British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, April 22, 2004 (37th Parliament, 5th Session) (h0422pm-02) (h0422pm 02)

h0422pm-02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

5th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, April 22, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Volume 24, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 5TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations ...............................................................................................................Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Deputy Premier and Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................ Hon. Christy Clark Minister of State for Early Childhood Development...................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries..................................................................................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations..................................................................................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services................................................................................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Energy and Mines...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Minister of Finance.........................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests................................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong Minister of State for Forestry Operations.................................................................................................................................. Hon. Roger Harris Minister of Health Services.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services ....................................................................................................Hon.

Susan Brice Minister of Human Resources........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Management Services ............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Joyce Murray Minister of Provincial Revenue.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General...................................................................................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour......................................................................................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Small Business and Economic Development ...............................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Sustainable Resource Management ....................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Resort Development............................................................................................................................... Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection ............................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition .......................................................................................................................................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole..............................................................................................................................................

Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ........................................................................................................................................... E. George MacMinn Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk ...............................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................................................................Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hans ard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 74; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 3 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ..........................................................................Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L)............................................................... Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)...............................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) ..................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L)....................................................................................North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ..............................................................................East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................... Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).....................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L)..........................................

Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L) ........................................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Brenzinger, Elayne (Ind. L)...........................................................Surrey-Whalley Brice, Hon. Susan (L)...................................................................... Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L) ................................................. Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L) ..............................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Gulzar S. (L).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Hon. Ida (L) ......................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ...................................................... Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ..............................................................................Yale-Lillooet Clark, Hon.

Christy (L) ....................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ................................................................................Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ..........................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)................................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon. Gary (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L) ........................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon.

Kevin (L) ............................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ......................................................................Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Greg (L) ............................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)..............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon. Colin (L) .......................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Hon.

Roger (L) ................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L)............................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L) ........................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ..................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)................................................................... Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) .....................................................................................

Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)........................................................North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L).............................................................. Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L) ................................................................ Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L)................................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).........................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................... Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L).................................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ............................................................. Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) .................................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L).........................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................. Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ............................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) ..............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ..................................................................................... Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L)............................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L).............................................................

New Westminster Nebbeling, Ted (L)..................................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L) ...................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .......................................................

Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L).....................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L)..................................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Orr, Sheila (L) .............................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)......................................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ...........................................................

Richmond-Steveston Reid, Judith (L)....................................................................... Nanaimo-Parksville Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ..................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L)...................................................................Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)............................................................................ Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).......................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L) ..............................................

West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Lynn (L).................................................................................... Langley Stewart, Ken (L)........................................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L)........................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L)..................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L) .........................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L)............................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)..................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L)..................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L)...................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).......................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Katherine (L).............................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)..............................................................................Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)..............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn ........................................................ Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman................................................Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum ........................................................................

Gillian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ................................................................ Dennis MacKay Burnaby North................................................................................ Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds.............................................................................. Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon ........................................................................John Nuraney Burquitlam............................................................................................

Harry Bloy Cariboo North..................................................................................... John Wilson Cariboo South........................................................................................Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ................................................................................ Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas ........................................................................... Hon.

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke .....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .............................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .........................................................Hon. Graham P.

Bruce Delta North.............................................................................................Reni Masi Delta South...................................................................................Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .....................................................................................Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove....................................................... Hon.

Rich Coleman Kamloops ......................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson.......................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country .................................................................John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ...................................................................Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley........................................................................................... Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca.......................................................................

Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ......................................................................Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................... Ken Stewart Nanaimo .............................................................................................Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville..............................................................................Judith Reid Nelson-Creston......................................................................... Blair F.

Suffredine New Westminster .................................................................... Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast .......................................................................................... Bill Belsey North Island.......................................................................................... Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale .................................................... Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour ..............................................................

Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head.................................................................Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon ..............................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside................................................................... Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North ...............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South ..........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley...................................................... Hon.

Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain......................................................Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood ...........................................................Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast............................................................Harold Long Prince George North .........................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................. Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca .................................................................

Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre ...................................................................Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East ............................................................................ Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands..................................................Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South............................................................................. Hon. Susan Brice Shuswap ................................................................................

Hon. George Abbott Skeena .......................................................................................Hon. Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................................Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers.....................................................................Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ..................................................................................Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge............................................................ Gulzar S.

Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .............................................................................Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ........................................................................ Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock.......................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard .................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview..................................................................Hon. Gary Collins Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................................

Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings......................................................................... Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................... Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway............................................................................ Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara...................................................................... Val J. Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey..................................................... Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena ............................................................. Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill ...............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.....................................................................................Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary ......................................................Hon. Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................... Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi............................................................

Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .....................................................................................Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, April 22, 2004 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 10367 Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 10367 St. George's Day J. Bray Train accident in North Korea H. Bloy Agriculture industry in B.C. B.

Lekstrom Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 10368 Surgery wait-lists J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Employee satisfaction survey by Fraser health authority J. Kwan Hon. G. Collins Religious education in home schooling K. Krueger Hon. T. Christensen Government response to questions on B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement P. Nettleton Hon. K. Falcon Immigrants' access to income assistance B. Locke Hon. S.

Hagen Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 10372 Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 32) Hon. G. Collins Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10372 Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Bruce Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 10383 Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19) Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 10383 Passenger Transportation Act (Bill 30) Hon. K. Falcon J. Reid R. Nijjar Hon. R. Harris Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 29) Hon. R. Neufeld D. Jarvis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10391 Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) Hon. M. Coell J. Kwan L. Mayencourt

10367 THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members B. Locke: It gives me pleasure today to introduce into the House, on behalf of my colleague from Surrey– Panorama Ridge, a class of grade 9 students from Ta- manawis Secondary School. With them are their teach- ers, Ms. Cathy Cybulskie and Ms. Vivian Bridger. Would the House please make them very welcome. Hon. L. Reid: I have a number of introductions today. We're joined in the gallery by Kelly Webb Guichon and Heather King, both trustees from the Delta school district. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today are Jim and Alice Mann, individuals who have been in my life for very close to 30 years. I'd like the House to extend to them a very warm welcome as well. [1405] B. Suffredine: It's actually not very frequently that I have guests from my region. Today I feel a bit like the alter ego of the Minister of Skills Development and Labour; I've got so many friends here today. There's a long list.

I even had to get a list made: Sarann Press; Pat Casey; Cory Mildenberger; Roberta Hall; Pattie Adam; Lorraine Manning; Bruce Halstead along with his wife, Sherri, his son Mathew and his daughter Melinda; and Micky Kinakin and his new wife, Adriana Huerta. All of them are school trustees vi siting Victoria in the con- ference of school trustees — and, as well, probably one of my most stalwart political supporters, my son James. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. T.

Christensen: On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Surrey–White Rock, I am pleased to introduce one of Surrey school district's outstanding and very long-serving trustees, Ms. Laurae McNally. Ms. McNally has been a trustee for 19 years now. I had the pleasure of meeting her and the rest of the Surrey school district about a week ago. They're doing great work for the students in Surrey, and I would welcome the House to assist me in welcoming Ms. McNally here to the Legislature. Hon. K. Falcon: I rise in the House today to make a kind of very special announcement.

My lovely niece, Jade — otherwise affectionately known by her nick- name, Pino — is celebrating her fifth birthday today. She is the daughter of my brother Michael and his lovely wife, Catherine. I would ask that the House join me in wishing Pino a very happy fifth birthday today. Hon. J. van Dongen: In the Legislature today is a large number of farmers and ranchers from all over Brit- ish Columbia. They are visiti ng with members, talking about issues in agriculture. Also, today we're celebrating the 110th anniversary of the ministry.

I want to ac- knowledge all the good work of the staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and I ask the House to make our farmers and ranchers very welcome. L. Mayencourt: Over the past couple of weeks I've had the great pleasure of having an intern working with me in my riding. He's a hard-working guy, and we finished the speech. So please welcome Paul Rush- ton to the legislative chamber. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) ST. GEORGE'S DAY J. Bray: As a Canadian whose ancestry is one-half English, I am pleased today to acknowledge that to- morrow is St. George's Day. St. George is the patron saint of England and lived in the fourth century. Very little is known about the man himself other than he died in Lydda, Palestine. According to legend, a pagan town in Libya was being te rrorized by a dragon. The locals kept throwing sheep to placate it, and when it still remained unsatisfied, they started sacrificing peo- ple. Finally, good St. George came along and slew the dragon. At this, townsfolk converted to Christianity. St.

George is the patron saint of soldiers, cavalry and chivalry; of farmers, fieldworkers, boy scouts and butchers; of horses, riders and saddlers; of archers; and of sufferers from leprosy, plague and syphilis. In the thirteenth century, St. George replaced Edward the Confessor as England's patron saint. Many traditions today are linked to St. George. The feast of St. George is celebrated on April 23. Many fes- tivals in England still take place in villages and towns. Knighthoods of the Order of the Garter are bestowed on April 23. St. George's Day is also a provincial holi- day in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are many English de scendants or immigrants in my riding who will be celebrating and acknowledg- ing St. George's Day. You may see them tomorrow wearing a white or red rose in honour of St. George. Today I am wearing blue, which is the saint's colour, based on the shade of the original garter. [1410] I think it's appropriate on this occasion to reflect on the contribution of English culture made to our prov- ince. Railways were invented by an Englishman, George Stephenson, and are a major part of B.C. his- tory. William Shakespeare added to our love of litera- ture.

