1996 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1996

Morning

Volume 22, No. 3

[ Page 17039 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

EDUCATION AS AN

ESSENTIAL SERVICE ACT

G. Campbell presented a bill intituled Education As An Essential Service Act.

G. Campbell: I rise today to present a bill entitled Education As An Essential Service Act, for which notice has been given in my name on the order paper.

For some time the B.C. Liberal Party, the opposition, has been calling for the establishment of education as an essential service in the province of British Columbia. There is no more important service that we can provide the next generation, the youth of British Columbia, than a good, strong education -- the tools they need to get on in the real world.

Unfortunately, with this government what we have seen is over two million student-days of learning lost because this government was not willing to put students at the top of its list. This government has not been willing to say that we must provide our children with the education that they need, because it has another agenda -- to try and make sure that its friends are taken care of instead of the students of the province of British Columbia.

I introduce this bill today because we understand how important it is that all of our young people, regardless of where they live, know that they can go to school, that they can get the tools they need so they can get on in the real world.

I move that under standing order 81 this bill be considered urgent business and be passed through all stages today. We know that there is currently a threat to young people in Surrey, and we believe that that threat must be removed.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, you haven't the privilege of moving that motion. The only motion available to you is with respect to the process of your bill. If you wish to make the proper motion. . . . The hon. Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I am looking at standing order 81, and I don't see any mention there at all that this is required to be a government bill. It merely states: ". . .a bill. . . ." It is not exclusive of opposition bills, and therefore I believe this is well within order.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair has ruled that the privilege is reserved for the government side, and that has been the practice and custom.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then I ask for unanimous consent to move this bill through all stages today.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Official Opposition should move the motion respecting his bill.

G. Campbell: I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'd like guidance with respect to the rules that indicate that when the House is in ordinary session for at least four days in one week, there will be a question period. I would like the Speaker to advise the House if question period in fact will be held today.

The Speaker: I believe the rules are quite explicit on that matter. It's four days unless otherwise ordered, where there are variations on a Friday. I think our standing orders are quite clear on that. There is no question period on the weekend.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 21.

EDUCATION AND HEALTH COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

( second reading )

Hon. E. Cull: I move that Bill 21, the Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, be read for a second time.

As I stated yesterday during first reading, this legislation is intended to ensure. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. E. Cull: . . .that the delivery of educational services to students and the provision of health services will not be unreasonably disrupted by impending labour-management disputes. It provides for a fair procedure for the conclusive settlement of any dispute which occurs between now and the end of June 1996 involving a board of school trustees, a post-secondary employer -- a member of the Post-Secondary Employers' Association -- or an employer member of the Health Employers' Association of B.C., and a trade union representing the employees of those employers.

This legislation is intended to deal with any dispute that might arise within the next two months. As I mentioned, there is the immediate situation of the current dispute between the Surrey Board of School Trustees and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 728. It will also ensure that there is a fair and reasonable settlement of the dispute and that any collective bargaining. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale should restrain himself and wait until he can take his place in the debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I would really appreciate it if hon. members would allow the minister to complete her remarks without the interruptions.

[ Page 17040 ]

Hon. E. Cull: The legislation will ensure that any dispute that involves students or patients and that has proceeded to the same situation as the one between Surrey and its employees -- that is, collective bargaining has gone on for some time in its normal fashion, there has been a mediator or an industrial inquiry commission under the Labour Relations Code, recommendations have been made, and they have failed to bring a resolution of the dispute -- doesn't also disrupt necessary services to those people. Finally, it includes a sunset clause: it expires by June 30, 1996.

Let me talk about some of the major principles of the bill. Any collective agreement created by this legislation will have the same standing in force under the code as if it had been fully negotiated by the parties. The government, through a regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, will be able to designate an employer or a trade union to be covered by the legislation provided that that employer or trade union belongs to one of the three groups that are referenced in the legislation, which I mentioned a minute ago.

The employer can be any board of school trustees, any member of the Health Employers' Association of British Columbia, or any member of the Post-Secondary Employers' Association; and the trade unions, obviously, are those which represent employees of the designated employer.

Where a mediator or an industrial inquiry commission has been appointed under the Labour Relations Code and has made recommendations as to how collective bargaining differences may be resolved, this legislation will allow those recommendations to become the basis of the agreement between the parties. The fact that a mediator or an industrial inquiry commission has been actively involved in the dispute and has made recommendations means that the rights of the parties to have their collective bargaining positions fully respected and clearly articulated to either the mediator or the commission will have been met.

In addition, the legislation ensures that all provisions that have already been agreed to and accepted by the parties will also be incorporated as part of the renewal agreement. The legislation goes on to allow the parties, by mutual consent, to amend the mediator or commission recommendations if they agree to do so; and the parties will also have the ability to return to the mediator or the commission for clarification of any of the recommendations.

Most importantly, this legislation will ensure that parents and students in British Columbia can plan for the remainder of the school year without having to worry that education may be disrupted by labour-management disagreements, and it also means that citizens have no fear of any disruption of health services.

For the most part, the collective bargaining process works. Seventy-three out of 75 school districts have settled, and they have settled using the regular processes that are available to all employers and all unions within this province. Some of them require the involvement of a mediator or an industrial inquiry commission. Very few collective bargaining situations require this further step, and this legislation is the further step that ensures that services to students and to patients remain without a disruption.

It provides a clear opportunity for employers and unions to reach settlement by mutual agreement; in fact, we encourage all employers and unions to reach settlements by mutual agreement through the processes that are available to them.

[10:15]

But where that fails, where we have not been able to resolve it through the normal process, the government has a responsibility to step in, to act, to ensure that services are protected, and this bill does that. More importantly, we have to acknowledge the fact that when the Legislature has been dissolved, there is no other route for settlement of disputes. It is important, because this Legislature, when it debated the Labour Relations Code and passed it a number of years ago, insisted that the Legislature retain that right, and this bill does that.

I'll be very interested in hearing what the opposition has to say, because I'm sure they're going to be opposed to this bill, opposed to the measures that we are taking right now to deal with a very few bargaining situations which may disrupt services to patients and to students. But in conclusion, this bill is essential because of the difficulties that have arisen in a few -- a very few -- bargaining situations, and our government is taking the responsibility to ensure the continuation of services.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this bill is a disgrace. This bill is a reflection of this government's commitment not to the students of British Columbia, not to the patients of British Columbia, but to a continuation of the amateur hour which we know is taking place from that side of the House. It's a four-week plan with a 60-day guarantee. It has nothing to do with providing students with the security that the government claims it does. It has nothing to do with taking care of parents' concerns, hon. Speaker. It has nothing to do with taking care of patients in the province.

What we should be passing. . . . What we should have passed, what this government should have passed and what they never should have removed from the labour legislation was the designation of education as an essential service in the province. The government says they're concerned about students. We know they're not concerned about students. It took us very little time to discover what this government's real concerns were. They're concerned about a four-week plan that leads to an election, so hopefully there won't be disruptions.

But this provides them with an awful lot of power, which is not necessary. This creates a great deal of concern for people across the province. We know this government's commitments. Whose side is this government on, really?

G. Farrell-Collins: The unions.

G. Campbell: We have a former union organizer as the leader; we have a former union organizer as the Deputy Premier; we have a former union organizer as the Minister of Social Services and the House Leader; we have a former union organizer as the Minister of Forests. Are they really concerned about the students of British Columbia? I don't think so.

What we have here is CUPE Local 7's "Table Talk" of April 17, 1996, writing to their members and not talking about the students of British Columbia. They couldn't care less about the students of British Columbia. This government has shown they don't care about the students of British Columbia. We had a Minister of Education for this government who said that maybe students are better off out of school than in school. This is what "Table Talk" says: they had direct connection with the Premier's Office after direct intervention from Premier Clark.

[ Page 17041 ]

"At the Premier's Office, we talked to government representatives, who asked us to consider alternatives" -- to a strike. "After a lengthy session with representatives of the government, your bargaining committee agreed, and. . . .at about 5:30 p.m. we reached an agreement to delay strike action. The Premier called to thank us and to wish us well."

I wonder how many students and parents the Premier called and wished well. I wonder if he called the school trustees and wished them well, in making sure we kept students in the classrooms in Surrey and making sure we kept students there. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Only picked one side.

G. Campbell: Absolutely. This government is worried about the students, all right. They're so worried about the students that they've allowed two million student-hours to disappear from the lives of young people in the province, because they have not been willing to act. They have not been willing to protect young people, to protect education as an essential service in the province of British Columbia.

What are they really concerned about? The Premier has a leadership campaign. He gets a few thousand bucks from CUPE. He calls them up and says: "Good luck in your negotiations." What sort of return was that supposed to be?

The people of British Columbia want to be sure that children in this province have education as a protected and essential service throughout their life in school -- not for 60 days. They don't want a four-week plan with some phony 60-day guarantee; they want to be sure they're there. Even the member opposite, as a teacher, must have wanted to teach students in school. Surely you wanted to teach students more than you wanted to play political games; surely you didn't want to hold students hostage to the labour relations climate in British Columbia.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: You used to be.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: Well, you shouldn't have been.

Hon. Speaker, having played tennis with the member opposite I thought he might have been a tennis teacher. I certainly didn't think he would be in a real classroom.

The fact of the matter is that this bill is not designed to take care of the students in British Columbia. It is not designed to alleviate the concerns of parents in Surrey or anywhere else in the province. It is designed to try and provide an image -- an image of toughness.

But let's be clear: this is not about toughness. This is about a blank cheque. It's a blank cheque to this government to take care of their friends. It is not a commitment to the people of British Columbia to take care of the students in the province. This bill leaves so much to be desired. It leaves a great deal to be desired, because the fact is that it provides this government with draconian powers. It really undercuts the collective bargaining process across the sectors that are involved.

The minister stood and introduced the bill and said that it did not, in fact, do that -- that it did restrict. The fact of the matter is that it is not a restrictive bill. It does not say to the government that we are going to limit this. For 60 days, there will be no true collective bargaining in British Columbia. "For 60 days," we have said to the school board -- the duly elected school board in Surrey -- "you will not be able to negotiate." What we've said to them is: "We will remove your accountability to your electorate."

