities of all parties. The desire to conclude an agreement must be reconciled with the need to minimize the impact on those who are "inconvenienced by the dispute," to quote Mr. Lanyon.

In British Columbia this year, through the responsible actions of both teachers and trustees, in a majority of cases the free collective bargaining system has resulted in issues being resolved without any work disruption whatsoever. In fact, the last time I looked -- and as I've indicated several times in this House -- some 43 of the first 50 agreements in this province were negotiated without disruption. For that, the parties must be given some credit.

In other cases there have been disruptions, and in Vancouver the system has broken down. Over the past three weeks a series of efforts have been made by government to try to bring about a resolution of the difficulties in Vancouver. We appointed a mediator to try to assist the parties in resolving their differences when they requested it. We have once again appointed a special mediator to provide the services necessary to assist the parties in trying to resolve the dispute. We have also made provision for public recommendations in the Vancouver dispute.

In other disputes throughout the province -- in those few cases where there have been some -- that process has generally assisted the parties in arriving at a conclusion. We have also encouraged the parties to accept voluntary binding arbitration. All of those efforts have failed.

[3:00]

Over the past few days I have commented on the reasons for that occurring. Accordingly, the public welfare demands that government intervene, particularly at this time, with grade 12 examinations on the horizon. As a result, this legislation provides that students in Vancouver must return to the classroom immediately. In other words, schools will reopen within that school district tomorrow, and the parties will immediately commence a process of binding arbitration.

Other districts in this province are, of course, engaged in negotiations. The legislation that is now before the House provides scope for collective bargaining to continue and for the negotiations to be concluded in an orderly fashion. However, with provincial examinations three weeks away, provision is made in the legislation to ensure that the negotiations are concluded with dispatch.

Accordingly, this legislation provides for the appointment of a special mediator to make recommendations, and it provides government with the option of deeming the report of the special mediator to be the collective agreement between the parties. The legislation goes further; it makes provision for a special mediator to be appointed under

section 76 of the Labour Relations Code and requires the mediator to conclude a collective agreement within 36 hours after appointment. With regard to the dispute in Surrey, I wish to advise all members of the House that this morning I appointed Mr. Cott as the special mediator in Surrey in anticipation of this legislation receiving the assent of the House today. The bill also has a sunset provision: the legislation is deemed, under

part 3, to be in full force and effect until March 31, 1994, or an earlier date.

This bill sends a clear message to those currently in bargaining that the government, through this bill, has additional options. Should negotiations not conclude expeditiously, government can move on the options contained in this legislation. It serves notice to all British Columbians that at the first sign that negotiations in a particular district have become dysfunctional, the options within this legislation will be exercised and utilized.

The decision to bring this legislation before the House has not been arrived at lightly. It is our firm view as a government, in keeping with my comments at the outset, that the free collective bargaining process should be afforded every opportunity to work. Regrettably, this hasn't happened. The public rightfully turns to government to intercede and protect the public interest. That is why this bill is before the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: In response to the Minister of Labour, the reason why we are here and this legislation is being brought forward today is a complete and total lack of competence of the Minister of Labour to deal with these disputes over the last three weeks and longer. That's why we're here today.

The strategy of this Minister of Labour to deal with labour disputes in the last three weeks -- particularly the Vancouver dispute, but others also -- has been to: (1) blame the trustees; (2) blame the opposition; and (3) blame the conflict-of-interest commissioner for tying the hands of the Premier. This minister is the one who has been responsible, and it's this minister and this government, in the next election, who will pay the price for their inaction over the last three weeks.

In preparing for this debate -- which I knew was to come eventually, because eventually the government would have to intervene -- we looked through the past estimates and comments of the New Democratic Party when they were in opposition. It's amazing to hear some of the things they said. In fact, it really highlights where the true responsibility for the province-wide labour disputes in the education field lies. It falls squarely on the shoulders of the NDP government and the litany of raised expectations and broken promises over the last three or four years. It is a tragedy.

If we look back at some of the comments, particularly of the current Minister of Education when she was in opposition.... We have a press release here from the New Democratic Party when they were in opposition. We can see the lead-up to the raised expectations that the NDP had and the fact that they had been priming this pump for a long time. Now it has come back to haunt them. The then-critic for Education said: "Clearly, extra money and the adoption of the Sullivan report is a move in the right direction, given the deteriorating

[ Page 6628 ]

condition of schools, overcrowded classrooms and the extreme difficulty local boards continue to have in meeting budget requirement...." She went on to say: "Underfunded school boards will likely have no choice but to levy higher taxes to accommodate their budget requirements." This is what they're going to do when they're in government. It goes on, and I think this is most interesting, given the events of the last three weeks: "The Socreds are playing political games with our children's education."

Hon. Speaker, we have seen games being played and foot-dragging by this government for the last three weeks and also for the last six to eight weeks around this province. This Premier went around the province prior to the last election and promised everything to everybody. They promised bridges here; they promised transit there; they promised more money for schools; they promised to get rid of every portable in the province; they promised more money for teachers and for health care workers.

And now, when finally the NDP has run smack headlong into the brick wall of reality, they realize that there just isn't any more money and that the taxpayer has had enough. The raised expectations of every single New Democratic member who sits in this House on both sides are the reason that the Vancouver teachers are out today, that schools and students around this province are out of classes and that this House is sitting on a Sunday.

Hon. Speaker, we have seen the most incredible abdication of responsibility that any government in this province has ever perpetrated on the public of British Columbia. We have an amazing chronology of events that have taken place over the last little while. First we had all the strikes that took place around the province. We had the dispute on North Island and the one in Powell River, which, quite frankly, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, through his intervention and activities, did more to settle than this minister did. Perhaps if he had involved some Liberals in the process, he would have settled the Vancouver dispute a long time ago.

If we look at some of the things that have taken place over the last little while, we can see that as early as January 5, teachers in Quesnel began a series of rotating strikes, which disrupted schools in their district. Even before that, teachers were in job action and were not filling out report cards, not marking, etc. So this dispute isn't something new that has sort of cropped up on the government all of a sudden. These teachers have been without contracts for almost a year in many cases.

The Education minister knew that we were headed for a difficult time; the Labour minister knew that we were headed for a difficult time. And I sure hope, although I'm not convinced, that the Premier knew we were headed for a difficult time in this province.

We had the obscene comments made in this House, and it's absolutely incredible that we would hear them. Once the teachers in Vancouver had been out on strike for a whole week -- a week and a half, actually, I think it was -- the Minister of Education said.... Do you know what her answer to the problem was? She stood up in this House -- or through the media -- and said: "This week we'll be developing an action plan to deal with the problem." Twelve months after the problem was on the horizon, finally the government gets around to developing an action plan. I consider that to be gross incompetence, and I'm sure most students, teachers and parents in this province think exactly the same way.

Hon. Speaker, we had the ridiculous actions of the Minister of Labour last week. On Thursday the minister said: "We'll give them 24 hours and then we'll act." Finally, after three weeks, we're going to see something come out of this government. The media set their stopwatches, and the rest of us knew full well that nothing was going to happen in that time. Then as the next day progressed, we found that in fact the deadline of this minister was getting longer and longer and longer, to the point that this minister called an emergency meeting of the NDP cabinet.

They all got together in a room or over the phone -- except, of course, those who abdicated themselves from the debate. The Minister of Labour came into a cabinet meeting and said: "We want some action; I have to take some action on this dispute." But he came unprepared. After a year, knowing this problem was on the horizon, and after three weeks of a strike, with everybody, including the opposition, prodding the minister to finally take some action, he shows up at a cabinet meeting without being prepared.

His fellow cabinet ministers have to send him outside to face the media so that he can tell them: "They told me to go back and get them more information so that I can make a decision."

An Hon. Member: Were you there?

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, those are the words of the Minister of Labour.

So how can the public have any confidence whatsoever in this Minister of Labour, who has proven his incompetence time after time over the last year and a half? How can they possibly have any confidence in this minister when, after three weeks of a dispute, he shows up unprepared at an emergency cabinet meeting that he called? That is a shame.

This piece of legislation is fundamentally flawed. But I will say from the start, and I will give the commitment to the people of this province on behalf of the Liberal opposition, that despite the errors in this legislation we will put forth amendments that I'm sure the Premier, at least, will agree to, given his recent comments. But we give our assurance that this piece of legislation will pass, so that the students of British Columbia, despite the incompetence of the Minister of Labour and despite the gross negligence of this government, will be back in school tomorrow.

I don't know where the big surprise came from for this government. I don't know how, all of a sudden, we're here on a Sunday. Why couldn't this legislation have been dealt with on Friday? Why couldn't it have been dealt with on Thursday, or Wednesday, or Tuesday, or Monday, or last Friday when this House adjourned, so that these people could go home for the weekend? Why didn't we stay here on Thursday afternoon and Friday and deal with this type of legislation then?

It's very interesting to note again the press clippings.... And Hansard is always a wonderful thing,

[ Page 6629 ]

particularly a year ago, when, because of the profligate spending of this NDP government, this House sat through the evening in order to debate the special warrants that this government brought in during their first six months of government. The NDP howled that it was costing us $20,000 to $30,000 in overtime and satellite time to have the House sitting overnight because the opposition wouldn't let this stuff go through. How much is it costing the taxpayers of British Columbia to have the staff in on a Sunday at double time to deal with this issue? Where are the howls of protest from the NDP now?

We could have dealt with this legislation on Friday afternoon, on Thursday or at any time in the past three weeks. The additional cost that this government howled about so much 12 months ago is now mere pocket change to them. The perspective of this government is amazing.