The philosophy of John Stuart Mill has enriched our lives. Of course, the birth of our style of democracy and the Mother of Parliaments is in Westminster, and what is critical for us in this chamber — the concept of fair play — was born on the fields of England. To all I wish a happy St. George's Day. TRAIN ACCIDENT IN NORTH KOREA H. Bloy: Today my thoughts and prayers are with the Korean community, both here in British Columbia

10368 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 and abroad. The media has been reporting news of a serious train accident in the city of Ryongchon, North Korea. It is believed that two trains carrying flammable materials have collided at a train station about 20 kilo- metres from the Chinese border. There have been many unconfirmed reports of serious casualties. At this time, the full extent of the tragedy remains unclear. My heart goes out to those who are concerned for the safety of their friends, family and loved ones.

I n m y r i d i n g o f B u r q u i t l a m t h e K o r e a n c o m m u n i t y has emerged as a vibrant, su ccessful component of our neighbourhood and local businesses. The Korean Cana- dian business association has been particularly active in Burquitlam and has made its voice heard on many im- portant community issues. The Korean community has also contributed to the ongoing revitalization of the North Road area. These are people who take active roles in our schools and the safety of our community. These are fine examples of proud British Columbians.

I have been told by some of these constituents how difficult it is to obtain news from North Korea. I know this kind of uncertainty can be painful for those who are seeking answers. As such, I want to offer my con- dolences in these troubling times, and I ask the House to do the same. AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY IN B.C. B. Lekstrom: Today it's my honour to rise in this Legislature to pay tribute to our agriculture industry and all of the farmers and ranchers in British Colum- bia. The Ministry of Agricultur e has been around, as the minister indicated, for 110 years and is celebrating its birthday this week.

I thin k that shows the commitment of our great province to wh at I consider the most im- portant industry we have. I've stood in this House many times before and talked about all the different resources we have and the importance of them. In comparison, I think we could live if we took the gas out of our furnaces, if we shut our lights off, but it's very clear that the human race would not be here today without the food on our tables. I think we've overlooked the importance of agricul- ture, not just in British Columbia but around the world, for far too long.

I'm proud to be part of a government that's bringing that focus ba ck to where it should be, and that's on the importance of agriculture. We've faced many challenges over the last year, in particular, with the BSE crisis and, more recently, the avian flu. It highlights not so much what government's about but what the people ar e about in the agricultural industry and what they're about in this province. They're about working together. They're about families coming together to make sure that everybody makes it through these difficult time s.

It's about communities coming together to support our neighbours in the rural areas. It's about the people, and that's what I want to focus on. Our agriculture industry is made up of fish farms, our fruit growers and berry growers, our poultry in- dustry, our grains, our cattle industry, our bison indus- try and our sheep industry. I think we have to look in the broad context at what agri culture is all about. It's not about just putting food on our table; it's about building communities. I come from Dawson Creek, and I represent Peace River South, of which I'm very proud.

We wouldn't be the region we are without our surrounding rural area that contributes greatly to the economic well-being of our smaller communities, and that is likewise for any area of this province. We have about 61,000 farmer s. I know I could go on for some time, and I know I don't have a lot of time. In closing, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, the constitu- ents I represent and the government of British Colum- bia, I want to pay tribute, as I began my speech with, to the farmers and ranchers in our great province. I want to thank them for the work they do on all our behalf. We're grateful. Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements. [1415] Oral Questions SURGERY WAIT-LISTS J. MacPhail: We are about to enter a very challeng- ing time in the delivery of he alth care in this province. It has come to our attention that those challenges are growing every day. Can the government confirm that in the four-month period from September 2003 to Janu- ary 2004, the number of people on surgical wait-lists in B.C. grew by more than 3,500 people — a 5 percent increase in just four months? Hon. G. Collins: I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Health. Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a new question. J. MacPhail: These are very challenging times that we are entering into right now, and it's incumbent upon the government to have answers to these ques- tions before the challenges become unbearable. Since the Liberals took power, 16,000 more British Columbi- ans are waiting for surgery. Up until last September, 450 people a month were being added to those lists. In the last four months that number has jumped to close to 900 people a month being added to surgical wait- lists — a 100 percent increase. Every month the wait- lists grow under these B.C.

Liberals, and in the last four months the rate of increase has doubled. Over there to the government: who is going to take responsibility for this brok en promise to reduce wait- lists, and what is the plan to move forward to reduce the wait-lists — as they promised in the last election? Hon. G. Collins: The member knows, because she's been told previously, that last year the province of Brit-

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10369 ish Columbia's health system produced more than 38,000 additional procedures over and above what was there the year before. That is a significant addition. The fact of the matter is that there are big chal- lenges in the public health care system across Canada. It is the number one agenda item for the Council of the Federation. All the Premiers are working together to try and deal with the pressure s that exist in the health care system.

It is not a unique challenge to British Co- lumbia nor a unique challenge in the last couple of years, as the member indicates. It's been a challenge for a long period of time — decades — and certainly while that member was Minister of Health under the previ- ous administration, and it continues to be a challenge right across Canada. The Prem iers, this Premier, this government are doing everything they can to help ad- dress those problems and to lead the nation in trying to turn those numbers around. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question. J.

MacPhail: When this government said to the elec- torate three years ago, "We're going to reduce surgical wait-lists," they didn't qualify it. The minister now says these challenges have been before us forever, for a long time. Well, that's not what they said during the elec- tion. The increase in wait-lists has not only grown by almost 25 percent for their term in office, but in the last four months the rate of increase has doubled. Given that context, why is the government spending millions of health care dollars on ads patting itself on the back?

Let me just give one example of misplaced priori- ties of expenditure. This week the Fraser health author- ity, whose wait-lists are growing out of control, un- veiled its new logo — looks great. It's an orange heart with a lovely blue swoosh. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, it's time for the question, please. J. MacPhail: Can the Minister of Finance tell us how many health care dollars were spent to draw this logo while wait-lists continue to skyrocket and who was responsible for authorizing the expenditures of those tens of thousands of dollars? Hon. G.

Collins: In fact, that's a little difficult to take from that member, because when she was Minis- ter of Health, she ran television ads that featured the great actress — none other than herself — in those ads. We're learning every day just how great an actress she actually is. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us have order. The minister has the floor. [1420] Hon. G. Collins: The important point is that this government has…. The expenditure of advertising for the Ministry of Health or all of government comes out of the public affairs bureau.

No health dollars are spent on advertising for the health care sector. I might also add that unlike when that member was Minister of Health and unlike the ten ye ars that she spent in gov- ernment, and about eight and a half in cabinet, the ex- penditures for advertising in this government are be- low what they were under the previous administration. They're actually less. With regard to her question on wait-lists, the fact of the matter is that this year — at the end of year, as well — I mentioned there were 38,000 more surgeries. There was an additional $20 million for one-time funding for health authorities.

There ar e 80 additional open-heart surgeries that were performed as a result, 400 hip and knee surgeries, 3,600 diagno stic procedures, over 500 cataract procedures and 20 deep brain stimulation pro- cedures. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. G. Collins: The number of replacement hip and knee surgeries… Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Hon. G. Collins: …went up 14 percent last year from the previous year. We continue to make pro- gress… Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Hon. G. Collins: …despite the opposition of the member. EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY BY FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY J.

Kwan: Not only is the wait-list going up; wait times are also going up. Not only is the Fraser health authority spending thousands of health care dollars to spruce up its image, it has also contracted an American polling firm to ask workers if they have a best friend at work. Seriously now, Mr. Speaker, according to internal Fraser health authority documents, this 11-month em- ployee satisfaction survey is costing taxpayers $115,000. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: How can the Minister of Labour justify this wasteful spending on bogus employee satisfaction

10370 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 surveys when patients are getting no satisfaction at all from the health care system? Hon. G. Collins: The reality is that there are big challenges in the health care sector, as well, with re- gard to long-term disability, stress leave, etc., which cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of dollars a day.

The effort, I assume, is to try and drive those numbers down, increase employee performance in the workplace, reduce long-term stress leave, improve the quality of service to patients and also make sure that those dollars that we save on dis- ability for staff can be put back into the health care system where they belong. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question. J. Kwan: The minister can spin all he likes, but the reality is this: the health care system is in crisis. Con- flict has arisen in the health care system because of the actions of this government. Let us be clear.

The B.C. Liberals promised to reduce wait-lists. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. J. Kwan: But since taking power, they have ex- ploded by more than 26 percent in less than three years. In the last four months, the problem is getting much worse. While wait-lists are exploding, the gov- ernment is spending over $100,000 a year to determine whether health care workers have a best friend at work and for a new logo. Can the Health…?

Well, the Minister of Finance, who seems to be answering ques tions for everybody, who seems to think that he's in charge all of the time…. Can the Minister of Finance tell us: how high will wait-lists…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, let's hear the question. An Hon. Member: He's my friend. J. Kwan: Is he your best friend? Is there a survey amongst the government asking if the Minister of Fi- nance is your best friend? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the question. J.

Kwan: Can the minister tell us how high wait- list s in B.C . w i ll have t o g o b efore he order s a st op to this wasteful spending? [1425] Hon. G. Collins: I think the timing of the comments by the members is interesting, seeing as we're talking about friends at work. One of the biggest drivers of spikes in the health care wait-lists was caused by the nurses' strike, which we inherited at the time of the election last year from the previous administration. The doctors' dispute at the…. Interjections. Hon. G. Collins: Well, check your facts, member — the doctors' dispute as well.

