British Columbia Hansard — THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 2001 (37th Parliament, 2nd Session) (20010809pm-Hansard-v2n14)
20010809pm-Hansard-v2n14
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 2001
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 2, Number 14
CONTENTS
Routine
Proceedings
Time
Introductions by Members
Tabling Documents
Auditor general, 2001-02 report, Transportation
in Greater Vancouver: A Review
of Agreements Between the Province and TransLink and of
TransLink's
Governance Structure
Oral Questions
Applications by nurses to work in B.C.
J. MacPhail
Health care funding and growth of B.C.
economy
J. Kwan
Access to public schools
H. Bloy
Settlement of nurses' and health
professionals' disputes
J. Kwan
Malahat highway safety review
B. Kerr
Tabling Documents
Science Council of British Columbia,
annual report
British Columbia Wine Institute, annual
report
Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority,
annual report
British Columbia Buildings Corporation,
annual report
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ministry,
annual performance report
British Columbia Heritage Trust, annual
report
Fisheries Renewal B.C., annual report
Tourism British Columbia, annual report
Public Accounts of province of
British Columbia for fiscal year ended March 31,
Motions on Notice
Appointment of special committee to
review the police complaint process.
Hon. R. Coleman
Proceedings in
Section B
Health Care Services Collective
Agreements Act (Bill 15). Hon. G. Bruce
Committee stage
J. MacPhail
Third reading
Budget Transparency and
Accountability Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 5)
Second reading
Hon. G. Collins
J. MacPhail
Hon. G. Collins
Taxation Statutes Amendment Act,
2001 (Bill 2). Hon. G. Collins
Committee stage
Third reading
Corporation Capital Tax Amendment
Act, 2001 (Bill 3). Hon. G. Collins
Committee stage
Third reading
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment
Act, 2001 (Bill 11).
Second reading
Hon. G. Plant
Hon. G. Collins
J. MacPhail
Royal assent to bills
School (Protection of Parent Volunteers)
Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 8)
Health Care Services Collective
Agreements Act (Bill 15)
Proceedings in
Section A
Committee of Supply
Ministry of Advanced Education estimates.
Hon. S. Bond
Vote 10: Ministry operations
J. Kwan
Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry
Responsible for Treaty Negotiations
estimates. Hon. G. Plant
Vote 15: Ministry operations
Hon. G.
Plant
Vote 16: Treaty negotiations
office
J. Kwan
Vote 17: Statutory services
Vote 18: Judiciary
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries estimates. Hon. J. van Dongen
Vote 11: Ministry operations
Hon. J.
van Dongen
I. Chong
B. Penner
R. Masi
Vote 12: Fisheries Renewal
B.C.
Vote 13: British Columbia
Marketing Board
Vote 14: Okanagan Valley
Tree Fruit Authority
Ministry of Transportation estimates.
Hon. J. Reid
Vote 45: Ministry operations
Hon. J.
Reid
D. Jarvis
B. Penner
Vote 46: Public transit
[ Page 391 ]
THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 2001
The House
met at 2:04 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: We have in the gallery Mr. Abram, who is the president of the
UBCM. He is very much involved with the work we are doing to create a community
charter that will be a new relationship between provincial and local government.
I would like the House to make him welcome.
Hon. G.
Campbell: I am very pleased to say that the managing director of the
government caucus, Sarah Bonner, is with us today. Equally important, or maybe
more important than Sarah, she is joined her husband, Patrick, and her mother,
Sidney. But more important than that still, she is joined by her one-month-old
baby, Annika Elizabeth.
I just want
to say that I think this is emblematic of the kind of advance work that our
staff do. I know that Ms. Bonner has been spending time with Ms. Clark today to
make sure that she's prepared for the days ahead.
[1405]
Hon. L.
Stephens: In the gallery today, visiting from Langley with his family, is a
young fellow who both the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove and I have come
to know, respect and enjoy. He is the newspaper reporter for the Langley Advance.
Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. C.
Clark: With little Annika here, I'm thinking that perhaps in 15 years or so
our kids could be dating. You never know. Uh-oh, Sarah looks worried.
I'd like to
make another introduction, and that is the indispensable assistant in my office
named Vicki Yeats. She is joined today by her mother-in-law, June Yeats, her
daughter Emily and her son Curtis. I hope the House will please make them all
welcome.
Bennett: It's my pleasure today to introduce two folks from the East
Kootenay who are sitting up here. Faye Street is a longtime rancher in the East
Kootenay and has done more for ranching in the East Kootenay than anybody else
alive. She's a woman in a man's business, and when she talks, they listen. I
guarantee it.