[3:15]

The Labour minister stood up and told about all the wonderful things the NDP government has been doing to try to settle this dispute over the last little while. The fact of the matter is that everybody in this House, everybody in the public, everybody in the media and everybody not in class on Friday or tomorrow knows that the Liberal opposition brought up this very scenario last December during the debate on Bill 84. Had this government and this incompetent Minister of Labour taken the advice and the amendments of the Liberal opposition at that time, we wouldn't be where we are today, and in particular, the grade 11 and 12 students of this province would be back in school where they belong.

We saw the most amazing amount of arrogance and smugness on behalf of the Minister of Labour during the debate on Bill 84. He knew everything. He knew that this was good legislation. He knew that it was going to serve the educators and the students of this province well. He knew that there weren't going to be any labour disruptions. But we see, once again, the fact that this Minister of Labour really isn't quite as smart as he thinks he is.

Some Hon. Members: And you are.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Speaker, I think I've been proven correct, and the Minister of Labour has been proven wrong.

Had the government and this Minister of Labour accepted the constructive opposition that was given to him, the amendments that were put forward by the opposition last December, we would not be in this situation we are in today -- and that's just a start.

But we knew that perhaps we should give them a second chance. Sometimes things are slow to sink in on the other side, as we've seen particularly in the last three weeks. So we gave them another chance. At the beginning of this session I tabled a piece of legislation, an Essential Services Act, which would have made education an essential service. Given what we saw on the horizon, it would have given the Minister of Labour and the government the ability to deal with this and other disputes that were on the way.

Again, the Minister of Labour, in his arrogance and smugness, shrugged it off and refused to bring that legislation forward. I think that is a shame. Now here we have the third chance for the minister to do it right, and he's blown it again. All you have to do is read the legislation.

Weeks ago the Liberal opposition called for a cooling-off period -- another possibility to solve the dispute and get the students back into the classroom. The minister shrugged his shoulders and gave his sly little smile and said: "No, no, we don't need to do that; I know better. I'm going to appoint a special mediator. I'm going to go through all of this process. I'm going to do all of this song and dance. I, the Minister of Labour, in my wisdom, in my extreme ability, am going to solve this dispute single-handedly, all on my own." Well, hon. Speaker, look where we are today.

There was another option that was put forward to the government. The Leader of the Third Party asked the Premier to finally take some responsibility for what's going on in this province, to finally take some responsibility for the students in this province, and to ask -- do nothing more than ask -- the teachers not to go on strike until the end of June, much like the teachers in Kamloops did voluntarily. He asked the Premier to show some leadership, to give some guidance, by asking the teachers not to go on strike. Hon. Speaker, the Premier refused.

Where has been the leadership from this Premier? Where has been the leadership from the Minister of Labour? Where has been the leadership from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Economic Development? Where has been the leadership of any of these people in the NDP cabinet over the last three weeks, the last eight weeks, the last year? It has been nowhere. But the blame doesn't just lie with the members of the cabinet. It lies with every single New Democratic MLA who sits in this House today.

They were part and parcel of the show that toured around this province prior to the last election promising everything to everybody. I've looked through their campaign literature, and it's amazing what they offered people. They offered everything to everybody, and they told them that there was going to be money from heaven for education. The teachers of the province were going to get paid more, and the support workers were going to get paid more. Everybody would have new schools; there would be no portables.

All it would take would be one X on the ballot from the people of British Columbia, and all the problems in education would be solved.

Every single one of the 51 MLAs from the New Democratic caucus in this House today engaged in that same type of political deception. They made promises that they knew they couldn't keep. It is precisely because of that lack of responsibility and those broken promises that we are here today debating this piece of legislation. Quite frankly, the students of British Columbia have been out -- particularly those in Vancouver, who have been out for three weeks, though many of them have been out for as much as six weeks -- because of the deception and misleading comments in the stuff that the NDP put out in the last election.

One of the other interesting things that we saw develop over the last little while, as this legislation was

[ Page 6630 ]

being developed -- or so we were told.... The Minister of Labour told us he was developing legislation; he had a galaxy of options and this was one that he was preparing for. We saw once again the total ineptness -- I don't know how else you would describe it -- of this government, particularly the Premier, in setting a deadline to settle this dispute. One morning the Premier said that he had a deadline in mind but he wasn't going to tell anybody what it was -- his imaginary deadline with his imaginary friends.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Peace River North says that nobody had told him yet. It reminds me of last fall when nobody told the Premier when the House was going to sit, and the Minister of Finance had to call a press conference in order to set the record straight for the Premier.

As we look at the lead-up to this piece of legislation and what's included in it and why we're at the stage we are today.... An incredible process took place over the last 72 hours. The Minister of Labour adjourned the House so that we could call the House back during the weekend if it was necessary. A few hours later -- after he had been chastised by his cabinet colleagues -- he said that nothing would be happening until Monday, and the House wouldn't be sitting until Monday. The next day we hear on the radio that the Premier has stepped in and decided that the House will sit on Sunday, and the Minister of Labour was wrong all along.

This is exactly the type of dithering and administrative incompetence that we've seen out of this government -- not just in education, but in a wide range of things, including the last budget, which the Minister of Finance had to backtrack on. Quite clearly, this government can't manage, not only the economy of this province, but education, and that is why we have got this bill in front of us. As we go through the bill clause by clause we'll see that the government can't even manage that. It couldn't even put together a piece of legislation that's going to work.

I have grave concern about the

section in this bill which allows the Minister of Labour to appoint the arbitrator, because of the blatant prejudice and bias shown by him over the last week and a half. Time after time we have had examples of the Minister of Labour saying to the media that it's all because of the trustees: those incompetent, irresponsible trustees out there are causing this whole dispute. He has blamed the trustees for this dispute, and all the trustees were trying to do was fall within the budget guidelines that the Minister of Finance and the other hon. member sitting beside the Premier gave them in the form of a budget. That's what they were elected to do.

The fact that this minister has shown his bias in favour of the teachers and against the boards indicates that he is not competent to appoint the arbitrator. It indicates that not only does the public not have any confidence in him and his ability, but his own cabinet doesn't have any confidence in him and his ability. Given the past history in this province and in jurisprudence that took place during the previous disastrous administration that the NDP government had, the Liberal opposition will be calling for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appoint that arbitrator, not the biased Minister of Labour.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: We hear laughter from the members opposite. The fact is that there is significant jurisprudence to allow for that, and quite clearly in this case it is required, given the comments of the Minister of Labour over the last little while. I find it amazing that the members of the New Democratic Party would find that somehow that is news to them, given the number of them who are currently -- or in the past have been -- active in the trade union movement, particularly in the field of education.

I've got pages and pages describing their activities in the trade union movement in this province, so I would think that those members would be aware of that precedent and would be aware that that's a legitimate thing for the people of this province to seek from their government.

One of the other things I want to talk about -- and perhaps it's unfortunate -- is the similarities between this piece of legislation and the legislation that was brought out by the last NDP government we had in this province. Quite clearly, as they say, it's d�j� vu all over again. We are in a situation now, after 18 months, where this government has fallen to exactly the same position they were in in 1974-75: totally unable to manage the economy or labour relations in this province.

If the members look back in Hansard, they will find comments made by the opposition parties when this government was last in power. It's amazing; I wish I had the quote handy. I would love to read it to them, hon. Speaker, because it was made by a member of the opposition to the then-Minister of Labour for the NDP government when they had to legislate workers back to work. It was that quite clearly the government at that time had brought in labour legislation that simply didn't work. Their bias permeated that legislation just as their bias permeated the legislation in Bill 84.

As a result, this Minister of Labour passed a piece of legislation which, as the Liberal opposition said in December, clearly doesn't work. We have another piece of legislation that clearly doesn't work.

Hon. Speaker, one of the other areas that the opposition is very concerned about -- and it deals with Bill 84, which the Minister of Labour brought in last fall -- is the taxpayers' ability to pay. We are now in a situation where the budget crunch in every single school district in this province has put severe crimps on the boards' ability to settle disputes and to offer....

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm telling the Minister of Finance what the reality is and what....

[3:30]

Interjections.

[ Page 6631 ]

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would call the House to order and caution the member to address the second reading of Bill 31, which is before us.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the reason for bringing that up is the reality that this government raised expectations beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay, and now they have to deal with it. The Minister of Labour has stood up in this House time and time again in question period and said that there's no more money. The Premier has stood up and said that in binding arbitration it's the taxpayer who gets hosed. That's what he said in this House. As late as this afternoon in the hallways, the Premier said that there will be no more money for the Vancouver School District -- and that's fine.

What is lacking in this piece of legislation, which the Minister of Labour has hastily thrown together, is any mention of that. The arbitrator has no clear instruction in his or her terms of reference as to what limits there are. Had the minister taken the advice of the opposition during Bill 84, he would not have removed

section 137.96, which stated that the taxpayers' ability to pay must be a part of the legislation. That is what this piece of legislation is missing, and again it shows that this government brought in a piece of legislation that simply does not work.

The Liberal opposition will be putting forth an amendment in committee stage that will reintroduce sections of the old

section 137.96, which will ensure that the arbitrator will take into consideration the taxpayers' ability to pay and the fact that there is no more money. I'm sure the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and the Premier will all stand up and support that amendment.

H. Lali: Dream on.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear "Dream on from" the member for Yale-Lillooet. The other member says this is Socred legislation. The Premier said it in the hallway today, so he must be a Socred too, I guess.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I've asked the member to address his comments to the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. In closing, I want to....