We're going to say the same thing to the people of Coquitlam. Unquestionably, you'll suddenly find a breakdown in negotiations; unquestionably, you'll suddenly have a mediator appointed; unquestionably, within minutes the government will be imposing a decision on that duly elected board. Collective bargaining is being put on the back shelf. And let's be clear about this. This will create substantial additional costs. It will have a direct negative impact on the students in Surrey, it will have a direct negative impact on the students in Coquitlam, because this government doesn't care about students.

Ask yourself whose side they are on, hon. Speaker. They are not on the side of students. They are on the side of CUPE; they are on the side of contributors to their election; they are on the side of big labour. If they were on the side of students, they would have voted at least once out of four times to designate education an essential service in British Columbia.

Let me tell you this: we will deal with this bill over today and tomorrow, unquestionably. We will suggest a number of alternative ways that we can approach this to make sure we protect the students in Surrey. But let me tell you this: following their 28-day plan to re-election, there will not be that government in office.

There will be a new government in office, and it will be a government that puts students at the top of the list in British Columbia and does designate education an essential service -- so that it's not an essential service and a concern for the 28 days of an election, but a concern for the entire life of a government and for the life of every student in the province and for their parents, so they get the tools they need and can in fact get on in the real world with the kind of confidence that they deserve.

This government has failed students in British Columbia. You have consistently failed them. You've failed them in Campbell River, you've failed them in Quesnel, you've failed them in Vancouver, you've failed them in Surrey, and you have failed them again. This is not a solution. It's a short-term, stopgap measure -- a four-week plan with a 60-day guarantee -- and after the 60 days, the same problem exists.

Following the election, there will be a bill introduced in this House. It will declare education an essential service, and it will be sure that our students -- not special interests, not political supporters -- are put at the top of the public agenda in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Priddy: I rise in support of the bill which is currently before the House today. I am deeply concerned about the urgent situation that this bill is intended to deal with. This coming week the education of students in the Surrey School District will be at immediate risk, and that is why this government is prepared, if necessary, to spend this entire weekend debating this important piece of legislation. In fact, this bill will provide that no labour-management disputes will impact not only on Surrey and Coquitlam, but on health and education services in the immediate future, starting with the current and critical situation in Surrey.

I was very interested in the comments by the leader of the opposition party. But let me tell you that my commitment since I've moved to this province has always been to children and students and families in Surrey. That's as a volunteer in my children's schools; that's as someone who works with

[ Page 17042 ]

families and education in Surrey; that's as someone who's been a school trustee in Surrey; and that's as someone who's been a chair of the Surrey School District. Therefore my commitment continues to be what it has been for the last 15 years in this province, which is to students and families and their education in Surrey.

Students in Surrey and potentially in Coquitlam have worked extremely hard all year long, as they have in all districts. They deserve to be able to write their exams and present their projects. Their families want them to be able to be in school, which we know is the very best place for students to be -- in school completing their education.

If the Legislature is dissolved, the government must retain the right to resolve deadlocked labour disputes. This bill will bring that needed finality for the settling of collective bargaining matters in a binding and conclusive manner.

Mediators and, in the case of the health sectors, an industrial inquiry commissioner are in place in most of the significant negotiating sessions currently underway. The next short period of time will be critical in determining whether voluntary settlements will be possible. The time frames of this legislation meet the urgency of current negotiations. Although these disputes may be settled without the need for the interventions provided by this bill, and we sincerely hope that this will be the case, we must ensure that these services are not placed at risk.

[10:30]

Collective bargaining throughout this province has worked extraordinarily well. As a previous speaker said, 73 school districts were able to settle with the process of free collective bargaining. Only five of those school districts even needed a mediator to do some facilitation work. Only one of those districts even needed a mediator to write the recommendations. Unfortunately, in the situations which we face, there has been a mediator, there has been an industrial inquiry commissioner, and we still do not have a solution.

This bill ensures that potentially affected parties have taken every opportunity to conclude their own collective agreements -- as opposed to the opposition parties, who are absolutely opposed to collective bargaining. There would not be any opportunity for that kind of collective bargaining to happen under the bill that is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The provisions of this bill will be invoked only after the parties have exhausted their efforts in good faith and meaningful collective bargaining, only after the industrial inquiry commissioner's recommendations or the mediator's have not brought resolution to the dispute.

Throughout all of these stages the parties have control of their own destiny. They can use the mediator; they can use an industrial inquiry; they can use the recommendations from those parties. It's only at this point, if a work stoppage appeared imminent, that government would name specific parties through the regulations provided in this act. Even then, the provisions of this act allow the parties to mutually agree to alter a recommendation -- clearly very different from anything envisioned by the opposition party here.

This legislation is consistent with the government's strong record supporting health and education in B.C. The government's priority in education has always been what is best for students in the classroom. We've invested $3.4 billion in education this year -- 3.3 percent more than last year. We're investing in building and expanding and renovating schools -- 20,000 new post-secondary spaces -- and health care has increased by 23 percent since 1991.

This translates into direct improvement in access and quality of care for patients and students. This bill allows us to continue to protect these important services in the near future when the Legislature has been dissolved. In my mind, it's fair and reasonable legislation for the negotiating parties and, most important, it's legislation that speaks to the urgent needs of students and their families in Surrey, to patients and students in other parts of the province. I would therefore strongly urge that all members of this House support the quick passage of this bill.

L. Hanson: I find it quite interesting to listen to the Minister of Labour when the Minister of Finance presented the bill. I'm not sure that, due to the newness of her appointment, she has the experience to present the bill. But I think it's most appropriate that the bill be presented by the Minister of Finance, because the bill has nothing to do with labour relations. I imagine that the Minister of Finance will be very high in the process of an election readiness committee.

That's really what the bill is -- an election readiness bill -- because I don't think that the party in power today would really like to have a lot of parents wandering around out there who are upset with the government because there is a strike.

Some years ago -- I think it was 1993 -- there was a strike. It was allowed to go on for some weeks. But the difference is that that wasn't a writ period or the approaching of a writ period, and that makes quite a difference in the opinion of the people. Discussing the principles of the bill. . . . It's very difficult to discuss the principles of the bill because the reason behind the bill has nothing to do with the bill.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the hon. member. . . . Just a moment, please. Members carrying on conversations while the member has his place is certainly, at the least, a discourteous practice. I would ask members to respect the person who has his place.

L. Hanson: As I said, the reason, the principle behind the bill has nothing to do with the bill. It's a pre-election bill. It simply is a bill to guard against the difficulty that the government might find itself in if there were labour disruptions in some of the industries named. We as politicians and, I hope, the people of British Columbia will recognize the real reason behind the bill.

I might just add that this sort of thing prior to an election, for an election purpose, is really what has caused some of the cynicism that is seen about our system. It is some of the cause behind some of the cynicism that the public looks at politicians with. It's so obvious that I'm sure it will be seen as such by the people of British Columbia.

Yes, I do agree that the bill does have a sunset clause; that's the end of June. I guess that tells us that we're going to have an election before the end of June, so it leaves some flexibility for the government when they decide to call that day of judgment. I'd like to point out that the bill does have a sunset date of June 30, but the contracts that could be imposed under the bill could, in effect, be there for as long as five years. That's a lot different than trying to give the impression that this is a temporary measure that the people of British Columbia need to guard the education system for that period of time.

Given the obvious relationship of this government to the workforce, I suspect there will be very, very few settlements imposed on any of the unions that aren't first of all approved by the unions themselves. That's a fact that has been

disp-

[ Page 17043 ]

layed many times by this government -- their relationship there -- and the people of British Columbia will see that when the election is called.

Hon. Speaker, I'm not going to speak a long time about this, simply because the principle, as I said earlier, has nothing to do with the reason behind the bill. The people of British Columbia will see the reason behind the bill quite clearly, and I hope they consider that when the election comes up.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise to speak in second reading in support of the Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. I believe that this government has demonstrated through this act, as it has with other actions in the last eight weeks, that we are committed to acting in the best interests of students, parents, families and patients in our health facilities around the province. This is a bill that clearly demonstrates that we are on the side of middle-income families and their children, to make sure that education is protected.

I want to just say a few things. One of the members opposite asked why this bill is being presented by the Minister of Finance. Perhaps the member has not sat through the debates of this Legislature for the past four years. If he had, he might then know that the Minister of Finance chairs the Public Sector Employers' Council and is charged with responsibility for negotiations and collective bargaining in the broad public sector. That is what this bill addresses.

I want to speak specifically about how this bill fits with our commitment to protecting education. As Minister of Education, Skills and Training, I think it is critical for students at both the post-secondary and public school levels to be able to finish their studies. I am proud of the leadership that our government has taken in placing the education of our children first. Since becoming Minister of Education, Skills and Training, I have participated in many, many announcements and activities that clearly demonstrate our commitment to public education and post-secondary education.

Let's look at the context. The Leader of the Opposition speaks about the need to protect education, yet he brings forward a platform which would slash spending in this province by $3 billion a year and gut public education services in this province as a result. Look at the contrast here.

Facing a $435 million cut to health and education spending in this province, this government has acted to trim elsewhere in government, protect health and education, and ensure that those services are there for our students. We've begun by starting at the top.

An Hon. Member: You don't know where you're at.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We've begun by starting at the top.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed, minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm a member of the smallest cabinet that has sat in this House in 25 years. And we have begun cutting at the top in this combined ministry that I'm now responsible for. About 100 positions within this ministry are going to be eliminated so we can redivert those funds to the classrooms.

Earlier this month we were able to announce that in the public school sector, rather than passing through the cuts from the Ottawa government and rather than engaging in the slash-and-hack approach that the opposition parties wish to see in public services, we were able to provide an additional $64.5 million to funding for public schools. That's how you protect public education: by making sure that we have the funds available to provide high-quality education.

Every school district in this province has benefited from this government's commitment to increasing funding -- every school district in the province. In the post-secondary system, rather than pass through the federal cuts, which would have resulted in 8 percent cuts in budgets to every college and every university in this province, we increased funding by $16.5 million and are creating 7,000 new spaces in our colleges and universities to ensure that every British Columbian who wants a post-secondary education has access to it.

That's the leadership that's required to protect education, not frivolous pieces of legislation that would essentially ban collective bargaining in public schools by designating them essential services.

We have also taken the leadership in restructuring the public school system, cutting at the top. The first review of school district governance in 50 years has been undertaken, and as a result we're going to be amalgamating 34 school districts into 16 and asking all schools districts across the province to find savings so they can protect education for our students.