We are on the verge, as the member mentioned — because strike notice was given by the health employees union today — of a potential additional workplace activity, which has the potential to affect the workplace and the performance of surger- ies and the wait-lists. I'd suggest that those two mem- bers talk to their good, clos e personal friends at work and tell them to get back to the bargaining table. Let's find a solution and solve this problem. If I can conclude, the member talks about the $100,000 and the costs of that to the health care system.

I'd ask her to go back to another one of her close work friends, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and get the $200,000 back that they gave them prior to the election, and we'll be glad to put it into health care. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN HOME SCHOOLING K. Krueger: My question is for the Minister of Edu- cation. Various media reports today refer to an order affecting parents who home-school their children and the use of religious materials for the children's educa- tion. My impression is that there has been a misunder- standing.

To the minister: what are the implications of this matter for families who want religion to be a part of their children's education? Hon. T. Christensen: There has been no change in policy or law. The School Act has prohibited public schools from delivering faith-based curriculum for more than a century. In fact, if we look at

An Act Re- specting Common Schools from 1865, that act says that all schools established under the provisions of this act shall be conducted strictly upon non-sectarian princi- ples. That in no way limits what parents can teach their children at home. Public schools cannot deliver religion-based cur- riculum in classrooms or by distance education. That still in no way impacts what parents can teach their children in their own homes. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT P. Nettleton: As much as I need to receive an an- swer from the Minister of Transportation, I am not go-

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10371 ing to repeat the B.C. Rail questions raised earlier this week. However, I seek the courtesy of a reply to the issues raised concerning the sale of B.C. Rail and first nations rights. First of all, I want to re mind the Minister of Trans- portation that I am not a government member and that he does not have to treat me with the same contempt and disdain that he and some other cabinet ministers reserve for their backbenchers. I would caution the minister, as I caution myself, that what goes around comes around, and we reap what we sow.

The minister owes both myself and the official opposition either an apology or a proper response. The minister may wish to take this request on no- tice, review Hansard and provide this House with an appropriate and informed response to what are, in my view, very reasonable questions. Hon. K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer. Hon. K. Falcon: Y e s , a n d I ' m t r y i n g t o f a t h o m a n answer to a question that I didn't even hear.

Perhaps what I will do is remind the member opposite, who I don't believe I've ever referred to as a government mem- ber — and if I did, I certainly apologize for that…. I can't possibly imagine how I would confuse him for a gov- ernment member. But what I will do is, perhaps, pose a question to that member and the NDP. The question I would pose back to them is: what do they have against northern communities? What do they have against…? Interjections. Hon. K. Falcon: I'm hearing some little noise from the other side over there, and it reminds me of Carole James. What do we know about Carole James?

We know Carole James wants to say no to oil and gas. That's really going to help the north. We know Carole James wants to shut down the mining sector. That's a real benefit to the north. We know Carole James… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. K. Falcon: …wants to shut down the for- estry…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will continue when we have order in the chamber. [1430] Hon. K. Falcon: W e k n o w C a r o l e J a m e s w a n t s t o shut down the aquaculture industry. There's 4,000 jobs and a $300-million-a-year industry.

We know they want to say no to forest-dependent communities. I guess the question you have to ask…. Of course, that depends on the day of the week… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. K. Falcon: …because some days of the week she may be for it, depending on which part of the prov- ince she's in. I guess I would say this. In this province we are proud to stand up for northern communities, and we're proud to stand up for the opportunities that will benefit those communities. IMMIGRANTS' ACCESS TO INCOME ASSISTANCE B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources.

Recently I have learned that the government is actively seeking repayment from sponsors of immi- grants who have turned to income assistance for sup- port. In my multicultural riding I have many constitu- ents who have recently immigrated to Canada and, in some cases, have sponso red family members them- selves. As such, I have heard concerns regarding the ability of immigrants to access income assistance should that become necessary.

Can the minister tell me what is being done to ensure that th ose immigrants that are in need of income assistance in Surrey and across B.C. will continue to be given the support they need? Hon. S. Hagen: Let me make this perfectly clear. The government is not seeking money from income assistance recipients. What we are doing is actively pursuing repayment from sponsors of immigrants who are not fulfilling their legal obligations and commit- ments to support the relative s they brought into this province.

The majority of people who sponsor family- class immigrants — about 90 percent — live up to their obligations, but 10 percent don't. In fairness to the sponsors who do live up to their obligations and all taxpayers who support income assistance clients, it is right that we hold sponsors who are in a position to support their sponsored rela tives accountable for their debt. This means more of taxpayers' resources in B.C. can go to the people who actually need those resources. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The bell terminates question period.

Question pe- riod was extended today due to the constant disruption during the regular time, and we will continue that practice in the future. [End of question period.] J. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an intro- duction. Leave granted.

10372 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 Introductions by Members J. Reid: Just joining us in the last few minutes is the school council from McGirr Elementary School with their teacher, Mr. Reis. This is a group of students who have a personal interest in politics because of the ac- tions that they're taking to make their school a better place. I'd ask that the House make them very, very welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading debate on Bill 32. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply.

For the information of members, they will be continuing the debates on the estimates of the Ministry of Com- munity, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Second Reading of Bills SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill now be read a second time. The Society Amendment Act, 2004, amends the Society Act to allow societies to spend more of their time and resources focused on the purposes of the soci- ety and less on completing and filing forms with the government.

The amendments also update a number of provisions in the act that are now redundant due to other legislative changes. [1435] The primary focus of the amendments is a simplifi- cation of registry requirements for societies and the streamlining of processes at the corporate registry. A number of changes have been made to these ends. First, the amendments give this registrar the authority to establish the forms that a society must use rather than having the forms in the act itself. This will allow the registrar to keep the forms current, relevant and as straightforward and simple as possible.

Second, the requirement that a society file annual financial statements has been removed. Instead, a soci- ety will only need to file an annual report. Third, the amendments also remove the require- ments that the registrar review and approve a society's bylaws, special resolutions and annual reports. Instead, the registrar will simply file the documents and ac- knowledge their receipt. In order to ensure that documents submitted to the registry are accurate and va lid, the amendments also introduce a new

section which makes it an offence to make false or misleading statements in documents filed with the registrar. The bill also amends the act in order to align it with recent changes to other legislation. For example, the bill eliminates the prohibition on the awarding of degrees and diplomas, because this provi- sion is now governed by the degree-granting authority act under the Ministry of Advanced Education.

These amendments will reduce red tape for societies, streamline processes at the corporate registry and up- date a number of provisions of the Society Act, allowing societies to spend more of their time and resources fo- cused on the purposes of the society and far less on completing and filling out forms for the government. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading. Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Society Amendm ent Act, 2004, read a sec- ond time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 19. Committee of the Whole House EDUCATION SERVICES COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:39 p.m. On

section 1 (continued). J. MacPhail: Did the minister receive any legal ad- vice about his comments over the lunch hour? Interjections. Hon. G. Bruce: It's not funny. I'm just a happy guy; that's all. No, I didn't. [1440] J. MacPhail: Then I guess his comments will stand for the record as people mo ve into a very complex set of collective bargaining. His comments will stand, and they've been noted with a grea t deal of interest by peo- ple communicating with me over the lunch hour — a great deal of interest. If he doesn't wish to correct the record at all, then we'll proceed to a vote on

section

Section 1 approved on the following division: [1445] YEAS — 31 Falcon Coell L. Reid Bruce van Dongen Bray

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10373 Lee Thorpe Hagen Collins de Jong Harris Christensen Neufeld Anderson Nebbeling Mayencourt Johnston Belsey Krueger J. Reid Locke Nijjar Wong Halsey-Brandt Bloy Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Stephens NAYS — 4 MacPhail Kwan Brenzinger Nettleton On

section 2. J. MacPhail: Can the minister explain

section 2? Hon. G. Bruce:

Section 2 of this bill provides clarifi- cation that the deleted provisions are not part of the collective agreement. It's designed to avoid litigation about whether "amended and modified" includes de- leted. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could the minister repeat that a little more explicitly? I couldn't hear him. Hon. G. Bruce: Sorry. It provides clarification that the deleted provisions are no t part of the collective agreement. J. MacPhail: And there was something about litiga- tion. Could he please repeat that? Hon. G. Bruce: It's designed to provide clarity about what's deleted. [1450] J. MacPhail: Mr.

Chair, all I asked him to do was repeat the words that he sa id first, which included about litigation. What did he say? I didn't hear him. Hon. G. Bruce: This is to show that words de- leted…. So

section 2 provides the clarification that the deleted provisions are not part of the collective agree- ment. What more do you want? J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I heard the word "litigation." Could he repeat what he said, exactly, when he stood up? It's just a simple question. I heard the word "litigation." I didn't hear the context in which the word was used. Is there something he doesn't want to reveal by just repeating what he initially said? Hon. G. Bruce: No, I'm sorry, not at all. I was just trying to provide clarity.

What this does is try to assist so that there's clarity in the act, so that it would avoid court opportunities or court action — litigation, if that's the word you're looking for. J. MacPhail: Repeat the sentence, please. Hon. G. Bruce: I'm telling you what's there — whether it's amended and modified. What this does is very clearly state that the deleted provisions that are in this act are not part of the collective agreement. J. MacPhail: Carry on. Hon. G. Bruce: That's it. That's what this is. J. MacPhail: Well, then I'll just have to rely on Han- sard to have the record.