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the members opposite want, I've got another hour and a half. I'd be glad to continue.

With regard to the amendment that we will put forth in forwarding committee stage of this bill, I assume that the Premier will stand by his election pamphlet, where he says: "I've consistently said we can only do what we can afford." I hope that at least one promise this Premier made during the last election will be kept.

I hope that today, when we move into committee stage of this bill and the Liberal opposition puts forth that amendment on the taxpayers' ability to pay, the Premier -- keeping in mind his words, "I've consistently said that we can only do what we can afford" -- will stand up and vote in favour of that amendment to make it clear to whoever the arbitrator is that they have a duty to look at the taxpayers' ability to pay when coming to a conclusion.

We are in a situation today where education in this province is in crisis. The blame for that clearly rests with the Minister of Education, certainly with the Minister of Labour and, more importantly, with the Premier of this province, who has failed -- time after time -- to take a leadership role in British Columbia and show what he was elected for: to be the Premier of British Columbia.

We will be amending this bill. I hope that the Minister of Labour will see the errors of his legislation and that the Premier will stand up, show some leadership and support those amendments so that once and for all, we can finally get the students of British Columbia back into classes -- and not just the students in Vancouver. We will be making amendments to ensure that this legislation applies to every student in British Columbia. We will not discriminate against them just because they happen to come from outside the lower mainland.

With those remarks, I hope that the members of the New Democratic caucus, cabinet and particularly the Premier will finally show some backbone, stand up and pass some legislation for the betterment of all students in British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to say it's a pleasure to rise on this Sunday afternoon and debate Bill 31. The reality is it should have been done one or two weeks ago. This government and cabinet should hang their collective head in shame for the lack of action, the delay and the procrastination that we've seen in this House. The Social Credit caucus and the opposition have been demanding for weeks that the government take action to get teachers back to work.

We've seen the Premier, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour paralyzed by their fear of the BCTF; they've been so fearful of angering their political supporters that they've sat paralyzed; they're unwilling to take any action and unable to find any consensus in their cabinet or courage to deal with this issue in a timely and reasonable way.

On top of that, we've seen the Premier, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance hide behind the conflict-of-interest commissioner, saying: "No, we're not sure. In the abundance of caution, we're not going to deal with this." What in the world did we -- we in the broadest sense -- elect these people for? I sure as heck didn't have any part of it. These cabinet ministers brag about taking a 5 percent cut in pay. They should have turned back their paycheques on those days that they walked out of cabinet and couldn't deal

[ Page 6632 ]

with the issue. Clearly, the conflict of interest was an imaginary and a convenient one that allowed the Premier to duck and hide from an issue that was critical to British Columbians, and one in which he should have taken a leadership role. Surely the Minister of Education -- in those times that she nipped out of cabinet because of the conflict -- could have thought of something a bit more imaginative than to say that the students would probably be better off at home studying rather than in the classroom.

The ministers we would have expected to take a lead role in this issue have run away and hid from it -- duck and hide. That is an absolute disgrace to the cabinet, to the Premier and particularly to the Minister of Education. They had a responsibility and they failed to act on it; they failed to live up to it.

After two weeks of neglect of duty, the government calls an extraordinary session of the Legislature in a futile attempt to try to convince British Columbians that they're showing some leadership on this issue. The fact is that they have allowed this issue to drag on so long that their opinion polls are telling them they better get the kids back in the classrooms or there is going to be serious trouble with the voters in this province.

That's why we're back here today -- not because this government suddenly saw the light, but because one of their pollsters told them that public opinion suggested they had better take some action, and they had better take it quickly. That's why we've got this extraordinary session of the Legislature and that's why we have the extraordinary expense that goes with it.

I'd like to see the number of jet rides that were scheduled over the weekend to ensure that the cabinet was back here today -- this government that brags about its management of the financial affairs of this province. If they were on the ball and doing their job, we would have been dealing with this issue last week when the ministers, the cabinet and the opposition were here. But no, we dither through Friday afternoon and Saturday morning; still can't make up our minds; then we are called back to an extraordinary session of the Legislature.

We are here because students and parents finally got so angry with this government that it didn't have the courage to hold out any longer. The government's fear of the voters finally overcame their fear of the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

The responsibility for this crisis in our education system rests clearly with the government, the NDP caucus and the party. It started in opposition and it went through the election campaign. It started in the raising of expectations....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The Minister of Finance asked if we exchange notes. Some things, Mr. Member, are so apparent and so obviously true that anyone considering them would come to the same conclusion.

It started in opposition, with the unrealistic expectations that were raised. It went on through the campaign. The promises that were made to people -- perhaps out of sheer ignorance, perhaps out of a sheer lack of understanding of what was involved in government, or failing that, a willing misleading of the people they were making the promises to....

There can only be two reasons that the government misled people and raised their expectations: one is that they didn't know any better, despite having sat over on this side of the House for 20 years; or secondly, they simply and deliberately set out to mislead people. I started out today by saying that the members should hang their heads in shame. I would ask those in the House to look over at the government benches, because their heads are hung -- and so they should be.

But it was much more than simply the actions of a party desperate to be elected. It spilled over into the term of their government. We saw it early on with the granting of the 7 percent retroactive pay increase to teachers, which led to the expectations that necessitated, at the last hour, the introduction of this bill today. We saw a decision by the Premier and the Minister of Education to allow school boards to run deficits, suggesting that whatever teachers wanted, school boards should find the money to accommodate them, even if they had to run deficits.

Then in its first session the government repealed the Compensation Fairness Act. Again the government was saying to public sector workers: "Don't worry about settlements in the private sector. Don't worry about the taxpayer's ability to pay. Ask and ye shall receive; ask and we will only say, `How much?'"

Those are the actions that led us to be here, on a Sunday afternoon, considering a crisis in education -- and it truly is one. But the government didn't stop there. They then lifted the freeze on salaries over $70,000 for administrators in government and education, only to hear it bemoaned by one of the government members from North Vancouver. Oh, what a travesty it was that these folks were giving themselves raises, when they were making much more than the poor folks who were unemployed. The government was already reaping what it had sown. The government rejected our call for a two-year wage freeze, raising expectations which the taxpayer simply can't afford to fulfil.

[3:45]

By its every action, the government has sent the message out to public sector workers that the money is there. Look at the bureaucracies, the patronage appointments and the hiring of people like Bob Williams and Tom Gunton and Maureen Maloney at $100,000 salaries. Those expenditures suggested to teachers and public sector workers all over the province that the money is there. Those actions led us directly to the crisis that we're facing here today. This government, this Premier, this Minister of Education, this Minister of Labour -- the whole works of them -- have to accept responsibility for the situation today.

We too are going to accommodate the passage of this legislation, because we believe it's essential that the students get back to school. But we have serious reservations about sections of the act. Sections 4 and 11 dealing with arbitration and mediation, as they are crafted in this bill, are a recipe for disaster. They are a recipe for abuse of the taxpayer and abuse of the system. The Minister of Labour has demonstrated by

[ Page 6633 ]

his actions on this issue that he's not capable of selecting an independent and unbiased arbitrator to rule over these decisions. The minister has clearly demonstrated that he's on the side of the BCTF, that he's opposed to the B.C. and Vancouver trustees and that he hangs out those trustees who have the courage to stand up for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's ability to pay. He doesn't have a whit of good sense when it comes to that. We too will be introducing amendments that will change the way in which arbitrators are to be selected and appointed.

If this legislation is going to be acceptable, then taxpayers, students, teachers and everyone in the province has to have a sense that at least the arbitrator is going to be an unbiased and neutral party who can come in, assess the situation and come up with a fair ruling.

What we're going to get, if the government insists on ramming this legislation through, is Brian Foley appointed as the arbitrator, and he's going to repeat the recommendations that were accepted by the teachers and rejected by the school board. And the minister will once again be demonstrating the bias that he has on this issue. But perhaps the minister will, in his comments, or the government.... Even the Premier may be involved in this at some point. Who knows? If they can get a note over to him quickly enough, he may well respond and say that Brian Foley won't be the arbitrator in the Vancouver School Board dispute.

We are determined to see the kids back to work. We are also determined to see this legislation amended in a way that makes it acceptable. We've been brought back here on a Sunday afternoon, without even the courtesy of knowing whether we were coming back for legislation or a resolution, or knowing whether it was going to be legislation brought in by the Minister of Education or the Minister of Labour. The government has expected us to come back here and cooperate with them in passing a bill.

So I'm going to throw the challenge back to the government, back to the Premier and back to the Minister of Labour: show that same cooperation, that same willingness to accomplish a goal, and consider and accept the reasonable amendments that we put forward to this bill -- because this bill should be amended.

I'm going to join with the speaker from the Liberal caucus in saying that we're not going to hold this legislation up. We're going to make sure that the kids go back to school tomorrow. But we're going to stay here as long as we have to to debate amendments to this bill. So if the government wants this bill dealt with today -- and I assume they do by their application to you, hon. Speaker, that this be considered urgent -- then deal with us in the same way that we're dealing with you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: They should be so courageous as to stand up and accept amendments. They drafted this bill on the back of an envelope somewhere. It was clearly done in a rush. It was clearly done to try and jam it in here on Sunday. It clearly wasn't ready on Friday. Legislation that's drafted that quickly and with the kind of bias that the Minister of Labour demonstrates time and time again in this House and in his dealings with his responsibility would, one would expect, need amendment to make it fair and reasonable for all of the parties concerned.