As part of this funding package we have maintained funding for special education, for aboriginal education. We've protected funding for the school meals program, for the inner-city schools program and for other social equity programs in our schools.

That is the environment in which collective bargaining in the health and education system is taking place, an environment in which this government has cut elsewhere to provide funding so that education is assured for our students, both at the K-to-12 level and at the post-secondary level. Yes, we recognize that school districts face challenges in their budgeting, but the foundation for contract settlements is there because of our action as government to cut elsewhere in government to find the funds to devote to education.

The bill that we have before us today was tabled as a result of a potential strike in the Surrey School District. I would just like, for the record, to indicate this government's commitment to education in Surrey by briefly running through what has happened to education funding in Surrey in the 1996-97 budget. Their total operating funds in this district, the largest in the province, will reach $279 million this year -- an increase of $7.7 million, the highest dollar increase of any district in this province.

They have received a 10 percent increase in funding for ESL, a more than 50 percent increase in funding for aboriginal education, an increase of $1.3 million in operations and maintenance, and almost $1 million more for special education in Surrey. In addition, for school facility expansion and new construction, that district will receive over $61 million -- the largest school capital investment of any district in this province.

[10:45]

It is indeed regrettable that in the environment of this government's support for education in Surrey, collective bargaining has failed to produce an agreement to date. There has been an industrial inquiry commissioner; there has been a mediator. Regrettably, agreement has not been reached.

[ Page 17044 ]

I think it is appropriate in these circumstances that government step in and say clearly that our first priority has to be protecting the interests of students and their parents, protecting the quality of education and protecting access to education -- and that is what this bill does. As a government, we are acting to ensure that students and parents in Surrey and elsewhere in the province know that education is our priority. They know that this government is on their side; they know that we are going to ensure that education continues.

G. Farrell-Collins: How many students did the Premier call? How many union leaders did he call?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite asks how many students and parents we have been in touch with on this issue.

G. Farrell-Collins: No, the Premier!

Hon. P. Ramsey: I need to tell the hon. member. . . .

The Speaker: Order, minister.

Hon. members, there will be an opportunity for each member to take his place in the debate. If we would please accord the normal courtesies to the person who has his place on the floor, I'm sure we could proceed with the least amount of inconvenience to anyone. Please proceed, hon. minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I went to address the British Columbia association that represents parent advisory committees from school districts across this province. I outlined for them the provisions of Bill 21 and told them that we were debating it and passing it in the Legislature this weekend. They were delighted. The parents of this province recognize the importance of education to their children. They are committed to work with this government to ensure the provision of high-quality education.

They recognize this government's commitment to put health and education funding first, not tax breaks for corporations. They recognize that we will, as a government, do all we can to ensure access: by freezing tuition; by increasing the number of spaces; and by making sure that when adequate funds are provided, education is not disrupted unnecessarily by labour disputes.

Those are the principles embodied in this bill. On behalf of the students of this province, I urge all members of this Legislature to vote in favour of Bill 21.

R. Blencoe: It is a pleasure to stand in my place today to say a few words from a different perspective and share with all members of the House and the public some insights into what, in my estimation -- and I'm sure for many of my former colleagues across the way -- is a very politically expedient piece of legislation, which is really a conversion on the road to an election. That's all it is.

This government has had every opportunity in the last few years to look at the Labour Code, which many of us and many members on this side of the House gave reasonable suggestions for change and balance in, and gave many thoughts and suggestions for amendments to. Many people in the province suggested, quite rightly, that we had a Labour Code that needed balance and reason and fairness.

Some of us who were on the other side at one time, hon. Speaker, also call for that as well. But unfortunately, sanity in labour issues for some did not prevail. Consequently, we have labour legislation in British Columbia that here today, because there is an election pending -- and the operative date, of course, is June 1996. . . . Because there is an election pending and this government is so desperate to hang onto power that it is prepared to be so politically expedient as to bring a bill into the Legislature that really, when it knows that its Labour Code and its labour legislation are not balanced, not fair. . . . It's politically expedient.

There must be some members across the way who are having a tough time with this. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds -- a long time in the labour movement -- sits, and I wonder what he's thinking. I'm wondering what he's thinking now. I'm wondering what his colleagues in the labour movement are thinking.

I guess, hon. member -- and to those other members I mentioned on the other side -- when principles and values are up for grabs during an election, those principles and values are put aside, eh? That's what it all means.

What about the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke -- a long, proud part of the labour movement, a long time working in the labour movement? I wonder what he's thinking today.

And the member for North Island. I saw him on television last night. Well, a different perspective today, I suppose. "But we're in government, and principles and values can be suspended to stay in power." I recommend to this government a book that was written many years ago by William Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power . You all need to read it.

What about the member for Cariboo North, a staunch union member? Where is he today? I suspect he's got his running shoes on, and he's having to do damage control at home with his members. And I'm sure the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is having to do the same thing.

Unless they have a deal. I don't know, maybe there's a deal to be quiet, by the labour movement. Maybe there's a deal. Maybe the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has made a deal. Maybe the member for Cariboo North has done that; maybe the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke has done that.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I would caution the member with respect to imputing any improper motives to any members of the House. If that's the member's intention, I would ask him to be cautious. Please proceed, hon. member.

R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I've been in this House long enough. Any thought that I would impugn the member or my colleagues. . . . Of course I would not do so. But what I'm suggesting. . . .

Interjections.

R. Blencoe: What about the member for Skeena, who stood up for teachers, who stood up against legislation that impugned and impinged upon the rights of labour?

Well, hon. Speaker, it's conversion on the road to an election. If it's politically expedient, principles and values can be suspended for power. What happened, folks? What happened to a proud party that would never, ever do this?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 17045 ]

R. Blencoe: I was interested in the mild-mannered response of Mr. Georgetti last night, who made some suggestion that he didn't quite approve of this legislation. Mild-mannered Mr. Georgetti! Can you imagine if the Liberal Party -- and the Leader of the Opposition was the Premier -- did this legislation? Those benches that would be over here would be up in arms, we'd have all-night sittings, and we'd have fighting in the trenches. And do you know where Mr. Georgetti would be? He'd be leading the parade, he'd be leading the fight, he'd be leading labour on the steps of the Legislature. But a mild-mannered response from Mr. Georgetti.

I don't know if it's accurate, but I'm sure the phones were alive and well between the Premier and Mr. Georgetti: "Well, you've got to say something, Kenny. You've got to say something, but make it mild, because we want to win the election. And we will suspend our principles and values. And Kenny, we want you to suspend yours too; mild-mannered response, please." And you got it, folks. That's exactly what you got. A deal was made. It was part of the phony demonstration we had here, led by Mr. Shields and others. Same kind of deal. . . .

An Hon. Member: You're anti-worker.

R. Blencoe: No, I'm not anti-worker. But where were you, Madam Member, when the Labour Code was introduced, and why weren't you talking for this kind of legislation then?

Just prior to Christmas in my hometown, handyDART went on strike for about three months. And you know what. . .?

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: Oh, the Legislature is sitting. Oh, give me a break, Madam Member. Where was the government when the poor and the disadvantaged and the handicapped were asking for your help, members? Where were you? Where was the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head? Sitting on her hands. Where was the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill? Where was the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for three months?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Over Christmas this government, when I suggested that there should be an arbitrator. . . . The Minister of Labour's response was: "The Labour Code -- which we introduced so proudly -- won't allow us to have a cool-off, won't allow us to put somebody in there to seek reason and balance." And that was the Labour Code that was introduced. And over Christmas this government ignored the handicapped, ignored the poor, ignored the disadvantaged, for political ends, because labour. . . . If labour had seen you move then, all hell would have broken loose.

What's different today? We know what's different today. This government, which is called the New Democratic Party but is now the new New Democratic Party, has lost its way, lost its principles, and has a deal concocted with Mr. Georgetti and others to quietly bring in a piece of legislation that will look good on the hustings. But when push came to shove, when the handicapped needed help before Christmas, when the poor needed help, when those on assistance needed some transport for a Christmas party, there was no transportation.

And this government said they weren't going to do anything, they couldn't do anything, because the Labour Code tied their hands. And now, on the eve of an election, we have this piece of legislation.

Well, the people of British Columbia are very smart. They'll see through it. They know what it's all about. They know the phony posturing, and they know that the real key to this piece of legislation is June 1996, because 360 days of the year anything goes, except when you want to have an election, Mr. Premier, when use of political expediency to suspend your values and principles. . . . When June 30, 1996, comes around and the election is over, it's back to normal, folks -- no balance between labour and management in this province, but you've taken care of the election. The people will not be fooled by that.

This is a conversion on the road to an election. It's a phony piece of legislation. People will understand that June '96 is the key date.

In my hometown, when for close to four months those who depend on handyDART wanted help, this government said not a word. No member in Victoria said a word. They sat on their hands. Home support? The same thing. Firefighting?

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: Yes. There's a litany of abandonment of principles and values. But when it comes to an election, guess what. Well, I remember vividly in this House somebody else who used to suspend values and principles on a whim, somebody else who used to have basically a contempt for this House, as we're using this House now for the backdrop to a provincial election, costing thousands of dollars to the taxpayer. You know who that member was, that Premier was -- and we have a Premier today very similar -- using this place, suspending values? Well, that Premier was a gentleman called Mr. Vander Zalm. Mr.

Vander Zalm, not knowing the difference between right and wrong, principles and values, would suspend them at a whim. Power. . . .

[11:00]

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: It's a sad day for a party that I used to be affiliated with -- a very, very sad day. And let me say to you, knowing this party for 20 years, there are members across the way. . . . I hope they speak. I hope they speak and defend it, because many of them, I'm sure, have a tough time with this kind of legislation -- not only a tough time with it, but with the timing of it.

To conclude, I would hope that those members across the way. . . . Oh, the member for Skeena is here now. The member for Skeena and the member for Cariboo North have an honourable history and distinction in the labour movement. I tell you, if they were sitting on this side of the House and another government came in, with the timing right now. . . . I know what they'd be doing. You know what you'd be doing. The member from Burnaby, you know what you'd be doing. The member for Mission-Kent -- the Minister of Forests -- I know what he'd be doing. The member for North Island, I know what he'd be doing.

Interjection.