Somehow he thinks, because I didn't hear, that his words are going to disappear into thin air. He said, as I recall…. I mean, honest to God, he must be embarrassed about it. All I wanted him to do was repeat the words, and he refuses to do so. What effect will this clause have on litigation? Hon. G. Bruce: What this does is provides the clar- ity — all right? So you've deleted a number of parts from the bill, and what this does, within the collective agreements, so that you don't get through a hassle of court challenges and such…. It's very clear that this is deleted. J.

MacPhail: If you won't repeat it, I'm just going to ask my staff. Hon. G. Bruce: All right. I'm not sure what else you actually want me to say. It is a clarifying bill, a clarify- ing

section of the bill that these provisions are not part of the collective agreement. J. MacPhail: What effect does

section 2 have on the ability to litigate? Hon. G. Bruce: I'll try this then. Clarity is meant to minimize or avoid litigation. Does that help? J. MacPhail: So can the minister tell us what's being deleted? What is the

schedule that he referred to in this legislation? Is it the same

schedule he tabled in the House two days ago, entitled Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions? Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. J. MacPhail: I was asking the minister this morning about how one could proceed through the courts or what legal avenues someone would have to invoke the rights that the minister gave before lunch to renegotiate these clauses. He said LRB would look after it. I asked whether that meant to…. Oh, I'm sorry; he said the matter could be referred to the LRB. Then I asked whether the matter to be referred to the LRB was whether it was bargaining in good faith or whether the

10374 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 matter could be referred about whether these clauses could be negotiated. He didn't answer the question. Given the minister's comments before lunch about the ability to renegotiate some of these clauses in this schedule, how does that jibe with what he just said — that

section 2 is there to avoid litigation? [1455] Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear. The clauses that are deleted…. That's what

section 2 applies to, to provide clarity. They're deleted. In respect to the issues of nego- tiation for things that are not ultra vires to the School Act, the parties can sit and can, if they wish to, negoti- ate those particular issues. It takes the two of them to agree to that aspect, but it can't be issues that are in- consistent with the School Act. J. MacPhail: You know, Mr. Chair, this bill is com- pletely and fundamentally flaw ed, and this minister is struggling to avoid admitting that. His words are all entangled.

You had to see the feedback that we got over the lunch hour about how fundamentally flawed, from a legal point of view and a collective bargaining point of view, this legislation is. And all of those flaws are exacerbated by this mini ster's words. What litiga- tion is this clause designed to avoid? I'll use the minis- ter's own words — "to avoid." Hon. G. Bruce: The clauses that have been deleted — this brings finality to it and avoids litigation around them. They're finished. It allows us now to move ahead, for the parties to begin their negotiations. This has been a year and a half, two years.

What is it — a year now? What are we — 2004? It was a 2001 agreement. What this does is bring finality to th at, and the parties can move ahead and start negotiating their new contract. J. MacPhail: Okay. So this afternoon — gee, 48 hours since the legislation was in — w e h a v e a t h i r d version from the minister about what's going to occur. Yesterday in second reading, here's the version he said: "Oh, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong when she says these clauses in the

schedule are illegal. She's wrong. They can be renegotiated." That's what he said in second reading reply. Then this morning he wouldn't identify which clauses were ultra vires. He said the clauses that aren't ultra vires in this list can be renegotiated, but he wouldn't actually specify, because of course he's get- ting tripped up on his own words. He said: "Well, Mr. Rice, the arbitrator, said these clauses should be de- leted, so we just took his word for it. But don't worry.

We think that they can be renegotiated." Then this afternoon we learn — the minister trip- ping up on his own words again but telling the truth — that clause 2 says you can't litigate. On the basis of this list, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions…. They're deleted, and clause 2 is there to make sure that there will be no litigation around this list. Could the minister tell me, given those words, what the LRB would examine under what

section of the La- bour Relations Code relating to a challenge brought to the negotiability of the list of teachers' collective agree- ment deletions? I want the clause in the Labour Rela- tions Code that a party would invoke on application to the Labour Relations Board, as the minister said was available this morning. [1500] Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if the member meant the inference that earlier this morning I wasn't telling the truth, bu t I'd like clarity from the member in respect to that comment. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I said he was telling the truth this afternoon. What more does he need?

There's no other inference. But feel free. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Figure out what it is you want me to withdraw. Could the minister answer my question, please? On what

section of the Labour Relations Code would an application be brought forward pursuant to the Teach- ers' Collective Agreement Deletions , as he said was avail- able to the parties this morning? The Chair: Shall

section 2 pass? Leader of the Op- position. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm waiting for an answer. Is the minister refusing to give me an answer? He was the one who gave me the information this morning that the matter could be brought forward to the LRB. Is the minister refusing to answer my ques- tion? The Chair: Member, there seems to be an issue here that the minister has asked whether or not you have stated whether he has told a mistruth. Sit, member, please. The question is to ask the minister: do you feel as though he…? Are you implying that he misspoke this morning? J. MacPhail: Sorry.

Am I to take direction from the member? I will take direction from the Chair, but I don't understand. Either there is an accusation made or not, and it is the Chair's resp onsibility to rule. I am not going to be grilled by the minister. Mr. Chair, feel free to make a ruling. The Chair: We're dealing with

section 2 of Bill 19. Let's proceed. J. MacPhail: Could the minister answer my ques- tion, please, Mr. Chair? The Chair: Leader of the Opposition.

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10375 J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, what is going on here? Is the minister refusing to answ er my question? Or is he trying to make up parliamentary procedure as he goes along? The Chair: Member, are you implying that the min- ister did not tell the truth to this House? J. MacPhail: I never have, Mr. Chair. The Chair: Thank you. Carry on,

section 2 of Bill 19. J. MacPhail: Could the minister answer my ques- tion, please? On what

section of the Labour Relations Code would an application be brought forward? I hope he is feeling comfortable enough to do that, Mr. Chair. L. Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an introduc- tion. Leave granted. Introductions by Members L. Mayencourt: O n b e h a l f o f t h e m e m b e r f o r Nanaimo, I'm very pleased to introduce a group from Mountain View Elementary Sc hool. I believe that's you guys up here. They're here with their teacher, Mr. De- Gear. I would ask that the House please make them feel very welcome. [1505] Debate Continued Hon. G. Bruce: Not knowing the specifics of how the case would be applied, it would more than likely — could possibly — be under

section 11 of the code. The parties can go to the Labour Relations Board. It would be up to the parties grieving or the parties applying to decide which sections they wish to follow under the code to make application. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. The parties will take direc- tion from this debate. That's who they'll take direction from. What's

section 11, please? Hon. G. Bruce: No, they won't take direction from this debate in this respect. This is Bill 19, and it's to deal with the whole aspect of being able to allow the parties to move ahead to negotiate. This isn't about how they're going to go and make their approaches. I'm not about to sit here and try and hypothecate on what steps the parties may take at the table in bringing forward their positions, if they thou ght they needed to, to the Labour Relations Board. That will be up to the parties themselves to decide if, in fact, they get there. J. MacPhail: I will repeat my question.

What is sec- tion 11 of the Labour Relations Code that the minister listed as a potential application that could be brought forward on these matters? Hon. G. Bruce: I'll get the specifics of 11. If the mem- ber would like to continue with her questioning, and we'll get that answer for her…. I want to be sure that I've got the right

section in my mind. If the member would like to carry on with other questions, we'll dig that up. J. MacPhail:

Section 11 — I found it, Mr. Chair. It's "Requirement to bargain in good faith." I have trouble with this whole debate. As an ex- perienced legislator, I have trouble with this whole debate — that somehow this minister says the Labour Relations Board is not going to be guided by this dis- cussion, this debate in this Legislature. He is com- pletely wrong. He knows he's wrong. The Labour Rela- tions Board has to be guided by this legislation, be- cause this legislation affects collective bargaining. That's how it works at the Labour Relations Board.

When matters of collective bargaining are guided by legislation, then the Labour Relations Board has to take that into account. I can hardly wait to hear the explana- tion of how that's not the case. I can hardly wait. They take an application pursuant to bargaining in good faith. Where does the Labour Relations Board h a v e t o g o t o l o o k t o s e e w h a t ' s a l l o w e d t o b e b a r - gained? Not the Labour Relations Code; they have to go to Bill 19. That's where they have to go. In fact, it's probably the reason why

section 2 is here. Here's what the minister said the first time that he refused to repeat when I asked him the intent of

section 2, the matter we're discussing right now. He said: "Section 2 of this bill provides clarification that the deleted provi- sions are not part of the collective agreement. It's de- signed to avoid litigation about whether 'amended and modified' includes deleted." Thank God for technology. [1510] This

section that we're dealing with right here is to say these sections, deleted pursuant to the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions, are not part of the collec- tive agreement, and

section 2, just to hammer it home, says: "Don't try to litigate any aspect of whether those sections are deleted or not." I was just putting that new information we have as of this afternoon in the context of what the minister said this morning about, "Feel free to renegotiate, and feel free to go to the LRB," if one party has any issue around the negotiability. Those were my questions. The minister says to me: "Section 11. Bargaining in good faith. And o h , b y t h e w a y , n o b o d y i s g o i n g t o b e g u i d e d b y t h e words in this Legislature." Really?

Then maybe the min- ister can tell me how a bargaining-in-good-faith applica- tion would proceed pursuant to Bill 19. Hon. G. Bruce: To reiterate, the parties can sit at the table and negotiate. That's actually what we're trying to get to. It's been two years of this past agreement which we've been trying to get through and finalized. Actu- ally, with the passage of this Bill 19 adding finality to the former contract, the parties can then begin their

10376 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 negotiations going forward. If there are sections of the list that were presented as deletions that are not ultra vires to the School Act and that both parties wish to discuss and put on the table to negotiate, they can do that. You have it absolutely right. There it is. These parts have been deleted as was the recommendation by Mr. Rice, and with that the parties can move ahead and begin their negotiations.