So we're going to go along with the intent of the legislation, which is, in case nobody has said it, to order teachers back to work. You will recall, hon. Speaker, that this has been the primary focus of question period for the last two weeks: will the government order teachers back to work?

We recognize today that Bill 31 orders teachers back to work. That's what it's all about. What we don't like is the arbitration part of it. As the Premier has said, in binding arbitration the taxpayer gets hosed. We won't stand for a biased arbitrator, or someone who hasn't clearly been accepted by both sides as a fair and unbiased arbitrator, coming in and imposing a settlement that's been dictated and mandated by the BCTF. We're not going to have that, and that's what we're going to get if the arbitrator is appointed by the Minister of Labour. We're not going to stand for that.

We want arbitrators, if they have to be, who are clearly acceptable to both parties. There should be a list, agreed to by both parties, from which the Minister of Labour might reasonably make a selection. We want to be sure that taxpayers, as well as students and parents, are protected.

With that, I'll conclude my remarks and listen with interest to the defence that we might hear from people like the Minister of Education, who has been so silent on this issue so far, and the Premier, who has for so long hidden behind the conflict-of-interest commissioner. If those folks will come out and speak on behalf of the government, as they are mandated to do, I will listen with the same intent interest that they've been so kind as to accord me.

Hon. A. Hagen: In the interests of my support for this bill, the first thing I want to note is that I will try to be brief and speak to both the principles of this bill and the context in which it comes before us today. It is important for us to use our time here in this exceptional sitting and debate to really focus on the legislation before us.

I also want to take just a moment to provide a bit of a lesson to the Leader of the Third Party, because he doesn't always do his homework, and to note that I'm proud of my background in teaching. But just to remind that member -- pointing my finger....

The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan West on a point of order?

C. Serwa: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Often the Chair is very quick to remind members of the opposition to whom they should be addressing the conversation. Perhaps the Minister of Education would refer her debate to yourself, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, for that point of order.

[ Page 6634 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. From time to time the Chair has found it necessary to remind members to address their comments to the Chair. I would hope that all members will remember that in debate this afternoon.

Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's always my pleasure to address my remarks to you and through you, for your fair and equitable chairing. I might -- through you -- just note to the hon. member that yes, I am proud of my teaching background, but the last time I taught in a public school in the K-to-12 system in British Columbia was 31 years ago. It is a long time ago, but it was still a very important part of my life and a very important perception in terms of the children of the province.

I think it's important to put the debate into context. I just remind that member that in 1991, in the last session of his government, we did deal with a very long labour dispute -- the longest one, I believe -- affecting education in the northern part of the province, which he represents. It went on for six and a half weeks and through the whole summer, and was not settled for sure until the teachers and boards arrived at a settlement in September. It was a very long strike.

I don't believe that at that time either the legislation of the day or the actions of the former government reflected the concerns that he has expressed today. Actions do speak louder than words -- quite often, hon. Speaker.

We are, in looking at this debate today on Bill 31, recognizing the very major responsibilities that all parties in education hold, whether we're speaking about school boards, the trustees elected to be responsible for schools in the 75 districts of the province, whether we're speaking about the people who work with our students, the teachers and the support staff who provide services for our children, or whether we're speaking about the provincial government, which provides the financial resources and direction for education.

The context for our debate today is that we have arrived at a point where we believe it is essential for us to take immediate action and to provide the tools to the Minister of Labour for him to take further action if the collective bargaining system -- which is the means by which school boards and their employees come to agreements -- is not working.

Since this House met on Friday, a number of events have come to a point where action by this government was determined to be absolutely necessary. That is why we are here today, and that is why this bill is being debated. Let us look first at the situation in Vancouver, which is addressed as a part of this legislation. Until Friday, the parties to the dispute continued to seek a means whereby they could find a resolution. On Friday it finally became clear that collective bargaining was not going to arrive at a resolution for the students in Vancouver.

There was a variety of efforts by those parties -- through mediation and an attempt toward voluntary binding arbitration -- but they failed to arrive at what we could see as a resolution that could assure us that the schools in Vancouver would be opened before the end of the school year.

This legislation addresses a situation where the collective bargaining system has not left us with the assurance that schools can resume. We all know that this is a couple of days before the start of June. It is a little less than three weeks before the start of exams for grade 12 students, and other students are coming to the end of their school year. The public interest for our children now needs to be addressed.

[4:00]

Let's look at other events that occurred over this weekend as well. In another dispute in Bulkley Valley, mediation has -- as it has in 57 districts -- assisted the parties to a resolution. The short work stoppage that took place there is now resolved and those students will be going back to work on Monday. In other areas the collective bargaining system is still at work. But we have to ensure that if that collective bargaining system does not result in a collective agreement, then we will have the tools -- through this legislation -- to take action.

Surrey is the largest district still affected by a withdrawal of services by the teachers. The parties in Surrey have agreed to go back to the negotiating table on Monday, with the assistance of a mediator. I believe in that his comments introducing second reading of this bill the Minister of Labour stated that that mediator has now been asked to take on the role of a special mediator, which means that his comments will be made public.

Within this legislation, we have provided the kind of stringent time frames that are saying that at this point the parties must resolve disputes quickly. If they fail to do so, there are tools within this legislation to allow the Minister of Labour to act very quickly to ensure that there will be a resolution. This bill is about the need for us to bring an end -- in this school year -- to the immediate disputes that are affecting not only grade 12 students, whose exams are coming soon, but all students in the districts affected.

This bill also continues to state to all parties that there is isn't a unilateral responsibility for any of these decisions. We all hold responsibilities here. I want to come back to the importance of trustees' responsibilities at the district level, and where we have disputes that affect teachers, the teachers are also involved. In our democratic society and system of free collective bargaining we do not say that one party is responsible for the resolution of disputes. The public interest always exists in the context of free collective bargaining.

That context and that responsibility for Vancouver have brought us to the point where government, through this legislation, says that we can no longer rely on the parties to arrive at a resolution. There is a clear course of action that will, with the passage of this legislation, have students back to school with an imposed settlement through binding arbitration. With the other districts, there is still a latitude and a recognition of the responsibility that lies with those parties, but I want to make it very clear that the responsibility they must assume at this time has very stringent time lines upon it. If they are not able, within that time frame, to arrive at an agreement that brings an

[ Page 6635 ]

end to the disputes, then the minister has the power to act.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The purpose of the bill is to recognize that all of us have a responsibility for the welfare and education of our children. We also have a responsibility within the systems of law and labour relations and collective bargaining to exercise our responsibilities in a way that the public can rely upon. With this legislation, I believe that the responsibilities of all parties are defined. People are given the opportunity to exercise their right to collective bargaining and to arrive at an agreement in a timely way. If they do not, government then has the means to ensure that students are back to work.

It is not a light thing for us to impose mechanisms that bring binding results to any collective agreement. It is one that all parties -- trustees, people who work in our school districts, people interested in public welfare within the context of collective bargaining -- must examine very carefully. This bill has been crafted with those responsibilities and accountabilities in mind, and in the context of the events of the past weekend we will, I believe, see results very quickly.

I want to conclude by noting that within the context of collective agreements and labour law and the budgets provided for education this year and last, the majority of school districts and their employees have arrived at agreements. There are 57 agreements in place in the 75 school districts. Among those 57, eight disputes have resulted in actual time lost from school. Many districts have lived within budgets and with the labour law that prevails in this province. It is now up to the districts that have yet to resolve their collective agreements for this year to do so.

If they are not able to do so and get into a situation where a party decides to strike or lock out, then in these last weeks of the year, as we are concerned about the well-being of grade 12 students -- as well as all other students -- government has the opportunity, through the Minister of Labour, to act quickly.

This legislation will, I hope, pass the House in a way that allows the information from our deliberations to go to parents, to the workers in our schools and to students. As we deliberate on these issues and on our mutual responsibilities here in this House, and at the tables in the districts where there is still not a collective agreement in place, people should know that they need to act now and that we have acted in support of education for our children.

Hon. G. Clark: Sitting here listening to the opposition parties speak, I can't help being struck by a great irony -- in fact, hypocrisy might be a better word. To hear the Social Credit leader stand here in this House and condemn a system of bargaining that his government created is just a bit much. To see him stand in the House and puff himself up and say that one day is too long for people to be on strike in Vancouver, when his government tolerated a six-week strike in the north of British Columbia without a peep from that member or from any Social Credit member in the House, is a bit much.

It's certainly ironic to see the Liberal Whip, or whatever he is now.... House Leader -- is that what it is now? They move so often that I'm not quite sure.

Hon. M. Sihota: He's Gordon Campbell's campaign manager.

Hon. G. Clark: Gordon Campbell's campaign manager -- I think that's his title, isn't it? It's a great irony to see him stand in the House today and say that these tough budgets for Education are causing the problem, when day in and day out they stand up here and say that we're spending too much on education and that we should cut spending on education. There isn't a day that goes by when those members -- all of them, and particularly the person he's supporting for leader -- don't say that we should be cutting spending on education; we're being too generous. He says that all the time.

But today he says it's our tough budgets in Education that are causing the problem. It's a great irony and a sad day, hon. Speaker, to see this kind of hypocrisy exposed in the House from a party that campaigned for constructive opposition -- a great irony.

I want to talk seriously about the legislation before us, because all of us are elected and come to this chamber from different backgrounds, different life experiences and different work experiences. There are car dealers, for example, on the other side of the House -- many of them.

Interjection. [Applause.]

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, I missed that. Say it again.