R. Blencoe: Boy oh boy, it must be tough to live with yourselves, hon. members. On the eve of an election and a conversion on the road to the election, you suspend your principles and values so you can tell the people of the

[ Page 17046 ]

province that you've seen the way. But it's an election. Well, the people will see through it, because in June '96 it all comes to an end. So, hon. member, I hope these members and those members who have a proud history in the labour movement are proud of what's happening today, because it certainly isn't the New Democratic Party that was known by many, many people who have worked in it for a long, long time.

F. Gingell: It is interesting to listen to the cynicism and the two-facedness that this government brings forth with this bill. The Minister of Labour stood here and said there was no other choice. Clearly that isn't true. The Minister of Labour, under

section 72(2)(

b) of the Labour Code, could direct the Labour Relations Board to declare education an essential service, just like that. That's what this Minister of Labour could have done. So why is it that the Minister of Labour stands up and goes through a whole series of points that are meaningless?

If the Minister of Labour -- who referred to her dedication to education in Surrey through her service on the school board, as though that were something unique in this House -- really cared about education and not about political posturing and not about protecting this government in the case of an impending election and really meant what was said, she would have acted under

section 72(2)(

b) of the Labour Code and had the Labour Relations Board designate education an essential service, as I believe they have done in the past during the life of this parliament. This is not something unique. The Labour Relations Board has done this, as I understand, in the case of Bulkley Valley.

The Minister of Finance, who introduced this bill, talked about how important it is to protect education, and we all agree. If she really wanted to protect education, she'd ensure that this province had a strong financial base. That's the real protection of education. During these years of relatively good economic times, she would have ensured that this province had a surplus and not a deficit. She would not have gone through phony bookkeeping practices, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, to hide deficits in the name of surpluses.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance can say what she likes, but she knows in her heart that the truth of the matter is that they've changed the accounting practices in this province for the purpose of showing a surplus when there is in fact a deficit. If the minister says that they haven't changed the accounting practices, I suggest that she go home and think about that again. She has done. I'm not wrong.

An Hon. Member: Not this time.

F. Gingell: Not this time. I'm usually wrong, Mr. Speaker, but on this occasion I can assure you that I'm correct.

We're all interested in protecting education, but this government continually asks: "Whose side are you on?" If you were on the side of kids and education, you'd have passed the private member's bill that our party has tabled in every single session. Do you know whose side they should be on? They should be on the side of all British Columbians. This government talks in terms of things that I thought I'd left behind me -- class differential, class warfare, middle class, working class. We're all Canadians; we're all British Columbians. And all British Columbians deserve and are entitled to the protection of the government of British Columbia. And that includes the kids in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education -- previously the Minister of Health -- stood up and suggested that by designating education an essential service, we would be banning negotiation. Well, that's nonsense. Health is designated an essential service. Has that stopped negotiation? When he was Minister of Health, did he suggest that? Not at all. All we are asking for is that children in our schools be given the same high priority that patients in our hospitals and our health care system deserve, but so frequently do not get from this government.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to educate some people who refuse to listen about economics and economic growth.

The Minister of Social Services was quoted in the newspaper this morning as saying, as Government House Leader, that the only purpose of this legislation was to look after the situation in Surrey. The official opposition offered yesterday that if this government would change the wording of this particular legislation so that it dealt only with the situation in Surrey or brought in another bill, we would support it. The reason we are here today and will be here tomorrow is that they weren't being quite as open and honest as they should have been.

Clearly, if their interests were the children in Surrey, we would have dealt with this yesterday. It is clear that their interest is to create labour peace and to try and get through an election without any embarrassing incidents; that's the reason we are here today.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we seem to be having a debate now across the aisle, rather than one person speaking and the rest listening. Could I ask us to show that courtesy to the member.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate for us to look back and give some thought to what has happened in previous years when this kind of legislation has been brought into the House. Most members will remember, even if we weren't here at the time, that in 1990, through Bill 31, a previous administration, which is no longer with us, brought in similar legislation. What was said in this House by the Premier at that time?

"Every member of the public knows the way they" -- meaning that administration -- "have treated and used teachers as an election issue in British Columbia." Well, what has happened this time is that it's this Premier who is using kids as an election issue for the election of 1996. The present Premier went on at that time to say: "This bill, which stifles the collective bargaining process" -- now, does anyone recognize what this bill does? -- "demonstrates the kind of deliberate ignorance we've seen on the government benches with respect to labour negotiations."

All they had to do was designate education an essential service. All they had to do was allow one of the private bills that we have tabled in every single session of this parliament to be debated and passed. But they didn't really mean that.

[ Page 17047 ]

What else did the present Premier say back in 1990 when Bill 31 was being debated?

"I just want for the record to show that the minister, incompetent as he may be, clearly doesn't have any clue about this legislation. He goes into auto-rant with respect to the political line he has been asked to peddle. He probably knows as well that this legislation is stupid, and that's why he can't defend it."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that it's appropriate that the Premier stand up in this House today and repeat the words that he spoke on Bill 31, because they just as aptly apply to Bill 21.

[11:15]

We should be dealing with urgent issues in this House. We all believe that the situation in Surrey -- which may have in the meantime been settled; we understand there's a possibility -- is an urgent issue. This government has allowed over two million lost student-days during its term of office. Did they care then? What did they do then? Nothing.

An Hon. Member: They shrugged.

F. Gingell: They shrugged. The Minister of Education at the time said that perhaps the kids were better out of school than in it. But these things happen. When it comes to election time, when they don't want the record of this government to be facing them on the streets in the eyes of angry parents and disappointed children, they bring in this legislation. It is a cynical act of a cynical government. I'm surprised that members of the government have been able to stand up with straight faces and say so many of the things they've said this morning.

If they want to solve the problem, designate education as an essential service. Care not only for the children of Surrey, but care for them all over the province. Care for them not only in an election year, but care for them every year. Be assured, Mr. Speaker, as you and we all know, that education is critically important to the future and the quality of life of the citizens of this province. We shouldn't be playing around with it for crass election purposes.

K. Jones: It's indeed a pleasure to be here in this debate on Bill 21.

As a member representing the people of Surrey, this bill is a sham. This bill is being brought in to give a contract to unions that are in the process of negotiating -- and that may have already completed negotiations. This is not a crisis situation; this is a situation where there was good collective bargaining going on.

This government has a

schedule that they are working to, and this was interfering with their process and their timing of the election call. It is the way this whole scheme has been set up leading up to this election. This government, with its friends and insiders working with unions that have been working up controversy and what looked like and was promoted as a serious difficulty with the labour movement. . . . Then they come along and make soft agreements with the unions. They tie the workers to agreements that are supposed to make this government look good. This is the kind of scheming that is going on by this government.

We cannot stand for this kind of work: using the taxpayers' money, using the legislative process, so that this NDP government can stay in power. They are so power-hungry today that they will do anything -- literally anything -- to stay in power. They will connive; they will cheat; they will steal. The history of the NDP shows itself: the Nanaimo Bingogate -- stealing from charitable organizations, literally stealing from charities. What about Bingogate in Nanaimo? What about Hydrogate? This is where the people of this party have continued to show that they really. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. On a point of order, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I've got concerns about the words "stealing" and "cheating" being said. It's inferring that members on this side of the House are stealing and cheating, and I don't appreciate those comments.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Could I ask members to take their seats for a moment. Before we get into a long and protracted harangue on points of order, the member was not, I believe, making direct reference to any member of this chamber or this government, and therefore it seems to me that what he said is indeed within the rules of order. Member, please continue.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, of course I was only speaking to the party of principle -- a party that does not have any principles anymore. It is a party that will cheat, steal, or anything else in order to stay in power. That's what's wrong with this NDP government and this NDP party: they have compromised. They used to have principles; they used to stand for the working people. They don't stand for the working people today any longer. In fact, they do exactly what the working people have always opposed, and that's government interference in the collective bargaining process.

This is something that we've heard from these people for so long: "Don't interfere, government. Don't get in the way of the collective bargaining process. We can work it out." But when it comes down to staying in power, they will use anything to stay there, including throwing away their principles with regard to the labour movement and the labour negotiations process. They do not have any principles.

This process in Surrey was going along normally. Vince Ready, the mediator, was brought in to start negotiations. Vince Ready was not able to sit for a day in negotiations, where there was progress being made, when all of a sudden, to meet the

schedule of this government -- the

schedule to call an election next week. . . . That's what it's all about; it's calling an election this coming week. This

schedule of negotiations that was going on with Vince Ready, the school board and CUPE in Surrey was ceased by the order of this government, by the order of this Labour minister, who represents the people of Surrey -- or the people of Surrey thought they had a representative from Surrey-Newton that was representing them. No, she's just lockstepped into the struggle to stay in power by this NDP government. This is what we have: a very juvenile Labour minister, one who will not even stand up for the collective bargaining process over the principles or the lack of principles of her party.

If this had been allowed to proceed. . . . In spite of the fact that the government pulled the mediator out, the negotiations still proceeded. The negotiations proceeded such that yesterday, an offer was made to CUPE by the school board -- an offer that I understand today is very close to coming to a settlement, if it hasn't already been made. I'm awaiting word that there is a settlement in this dispute.

[ Page 17048 ]

This is the kind of hysteria that this government is trying to generate in the public's mind. They're trying to make it look like they are going to be the champions and protect the public from labour strife. Well, labour can look after itself. Labour has always been able to look after itself without the interference of government. Labour has been able to work with management through a process that has worked very well in this province, where there is collective bargaining, where the parties have to get together and work out what they can afford and what they desire. In the case that we have here, the school board has made a good case to try and bring about a settlement.

I'd like to sit down for a moment to allow an introduction by my colleague.

Deputy Speaker: The procedure is for the other member to ask for leave to make an introduction. Is the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast doing that?

Interjection.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the member giving me this opportunity, because I believe my guest has to leave shortly. I would like to introduce Richard Fahl, who is the Progressive Democratic Alliance candidate for Victoria-Beacon Hill. He is watching the proceedings here today.

K. Jones: What we have is a situation of a government that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia with a claim that they really are administering our province well when they have done the worst possible job of financial administration. They have created a totally unaccountable situation in British Columbia, where our debt is $10 billion greater than it was in 1991. That is the real problem in dealing with our ability to settle: to have enough funds for the operation of our schools and for the capital provision for our schools.

If we don't do something to reduce that debt, we will not be able to afford the necessary operating and capital costs that we have to spend today.