The other
person I want to introduce is Carmen Purdy, a dear friend of mine, born and
raised in the Kootenays, who has done more for wildlife management in the
Kootenays than any other person alive.
Hon. R.
Coleman: I join my colleague from Langley in welcoming Jordan Bateman from
the Langley Advance . We decided we should get his name into Hansard ,
because he's such an aficionado, following Hansard while we're sitting in
this House. So I'd also like to make Jordan welcome.
Hon. S.
Bond: I'm very pleased today to introduce to the House two friends visiting
from Langley: Dr. Paul Pearce and his son Jonathan. Would the House please make
them welcome today.
Hayer: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Mohan Kang,
president of the B.C. Taxi Association, and his family members visiting from
England: Mr. Avtar Hundal, Mrs. Maninder Hundal, their son Amit Hundal and their
twin daughters, Kavi Hundal and Navi Hundal. I ask the House to please make them
welcome.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce in the House my son-in-law Tim
Poitras. With him are his sister Cindy MacKenzie and her son Ryle and daughter
Teesha from Saskatchewan. Would the House please make them welcome.
MacPhail: I'm sorry that this news has leaked out already, and for that I do
apologize. But it is with great pleasure today that I wish my colleague from
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, in her forthcoming wedding on Sunday and her
subsequent attempt at a honeymoon…. [Laughter.] I mean logistically. I mean
logistically. [Laughter.] I think she has performed adequately today.
Mr.
Speaker: The House will expect a full report.
Krueger: Pretty hard to top that last announcement, but I would like to
introduce Al and June Bush, salt-of-the-earth people from the beautiful
community of Barrière in my constituency. Would the House please make them
welcome.
[1410]
Tabling Documents
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's
2001-02 report No. 2, Transportation in Greater Vancouver: A Review of
Agreements Between the Province and TransLink and of TransLink's Governance
Structure.
Oral Questions
APPLICATIONS BY NURSES
TO WORK IN B.C.
MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Health Services told the House that
since the offer the nurses overwhelmingly rejected was put on the table, the
number of nurses applying to work here in British Columbia was significantly up
over the same period last year. Will the minister today please table the source
he used to make this claim — the specific number of nurses that have applied
and the time period in which he has seen the increase in applications?
[ Page 392 ]
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I am so surprised that this member is asking the question, when we
know that in 1996 we had 703 graduates in B.C. and under the NDP, in 1999, we
had 567. It's absolutely amazing that she's talking about nurses when we know
that they cut training programs and they cut places for nurses around the
province.
The RNABC
has reported that the applications for nurses from out-of-country are up 101
percent overall. There have been 285 applications from other provinces, 180 of
which so far this year are from Alberta and Ontario. So in fact nurses from
around the world and across the country are interested in coming to B.C. Guess
what. We're also giving them the best benefit and compensation package in Canada
on top of tax cuts that were announced.
MacPhail: Those statistics were actually published a few weeks ago in the Vancouver
Sun in a letter to the editor. The specific claim that the Minister for
Health Services made was that since the offer had been rejected by the
nurses…. In fact, no. I'm sorry. "Since the legislation was tabled,"
was exactly what the Minister of Health Services specifically said. So the
statistics being offered have already been reported. We're seeking new
information.
Let me just
give you some new information, if I may. I want to read a statement that was
just made today for the benefit…. This is actually useful for the government.
It's made by Kathleen Connors, the president of the Canadian Federation of
Nurses Unions, and she writes to nurses around the country: "The health
care services agreement is a slap in the face to British Columbia nurses.
Imposing a settlement rejected by.…"
Interjection.
MacPhail: Yes, you know what? It is a body that represents working people.
It isn't someone who sits on the progress report or in a board room. You're
quite right. That's absolutely right.
"Imposing
a settlement rejected by 96 percent of British Columbia Nurses Unions members
will do nothing to create an atmosphere of respect for nurses. Such a draconian
measure will not recruit nurses from elsewhere in Canada or the world to
relocate to British Columbia."
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please, hon. member.
MacPhail: One more paragraph, Mr. Speaker: "The Canadian Federation of
Nurses Unions continues to stand in unity with BCNU. We will encourage our
members to think twice about working in a province which will not negotiate or
listen to nurses." Again, to the Minister of Health Services. He said
that nurse applications to this province are significantly up as a result of his
government actions yesterday. Where is his evidence, and will he table it today?
Hon. C.
Hansen: The member is not quoting me accurately. That is not what I said
yesterday, and she can go back and check the Hansard on that. The bottom
line is that the offer that the nurses rejected by 96 percent was the offer that
her government put on the table during the middle of an election campaign,
including the so-called concessions that were put on the table by her
government. What is being legislated, what is being put in this collective
agreement is the best wage and benefit package of any province in Canada in
terms of what nurses will be earning. We think that's a very fair offer.