There are five or six car dealers out of seven members of the Social Credit Party. There is a flight instructor, who is the Liberal Labour critic -- a depth of knowledge, I'm sure, in labour relations that we've come to appreciate in this House. We all come to the chamber with different perspectives, different philosophies and different ideologies. I think that's a wonderful thing about parliamentary democracy: we're all elected to represent our constituents, and we all bring to bear in this chamber different perspectives and different philosophical views. Besides the fact that people are in three parties, I'm sure there are a variety of views on a variety of subjects.

My background -- and I make no apologies for this -- is in the labour movement. The labour movement is the reason that I am in politics today. My father was a business agent for the painters' union and a business manager for a decade. I was a union organizer for four years before I was elected. I am very proud of my labour background, and that is why I'm in politics. It's certainly why I joined the NDP. It is the belief in the fundamental right of workers to organize collectively and to bargain that has motivated me to take political action and to get elected.

When I spoke in this House on Bill 19 a little more than six years ago, my opposition to Bill 19 was because it put hurdles in the way of people's fundamental right to organize collectively. It's a human

[ Page 6636 ]

rights issue for people in a free society to collectively join together to pursue their collective interests, and that is why we opposed Bill 19. That is a major reason for my being in politics.

But when I spoke six years ago in this House against Bill 19, I said repeatedly that it is the right of the Legislature to intervene to act in the public interest. Members who have perused Hansard can look at that Bill 19 debate and see that members of the NDP opposition consistently said that we opposed the hurdles in the way of collective bargaining in Bill 19, but that we believed in the right of parliament to intervene in the public interest. That is where we're at today.

It is a right which should be exercised very, very carefully. It is something which parliament should exercise as infrequently as possible. The reason is this: if you believe in collective bargaining and if you believe the system works, then there has to be pressure on both parties to settle. If the government is to intervene and say to the parties that the government is going to impose a solution on the parties, then the danger is that the parties will never mature in their relationship with each other. They will never collectively bargain. They simply will rely on government to bail them out. It is something which one wants to exercise very carefully.

It is certainly immature for members of the Liberal Party and the Social Credit Party -- but particularly members of the Liberal Party -- and for anybody who understands labour relations at all to say, after one day of any strike in British Columbia, that the Legislature should intervene and bail out the parties. They don't understand how the system works, and I fear that if they were ever to form the government, we would have chaos in this province.

[4:15]

With this Liberal Labour critic's ignorance of collective bargaining and his irresponsibility in this House, I would fear if he were ever given the power of office -- because it is a delicate situation. It's a balancing of interests and a balancing of parties, which works very well if left to work in a mature way. Forty-three out of 50 school districts have settled. They have bargained without reference to the provincial government. They have bargained together, they have fought it out, and they have arrived at a mutually agreeable conclusion. The collective bargaining system works if you allow it to work its way through.

We have a new system of bargaining in the school system; it is only a few years old. This is, in fact, the second time we've gone through 75 school districts bargaining, and it has worked remarkably well in a majority of districts. I believe the system can be made to work. Clearly there are problems, and that is why we're here today.

In the Vancouver school system the collective bargaining system has failed. We have an obligation to intervene, as I said at the outset, in the public interest. This parliament can and should intervene in extraordinary circumstances, when the system has failed. I regret very much that we are here today intervening in this dispute, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Frankly, it is very clear that we could not reach a settlement. It is clear that in the Vancouver School District the bargaining system has collapsed.

It is also clear that in those districts which have not settled there is still a chance to make the bargaining system work. We are determined not to use the power of the state to intervene in those districts and let the parties off the hook, because I fear that in doing so we are laying the groundwork for more fundamental change.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: The collective bargaining system can work. It works remarkably well across the public and private sectors in British Columbia. It has worked in a majority of school districts, but it has not worked in Vancouver. Because the students in Vancouver are facing exams, because of the time of year and because we are in a very difficult situation in Vancouver, the bargaining system has failed. We have an obligation to students and parents in this province to ensure that those students have a chance to participate in provincial exams, and we have chosen to exercise that option.

In this bill we have also chosen to support collective bargaining in those other districts, and where it fails we have the ability to intervene to try to expedite collective bargaining, if we can, and to impose a settlement through that bargaining process.

Extraordinary action on the part of the government has happened today to deal with where the collective bargaining system has failed. It is not the end of collective bargaining. That seems to be the position of both opposition parties. They don't believe in collective bargaining in the school system....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult, with the constant interjections, for the Chair -- and I'm sure other members -- to hear the member who has the floor. I should remind hon. members that I have heard reference to the member's personal name, and we certainly all know that members should not be addressed personally but by their constituencies when they have been recognized.

Would the hon. minister please proceed.

Hon. G. Clark: When listening to the opposition, the obvious conclusion is that they are opposed to collective bargaining in the education system. At the first sign of a dispute, opposition members in this House demand government intervention. It is an irresponsible and immature position for members opposite, which is simply not tenable. It is my view that it would be a tragic mistake to throw away a system which has worked in the majority of districts just because it has failed in one.

We are here to find a resolution to the Vancouver situation and get children back to school. As well, we are here to say that we want the collective bargaining system to work in those other districts, and we are putting in means which will ensure that collective bargaining has a chance to happen. We believe it can and will work.

[ Page 6637 ]

I take no delight in rising today to support this legislation. I believe very strongly that we have an obligation to intervene from time to time. It is a position which we have taken in opposition; it's a position which I have taken in opposition. We believe that parliament has the right to intervene in extraordinary circumstances. We are doing that today. We must be very careful that the collective bargaining system is not undermined by this action. It is in fact enhanced, because this bill allows collective bargaining to take place in those other districts and provides a means for expediting a resolution.

W. Hurd: I have just listened to a 20-minute dissertation on collective bargaining in this province without one mention of the young people and students of this province -- not one mention.

Hon. Speaker, before researching to speak to this particular bill, I decided to find out what this government said in the throne speech about education and the importance of courage. I'd like to read into the record what this government said in the throne speech about the need for courage, because it will put the reason why we're here today in perspective. The government said that to ensure public access to accomplish these goals in education:

"...the men and women of this assembly must work together in good faith. As public servants, we must stand firm in the face of criticism, resist entrenched interests and dedicate ourselves to the future of our province.

"As leaders of British Columbia, let us draw inspiration from those who have gone before us.... These British Columbians, along with countless others who have built this province from its beginning, all have one quality in common: they had the courage to change... Do we have the courage, imagination and commitment to lead this province into the twenty-first century and build a British Columbia we are proud to leave to our children?"

They mentioned children in the throne speech, but not once have they mentioned them here today -- not once.

Hon. Speaker, I always enjoy reading into the record another campaign promise of the current government, because they make such wonderful reading on special occasions like this: "A New Democrat government will make sure that the young people throughout B.C. get the best possible education. It's the best investment we can make in our future." It goes on: "Educators will get the respect they deserve...." That's why we're here on Sunday, ordering an end to a strike that the school board has said they can't settle; and educators have been on the picket lines for some time.

"Elected school boards and college boards will have their mandate restored." The Minister of Labour, throughout this dispute, has sided with the BCTF, said that the school boards aren't negotiating in good faith and ordered them to bite the bullet. That's how this government restores the elected mandates of college boards.

If we go back and look at the seeds of this dispute, the reasons why we're here today, as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has indicated, go back to the debate on Bill 84, when the opposition stood in this assembly, with considerably less people than are in the audience today, in late-night sittings, arguing on behalf of retaining education as an essential service in this province. At that time, I read into the record a letter from Jack Finnbogason of the B.C.

School Trustees' Association, who told this government that if they removed the essential services designation in that bill, he could not keep the schools of the province open in the event of labour disruptions. He couldn't keep them open, because there was no mechanism of providing for an essential level of service to keep the schools open.

That's what this is all about, hon. Speaker. This government knew back then that we were headed for a kind of conflagration in collective bargaining in the school system and that the schools would not be able to stay open in the event of a strike. They were prepared to accept that. The Minister of Finance stood in the chamber today and said that collective bargaining outweighs any other consideration in this province, even the rights of parents and students. That's what he said a few minutes ago in this assembly.

A few short days ago, in a rugby field near this assembly, two teams from the Vancouver district were on the sidelines watching the B.C. rugby championships. They were there because they couldn't get the approval of the B.C. Teachers' Federation to appoint a chaperone to accompany them to those championships. We laugh. It's a rugby championship, and what does it mean in terms of the overall strategy of debate in this House? Well, hon.

Speaker, what kind of lesson are the young people of the province learning about the way in which the members of this assembly, the union and some trustees deal with education in our province? What are they learning as they stand on the sidelines as spectators at a championship which they have spent four or five years preparing for? What kind of lesson about the glorification of collective bargaining will they take with them as they go about their lives, having been denied an opportunity they worked five years for?

There are no answers from this government. All they can do is talk about the need to preserve the wonderful mechanism of collective bargaining, even when it isn't working. The members of this government have the audacity to stand and suggest that just because a majority of school districts have settled, somehow the rest should cave in as well. The members from the district of Surrey, for example, know full well that fast-growing districts like Surrey, Langley and others were never in a position to accept the kinds of settlements that exist in other districts -- there was no possibility.

Trustees have told the opposition and this government that they couldn't settle. There was no money to offer at the bargaining table. Given that overwhelming message to this government, what was their solution in the debate on Bill 84? It was to remove education as an essential service, which forced students in my own district of south Surrey to meet in study halls and in public buildings to prepare for provincial examinations.