But if there are things they wish to debate or put on the table for negotiation that are in contravention of the School Act, they will be dis- allowed. If there are things they wish to debate and negotiate that are not and if both parties want to nego- tiate those issues, they can. I've been trying to listen to what you perceive to be the inconsistencies of the mess age, and I've thought it's been pretty clear all the way through in that respect. What we're doing is adding finality. This is what this is — absolutely.

We're saying this is the end of all that's gone on around this contract, of what Bill 27 did and then Bill 28 — to bring finality to this. The BCTF have suggested they would like to get on with negotiating a new contract. You can't get on with negotiating a new contract till the current contract is finished with, and that's what we're doing here. If I had gone back and done the other aspect of appealing, with money and time we would have been another six, eight or 12 months doing that. You couldn't have gone on to the contract.

If I had appointed a fifth arbitrator, having gone through four already, with the British Columbia Teachers Federation virtua lly rejecting each one of those three and finally with the fourth then not partici- pating at the table…. I had little confidence that by appointing a fifth, they co uld sit down and go through all of what we're talking about here back and forth and reach an agreement. Then knowing that the parties had asked me, par- ticularly the BCTF, to be able to begin their negotia- tions, I looked at where we 're at and said: "Look. Why don't we just move ahead? Why don't we just get on with life?

We've kind of had this go-round." Here is a man that is the final arbitrator on this, who is now on the Supreme Court bench. I've mentioned this before, and I mention it again because I want people to under- stand we're talking about four very reputable indi- viduals, the final individual being a person that's now been selected to sit on the bench. We're just actually trying to move this ahead. [1515] I appreciate the fun and games of it all, but this is actually very straightforward. It says: here is what Bills 27 and 28 did. Here are those issues of the 60 contracts that needed to be deleted and were.

We have taken that and applied that through Bill 19, and now the parties, with the passage of Bill 19, can get on negotiating their new contract. J. MacPhail: Actually, this didn 't occur to me, but someone e-mailed me over the lunch hour to say that i t ' s t h e M i n i s t e r o f L a b o u r besmirching the reputation of Mr. Rice. Here's their logi c. The minister admits that all he did was take Mr. Rice's list holus-bolus. Mr. Rice declared these as having to be deleted because they were ultra vires to the legislation.

I asked the minister for his own view on what was ultra vires or not, and he refused to give that and said that we took Mr. Rice's recommendations. He just repeated it a moment ago. This person said: "But it's the minister holding out hope that some of these may not be ultra vires. It's the minister himself saying that Mr. Rice got it wrong." I thought: well, isn't that perceptive? That's actually true. It's this minister who is somehow suggesting the parties can agree or determine that some of these are ultra vires. This person said: "Why is the Minister of Labour be- smirching Mr. Rice's reputation?

Either he embraces Mr. Rice's work and agrees with it, or he says it's wrong." Can the minister, given his analysis that he did of this list of teachers' collective agreement deletions that he is now legislating as final deletions…? He just said that. He's legislating a clause that says no one can liti- gate about whether it's a deletion or not. Then the min- ister says that the parties can agree.

After having de- clared that, the minister just said: "But the parties are free to negotiate terms of these clauses that have been deleted to renegotiate them if they're not ultra vires." That must be an informed comment. I'm sure the min- ister wouldn't just lead people to a dry well. Could the minister just tell me one clause in here of the pages of deletions that he or his ministry have come to the conclusion could be renegotiated, as he's held out not once but half a dozen times? Just one — that's all. Hon. G. Bruce: Just for clarification, you know, Mr.

Rice, when he wrote in his determination here, said: "I appreciate that deletions of important provisions from the collective agreement doesn't mean necessarily deletion from school board policies. However, the provisions for special needs students, for example, it seemed to me were in some ways worth preserving. It seemed to me that the parties could cooperate and reconstruct parts of the agreement in ways that would not infringe

section 27(3) of the School Act, and I would recommend that both parties think about it. " Pretty clear what he said there. J. MacPhail: Thank you for reading that once again. When I asked the minister the question this morning about where that concept, that recommendation, is now enshrined in a right unde r the legislation, he said it wasn't. Maybe he would like to rethink it. He did repeat it just now. Please, could the minister point to the article, the clause, in Bill 19 that enshrines that recommendation? I'm going to stop right then. If the minister says this clause enshrines that recommendation of Mr.

Rice's, we're movin' on. [1520] Hon. G. Bruce: I'll be clear again. If the item or the issue that the parties wish to negotiate is not in contra- vention of — not ultra vires to — the School Act, they

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10377 can negotiate it, if the two parties wish to do that. That's the clarity of all of this. It's very specific. They can go to the table. Both parties can sa y, "Hey, here's part of the issue that we would like to ne gotiate," and if they're in agreement, they can begin their negotiations on that as long as it's not in contravention of the School Act. J. MacPhail: Seeing as how the minister won't point to a clause in the legislation that enshrines that recom- mendation of Mr.

Rice — he refused to; I just asked him to — will his words stand as a commitment — this debate, his words right now? Does he offer those as a commitment that the parties can renegotiate clauses? He just said them. Hon. G. Bruce: I don't know how much more clear I can be. If the items that the parties wish to negotiate are not in contravention of the School Act, they can negotiate those items. The parties have to agree to ne- gotiate and find a way through it, but they can. If the items that they are bringing forward are in contraven- tion of the School Act, they can't. J. MacPhail: Mr.

Chair, I wasn't going to call divi- sion on this section, but the inability of the minister to point to any

section of the legislation that does any- thing other than take away rights and the ability to have a judicial process available to either party, includ- ing clause 2, makes it absolutely incumbent that these legislators, once again, put their support or disap- proval on record for this de nial of rights, both judi- cially and collectively — on record. [1525]

Section 2 approved on the following division: YEAS — 26 Coell Bruce van Dongen Bray Lee de Jong Harris Christensen Neufeld Jarvis Anderson Nebbeling Mayencourt Johnston Krueger J. Reid Stephens Locke Nijjar Wong Suffredine Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas NAYS — 3 MacPhail Kwan Brenzinger J. Kwan: I just noticed in the visitors' gallery…. Interjection. J. Kwan: Oh, sorry. Pardon me. I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. [1530] Introductions by Members J. Kwan: I'm just so eager and excited to see these visitors in our visitors' gallery.

I just noticed that school trustee Allan Wong is in the visitors' gallery, and it appears his family might be with him too. I see chil- dren. No wonder I'm so excited. Children — and I think his wife is also here. I would like the House to bid a very friendly welcome to trustee Allan Wong and his family. Debate Continued

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. J. MacPhail: I've got to read this into the record, Mr. Chair. It's one for the hi story books. This is under Bill 19, the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, which deletes 400 clauses from collective agreements throughout the province with teachers. Here's what this

section says: "For certainty and de- spite any decision of a court to the contrary made before or after the coming into force of this subsection, nothing in this

section is to be construed as authorizing a board or the Provincial union to enter into a collective agree- ment that includes a provision that is prohibited under

section 27 (3) or void under

section 27 (2), (5) or (6)." Wow. That's a pretty tight clause, isn't it? Forget the judiciary; forget the ability to appeal to the judiciary. This says not only can't you go back retroactively, but don't you dare try to exercise any rights in any court looking forward. It kind of rings hollow, the minister's little fairy dust that he is sprinkling over this bill, that somehow any matter of these 400 clauses can be rene- gotiated and that there are legal avenues available to renegotiate. Can the minister explain the necessity for that clause? Is he worried about something? Hon. G.

Bruce: What we're trying to do is bring finality to this contract. I'll go through the steps again, because I'm sure there are other viewers now that have joined us and maybe others in the House, and they don't know all that's gone through with this. We went through a negotiation. We then went into a strike situation with the teachers in this province through the BCTF. It's not something that was unique to this government. Actually, the same problems were found with the former administration. It's not some- thing unique to British Columbia.

In fact, one can check across the country, and you will find similar circum- stances with other provincial jurisdictions. It's not something unique to Canada, because you will find this occurrence troubling th rough most other parts of the world, actually.

10378 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 In fact, as I tried to work, because under Bill…. Now, I don't want to get them mixed up. I think it was Bill 28 or 27. I forget which one of the two. I also had the ability, the authority to review the negotiating process, the structure of the educational framework in the province, so I embarked upon that. I asked the par- ties whether they thought the system we utilized today was a good system and was one that was successful. It's pretty tough, after 12 years of no true, fully ne- gotiated agreements, to be able to claim it was success- ful.

It's pretty tough to be able to claim it was simply us and that it actually had crossed three different types of political organizations and, as I mentioned, right across the country — although different legislation in each one. Parties did, though, say to me that they were inter- ested in trying to find a new structure. I said to them: "Listen, let's not waste anybody's time here. I won't waste yours; you don't waste mine. This is all the par- ties. If we're serious about it , then let's go down that road together." Each of th e parties agreed that they were serious. We then agr eed on bringing forward Mr.

Don Wright, who is a former Deputy Minister of Edu- cation, to conduct the proc ess.