We need a whole lot more spending in those areas to keep up with the growth of our communities. In Surrey-Cloverdale and in Surrey overall, as a school district, we have not seen this government come up with the money to provide for the growth that has occurred in the area, let alone the catch-up required as a result of previous governments' lack of funding. Previous governments have not been able to put the funding up. . . . We have a situation in Surrey where there is insufficient capital to build the schools necessary to meet the growth of 2,000 students a year, which is projected to the year 2000 and beyond. We have a situation where our hospitals are inadequately funded.

This government claims it's protecting all these things. Well, what is it doing to protect them? It has done nothing. It has inadequately funded them, and it has forced our administrations to go to the bare bones of their operations. We have a situation where our environment is not even being adequately monitored. We have such short staff to monitor the whole Fraser Valley, as far as the environment is concerned. Again, this type of administration, this type of government financing, is causing the problem.

This bill has forced the Surrey School District to enter into an agreement that is going to be so costly that they will not be able to stay within their budget. Yet this government is forcing them to stay within their budget. What does that tell us? That tells us that this government is forcing our school district to cut services to the students; they will be cutting services to the students as a result of this government. It is because of that that they are now forcing a labour agreement upon the school district without even providing the opportunity for the school district to work with the workers they are employing to find a just and equitable settlement.

This agreement has another factor that is of great concern to us, and that is the very, very strong possibility that this agreeement could be imposed retroactively upon any previous agreement where there was a mediation process in place. The wording of this legislation makes it possible for this government, if it's favourable to its union friends, to introduce changes to an agreement that was mediated several years ago and bring it in at this time. I think the wording of this is very sloppy. It is totally unnecessary and totally inadequate.

[11:30]

Hon. Speaker, we need to free the process. We need to bring in the essential services legislation that this side of the House, this Liberal caucus, has brought forward four times now. It would have dealt with this issue. It would not have just dealt with it for a two-month period to get by an election but would have dealt with it on on ongoing basis, no matter when there was a labour dispute. We cannot allow our children to be used as pawns; we cannot allow our patients to be used as pawns in labour negotiations. That has to end.

J. Tyabji: I'd almost forgotten what it was like to be in these buildings. It's been 264 days since the last legislative sitting.

I'm shocked and disappointed and surprised by the government's action. I'm surprised we're here on a Saturday, but I'm more surprised by the reasons we're here. I think it's fair to say that although one might be disappointed in the position being taken by the official opposition, and even by the third party, one would look to this government on labour issues and assume that here there would be some labour sympathy, that there would be some idea of what the interests of employees, labour leaders and the people who look to organized labour are, and some idea of where they want to be in terms of the overall philosophy and principles that are associated with organized labour.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Let me put this on the record, because the member for Skeena is asking how I voted on the Labour Code. It is well known in these buildings and well known in my riding and by leaders of the labour movement that I'm not a union sympathizer and I was not a union organizer in the past. My family background is on the management side. We're from the business sector. I've never belonged to a union. So that's where I'm coming from, and I have to say that this government's position on labour is completely unacceptable. Shame on them! Shame on this government for trying to take something. . . .

The member for Victoria-Beacon Hill talked about political expediency, and there's no other word for it: it is politically expedient. The reason this government has chosen this is that they've forgotten why they were elected. This government was not elected to get re-elected. This government was not elected to serve the interests of the elected members.

[ Page 17049 ]

An Hon. Member: They won it by default.

J. Tyabji: The member for Peace River North says the government won by default, and that may be the case. Regardless, this government came forward and had a mandate from the people who supported this government. One thing that we should never lose sight of in this Legislature is that each of us has a mandate. If we don't honour that mandate and if we sell out to political expediency, the voters will not forget. They don't forget, especially the people in the labour sector.

I listened to the Minister of Labour with absolute shock. This is the Minister of Labour for an NDP government, and she gave an argument in favour of this bill that it is an argument for essential service designation -- period, absolutely. There was no time limit on the argument that she gave. The justification that she gave for this bill is the same justification that these people who call themselves Liberals are giving for their position on labour, a position which people who are real Liberals are having a very difficult time with. We know this because we speak with them daily and because many of them are joining our party.

For those paying attention to this debate who are looking for reason and sanity in the workplace and in the labour sector, and for those labour leaders who are watching and who have a very difficult time with their membership right now -- members who are turning to them and saying, "How could you be so milquetoast? How come we're not demonstrating in the streets?

How come we're not leading marches against this government?" -- and for those labour leaders right now who are telling their members, "It's because we're deathly afraid that one of the two opposition parties will come in and be even meaner. . . ." I tell those labour leaders that we have a home for you. There is a party in this Legislature that will respect the decades and decades of trying to get to a position where we have some sort of common sense in our labour standards and in the work environment and in the economy of British Columbia.

This government has said for the past four and a half years that the reason there's labour peace is that they've been good managers of the economy -- they brought in the Labour Code, and the Labour Code is such a great piece of legislation that there hasn't been labour unrest. That's not entirely true; that's not the only reason.

Let's talk about the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour and the comments he made when he was in Kelowna on a radio show, which I happen to know a lot about because I was interviewing him on this.

An Hon. Member: What's his name?

J. Tyabji: Mr. Georgetti. He said at the time: "I make no bones about it. I'm not hiding the fact that the B.C. Federation of Labour supports the NDP. We support the NDP -- we are tied to the NDP -- because the NDP is constitutionally tied to organized labour." Well, how quickly the NDP will sell out their raison d'�tre -- the people they are supposed to represent. How quickly they will push them aside and say: "Look, guys, it's just for 60 days. It's just until we get a renewed mandate, and then we're friends again." What happens the next time the government needs something that's politically expedient?

It doesn't have to be organized labour; it can be any group that this government has made a commitment to, and then it doesn't become politically expedient for them to fulfil that commitment, for whatever the justification. The principles are gone.

The reason we've had relative labour peace is that the people in the labour sector are afraid of the options. They don't need to be; there are other options. There should be no more blackmail in political affiliations in this province, because there's no need for it.

This government was elected in 1991 with a mandate for change. The reason some of the talks are breaking down right now is that there's been no significant structural change to the way we do business in British Columbia -- nothing. We're still on zero-base budgeting; we still have annual budgets; we still have, at the grass-roots level, significant insecurity. In fact our budget, provincially, is going to be six weeks late before it comes in. Every school board in this province is plagued with insecurity.

An Hon. Member: The ones that are left.

J. Tyabji: The ones that are left. And every hospital board in this province is worried. They're not just worried about a budget which is nonexistent at this point. They're not just worried about the health accord and what this could mean if there's a mediated settlement which is going to increase the cost of the health accord and this government's not going to increase funding.

They're worried about these regional health board and community health council animals that this government imposed in 1993 and has just left, with hundreds and hundreds of hours of volunteers at the community level spending time away from their families, taking time out of their community to serve on the community health councils and regional health boards, which three years later are toothless -- absolutely powerless bodies. This government has given no leadership on that. They've spent money on it.

We've got the two opposition parties saying they'd get rid of them, which is no comfort to the people who've spent all this time on them. There are communities who have developed plans for health care. They're prepared to take over from the hospital boards, and there's no leadership there.

There's no labour security, no community security, because of this government. The structure has not changed. It doesn't help to eliminate a few school boards if you don't give them direction, if you don't give them some idea of base financing, long-term capital budgeting, which doesn't exist right now.

Hon. Speaker, if there is a problem -- and there is -- in Surrey, this problem is not a surprise to this government. This problem didn't suddenly crop up on Thursday night. The issues which are coming up in the health accord, with the expiry of many union contracts on March 31, were not suddenly sprung on this government.

In fact, I know that some of the scribes who are with us today were writing about them in the fall. Mr. Twigg and Mr. Palmer were writing about some of the implications of the union contracts coming up months ago.

And although we all know how brilliant the scribes in the press gallery are, I'm just assuming that this government has as least as good research, with their hundreds and hundreds of staff; that they didn't suddenly realize, "Oh my goodness, it's April and all the contracts expired in March"; that this government had some idea of planning; and that they weren't so caught up with their leadership race and so caught up with their internal political problems that they forgot to govern. We would assume that they remembered they were still in government.

[ Page 17050 ]

So what we have here is a classic example of politics taking priority over governance.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for Peace River North is correct: it's incompetence. It's completely incompetent in terms of governance. Governance is what this party was elected to do, not politics.

Hon. Speaker, we're in the fifth year of this government. We are in a province where most people recognize we should have fixed election dates. This government could have avoided these things if they had had a fall election last year. They could have had an election in the fall of 1995. At that point they could have gone to the people and said: "Well, here's our record. Let's go to the polls." They didn't do that, because politics didn't allow them to do that.

They saw this window of opportunity because they poll and they poll and they poll. I for one am absolutely sick and tired of being governed by polls, provincially and federally. I'm tired of having polls shoved down my throat, telling me what I want from my government, and then the next day reading it in the newspaper. In fact, we have, when the news is very good. . . . But that aside, we cannot afford to have government by polling anymore.

This government found out that their polls were looking a little bit good, and they got quite excited about that because it hadn't happened for a long time. They set up their election agenda, which included the dropping of the writ. But what was interfering with that election agenda was that they hadn't been governing properly. They hadn't been paying attention to the school boards and the public sector workers and the hospitals. And it is not just the labour unrest that's a problem. That's only a problem in the short term for this government.

If we dig a little deeper, and if we look at the budgets of the hospitals around the province right now -- notwithstanding $25 million gratuitously being dumped in a pre-election promise -- if we look at what's going on in the school districts with special needs. . . . What about some special needs programs that are being cut? What about what this government is doing to some of the programs around the province? What about anti-poverty funding? What about the food banks, with the longest lineups yet? An institution which didn't exist 15 years ago. . .record numbers of people.

And the food banks are not just accepting those who we like to sort of hand a nickel to once in a while when we are walking down the street. We have all these shopping bags, and we feel guilty, so we throw them a loonie once in a while. That's not who the food banks are welcoming anymore. You know who they have now? They have people who were just previously middle-income families. And the number one recipient of free food in this province is children.