This government really doesn't care anything about students, despite its campaign promises. If it cared anything about students, this bill would order a 30-day cooling-off period for every school district in the

[ Page 6638 ]

province that is currently on strike. Instead, it's business as usual in those districts that are still on strike, and the government still refuses to summon up the courage it needs to order an end to this lunacy in the public school system of the province. All they can do, in a special sitting of this Legislature, is say that despite everything, somehow the collective bargaining system in those districts that are on strike is going to get us through -- never mind what the students and parents are experiencing and never mind provincial examinations, which we have raised in this House for weeks.

[4:30]

We're not talking about an emergency that suddenly occurred in the last week; we're talking about a pattern of strikes and lockouts in public education which has occurred throughout this province. We're talking about 110,000 students who have experienced job and classroom disruptions for a month and a half. The government has steadfastly refused to deal with it, and we find, to our consternation and amazement, that members of the executive council have been exempting themselves from key decisions on education because they don't know whether or not they're in a material conflict of interest.

Talk about accepting responsibility! Talk about lessons for young people in our province and about what it means to take on responsibility!

For the Minister of Labour to kick off debate on this bill by talking about the rights and responsibilities of government is an abject and utter insult to every member of a school board that has gone into bargaining without any means of achieving a contract settlement. There is no more money. The Minister of Labour has said that there is no more money. Yet it has taken this government months to come to the point where they recognize that the benefits to students in our province outweigh any other considerations.

It defies belief that this government would even now not be buying back its campaign literature, where it talks about its commitment to education, to everyone's future. Yet we're falling behind, and we've fallen a lot further behind since this government took office.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There has been a solution available to this government from the beginning; it's accepting the fact that education in our province is an essential service. They recognized that fundamental principle during the Hospital Employees' Union strike, in which essential levels of service were designated. What is the difference between the Hospital Employees' Union and our hospitals, and public education? What is the difference between education and health care, when we have two-income families in the province, when in the district of Surrey young people have been going to work with their parents for weeks because there's a lack of anywhere to put them?

During debate on Bill 84 these things were pointed out to the Minister of Labour by members of the opposition during many lonely late-night sittings in this assembly, and they were greeted with utter contempt and derision by this minister. I think it's appropriate at this point in the debate for us to ask some hard questions about this minister and the job that he has done with his portfolio as Minister of Labour. Do trustees and people of this province any longer have confidence in this minister? Is there a shred of a reason, given the way this minister has handled his portfolio, for trustees or anyone in this province to believe anything he says?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I call the House to order and ask the member to address second reading of the bill before us.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I have to refer again to the throne speech. Do we have the courage, imagination and commitment to lead this province? Clearly the government's handling of education in this province gives the lie to the lofty promises that it made in its throne speech. There's no other conclusion that can be drawn.

One of the last lines in the throne speech is: "...history shall be our judge." I wonder how history will judge the special debate on this bill today in the House. How will history judge the need for this particular debate? There is absolutely no question about how history will judge the performance of this government on education, because it will, as always, measure it against the lofty promises that were made before the government assumed its mantle of office.

It will measure the government's performance when it looks at the disruptions that have occurred in education and which are unprecedented in the history of this province. Never have we seen as many students lose as many days in this province as we've seen in the past year of this government. That's how history will judge the way this government has dealt with public education.

The thing that must really gall those rugby players, as they stood there and watched from the sidelines, is that this government claimed it was making a commitment to the young people of the province. This government claimed it understood the importance of secondary education and post-secondary education and training. It said that the welfare of our young people outweighed any other consideration -- even up to and including collective bargaining. That's what we should have assumed and what we had reason to believe. It just didn't happen.

Even as we debate this bill today, it's a bill of half-measures. It does not order a cooling-off period, and it does not meet the needs of every student in this province. It's a bill called in a state of abject crisis management by this government, which has steadfastly refused to meet its responsibilities in public education.

Hon. Speaker, this is a shameful day for this government, and it's a sad day for the students of this province who have entrusted to this government their welfare in the future. Some of them are not able to vote yet. I wonder how those rugby players who were denied five years of hard work will view this government when they are of voting age. Will they accept the vague platitudes of the Minister of Finance

[ Page 6639 ]

about the wonderful system of collective bargaining, which has utterly failed them? Will they accept the judicious wisdom of these members opposite -- some of whom could not even deal with the issue without getting the approval of Ted Hughes?

I couldn't agree more with the throne speech: "...history shall be our judge. Let us agree today to accept the challenge. Let us have the courage to change." I ask this government to change its approach to collective bargaining in public education by once again designating education as an essential service, so that never again in this province will players in sports and extracurricular activities and students facing public exams be held up to ransom by the collective bargaining system, which has no interest in their future.

I said last week in this assembly that this Minister of Labour has failed the students and parents in this province, and so he has. He has failed them again today by not ordering a cooling-off period and returning our schools to normalcy for 30 days. All we need is 30 days to carry us to the end of June. They cannot summon up the courage to do that on behalf of the young people of this province. It is shameful, but it's the kind of government that people expect. They have now come to expect that in the final analysis, this government will always put the interests of public sector workers ahead of students and parents. That is the way they operate, and they always will.

L. Hanson: Well, here we are on a Sunday afternoon at great expense to the taxpayers. Last fall we went through a process of rescinding a perfectly good piece of labour legislation. We spent months and months and untold dollars on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia to bring in Bill 84. The Minister of Labour stood up in his opening remarks and said: "It's obvious we have to fix it where it's broken." Hon. Speaker, I submit to you that if we had not gone through that process last fall, we would not be here today and we would have good labour legislation in place that would preclude this from happening.

Our party is going to support this bill with some amendments, simply because the issue of the children of the province is far too important to delay passage. Even though there are some pretty irresponsible sections in this bill, the children will get back to school and have the opportunity to complete their education and go on to higher education, and in some cases to take their place in the world of employment.

F. Garden: As union members.

L. Hanson: There's the difference in philosophy between my party and the people over there. People should have the right to work. People should have the right to employment, whether unionized or otherwise. We don't adopt a philosophy and labour legislation that makes unionization a religion. It should be the decision of those who have that decision to make. They should have the right to vote, and they should have the right to vote in secret. Bill 84 has taken all of that away.

The Minister of Finance suggested that we were the government that put Bill 20 in place. He's right; we were. But the Minister of Finance, being, I suspect, somewhat aware of accounting principles, knows that there are two sides to a balance sheet. When you take away one side and consider only the other, it distorts the picture totally. I think the Minister of Finance would accept that, because generally speaking I've seen him to be a reasonably fair person -- not completely, but reasonably fair.

Interjections.

L. Hanson: There's a good reason I'm being heckled by my own members. Not everybody on our side of this House agrees that the Minister of Finance is fair. But that has nothing to do with the bill before us right now.

[4:45]

I've heard the Minister of Finance at different times talk of leadership, and I've heard members of that cabinet talk of leadership. We believe there is a responsibility of leadership when elected to this House, a responsibility that goes much further than the simple issue of putting the teachers back to work in this situation. Let me read you something about leadership. This is a quote from the Minister of Labour on education as an essential service when we were debating Bill 84:

"...the Labour Relations Board will have the ability to make determinations as to how they interpret the provisions of this section. They will, on their own, decide which issues fall within the ambit of the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, and we will leave it up to them to make that determination."

Here is the revealing part: "Far be it from me in this House to give them some direction." What is government elected for, other than to give direction? That's our purpose. That's our responsibility. That's why we're here in this House.

Look at Bill 84. We lost 198,000 days in '90, 284,000 days in '91 and 761,000 days in '92. The argument is that Bill 84 wasn't in place. But do you know what was in place? An expectation on the part of unionized leaders in this province that far exceeded reality.

An Hon. Member: What's your point?

L. Hanson: Let me tell that member how expectations in British Columbia have been totally misplaced, to the point where expectations are so great.... When this government was first elected, they granted a 7 percent retroactive wage hike to the teachers. They allowed school boards to run deficits. I hope the Minister of Finance will say whether he is going to -- as a result of this piece of legislation -- allow school boards to run a deficit. I hope he will tell us what he and the school boards are going to do with the millions of dollars that have not been paid out as a result of this strike.

They repealed the Compensation Fairness Act. They lifted the freeze on administrative salaries, which was at the level of $70,000. They rejected province-wide bargaining, and they rejected the two-year wage freeze on public sector salaries that had been mentioned. The

[ Page 6640 ]

government continues to send out those mixed messages -- budget deficits; and government abandons the promise of a balanced budget that they made in the election process.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the member who is speaking, but there seems to be an increasing number of conversations going on in the chamber. As a courtesy to the member who has the floor, I would ask that these conversations be kept to a minimum. Please continue, hon. member.

L. Hanson: The expectations that this government has created in the labour communities in our province are far greater than the people of British Columbia can afford to pay. There is no doubt that if Bill 19 was still in place, the expectations that these negotiations have brought to the forefront would not be nearly as high as they are.

We will get into this when we get onto the sections clause by clause, but I think that the Minister of Labour has misjudged -- or at least misinterpreted.... I suspect he really does know the difference between a mediator and an arbitrator. I submit that a mediator whose recommendation is likely to become the arbitrator's decision will have very little hope of mediating a settlement before the requirement to impose that settlement. If the Minister of Labour doesn't recognize the difference, he should talk to some labour experts so that he can find out what it is.

The Minister of Education suggested that the fact that 57 of the 75 school districts in British Columbia had reached a settlement was reason to continue with the process exactly as it is. I submit that if any children in British Columbia are deprived of the ability to achieve their educational goals, that is far more important than dealing with averages, and that all students of British Columbia are certainly entitled to a fair shake and an equal opportunity in education. I think the minister would agree with that.