[1415]
Nurses in
British Columbia will be earning the best wage and benefit package in all of
Canada.
HEALTH CARE FUNDING AND
GROWTH OF B.C. ECONOMY
J. Kwan:
The Minister of Health Services must have selective amnesia, because during the
election campaign he actually signed the petition agreeing to take the
concessions off the table, which he has refused to do to date. This government
has frozen health care spending and is tying the future of health care spending
to economic growth. No one will accept the Minister of Finance's 3.8 percent growth
forecast for next year, not even his own forecast council. Maybe the
Minister of Finance is consulting an astrologer; I don't know.
The
minister is playing a high-stakes poker game with health care spending, betting
its future on the growth that no one believes is actually achievable. Will the
minister fold his cards, walk away from the table and commit to increasing
funding for health care next year, even if it doesn't hit a growth target?
Hon. G.
Collins: The forecast that is in the minibudget that we introduced on Monday
is for GDP growth of 3.8 percent next year. Prior to any of those tax cuts being
made public, prior to any of that being out there in the public, the forecast of
the independent group was 3.2 percent. So a 0.6 percent increase is not
astronomical nor astrological, according to the member opposite. In fact, it's a
reasonable forecast. We expect to be able to deliver on that, and if it sounds
so outrageous, even in the terrible economic and investment climate that the
members opposite created in the province, last year our economy grew by an
astonishing, astrological figure of 3.8 percent. I think we can manage that, Mr.
Speaker.
I know that
we'll do just fine in British Columbia. We are on track for record economic
growth in the years ahead. British Columbia is doing very well. As the economy
grows, we'll be able to put more money into health care and more money into
education in a sustainable way not the way this government
has done it in the past.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental
question.
[ Page 393 ]
J. Kwan:
If the minister is so confident with his number, why doesn't he just say:
"Yes, I'll commit to ensuring that the growth forecast will be added to the
Health budget for next year"? If the minister won't commit to increasing
the funding for health care, will he at least commit to forgoing 20 percent of
his salary, as he has asked other ministers to do, if he does not hit the 3.8
percent growth target?
Hon. G.
Collins: The legislation that's before the House — which I know the
members opposite don't like — that has to do with individual ministerial
accountability will have measures that individual members are required to meet,
both on spending side and other measures that will be set by Treasury Board.
Although I'm not sure they have, I'm sure they're capable of reading the
legislation, and when they get around to reading the legislation, they'll see
the most progressive accountability legislation in Canada that will make sure
this province continues to do great in the years ahead.
ACCESS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
H. Bloy:
My question is to the Minister of Education. In outlining her plans for the
public school system, the minister spoke of the concept of establishing magnet
schools that offer specialized programs to students with different needs and
interests. However, many of my constituents who have children in the public
school system are concerned that this could result in school boards eliminating
local catchment areas. Can the minister please tell the concerned citizens in my
constituency if magnet schools will result in students no longer being able to
attend their local neighbourhood school?
[1420]
Hon. C.
Clark: Well, I think in British Columbia we should learn from what's worked
in other jurisdictions, where they've ensured that children who are attending
neighbourhood schools always have first crack at being able to enrol in those
neighbourhood schools We do not want to create a system in British Columbia
where a child who lives next door to a school can no longer attend that school.
That's the first thing.
The second
thing is: let's remember what we're trying to do here. When we're creating
choice in the public school system, we're ensuring that parents and children can
access the kind of education that suits their needs. Every single child is
different; every child learns differently. Therefore, schools should be
different. That's the way we'll meet their needs. That's what choice is about:
putting children back at the centre of our educational agenda.
H. Bloy:
Another concern among my constituents is that magnet schools will pull students
away from their local schools. The situation could result in further aggravating
hardships that many students face in underprivileged communities. Can the
minister tell my constituents how she intends to support schools in
underprivileged areas from losing students and suffering further hardships?
Hon. C.
Clark: The member is absolutely right: schools that are underperforming
should be doing better. The children that attend those schools deserve to have
those schools do better. For the first time in ten years we have a government
that is finally interested in seeing how well schools and school districts
perform. That's why during the election we said we would bring in measures of
accountability, we would bring in standards, and we would start demanding
success of our schools and our school districts. That's why we will be going out
and signing accountability contracts with every school district.
We will
know how well schools are doing. When schools aren't doing well, when they
are underperforming, we will make those results public. We will make sure
that school boards address the needs of those schools. There is no reason that a
parent anywhere in British Columbia should be forced to send their…school that
is less able to educate their children than a parent who just happens to be
lucky enough to live in a different neighbourhood.