So the food bank lines are getting longer, the demand is getting higher and we have record numbers of people on welfare. The employment statistics are no comfort right now, because they don't show the people who have stopped looking for work. They don't show the people who went from $15 an hour to minimum-wage, part-time jobs with no benefits. And this government buys time on BCTV to tell us how good things are. But they have to bring in legislation to shut down people who would normally be their friends, because even people who would be their friends are prepared to take job action because things are so bad.

This government has not been governing. That's the problem. You can't fix a lack of governance with a piece of legislation that's supposed to put a little band-aid on it before you go to the polls. That's like taking out a little piece of Elastoplast and putting it on a severed limb. "Oh well, that looks much better" -- only from a distance, maybe if you hold it ten feet away and then you don't see what's going on.

This government should start to deal with the problems and recognize them. If they governed, if they acknowledged the issues, then we would be in better shape. But the fact that we are here on a Saturday. . . . The greatest irony of this is that not having sat for 264 days, when they do finally get around to calling the House in the most blatant display of pre-election electioneering on public money. . . . I have to give this government credit. They have done a better job of using the taxpayers' money to try to get themselves re-elected than the Socreds did in 1991.

[11:45]

They've done more than the Socreds did. They sent home glossy publications with school children. They used the children of this province to take home election propaganda paid for by the taxpayers of this province. That was something the Socreds hadn't even thought of. You've got to give them marks for that. Boy, they took it even further.

Two days into a session, which this government has called for cosmetic reasons, and they actually hit an issue. The issues were too big for them to call the House for even five days and not hit a serious issue. So they call it for a couple of days. One of the issues starts to crop up, bubbling to the surface, and they can sense that it's like trying to stick a finger in the hole of the dike.

If they don't do that, the whole thing is coming down, because there is going to be sector after sector lining up and saying that actually, now that we think about it, we have a problem: we have a problem in health care; we have a problem in transit; we have a problem when it comes to social services; we have all of these problems lining up. This government tried to put a lid on it. It's not fooling anybody.

I want to take a second to talk about the image of the children that we keep using here. Hon. Speaker, you know that any time you want to get people really emotional about an issue, any time a government wants to get people lined up to go to war and have themselves killed for something, you can use some pretty powerful images. Any time you want to justify something that would normally be unjustifiable, pull out the image of the children. Let's use that as a political football. Let's talk about children, and somehow that becomes a political football that nobody wants to touch. Oh dear, is it better for the children? Then we'll do it.

If this government cared about children, if they cared about education, they could have done something four and a half years ago. They could have said four and a half years ago that the structure of education is not working. They could have gone to four-year-based financing. They could have said that we're going to have long-term capital planning; we're going to include demographic projections for growth; we're going to start to get away from annual budgets, which lead to insecurity; and we're going to make sure that educators do not constantly feel under pressure to get into the political arena.

In fact, some of them on the executive of the BCTF are under so much pressure to get into the political arena that they are running for the NDP now, which could explain why there's a deafening silence from some of the labour leaders. Hon. Speaker, you know that there are labour leaders in this province who are too busy campaigning in the re-election offices of the NDP to represent their own members. They've forgotten their mandate.

[ Page 17051 ]

I feel really strange, as someone who is not a union sympathizer, telling the labour leaders of this province that you have a job to do, and your job is not to re-elect the NDP; your job is to represent your members. If it were a Socred government, you'd get out there and march; if it's an NDP government. . . . I don't care who's in government, your dues are being paid by your members, you're being elected by your members, and you get out there and you represent your members.

And Mr. Georgetti, if you're listening, I heard what you said when you were in Kelowna. If I'd had any idea that you would say something very different when this government came out with this kind of legislation, I would have hammered you in Kelowna. I was very polite, because I believed you when you said that you had a mandate and that you represented every working woman and man in this province. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I said: "Okay, ideologically we're different, but you really believe in what you're doing. You seem to." If you don't get up, Mr. Georgetti, and represent your members. . . .

Well, I'm sure your members will have something to say about that, because I've already talked to some of them.

I want to mention on the record that the president of the North Okanagan labour council, Mr. Jeff Fox, who is actively campaigning for the NDP, had the courage to stand up and say that what the government is doing is wrong. And do you know what he did? He represented his members. I'm not sure how much heart he's going to put into running their campaign, but I'm sure they'll have to deal with that themselves.

This is a slippery slope, what this government is doing. This government has now opened the door wide to the Mike Harris style of dealing with unions -- to what our friends in the Liberal Party would do.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Mr. Skeena Representative, don't tell me that it's over there, because this piece of legislation is from your benches. This NDP government is bringing in. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We all understand the rules: through the Chair, please. Let us all hear what the member has to say.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very meek, and I get drowned out easily.

The member for Skeena was saying that the members on this bench are somehow responsible for this legislation, which of course is. . . .

G. Wilson: That's true. They're trying to steal their election issue.

J. Tyabji: Ah, the leader of the PDA points out that the NDP are trying once again to steal a right-wing election issue, and that's true, because this government is trying to govern by polls. And if the polls temporarily show that a right-wing agenda item is popular, instead of this government trying to stand on their principles, explain their position and fight for what they believe in, they will cave in to that poll. They will try to take that right-wing agenda item.

They will say, "This was our first idea; we had it first; we're in government, and we're going to implement it; we're going to downsize the school boards" -- with no demonstrated budgetary impact, no plan in place ahead of time, just: "We're going to make them smaller. We're going to have fewer of them, because that seems to be the flavour of the month."

The bottom line here, and the issue that we cannot get away from, is the slippery slope. As somebody who is not a union sympathizer, I have watched in other countries where people fight for the right to organize, to bargain freely and to have unions, and I have followed enough history to know how many people have given their lives in other countries and other jurisdictions for the right to organize.

Why are we, as we approach the next millennium in British Columbia, trying to take a step backward when we have a government which has been elected not only with some of the financing of organized labour in this province but with the sweat and the time and the energy of people who trusted them to represent their interests? Why is this government taking us backward? Why would this government, on the eve of an election, burn their own people? Why would they turn on their own people? I don't understand that, because all of these workers must be wondering how they can possibly work for people who would so quickly push them aside if they think that's convenient.

To our new Premier, I would say, for the Premier's interest, that if there is something outstanding, such as labour unrest or an issue which might be coming up in Surrey, or anywhere else for that matter, then he had better deal with it. That's his job. His job is not to try to get re-elected; his job is to govern. And if the people feel that he has governed effectively and fairly, then they will endorse that vision.

To this point, especially given this piece of legislation, I don't know how anyone can have any confidence that he knows from one 24-hour period to the next which direction he's going in, because right now he seems to be running in several directions at once and, depending on what suits the needs of the strategists of the NDP, they will introduce legislation accordingly.

I didn't think that I would even have a chance to speak in this session, because we were told it was going to be four to five days. We thought it would be a throne speech reflecting back on prior accomplishments, and instead we had a number of promises.

I want to put on the record that since we are here, we'd better get to work. Because there are a lot of promises that this government has made to the people of this province, and we're expecting to see some results, especially now.

We'd better earn the trust of the people with our record in this Legislature, and this Premier had better understand that he's got a lot of bridges to rebuild here, not just with the people in the labour sector who worked and paid money to finance this government into power and who are now prepared to sit on their hands because they are afraid they might elect something scarier -- not just because of those people, but because the people of this province have no confidence that they will know where this government is going from one day to the next.

[ Page 17052 ]

Seeing the time, I move that we adjourn debate.

J. Tyabji moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 1:00 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 11:57 a.m to 1:03 p.m.

The Speaker: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 21.

EDUCATION AND HEALTH COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

( second reading continued )

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, before I conclude my comments I want to clarify something for the record. When I spoke prior to lunch, I named the number of days that we had been in recess since the last sitting, and it sounded like a lot. I talked about 264 days, and I thought, gee, that number is way too high. So we asked our researchers to check it out, and our research assistant discovered that the number was incorrect. I want to make sure that Hansard clarifies for the record that it was 286 days since the prior sitting.

It was my fault for making the mistake; I think I reversed the numbers. But what's interesting is that when you mention a number like that, not only has there been the sort of contempt for this parliament that's been shown by the NDP but they are even prepared to laugh at that number and try to render it insignificant. And obviously it's not.

Somewhere in that 286 days, this government could have realized that their number one job is to take care of governing the province, and that includes all the items covered by this bill. This bill does not deal with anything that has recently come up. Every item in it, every person who will be affected by it, was in existence prior to the House being called last Thursday. It's really unfortunate that we have a political agenda taking precedence over the agenda of the government.

There's such a sense of déj� vu. First of all, last year when I stood -- and I think it was in the response to the Speech from the Throne -- I made the comment that this is the laziest Legislature in the country. That was a comment that actually managed to ripple its way across to some of the other legislatures, probably envious of our poor record, wishing that they could also have so much time to spend in their constituencies or travelling or whatever it is that some of the MLAs do when they're not in the Legislature.

This year our record is worse than it was last year: 286 days out of a year with 365 days is a pretty appalling record to take into an election campaign, notwithstanding the legislation in front of us and notwithstanding that this government has brought in a throne speech which on its surface is purely cosmetic. They have the opportunity to pursue some of the initiatives that they brought in in the throne speech, but none of us are expecting them to do that. That in itself is an abuse of parliament, and it will be an abuse which we will bring up again and again during the election campaign. They can count on it.

With respect to the bill in front of us, I can't state strongly enough how dangerous this move is that the government has made.

What they've done, in effect, is validated those cries from people who are saying: "Here is a serious problem that must be dealt with." For those, as I say, on a right-wing agenda who will say, "Get rid of unions altogether," which is at the bottom of this slippery slope and is the end result of the argument given by the Minister of Labour today when she was speaking in the House, for those who will be fighting for the elimination of unions, for those who will be saying that an essential service is anybody who happens to be working on a payroll that's paid by the taxpayers, for those who will push that agenda, this government has begun the process to meet that agenda.

This government has said, in effect, that there are times when they will justify the arbitrary removal of the rights of the working women and men in this province.

I would prefer if they would just say: "Well, we've just decided that we're going to completely change our principles and philosophies, not suspend them for an election campaign. Okay, guys, we happen to think that the people of this province no longer want public sector unions, because we've been listening to the Liberals and to the Reform Party. Heck, we've got to go into an election campaign, and those are the big guys to beat, so we're going to take on that agenda item. We're going to get rid of public sector unions having the right to strike." If they did that, it would be a lot more honest.