He's currently doing that and trying to see whether or not there is an oppor- tunity to build a new negotiating model which would bring through resolution at the table. [1535] Following that, of course, within this legislation, also because of the fact there were, I think, 62 contracts at the time because several districts had two bargaining units in them — I hope my memory is not failing me — I was given the task of appointing an arbitrator that would then go through the legislation and make sure that there was consistency in all of the other contracts, the other 60 contracts, and bring clarity to that.

So I appointed an arbitrator. The first arbitrator that I appointed was actually on a list that the parties generally pick from, a reputable individual. The British Columbia Teachers Federation objected to that individual but accepted his recom- mendation of a subsequent arbitrator. I appointed the next individual — accepted the first arbitrator's re- commendation and appointed the second arbitrator. Very quickly into it, the British Columbia Teachers Federation took issue with that individual as the arbi- trator, and I was left then wi th having to try and find a third arbitrator.

I found a third arbitrator, appointed him and asked him to carry on with the work that needed to be done through all these contracts. It was found by the British Columbia Teachers Federation that they took objection to him because, in fact…. J. MacPhail: Point of order. Debate has to be rele- vant, Mr. Chair. We're on

section 4, and this is com- pletely irrelevant. The Chair: Minister, on

section 4. Hon. G. Bruce: It's not irrelevant at all. What we're talking about is how we got to this position. J. MacPhail: On

section 4? Hon. G. Bruce: Yeah. J. MacPhail: You're going to link it to

section 4, are you? Hon. G. Bruce: The whole part of it. It all comes down to the fact…. J. MacPhail: Are you going to link it to

section 4? The Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Minister? Hon. G. Bruce: I can appreciate the member's anxi- ety about this, but one has to take the whole picture. You can't just pick out a little piece of it. We wouldn't be here if the parties had actually worked their way through it as they were meant to do. I can't force the parties to sit there and agree to it. After four…. J. MacPhail: What has that got to do with

section 4? Hon. G. Bruce: It's got everything to do with this entire piece of legislation. What we actually have is a situation where at the end of the day…. Interjection. The Chair: Order, please, member. Let's hear the answer. Hon. G. Bruce: At the end of the day you had a fourth arbitrator, who brought forward his recommen- dations. So we've had this very protracted year and a half of shenanigans and in terventions, if you like — or what have you — by the British Columbia Teachers Federation, to the point then that after this arbitrator brought forward his recommendations….

Keep in mind that the British Columbia Teachers Federation withdrew from the table when he was finally accepted as the arbitrator. They did not stay at the table, and they left. He then went about his work. When his work was complete, they then challenged his work in court. I then listed the options that were available for me to proceed with, and I have chosen this one to bring conclusion. What

section 4 does is bring finality to it all. We're not then going back through a whole court process on all of this. We're going to say to the parties: "It is done. That last contract is done. You live by it, and now, from that standpoint, you can sit down and negotiate your next contract, which you have asked to be able to begin." Now the BCTF with the parties can do just that with the passage of this bill. J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I'll tell you, based on the comments that this minister has been repeating over and over and over again to justify this legislation about arbitrators…. Here's wh at really happened. I'll

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10379 read it in under

section 4, because I guess this is part of

section 4. Here's what really happened on the appointment of arbitrators. The BCTF had a prevailing objection to the legislation and to the process, but they began propos- ing names before the government even began appoint- ing. In fact, they said, as th e minister noted, that they would agree to Don Munroe as arbitrator. In fact, the B C T F a p p r o a c h e d D o n M u n r o e t o s e e i f h e w o u l d b e willing to serve, but Don Munroe declined when he saw what the job would be. How's that not cooperat- ing? [1540] The government then named Colin Taylor.

The BCTF renewed their objections to the legislation and to the system of appointment of a contract-stripper, as they called it. The position was that the legislation was bad and that they had an ob jection to the arbitrator's jurisdiction on that basis. Colin Taylor scheduled time to hear that objection, but then Colin Taylor, the arbi- trator, resigned. He resigned before he even heard that objection. But on his way out…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: Well, feel free to offer another version, anyone over there — feel free. On his way out, Mr. Taylor suggested George Adams from Ontario to arbi- trate.

The government appointed George Adams. The BCTF explained to him what the process was and then followed up in writing that they thought, the BCTF thought, that he was eminently suitable. He declined the appointment. The BCTF di dn't object; he declined the appointment. The government appointed Mr. Glasner, who was willing to do the job. The BCTF raised the fact that his wife was a teacher, and Mr. Glasner decided to with- draw. The minister impugns motives that they objected t o M r . G l a s n e r o n t h a t b a s i s . T h e y j u s t r a i s e d i t a s a point of information for people to consider, and Mr.

Glasner decided to withdraw. The government then appointed Mr. Eric Rice. So stop this balderdash that this legislation results from the intransigence of one side of the parties to the process on the basis of appointment of arbitrators. Mr. Chair, I have to tell you, I wasn't going to read that into the record. It came before this minister said it for the first time. But his repetition to a question under

section 4 of that information that is completely irrele- vant to

section 4 made me do so. What is it that the government is afraid of in terms of court proceedings that requires this clause? Hon. G. Bruce: It's great you got your piece added in there, and I appreciate that. Final analysis, of course, is that there's much more to all of that, and then the parties didn't stay at the table where they could have stayed if they'd had any real interest in trying to resolve this. What are we afraid of? Absolutely nothing. We're right here, right out in the op en. We brought in the bill and told you what we're doin g.

We're bringing closure and finality to this so the parties can get on to negotiate a new contract. There is nothing behind anything. There is nothing under any rock or in any corner. It is very clear. It states it right there,

section 4. You've clearly identified it. It says to move forward, to move on — that this issue is finished. It is not going back and around and around. It is no t going to go through chal- lenges. It is there, and it is done. Now you had asked the British Columbia Teachers Federation of me: could we move on with our negotia- tions? You can't if you've got a contract that's not final- ized. We've finalized it. I have suggested that there were different options I could have chosen to take. I have mentioned that. I have given you my reasoning as to why I decided to do this, and I'll have to stand by that.

I understand that. I elected to take this action to bring finality to it because I think that we've gone on long enough in the whole pr ocess, and I didn't see the spirit that was there to actu ally go through the orderly transition that was meant to have happened with an arbitrator. Whether it was the first, the second, the third or the fourth, they neve r stayed there. So this is finality.

Section 4? Yes, member , it's finality. It finishes this. We're a year and a half, two years now…. We're at the end, within a matter of months, of this contract. It expires on June 30, 2004. They'd like to get on with their negotiations. If they wish to, they can. [1545] J. MacPhail: Here's this government's version of: how dare the teachers not cooperate with the process. We bring in legislation that imposes a collective agreement and takes away your right to strike, teach- ers. "What is it you don't like about that?

How dare you not cooperate with that." Then we impose on boards of education those collective agreements, and we don't fund them. "What is it you don't like about that, teachers? How dare you not accept the layoffs that resulted in that and the decreased education of chil- dren. What is it you don't like about that, teachers?" Then the minister appoints an arbitrator who is a contract-stripper. In fact, that's what Mr. Rice says. His decision says: "All I have the ability to do is to delete. I don't have the ability to modify or amend." He admits it himself.

Then the minister says: "How dare those teachers not cooperate with that." The minister completely mis- construes the appointment of th e arbitrators as if it is all the teachers' fault. I guess he will now stop saying that, now that the real version is on the record. He uses that as an excuse to "bri ng finality." My gosh, those teachers — how dare they not cooperate with all this draconian legislation that af fects the children in the classroom, that affects special needs kids, that has fewer teachers in the system because this government imposes collective agreements, strips contracts and then won't fund them.

Oh, that is so outrageous. Then, just in case after all that battering and ham- mering the teachers might want to seek some legal re- course again, the government says: "Don't you dare go

10380 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 to court because if you do go to court, teachers or school boards, and the court does something, it is going to be illegal. It is going to be illegal looking backward, and it is going to be illegal looking forward." Is the minister contemplating using this

section in any other area that may affect his ability or his gov- ernment's ability to go to court? Hon. G. Bruce: We fish, don't we? First of all, the story is prescribed about th e arbitration process. There is much, much more that goes on through all of that. I can go back and go around it again if you want, but the point is that at the end of the day…. J. MacPhail: Feel free. Feel free. Hon. G. Bruce: Yeah? Well, I've said it I don't know how many times. J. MacPhail: Yeah, until you were challenged. Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's still the truth of it. You went through four arbitrators.

The fourth arbitrator, the party…. Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. Hon. G. Bruce: Clearly, there wasn't an appetite to be part of the process. Clearly, that was the case. It wasn't actually the teachers; it was the British Colum- bia Teachers Federation that… Interjection. The Chair: Member. Member. Hon. G. Bruce: …from time to time just has a little bit of a political agenda.

I don't know if my memory is failing me, because I'm getting older — I've been here far too long, as the member opposite I'm sure would applaud — but it seemed to me that somewhere in their ten years, the former administration's ten years, they imposed a few contracts. I'm pretty sure they ac- tually imposed some form of contract with the British Columbia Teachers Federation — I think three times, in fact. There is all sorts of revisionist history. J. MacPhail: You opened up that one. That's good. You opened up that one. Hon. G. Bruce: Well, it's there.

You as a govern- ment had the same sorts of challenges there of having to deal with it. Of course, as I mentioned earlier on, it is not unique to British Columbia. It is a situation that goes across the country. So this, actually,

section 4…. You know, the mem- ber opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, has made it abundantly clear that this is finality. This is finality. I have tried to explain why I think it was necessary to do that. I've said it on numerous occasions now. I've ex- plained the options to anybody that was interested. Somebody else might have picked option A, somebody might have picked option B, and somebody might have picked option C.