I think that negotiations in this particular field are okay. They should be allowed, but there has to be a mechanism in place to handle the situation, and there was a mechanism in place before Bill 84 was brought in.

When you look at the history of this government's leadership for 18 months, I think that the people of British Columbia will recognize that it has been less than credible; it has been less than responsible; and it certainly has not provided leadership to either the labour or the employer side in British Columbia.

I will be voting in favour of this bill, with some amendments. But I do it with tongue in cheek and with less than dedication, because the other side of the equation is that the students of British Columbia remain pawns in this dispute. I don't think that we, as responsible people elected to these positions, can tolerate that. Therefore, even though this is far too late -- this should have been done some time ago, and the minister has done excellent footwork in his dancing to avoid reaching this confrontation -- we have to put the children back in school to give them an opportunity to achieve their education goals.

Hon. D. Miller: As I listen to the opposition, I've heard more complaints about being here on Sunday than I've heard about the substance of this bill. The member for Surrey-White Rock seemed to think the bill has something to do with playing rugby. I hesitate to think what would have happened if we tried to call in the House last night when the hockey game was on. Perhaps they wouldn't have shown up.

The facts are that we have a group of people in this province -- school trustees, who I assume are devoted to education and ran to be school trustees because they wanted to do something in education, and school teachers, who took their training and are in education because they believe in it and want to do something for children -- who have been unable to achieve an agreement in Vancouver through the collective bargaining system. The system has collapsed and those two groups -- who I assume have the best of intentions in serving the needs of our children -- are not bargaining and our children are not in school.

Because of the failure of the collective bargaining system in Vancouver, the government has now made the proper decision to intervene in the public interest.

I think my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance was absolutely correct in trying to direct attention towards the principle of this bill. The government is exercising its responsibility to intervene because of a failure of the collective bargaining process -- nothing more, nothing less. The members can cite all they want about rugby games and complain about Sundays; they can say anything they want. They are really saying that they want to have the luxury of saying we should have done this sooner. That is all that those members are saying.

I suppose I could criticize the Liberal history -- except they don't have a history in this province, so I have very little to criticize. Despite their claims and the rhetoric, we will see if they have a future.

Let's concentrate. I'm really trying to relate what is being done here -- and why -- to activities that happened in the past. Clearly, there have been disputes in this province in the past that have shut down the schools and kept children out of schools. There was a dispute two years ago in the Peace River that kept children out of the schools for 32 days. The government of the day did nothing to intervene in the bargaining process. I simply cite that as an example.

It is obvious in hindsight that the judgment of the government of the day must have been that the collective bargaining system was working, notwithstanding that they had not concluded an agreement. They could have intervened, but they did not. It strikes me as just a touch hypocritical to have those same members of that party -- who were in power -- now standing up, clamouring and saying that we should have intervened sooner.

When I look further back in their record, I can see that some school boards in this province incurred the displeasure of the former Social Credit government. What was their response? They did away with those school boards. They did away with the school boards in Vancouver and in Cowichan. This government is simply

[ Page 6641 ]

intervening at a critical moment to return order and return those children to their classrooms.

The principles of free collective bargaining have been talked about. We hear members opposite saying that there's a better way: make it an essential service. The members say they've done some research, but they surely have not done very much research. There have been a variety of attempts to deal with negotiating in the public service, a variety of attempts to say: how can we forestall these kinds of disruptions? The fact is that none of them have worked any better than free collective bargaining. Over time, as the hon.

Minister of Finance has indicated, we think that people develop the maturity to recognize that they do have some common interests. Trustees have common interests with educators, and they need to develop the maturity to recognize what their common interest is and to ensure that their collective bargaining does not interfere with the very thing that they're trying to do.

The members talk about....

An Hon. Member: Think about the kids too.

Hon. D. Miller: You know, hon. Speaker, if we were not thinking about the children, what would we be doing here on Sunday -- the fact that those members are complaining about so much?

The fact is that a variety of systems have been tried in the public sector. It is easy to say: make it illegal. But the fact is -- not only here in British Columbia but in other jurisdictions -- that where it has been illegal, for example, for public sector workers to strike, strikes have occurred; labour disruptions have occurred. Over time -- and there's a long history in North America -- free collective bargaining remains the best possible system. The check on free collective bargaining, when it fails and a question of the public interest arises, is the obligation on us as legislators to come back to forums like this and take action, which is exactly what we are doing here today.

[5:00]

An Hon. Member: Oh, way to go. Pat yourself on the back.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, my purpose is not to pat the government on the back and not necessarily to attack the opposition -- which I don't mind doing from time to time -- but simply to try to put this in the context it deserves. The system, by and large, works. Where it fails to work, government has a responsibility to step in, and that's what we are doing here today.

We have concluded, despite the rhetoric we hear from the opposition, that the collective bargaining system in Vancouver has broken down to the point where the parties are unable to achieve a collective agreement. Given that, we are taking the position we are taking. We are assuming that the parties in the other districts are capable of reaching a collective agreement, and we are sending a very strong signal to them that that better be done fairly quickly.

As much as the opposition is stalling, complaining, whining, saying that it should have been done sooner and bringing out a litany of complaints -- despite all of that, this government's judgment is that now is an appropriate time to act. We are acting in the public interest. Those children will be back in school tomorrow, regardless of the stalling of the opposition in this House. Those children will be back in school tomorrow, and they will be able to prepare for their final exams.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but again I have to ask the House to come to order. I'm sure all those who wish to will have an opportunity to take

part in debate. But at this point the hon. Minister of Forests has the floor, and I would ask members to respect that. Please continue, hon. minister.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to conclude by saying that despite the rhetoric we hear from the opposition, and despite the litany of whining and complaining about being here on Sunday.... I don't care if it's Sunday or any other day. If the government has to take action in the public interest, we will do it regardless of what day of the week it is. When we strip away all the rhetoric, the fact is that this government has taken action. The members opposite want to fill the air with their rhetoric, but at the end of the day they will support the government, and the children in Vancouver will be back in school tomorrow.

An Hon. Member: What about Surrey?

Hon. D. Miller: Children in Surrey and those other districts will be back very soon. So let's get on with the speedy passage of the bill, and let's not hear any more complaints from the members opposite about having to give up their Sunday to come in here and do the people's business.

J. Dalton: First, let me assure the Minister of Forests -- and anyone else across the way who thinks that we're not happy to be here -- that we certainly are here with a measure of concern -- in fact, real concern. We are not reluctant to give up our Sunday, as some members opposite would suggest. I would submit that it's a travesty that this House had to be called today. It is unique in the history of this parliament to have a Sunday sitting. Why is it? Quite clearly, it is because of the lack of planning and the lack of action by this government -- and not just over the last few days.

It is a lack of planning that has been demonstrated over many months, which I will be outlining in a moment.

The opposition is here, even though this could have been handled quite differently and in a much happier situation. I would also suggest that the taxpayers would have been much happier if this had been handled differently, given the cost of this extra sitting. We are here on an urgent situation, and we will be quite prepared, once the full debate of this bill has been undertaken, to allow its passage. But as our Labour critic has already indicated, there are some important

[ Page 6642 ]

amendments that have to come up clause by clause, and those will be dealt with in due course.

Hon. Speaker, let me come to the urgency of this session and the bill before us. As I heard the Transportation minister say, it is urgent. We agree. Unfortunately, this could have been handled differently. For example, why was this not brought in on Friday afternoon? The members were here on Friday. I remember full well the Labour minister being asked just as we adjourned on Friday if there was a likelihood of a weekend sitting. He assured us that it was highly unlikely. What do we hear the next morning? We get word from the Sergeant-at-Arms out of the Speaker's office that there will be a special sitting on Sunday afternoon. That's most unfortunate.

Let me address the urgency. Why is it urgent? What we find in Bill 31 is that Vancouver is being treated differently than the other districts that are currently strikebound. I think there's an interesting twist on the urgency that is being put forward in this bill. I might also comment that it's not just Vancouver, Surrey and some of the other districts that are currently out. There are many other districts that unfortunately may follow suit. I admit that there is a provision in

part 2 of this bill to get those districts back, if they do become strikebound or locked out, as the case may be, so that the classrooms are open. However, the process is not one that we in the opposition would necessarily endorse; there are other ways, which I'll comment on later in my comments.

One thing that I think is truly regrettable in this entire debate today is that I have heard no comments about the students from government members, whether in cabinet or on the back bench. Have we forgotten the students in this entire process? We seem to have. We seem to want to concentrate on districts, on situations, on urgency and on whether or not we need to be here. It's the students who must come first.

This is when I'm going to detail some of the districts that have been affected by strikes and lockouts since January of this year -- which the government doesn't want to talk about. They suddenly find an urgency today. Why was it not urgent back in January? Why is it that the smaller school districts such as Powell River and Vancouver Island North, both of which were hit by six-week shutdowns, were not urgent? I would submit that they were.

Can this government tell us that the grade 12 students from Vancouver Island North, for example, who are facing provincial exams -- just like all other students are, including Vancouver's -- were not affected by the shutdown of six weeks? Well, of course they were. Putting aside the comment that the Minister of Education submitted the other day, that perhaps they don't need teaching and may be able to survive quite happily on their own.... But we've dealt with that.

Let me just go back for a moment and outline some of the other shutdowns that have occurred since January of this year, because this so-called buildup of urgency is one that has been clearly flagged, one that has been demonstrated for many months now. This government should have been ready to act a long time before today. Fernie was the first of many that have been hit in one way or another by slowdowns, strikes, lockouts or what have you. Fernie was locked out for four weeks, starting the first week in January.