That would be saying: "Okay, we're going to do something that's totally against our principles. We're going to do it because we've been listening to people, and we happen to believe that the majority of people believe this."

I actually don't believe this is the case, because I've talked to my constituents. It's an interesting progression that has occurred in the last few years with those who were at that time calling for an end to any kind of right to strike for public sector unions. As the economy has worsened, people have started to change their perspective on the workforce.

They would like the government to take action that is more than just short-term, that's more than just dealing with something in a cosmetic way, but that has to do with governance: changing the financing structure, changing the way things are set up, increasing the security of financing for our public sector, local governance. Whether it's a hospital board or a school board -- whatever it is that they're dealing with -- whether it's a regional health board, which is the new animal that is supposed to come in after the election. . . .

Those labour leaders who are watching owe it to their members to tell them the long-term implications of what this bill means. I know that the leader of the PDA is going to address some of the ramifications of what's happened in British Columbia in the past. Let's not pretend that this is something we can take lightly, and let's not pretend that any one of these members who comes from a union background would have an easy time with this if it were anybody else introducing it. Let's also not pretend that they haven't sold out for expediency, for an election campaign, the very principles that they're just about to go into the campaign espousing.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, as we near the end of the mandate of the current government, this bill, Bill 21, may be one of the final pieces of legislation that we deal with in the House. Perhaps it is appropriate that at this late juncture, it's one of the most cynical, manipulative and dishonest bills that this province has ever seen.

As I was preparing for the debate today, I had occasion to look back at the Hansard of 1990, when the Social Credit government of the day decided that they were going to legislate the teachers of the province back to work. There are some intriguing comments from the former minister who now sits as the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 17053 ]

Speaking in Hansard in July 1990, the current Premier said: "Every member of the public knows the way they have treated and used teachers as an election issue in British Columbia." He talked about the bill stifling collective bargaining and demonstrating "the kind of deliberate ignorance we've seen on the government benches with respect to labour negotiations." It gets better.

The current Premier said: "I just want, for the record, to show that the minister, incompetent as he may be, clearly doesn't have any clue about this legislation." He goes on to talk about the fact that the people had basically been duped, and that's why the minister of the day couldn't defend the legislation. Now, that was the minister in 1990, and today he introduces legislation in this assembly to do exactly the same thing.

I ask myself: how could he have undergone this transformation in the course of four years? As I listened to the debate this morning, it was readily apparent that the reason why he has been able to make this transition is that in Surrey, at least, the fix with regard to the CUPE union is definitely in.

This morning in the debate, the Leader of the Opposition introduced a copy of "Table Talk," which is the newsletter of the Canadian Union of Public Employees' local in Surrey. The newsletter spells out a series of negotiations which have been going on between the Premier's Office and that union, totally separate from the negotiations between the school board and its unionized employees: an under-the-table relationship between the government, reaching into the office of the Premier, and this particular union. The quotes were read into the record, but I think it's important to read them again.

The newsletter says: "After many long and often frustrating hours, your CUPE bargaining committee has accepted the appointment of Vince Ready as an industrial inquiry commissioner. This difficult decision was made late Tuesday afternoon, after the direct intervention of. . ." -- the Premier.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The direct intervention of the Premier.

Further on, it talks about the negotiations. They were called into the Premier's office at one point during these negotiations: "At the Premier's office we talked with government representatives, who asked us to consider alternatives." Imagine that: you're a school trustee in the city of Surrey, negotiating in good faith with the unionized workforce, knowing that secret, under-the-table meetings are going in the very office of the Premier of the province. The reality in the city of Surrey. . . .

It's entirely appropriate that we should be dealing with this bill, considering that the city of Surrey and the students in that district have had more interrupted days of schooling in the last four years than at any time in the history of the province -- more lost student-days. As we get to the last, dying days of the government, when they have resisted entreaties from this side of the House to declare education an essential service, when they introduced a back-to-work bill in 1993 after a month-long strike and imposed a settlement at that time which the school board couldn't afford -- imposed it anyway. . . .

After all those lost days and a steadfast refusal to deal with education as an essential service, we now have a bill, with an election pending, which will get the government through the next 28 days without a strike or a lockout, supposedly, in the public sector. It runs out on June 30, and we're right back into it again after that. Isn't that a tremendous commitment to the students and the teachers and the parents in the Surrey School District? "Hey, we'll guarantee you school for 28 days; beyond that, all bets are off."

[1:15]

Well, it's typical. It's understandable. But there's a more sinister side to this debate than merely politics and electioneering. It's about the relationship between the Premier's Office and the CUPE union in Surrey -- those secret, under-the-table negotiations that I alluded to earlier.

Part of the recommendations that were supposed to settle this strike, the union voted to accept. The school board couldn't accept them. What will happen with this legislation is that, once again, the government of the day will undoubtedly order a settlement based on those job security recommendations that the board, on behalf of the taxpayers, can't live with. Once again, we are going to see which side of the fence the government is on, and we are going to see this government reward its friends in the CUPE union in the school district of Surrey at the expense of parents, students and, ultimately, the taxpayers of the province.

It's entirely appropriate that at this late date we should be dealing with a bill that basically unmasks the priorities of the government. Those priorities are to protect the interests of its union friends at all costs and provide them with job security provisions that -- make no mistake about it -- will have implications far beyond the school district of Surrey. Those dynamited job guarantees will carry implications for every school district in the province, because they will form a basis on which other unions will undoubtedly approach the bargaining table.

Should there be a strike in the next 28 days, the government will undoubtedly accept the recommendations of that inquiry commissioner in Surrey, who has recommended a settlement the district can't afford, and the government will order every other district, or every other CUPE local, back with those kind of recommendations built in. Is it any wonder that people of the province are cynical about whether the government really represents their interests?

When the district trustees in Surrey advised their constituents of these secret negotiations between the Premier's Office and CUPE, what was the public supposed to think? Why do they go to the polls to elect school trustees? What is the purpose of electing a local school board in British Columbia anymore, if something as vitally important as negotiations with a public sector union at the local level are hijacked by the government for political purposes? What assurances can we have that there won't be more deals?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. There appears to be quite a bit of chatter on the side, which is making it very difficult for the Speaker to hear the debate. Please restrain yourselves.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted that the Premier has returned to the chamber, because I can remind him of some other comments that he made in Hansard . He said: "The Socreds are playing political games with our children's education. We're working towards ending the school conflicts, while the Socreds are continuing to prolong them." That's what he said: prolong them. Well, they're going to be prolonged -- but not beyond June 30, with this bill. They'd be prolonged well past the 30th if this government were to be re-elected, and we know that can't possibly happen.

But if it did, the deal is good for 28 days -- a 28-day deal which just happens to coincide with the amount of time it takes to complete a provincial campaign.

This legislation has a dual purpose for the government. It provides the union with the support and the job guarantees

[ Page 17054 ]

they were looking for, and it enables the government, if they want to, to order them back to work according to a deal the taxpayers can't afford. How can you possibly, if you're in government, get a better deal than that? Five years' worth of job guarantees for the union in Surrey. And according to "Table Talk," they got the deal out of the Premier's Office. That's how they did it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan West rises on what matter?

C. Serwa: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. I take your admonishment very sincerely, and I note a great deal of entertainment and voices coming from the government benches. I would encourage those members to stand up and speak up and defend their particular position, rather than heckling.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The point of order is well taken, and I would hope that the members would adhere to the request by the hon. member.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, in the last 24 hours, members of the opposition have had certain discussions with the board of trustees in the city of Surrey, who are despairing of the process that they've been forced to endure and the fact that the government has taken direct involvement and intervention in these contract talks, which are supposed to rest at the local level, based on the ability of the taxpayers to pay. When they pick up a union newsletter and read of the involvement of the Premier's Office, the midnight calls on these negotiations. . . . Who are they negotiating with? I mean, talk about friends in high places. How can you get a friend higher than that -- in the Premier's office?

This bill has nothing to do with protecting education in the province, protecting students. It's nothing more than an election document. It's another table-setting election document. After four and a half years, I don't know how members opposite can stand and claim they're defending public education in British Columbia.

Not too long ago the Premier made an announcement about election funding in British Columbia. Supposedly the government was committed to not passing on the federal transfer payment cuts. But that wasn't the message three months ago. Three months ago the government wanted $80 million cuts in public education. They said then that. . . . The cuts were being blamed on the federal government: "We're going to cut you dollar for dollar, and if you don't like it, go to Ottawa." That was the message.

On the road to Damascus or Armageddon or whatever else it is, the government underwent a dramatic conversion. All of a sudden they could maintain funding for education -- another promise good for 28 days. I wonder how the former Minister of Education feels, who, during the. . . . I don't see him here today, but I wonder how he feels, because during the amalgamation process, he had to go around the province and tell school districts that he was cutting 80 million bucks out of their budget. He said he had to have it.

The Minister of Finance told him: "I've got to get $80 million out of my budget for Education." I wonder how he feels now, with a new Premier making a commitment that he could never get as the Minister of Education from the previous Premier and the Minister of Finance. How does he feel now? The minister says he's not running in the next election. Well, I can understand why.

How do you go, in a three-month period, from $80 million down to $16 million up? You can do it if you're only going to do it for 28 days. Of course you can do it; it's easy. You can do anything. You can freeze ICBC rates; you can freeze hydro rates. You can do anything when you're only going to honour it for 28 days. That's what this legislation is all about. It's a 28-day job guarantee that will have no meaningful impact except to saddle taxpayers with settlements they can't afford.

We ask ourselves in this assembly why the public is cynical about what we do. They wonder why it is that governments just can't get it right, why they can't put the public interest ahead of the interests of their friends, why -- after four and a half years of taking education out of the Labour Code as an essential service, after denying there was a problem, after Surrey students have lost more days than at any other period of time in the history of the province -- they bring in a bill now to get them through the next 28 days and expect the public to react with positive and glowing commendation for the government.

It's cynical in the extreme. It's why people have rejected what happens in this assembly and what the government is doing, because they can see through this kind of thing. I have news for the members opposite: they can see through this kind of thin veneer that we're dealing with here today.

I just say it's entirely appropriate that this bill should be one of the last ones we deal with, because on many occasions in this assembly I've got up to talk about the government's secret agenda on so many issues. So many times there are the public spin doctors and the public pronouncements, and then under the table there's the agenda that you don't see, the agenda that as I said earlier is described in "Table Talk," of discussions between the Premier's Office and the CUPE local in Surrey.