But that somebody at this point had to be me, and here I am, so I've done that. [1550] On balance, of all of th e information I had to move things along so we can get on with the process of being able to negotiate new contracts, if they want to do that…. To add finality of a contract that expires on June 30, 2004, it was now time to bring it to conclusion. That's what we've done here, and that's what

section 4 is all about. J. Kwan: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members J. Kwan: Visiting us in the visitors' gallery today is a group of students. The Britannia Community Services Centre is hosting visitors from Madawska, Ontario. They're doing an exchange fo r about a week with each other. There are 18 grade 6 students in the visitors' gal- lery today, with seven ad ults accompanying them. They are here, of course, to learn about the parliamen- tary system in the B.C. Legislature and how it works with government in terms of history, as well, with the B.C. Legislature.

They have been touring around the Legislature today, and I've just greeted them outside in the ro- tunda. They're sitting in th e gallery now. I would ask the House to please welcome them and to demonstrate to them how the finest tradit ion of B.C. politics works in the Legislature of British Columbia. Debate Continued J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, let's be very clear that it is a unique record of these B.C. Liberals that they impose collective agreements that strip collective agreements and that they impose coll ective agreements and pro- vide no funding for the collective agreements.

This is a unique achievement — a dubious, shameful achieve- ment, but nevertheless unique of this government. Clause 4 says to the world that you can't go to court if you are worried about your kid's class size; you can't go to court if you are worried about your kid's safety in fire drills if he or she is a special needs student; you can't go to court if your child isn't getting help with proper designation. That's what this clause says. Don't worry about looking to the future; don't even think about going to court, because you can't do it. That's what clause 4 is about.

I can hardly wait to see the Liberals stand up and s a y : " W o w , I s u p p o r t t h a t . " I w o n d e r i f t h e y w o u l d impose the same standard on themselves as they chal- lenge the legally won court decisions of families with autistic children. Will they impose the same clause on themselves in that circumstance?

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10381 [1555-1600]

Section 4 approved on the following division: YEAS — 25 Coell Bruce van Dongen Bray Lee de Jong Harris Christensen Neufeld Jarvis Anderson Nebbeling Mayencourt Krueger J. Reid Stephens Locke Nijjar Wong Suffredine Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas NAYS — 3 MacPhail Kwan Brenzinger On

section 5. J. MacPhail: Here's another fascinating section.

Section 4 was about: don't even think about going to court on anything to do with the deleted clauses of the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions . Don't even think of exercising the rights that you may have achieved in court retroactiv ely, but don't think about going…. If you go to court, and some court has the gall to make a decision or matters to that, it'll be declared illegal. That's

section 4. Most of the Liberals voted in fa- vour of that. No, I'm sorry. All of the Liberals voted in favour of that. Here's another clause. We have

section 4. Now sec- tion 5 says: "

(1) Despite any decision of a court to the contrary made before or after the coming into force of this section, (

a) the deletion under

section 1 of words, phrases, provisions and parts of provisions from a collective agreement be- tween the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and the British Columbia Public School Employers' Association is deemed to have taken effect on July 1, 2002, and (

b) those deleted words, phrases, provisions and parts of provi- sions must not for any purpose, including any suit or ar- bitration commenced or continued before or after the coming into force of this section, be considered part of that collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002." Does this

section cover the LRB? Hon. G. Bruce: Perhaps the member could be a little bit more specific as to what she means by that. [1605] J. MacPhail: The

section says: "Despite any decision of a court to the contrary…." Does that include the LRB? Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not aware and don't believe that there's anything before the Labour Relations Board that's relevant to this and the ruling of Shaw. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I don't understand that an- swer at all. Under

section 5(1), there is the word "court" used in the first line. Does the word "court" capture or include the Labour Relations Board — yes or no? Hon. G. Bruce: This clarifies that the Rice arbitra- tion is the law of the land and that from there whoever is adjudicating would have to be cognizant of that rul- ing, of that adjudication. J. MacPhail: Why is the minister refusing to answer my question? It's either yes or no. Does the word "court" in

section 5 include the Labour Relations Board — yes or no? Surely, it has been contemplated — that question. Let me just clarify why I assume it's been contem- plated. It is because

section 5(1)(

b) refers to arbitra- tions. Arbitrations can be appealed to the Labour Rela- tions Board. That's where you appeal them — not to courts, not to the Supreme Court. So I assume it's been contemplated. Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you for that clarification. Yeah. If there was a grievance that had been launched relative to the Shaw ruling, as there have been griev- ances that I have mentioned, this legislation takes ef- fect. This legislation, Bill 19, takes effect. If you come back to where we were on

section 4 — I don't want to go back to

section 4, but to

section 5 — and the finality of all of this, th is is the finality. We're not going to go, then, through a whole array of grievances that had been launched as a result of the Shaw ruling to the Rice award and all the rest of it. We're being very clear. As I said, there's nothing under any rock or in any corner. This is the finality to that contract so that the parties can move ahead. If there were grievances that had been lodged, they wouldn 't have standing now if they were utilizing the base of the Shaw report. J. MacPhail: The minister keeps referring to — I'm sorry — the Shaw report.

I just can't hear him at the end. The Shaw what? Hon. G. Bruce: The Shaw decision. J. MacPhail: The Shaw decision is Justice Shaw's decision from the B.C. Supr eme Court that overturned the Rice arbitration. Is that all that's captured by this? Is that the only decision that's captured by this clause? [1610] Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not aware of any other, but I w a n t t o b e c l e a r . W h a t t h i s i s s a y i n g i s t h a t t h e R i c e arbitration, with this legislation, is what is in effect. I'm being very clear on this.

I think probably you're won- dering, okay, if there were a grievance that would have been lodged…. I don't know what all's going on there in everybody's world, but I do know this is the starting point. This is the basis that you will work from. Now, moving ahead very quickly, you can get on with nego- tiating new contracts if you want.

10382 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this, what you're trying to bring to this. The simplicity of it, as I'm trying to understand that, is that if there is a grievance that's been lodged, this is the starting point of how they will be adjudicated. If they had been lodged as a result of the Justice Shaw's report, they won't have standing. This is the law right here. This is finality. It's the same, relative to 4. We are moving on now. It's the same part.

This was closing all of that off so we're not going back and through here and around and around. As I've mentioned, that's actually been the manner of operation for the last while — arbitrator after arbitrator after arbitrator, appeal…. It's right from a work stoppage, going back to how this whole thing first came into place. I'm no t hiding anything on that; I'm telling you exactly that's what it is. This is finality. This is it for this contract. There it is. "You've asked to be able to negotiate your new contract; now you can. You can get on with that if you choose to do so.

Your contract expires at the end of June of 2004, so it's been three years." J. MacPhail: Well, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the reason why I'm asking th ese questions is to explain what the words mean. It's a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation — completely. The minister holds out a false hope of renegotiation of these clauses — a completely false hope. I wonder if that's the basis on which these Liberal MLAs are supporting this legisla- tion. I can't believe that the Liberal MLAs are support- ing this legislation, the heavy hand of the law that overrides the courts.

The minister says: "Oh, the process has taken so long." Yeah, collective bargaining takes a long time. And when the government intervenes by stripping a collective agreement, imposi ng a settlement, refusing to fund it, it really does affect collective bargaining, and it affects the relationship between the parties. He's absolutely right. But I will expect, Mr. Chai r, that the parents of the children who are affected by all of this government's contract stripping and draconian laws side with the educators who are dismayed by this and not with this government.

The minister says that he wants to get on with negotiations. Really? I can imagine what kind of negotiations those are going to be with this govern- ment's record. Government takes great pride in no strikes. Well, they don't allow people to strike; they impose collective agreements. They don't allow people to take job action; they bring in legislation. Mr. Chair, I predict that Bill 19 has actually made the next round of bargaining more complex and has frustrated that round of bargaining. This government has skewed collective bargaining in favour of the B.C. public sector employers association.

This minister has not only do ne that, but he's now held out a completely false hope to people that they can renegotiate some of these clauses. I hope people will take him at his word in this Leg- islature. I hope people will table this whole list and renegotiate it, because that's what the minister said they could do. That's exactl y w h a t h e s a i d t h e y c o u l d do. [1615] Mr. Chair, I note that there' s no sunset clause in this legislation — none. In

section 5(1)(b), the words say this: "(

b) those deleted words, phrases, provisions and parts of provisions must not for any purpose, including any suit or arbitration commenced or continued before or after the coming into force of this section, be consid- ered part of that collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002." What effect does this language have on a re- newed collective agreement? Hon. G. Bruce:

Section 5(

b) doesn't have any im- pact in respect to going forward. I want to be clear that contracts negotiated going forward, of course, cannot be in contravention of the School Act. That's the guid- ing basic principle. But 5(

b) doesn't have any impact on a new contract being negotiated. You know, it's inter- esting too. The member opposite in a few comments here sort of implies that the only people that would ever be interested or concerned for the students and the educational system are…. I take it it's the executive of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. It all has to be done in the contractual aspect of things. There are many, many people: moms, school trustees, dads, prin- cipals, vice-principals, counsellors. J. MacPhail: Why don't you ask them whether they support you? Why don't you ask them? Hon. G.