That should have been a flag right then to this government that we were going to have problems this year. If this government is suddenly caught off guard, and with this sense of urgency today, I would suggest it has not been paying attention to the many unfortunate circumstances that have occurred, not in just a few isolated districts but in many districts.

We've heard the cabinet ministers opposite tell us that in only one example has the collective bargaining process broken down. Hon. Speaker, with respect, obviously that is untrue. I cite Fernie as a four-week lockout. Obviously the process broke down; otherwise it would not have occurred. And why did the government allow that lockout to continue for four weeks? Why was Quesnel strikebound for three weeks? Obviously the collective bargaining process again broke down somewhere.

Surrey is currently out. I think it is, in a large way, unfortunate that Surrey is not being treated in the same way that Vancouver is in this Bill 31. If we want to be looking at the larger school districts -- and obviously numbers become important by themselves -- then I would suggest that a district with 46,000 students that is strikebound and still will be tomorrow, whether this bill goes through or not, should be treated the same way that the students of Vancouver are -- who, if this bill goes through, will in fact be back in class tomorrow. There's an inconsistency in the sense of urgency that this government would have us believe in.

There are many other districts that have been affected by strikes and lockouts that I could comment on to demonstrate that this government should have had a plan in place long before now. Vancouver Island North was out for six weeks, at the same time as Powell River. I have already commented on that. Vancouver Island West was hit by a strike. Other districts have been out for shorter periods of time -- New Westminster, for example. In many of these cases they were able to come to a resolution of their differences in a fairly speedy manner.

It is well documented that since January of this year there have been difficulties in the collective bargaining process in the school districts. It is not enough for this government to say today that there is only one district in which the bargaining process has failed, collapsed, broken down, or all the other terminology that we've heard, because that is untrue.

I hope that we haven't forgotten -- in our entire course of debate and discussion on this bill, in the entire issue of education in this province -- that it's the students' interests that should come first, not the question of whether collective bargaining is or is not a good thing. We don't want the socialist dogma continually preached at us. We want to address the specific concerns of the students of British Columbia. The opposition speaks on behalf of the students, and it is on behalf of the students of this province that we point out why this government should have had an action plan long before Bill 31 was created.

If I recall, one of the members of the third party suggested that this was perhaps written up on the back

[ Page 6643 ]

of an envelope. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. But it does seem surprising to me that we had to wait for so long for this government to make something happen when it's been well documented over many months that something was bound to happen. Now they suddenly find an unprecedented sitting of this Legislature on a Sunday afternoon and they have to deal with an urgent situation.

The members opposite -- as well as several of the cabinet ministers -- have already pointed out to us that they are proud that so many districts have settled without difficulties. We are brought up to date by the Minister of Education in her comments that 57 districts out of the 75 have now settled, and: "Only eight have had job disruptions." I would submit that there is an inaccuracy in saying only eight. Of the eight, many students are affected. Vancouver and Surrey are the two largest districts in this province, and both are currently on strike.

Of the other six, there are certainly a lot of other significant disruptions in those districts, including the two I commented on earlier -- Powell River and Vancouver Island North, both out for six weeks. Surely that is a shameful statistic of itself; and if it isn't, it should be.

[5:15]

I would add that the members opposite don't seem to want to point out to the House that many other districts have been hit by work-to-rule, strike votes, threatened disruptions, the mediation process, and by the continual worrying of both students and parents in those districts that their district may be the next one to collapse. Yet this government has had no plan in place to deal with those issues.

I suggest it's not enough to say that only eight out of the 57 settled to date have had time lost through lockouts and strikes. There is another measurement that we have to pay attention to in the overall disruption and the unsettling effect that labour disputes in the school districts have had, and will no doubt continue to have until this government grapples with the more serious and pressing issues of financing and the collective bargaining process overall -- things that no doubt we will be debating on future occasions in the House.

Let me also comment on what I can only describe as the inaction of the Minister of Labour, because clearly once these labour disputes were identified.... He has many times advised us in the House in question period and elsewhere: it's his problem, one that the other ministers were very quick to pass over to the Minister of Labour. But what has the Minister of Labour done, other than finally produce Bill 31, which we are now debating?

From time to time, the minister has suggested, or even threatened, that he's going to intercede in school district disputes. For example, I remember full well the Powell River dispute, when they were on strike. The minister came out with a very strong statement: he said to the parties that if they didn't resolve it -- and I believe it was the second week into that strike -- he was going to step in. The Minister of Labour never did step into the Powell River situation. That district was down for six weeks.

If the Minister of Labour was going to step into the Powell River situation, he would have done it before a six-week strike had run its course. In that example, and in others that we can cite, the minister is certainly guilty of inaction.

How has the minister dealt with the Vancouver situation? We've had this back and forth: mediators appointed, public recommendations made and trustees who will not accede to the minister's request threatened, to put it mildly, that they cave in and resolve the situation. I would submit that as far as the trustees of Vancouver are concerned, they have an elected responsibility to ensure that their school district, the one that we are primarily debating today, has the integrity and financial wherewithal to put in place any collective agreement that's negotiated.

If those trustees, whether the Minister of Labour likes it or not, feel uncomfortable with that circumstance, they have to speak up -- as they have done. For the Minister of Labour to give these veiled, or otherwise, threats to those trustees is a disgraceful performance. He clearly interceded in a local event.

And now what do we find? We find that those threats didn't work, so we will now bring Bill 31 before the House and inconvenience many people. Not the members -- I'm not standing here to say that I'm inconvenienced -- but certainly the people who were called in on a Sunday: the staff and others, who I'm sure were looking forward to their normal time off on the weekend. Those people clearly have beeninconvenienced. As I commented earlier, for what reason? Why were they inconvenienced? Because this government had no action plan in mind, and could have dealt with this last Friday afternoon or a week ago or....

Probably even better, as I'm next going to argue, if they had listened to our discussion last fall during the Labour Relations Code debate and the many suggestions we've brought forward since that time, we would not be dealing with this situation now

What I'm alluding to, of course, is that education clearly should be designated an essential service. Why shouldn't it be? If this government is prepared to counter our argument and say, "Well, there's nothing about education dealing with public health, safety or welfare," that is a very sad comment. We argued strenuously last fall that education be designated an essential service, that it brought it back into the Labour Relations Code as such. That was unsuccessful. We have put it to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour, and even to the Premier on occasion, that education should be designated an essential service. That has fallen on deaf ears.

I am suggesting that if those arguments had been listened to and given some effect, we would not be in this House today on a Sunday afternoon arguing before a special sitting on a so-called sense of urgency that this matter has to be dealt with, because an essential service designation would have taken care of it. While I'm on this topic, what happened to the Minister of Labour's circumstance with regard to essential service designation? He is the minister who should have acted on that recommendation that came forward out of the North Island dispute. He passed it back to the Labour Relations Board. We questioned him subsequently in

[ Page 6644 ]

question period. We put it to the minister that it was an improper delegation of his authority, but the minister came up with his typical excuses as to why he acted that way. Yet to this day we have seen no specific action on the ruling that came forward from the Labour Relations Board and that has now been put back to the Minister of Labour as to whether education is an essential service, and if so, how it would be implemented.

If those things had been listened to earlier and a game plan put in mind, again, we would not be going through this protracted debate on a Sunday afternoon on a proposal that could have been dealt with in a much happier circumstance and a more timely fashion, and certainly much earlier. It would have produced a resolution of the many strikes and lockouts that we've faced to date. As I commented earlier, we're probably going to be looking at some others before this school year is finished, even though Bill 31 may have the effect of limiting them or perhaps cutting them off entirely. But that's not the point.

We're running around trying to resolve, after the fact, a problem that was clearly identifiable. I hope the government doesn't resolve every difficulty in its hopefully limited lifetime by calling the cabinet and the caucus together, debating it over the telephone or what have you, putting a package together and then calling a special session of the House to deal with it. That's not the way to govern. This government should certainly be strongly criticized for the fact that they felt the need to bring on Bill 31 in this circumstance.

I'm going to make two other observations, both of which deal with members of the current cabinet. I have in front of me a news release from June 7, 1988, in which the then Leader of the Opposition and now the hon. Premier is commenting on school disruptions under the previous government, now the third party.

The last paragraph is of interest, and I will quote from it: "Regrettably, it's a government" -- referring to the Social Credit government -- "which continually raises new controversies, controversies that add to the confrontation and uncertainty that has characterized our education system and indeed our province. And in turn, it hurts our children's education and holds all British Columbians back." The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, is commenting in 1988 on our children's education being harmed by controversies and disruptions at that time.

Yet here we are, five years later, dealing in a special session of the Legislature with the obvious and very harmful effects of extensive strikes and lockouts in the same school system. Perhaps the hon. Premier, when he has his opportunity to address Bill 31 in second reading, would like to comment. A perceived disruption in the system five years ago has suddenly, I presume, taken on a different flavour. I guess it demonstrates, as we've argued many times, that once members cross the floor and become government, they do take on a different attitude.

The Minister of Education, in her comments on second reading, argued that all parties have the responsibility for resolving labour disputes in the school districts. That, in a way, is true. There is obviously responsibility on all of us to try to create a harmonious labour climate in the school districts. But I suggest that this government -- starting with the Minister of Education and going now, of course, to the Minister of Labour -- has to have a game plan in mind. It is not enough for the Minister of Education to stand in this House and say that it's the responsibility of all parties to resolve these disputes. Ultimately, it