You're not going to read anything about that in the government announcements. You're not going to hear them talk about how they went around the school board and school trustees to get a deal in Surrey and how, after the district had rejected the job security recommendations, the Premier of the province decided he was going to bring in a bill that would enable the government to force an end to the strike, based on those same job security recommendations that the trustees had rejected.

That's what we are dealing with here: a 28-day election guarantee for the government and a reward for a union that has supported the government very well over the last four and a half years. And that's the government legacy on protecting education after four and a half years.

I am going to close by reading into the record. . . .

Interjections.

W. Hurd: I feel compelled to defend the former Minister of Education, who I'm sure is delighted, on the one hand, that the government is making a commitment that he couldn't honour as minister.

Anyway, in 1993 this Legislative Assembly returned to duty on a weekend to end the last strike in the Surrey School District. The minister of the day -- and I'm going to read what he had to say, because I think it's important -- when he was talking about why the government needed the bill. . . . It was the former member from Esquimalt, now the Minister of Environment, who said: "The purpose of this bill is to support collective bargaining where it is working and to fix it where it is broken." That was the purpose of the last bill in 1993: to legislate an end to the school strikes in Vancouver and Surrey at that time.

[ Page 17055 ]

From that time to this time -- three years -- nothing has changed. In the Surrey School District, three weeks ago parents still were not sure on Sunday evening whether they were to take their children to school the next day. If these members opposite had only received some of the calls that I got in my office from parents who were absolutely outraged that while they had to listen to the radio in the morning to find out whether they could take their kids to school, the Premier's Office was in discussion overnight with the CUPE union to decide whether that strike should go ahead.

Isn't that a tremendous commitment to the parents and students in the Surrey School District! They'll find out from the radio; CUPE will find out directly from the Premier's Office. That just about says it all with respect to this legislation.

So it's time that we had real essential-service legislation in the province to protect our school children. And we're not talking about rescinding collective bargaining rights. We're talking about affording schools the same protection that hospitals enjoy in the province. Surely the future of our kids is worth the same as patients in British Columbia, and I hear from parents that it is. We need that kind of essential service legislation, not some sham of a bill designed to get us through a 28-day election window. We need real commitment to students and parents in the province.

I say to the government and to the Premier, which had a lot to say in 1990 about this legislation: shame on them. Shame on them for the last four and a half years for the uncertainty that has resulted for parents and students in the city of Surrey! Shame on them, because this bill is not fooling anyone!

[1:30]

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and support this bill. I listened with intent. . . .

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: You had your last grasp earlier on today, hon. member.

The hon. member before me, the member for Surrey-White Rock, asked a very critical question, and that was: "Whose side are you on? Whose side is the government on?" I am pleased to answer him. We're on the side of parents; we're on the side of students; we're on the side of education. In Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam, this government has been on the side of school construction, opposed by the opposition. This government has been on the side of funding school operating grants by increasing them every year. This government has been on the side of education for four and a half years, and with this piece of legislation it proves once again that it is on the side of parents and students.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

The hon. member for Victoria-Hillside on a point of order.

R. Blencoe: I really want to hear this speech. It's critical to the government, I believe. But it's very hard with the wall of shame, with their coffee club over here, speaking.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

R. Blencoe: Perhaps you could ask the wall of shame to be quiet.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, if we can have some decorum in order to proceed with the debate, it would be much appreciated.

M. Farnworth: This piece of legislation, according to the opposition, is somehow a cooked-up deal to reward the CUPE union. This piece of legislation deals with a problem, and that is: what happens if the Legislature is dissolved and there's an election -- which lasts 28 days -- and there's no method in place for the government to resolve a labour dispute?

Hon. Speaker, 73 out of 75 districts have resolved their labour problems and arrived at a contract. Two districts haven't: one is Surrey, and the other, Coquitlam. My own district of Coquitlam is currently in mediation, and I hope that mediation reaches an agreement.

In the case of Surrey, that has failed, despite the best efforts of both the union and the mediator, and despite a school board that does not seem to want to reach an agreement. So we are left with no choice.

J. Tyabji: I wonder who they talked to.

M. Farnworth: The hon. member says: "I wonder who they talked to." I'd like to see a record of the phone calls between that school board and the offices of the Liberal Party to see what their strategy was. I can tell you, if there is an election and there had been a strike, they'd be the first ones jumping up and down, going: "Why wasn't something done? Why can't the government act?" Because we are in the middle of an election campaign, they know we wouldn't be able to. It was part of their strategy, I believe, to do just that.

Unfortunately, we've dealt with it, and parents are spared the problems of the children crossing or having to deal with picket lines, because their kids will now be in school. The collective bargaining process has been preserved. What's happening is that the government has shown leadership in dealing with a problem that I and many of us believe is the direct result of politicking by a local school board. It's no coincidence that in the district of Coquitlam, the chair of the school board is a Liberal candidate and has been extremely reluctant. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, that member knows full well that the chair of the Coquitlam School District is no longer the chair of the Coquitlam School District and has stepped aside. He should know that.

The Speaker: Order, please. That was not a valid point of order. Matters such as the one raised can be clarified when members take their place in a debate.

M. Farnworth: Let's put it this way: if she isn't, it's news to everybody, including the media. The fact of the matter is that she still sits on the board, she still has a vote, and she still manipulates and controls that school board like she always has.

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock asked: "Whose side are you on?" Whether it's school construction, whether it's school funding, this government has shown that it's on the side of children and parents. We contrast that with the

opposi-

[ Page 17056 ]

tion's message. For the next four and a half years, this government -- and it will be this government again -- will be on the side of students and parents and education.

We contrast that, because parents want to know what a $1.1 billion tax break for corporations is going to do for education. It's going to hurt it. What is a $3 billion cut to public services going to do when the largest expenditure is on health care and education? It's going to hurt it and it's going to cripple it. It's not going to build schools; it's not going to put teachers into schools. It's going to result in a reduction of funding to students and to schools in this province. That's what they have to explain. We know whose side we're on; they don't. They have yet to decide.

They know they're on the side of corporations, but that's as far as they go. They still cannot tell the people of this province how they're going to remove $3 billion from the budget and not have it impact education.

They are trying to say that somehow they believe in education, and they don't. My question to them is: what are you going to do with this piece of legislation? How are you going to vote? At the end of the day, are you going to stand up and vote the way that your arguments have been? Are you going to have the courage to change, as you like to say? Are you going to have the courage of your own comments of this morning and vote against this piece of legislation? My bet is that you won't. The fact of the matter is that this piece of legislation is what parents and students want.

It's in the interests of education, and it's in the interests of this province. And that's why I urge them to vote for it.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 21. As I do, I'd like you to sit back, relax and close your eyes, and let me take you on a journey into time: the date is October 7, 1975. Hon. Speaker, you were sitting in the House at that time. You were here. You had more hair -- much more hair, in fact, hon. Speaker. Here we were sitting at a time when the New Democratic Party in power brought the House into a special session, and brought in standing order 81 so that they could introduce Bill 146 and be permitted to advance it through all stages in the same day.

That bill was to give them an opportunity for 90 days of strike-free time so that then Premier, Mr. Barrett, could run an election -- and could run that election free from labour strife. Back then on October 7, 1975, the opposition of the day -- the Socreds -- allowed the motion to be approved. And as we look at Hansard , we heard the exact same discussion from the opposite benches -- then the government of the day, from Labour minister Mr. King -- as we hear today.

We hear about how they have to do this as much as it runs against their principles; about how their position is that they have to protect the interests of the people of British Columbia; and about how much they didn't want to introduce this 90-day freeze, but that it had a sunset time, a sunset period, and that after that 90-day period we could go back to business as usual. Isn't it something? Just when you think this government has elected a new leader, has put on a new face and is actually going to do something that's different, we find out: there it was, exactly the same as it was, again.

What did labour say back then when that was brought in? I'll tell you what labour said about Bill 146. I quote the B.C. Federation of Labour, which had a president then who was perhaps just a little bit more forceful with respect to the government that we have today. It said: "Rarely in modern times has any government in Canada interfered so brutally in free collective bargaining. No government has engaged in strike breaking on such a massive scale."

Hon. Speaker, here we have it again. This government, desperate for an election window, has decided they're going to bring in a piece of legislation, and that piece of legislation is to give them a period of time when they can have strike-free electioneering.

If it wasn't such an abuse of the authority and power of this government, if it wasn't such a complete contradiction of the principles that they espouse with respect to the rights of people who are organized within the trade union movement to come forward and bargain collectively and use the only weapon they have at their disposal if that bargaining results in a stalemate -- and that is the right to strike or the right to lockout -- this would be offensive indeed.

We find also, as we sit here on Saturday -- indeed, as was handed me but a few minutes ago -- that the school board has made a new offer and the threat of a strike on Monday has, in fact, now been removed. And here we are sitting. According to the president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Gary Johnson has said that the threat of a strike on Monday no longer exists. So it makes you wonder, then, if this is really about strikes in Surrey. Or is this really about something else? Is this about putting in place, as they tried to do way back in October of 1975. . .?

Is it about trying to have a blanket placed over the opportunity of trade unions to take the one action that they are allowed at the time that this government chooses to call an election?

It's interesting, as we start to hear the debate and we go back through the text of the material that was presented to us before, that when the government in 1975 tried to bring in that 90-day freeze, the trade union movement at that time said: "No way. We're not going to allow what we have fought for, and fought hard for, and that is the right to freely and collectively bargain without the threat of government intervention. . . . We're not going to allow this government to come in and legislate a 90-day freeze when we are in the final stages of trying to complete a deal."

[1:45]

They took strong action, hon. Speaker -- and you will recall. . . . Although you were certainly able to withhold the onslaught that took place in the election in December of that year, during that 90-day freeze period, because you maintained your seat, many did not. In fact, the Premier of the day did not. People in this province know the difference between principle and expediency. They know the difference between a political move to simply provide an opportunity for re-election and somebody who stands on the principle of free collective bargaining without government intervention and government interference.

Unlike my colleague, who has never been a member of a union, I have. I've been the president of my union, chief negotiator involved in round after round of labour negotiations. I understand exactly what is involved in mediation and arbitration services, and the one thing that both sides, employers and workers, do not want is the government to have a loaded gun at their heads when they're tryin