Bruce: I don't need to. On May 17, 2005, that'll certainly happen. I know that. I don't have any argument with you about how popular I am or not. I understand that. We're making some tough decisions. We're making some decisions that have had to be brought about mainly because of the former administration's decade of decline in this province. I know that, and so do the general public. When you make difficult decisions, it's not often that people cheer you. It's human nature. They're not going to. It takes time to work things around and to rebuild.

You know, there's no doubt about it: the former ad- ministration left us a huge mountain to climb to be able to get this province turned around and back on its feet. We all knew — with the leadership of the Premier of this province — it was going to be a challenge, but we weren't going to win the day on popularity. We know that. There's nothing surprising in any of these numbers and such that come out to day. We know that. When you make tough decisions, your popularity is not going to go up.

When you make the right decisions, you've got to work your way through that, and you've got to work through with the general public. The general p u b l i c w i l l m a k e t h e i r d e c i s i o n . T h a t ' s a y e a r f r o m now. You and I know that. It's a fixed date. They'll all get that opportunity. Also, with all the processe s in there, this agreement that we were talking about…. Sort of sometimes it im-

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10383 plied the rush to bring in legislation, whether it's this part or Bill 27 or Bill 28. I mean, it was after, I think, 80 days of negotiation. There were three issues that had been settled in this particular dispute back in 2001 — three issues after 80 days. The facilitator of those dis- cussions, Stephen Kelleher, a respected individual, also now a justice…. It's been a difficult, prolonged ha- rangue. What we're doing here is saying to everybody: "Look, this is over. It's done. This contract is finished." There's finality through this.

It expires on June 30, 2004. By putting this over here and finishing it, the parties can then, if they choose to, carry on with the negotia- tion. That's what all this does. [1620] J. MacPhail: Can the minister walk me through the legislation and demonstrate how the future collective agreement is not affected by this legislation? The legis- lation deletes 27.1 from the School Act. The only clause left that refers to any collective agreement is this retro- active clause, and it says it cannot be considered part of that collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002. There's no sunset clause to this legislation.

Could the minister demonstrate to me how it is that that July 1, 2002, has no meaning if there's a new collective agree- ment agreed upon? Hon. G. Bruce: This refers to this collective agree- ment, the one that we're in. J. MacPhail: Where? Where does it say it? Show me. Hon. G. Bruce: It says right there. It says: "those deleted words, phrases, provisions and parts of provi- sions must not for any purpose…be considered part of that collective agr eement on or after July 1, 2002." This is the collective agreement that we're in.

As we stated through the beginning and the body of this in negotiations, you can't negotiate those things that are in contravention of the School Act, so that's that part going forward. Anything else you can go ahead and negotiate. This pa rticular act is clear on what those items were as it applied to the contract as it was stated — taken out. They're fixed, and now, going forward, here's what you're faced with. Then this con- tract that they're in right now expires on June 30, 2004. J. MacPhail: I'm actually thrilled about that, be- cause then this clause becomes meaningless on June 30, 2004 — completely.

I'm thrilled about that. This clause has absolutely no meaning as of June 30, 2004, then. That's the effect of this minister's words. [1625]

Section 5 approved on the following division: YEAS — 24 Coell Bruce van Dongen Bray Lee Harris Christensen Neufeld Jarvis Anderson Nebbeling Johnston Krueger J. Reid Hayer Locke Nijjar Bhullar Wong Suffredine Hamilton Hawes Kerr Manhas NAYS — 4 MacPhail Kwan Brenzinger Nettleton

Section 6 approved. Title approved. Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, I move that we rise and report completion without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 4:29 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [1630] Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 19, Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. R. Harris: I call now for second reading of Bill 30. Can we have a quick five-minute recess? Mr.

Speaker: We'll pause here for a few minutes while the minister's on his way. [1635] Second Reading of Bills PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ACT Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill now be read a second time. [1640] In 2001 under the leadersh ip of our Premier, we made a commitment to spur economic growth and increase competition in th e commercial transportation sector. It is with this commitment and this strategy in mind that I propose Bill 30. The current Motor Carrier Act was introduced in 1939 and has not been significantly changed since. Yet we all know that the world has changed very dramati- cally since 1939.

Commercial transportation companies tell us that the current act does not allow for innovation

10384 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 and that it prevents carrier s from meeting the needs of their customers. The legislation presented today will replace the Motor Carrier Act with the new Passenger Transporta- tion Act. This legislation places a focus and a priority on safety. It ensures that service to smaller communi- ties in the heartlands of ou r province is maintained. It allows the commercial transp ortation industry to re- spond to market forces, and it gives operators the flexi- bility needed to meet the needs of their customers.

This bill, to summarize some of the key points briefly, ensures continued public safety. It protects and enhances transportation services. It continues regula- tion of the industry to ensu re that the public has access to transportation services, and it allows the commercial transportation industry to be more innovative. It also allows operators to quickly respond to changing mar- ket conditions, something that is becoming increasingly important as we move into a more competitive world.

Industry has been telling us that they want better enforcement measures to deal with illegal, unlicensed operators and to continue to be governed by provincial legislation. We will maintain provincial regulation of taxis. We will streamline the application process. We will also be increasing penalties against illegal opera- tors, and we will require di spatchers and brokers to use licensed taxis. I would like to offer an example of the restrictive nature of regulation under the existing Motor Carrier Act. Some wine tour companies could take passengers to one winery but not to another only a short distance away.

The Passenger Transp ortation Act will remove the area of operation restrictions for these kinds of op- erations. That was a very common restriction under the old Motor Carrier Act. In addition to providing greater flexibility, this act will ensure that service to communities is protected and maintained. Under the Motor Carrier Act, charter buses have to prove a need for service, which could result in a lengthy application process, and are granted licences often with many restrictions. The new act will remove licence restrictions that forced charter bus op- erators to work in a certain area.

It will remove restric- tions on the type of service or market and provide greater flexibility so that they can meet their customers' needs. Under the new act, intercity buses will be able to meet the needs of customers by having the ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Intercity buses will continue to be regulated by the Passenger Trans- portation Board to ensure adequate service to our heartland communities on low-usage routes. This bill will eliminate the Motor Carrier Commis- sion and replace it with th e Passenger Transportation Board. The new board will be smaller.

It will be stream- lined, and it will be more efficient. The act also creates the position of registrar of passenger transportation. The registrar will process new applications, investigate complaints concerning illegal carriers and have the ability to impose sanctions and recommend regulatory amendments. [1645] Under the leadership of our Premier, we are open- ing up the commercial transp ortation industry to more competition and are providing more flexibility. It's about keeping public safety a priority and ensuring that service is maintained and improved.

The Passen- ger Transportation Act is about letting business do what it does best, which is operating its businesses. It's also about keeping yet another of our new-era com- mitments. J. Reid: I'm proud to stand and support this piece of legislation. The Motor Carrier Commission, as the minis- ter has stated, was encumbered with many outdated regulations and requirements.

While they were able to address that in the last couple of years in some reform, a lot of what was required was embedded in legislation, which made for frustration on the part of those who w i s h e d t o s t r e a m l i n e w h a t t h e y w e r e d o i n g , a s w e l l a s frustration with the Motor Carrier Commission. Knowing that things do change and times do change, it's important to look at what the basis of the legislation was, what it was trying to accomplish, and to see whether there is a way of doing that in a friendlier fashion to still comply with the original intent.

As the minister has stated, the original intent was around safety, to a large degree, and around security of service. Looking at the safety aspects in this piece of legisla- tion, it is embedded with safety all the way through to make sure that the requirements so that people travel- ling in transportation vehicl es provided from someone else, from a different busine ss, could feel secure, could know that their interests had been looked after and that the government was upholding its duties in regulating their safety in these vehicles….

The act is able to address that in a very straightforward way, making sure that people can comply easily and that as long as they com- ply, it won't impede their time in order to get permission to operate their vehicles. Safety has been maintained all through this act to the highest standards — to the same standards that everybody has to operate under today. That certainly has been important. Some of the changes that the government was en- couraged to take a look at….

Some of the frustrations that were faced were the inability of many carriers to r e s p o n d f a i r l y q u i c k l y a n d t o p r o v e , b e f o r e t h e y e v e n started their business, that their business was going to be successful. This was for all of us, faced in our constituen- cies with people who had ideas and innovations and who wanted to start a busi ness around transportation, an incredible frustration. How do you prove a business is going to be successful be fore you've even attempted it?

It was also frustrating for the Motor Carrier Commis- s i o n t o h a v e t o a c c e p t w h a t t h a t p r o o f m i g h t b e a n d , indeed, how that would be put before them. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] We certainly believe that people should be able to start a business and be able to look to their own experi- ences and have innovations that would then…. They

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10385 would be allowed to succeed or fail without having t h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n a d v a n c e . W e k n o w t h a t m a n y wonderful innovations in business have been preceded by some business failures initially. As long as the safety aspect is always maintained, we believe that people should have the right to take on a business venture and risk their own capital in that business venture and, certainly, provide innovation s to the motor carrier in- dustry. We've also looked around the province at different changes in society.

One of those changes, as we know, is an aging population. An aging population has differ- ent transportation needs. While right now we have taxis, limousines and the bus system, we need to let the private sector react to changes in demographics and come up with ideas that will serve the needs of new customers. [1650] We are certainly aware of challenges facing people who can no longer keep thei r driver's licence. We cer- tainly want to maintain sa fety on t

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	h0422pm-02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	h0422pm 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0139ae88d58f11aa3cd97912f87ded6aa36257c5

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).