SETTLEMENT OF NURSES' AND
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS' DISPUTES
J. Kwan:
Yesterday we asked this government about its secret plan, the secret contingency
plan to keep the health care system from descending into chaos as a result of
the forced settlement that this government is bringing for nurses and health
care professionals. The people of British Columbia did not get an answer
yesterday. Perhaps the question was too broad.
To the Minister of Labour: will
the Minister of Labour inform this House specifically what contingency plan he
has in place to ensure that health care services are provided to the people of
the Kootenays if nurses there resign as a result of the forced settlement?
Hon. C.
Hansen: First of all, I think it's incumbent on all of us to encourage all
health care professionals in British Columbia to start looking at putting
patient care first, which overwhelmingly they are. If you start looking around
the province, there are some examples of nurses who are on information picket
lines today. They are not interrupting patient care. It is a legitimate form of
protest for them to provide information to people coming and going from our
health care facilities. But overwhelmingly, in British Columbia the vast, vast
majority of nurses are on the job providing care.
I am
confident that once we get through this stage, we can get back to providing a
good health care system. But if there are problems that develop, we do have
those contingency plans to make sure that British Columbians can get the care
that they need.
[ Page 394 ]
MALAHAT HIGHWAY SAFETY REVIEW
B. Kerr:
The Malahat corridor of the Trans-Canada Highway is a very dangerous
section of
highway. It has been the cause of many serious accidents over the past few
years. I understand that the ministry has now completed a review of that
section
of the highway, so my question is to the Minister of Transportation: will the
minister please inform my constituents, and indeed all the travellers of that
highway, what actions the ministry will be taking to improve safety in that
section of the highway?
[1425]
Hon. J.
Reid: That
section of the Malahat has been identified for many years as
being very dangerous. Over the last two years there were four tragic fatalities
in that area. Yes, it has been reviewed, and we are taking action on that. There
are 1.5 kilometres that we're going to be addressing. The whole 1.5 kilometres
will be widened, and about half of that will have a cement median barrier put in
to protect people from head-on collisions that have caused these fatalities.
That work is going to be starting immediately, and we ask people to be patient
while that work is in progress.
[End
of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Hon. G.
Collins: I have the honour to present the annual reports for the year
2000-01 for the Science Council of B.C., the B.C.
Wine Institute, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and the B.C. Buildings
Corporation; the annual performance report for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food
and Fisheries; the B.C. Heritage Trust annual report; the Fisheries Renewal B.C.
annual report; and the annual report for Tourism British Columbia.
I have the
honour to present the Public Accounts of the province of British Columbia
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001.
By leave I
move that the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001,
be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Leave
granted.
Orders of the Day
Motions on Notice
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO REVIEW THE POLICE COMPLAINT PROCESS
Hon. R.
Coleman: I move the motion standing in my name in orders of the day.
The motion
would appoint a special committee to review and make recommendations respecting
the police complaint process in
part 9 of the Police Act. The appointment of
this committee is in accordance with a provision of the Police Act which
requires that a special committee be appointed to review
part 9.
Motion
approved.
[1430]
Hon. G.
Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 15, and in Committee A, I
call Committee of Supply.
HEALTH CARE SERVICES COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENTS ACT
(continued)
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section B); J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The
committee met at 2:30 p.m.
On
section
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, we'll be going through a series of questions —
perhaps not quite as detailed as the questions under
section 2, but certainly we
require some substantial information around the paramedical bargaining
association. On
section 3(1)(a), the collective agreement that expired on March
31, 2001, encompassed…. Could the minister repeat the unions that are affected
by that bargaining association, just for my benefit, please?
Hon. G.
Bruce: That would be the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, B.C.
Nurses Union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Hospital Employees Union,
Health Sciences Association, Professional Employees Association and United Food
and Commercial Workers Union.
MacPhail: When the minister met by teleconference, I think it was…. He can
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there was a teleconference the minister
held with the paramedical bargaining association. I think that was on August 6;
he could probably confirm that for me as well. Did the paramedical bargaining
association choose who attended that teleconference, or was it by invitation of
the minister?
Hon. G.
Bruce: We did that through the mediator — that was Stephen Kelleher — to
arrange that conference call.
MacPhail: Can the minister — I don't know the answers to these questions;
it's not one of these things where you only ask the questions you know the
answers to — tell us, to the best of his knowledge, who was on that conference
call in terms of unions represented?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Along with Mr. Kelleher, who was part of that conversation, were
Cindy Stewart, who is
[ Page 395 ]
the president, and Ron Ohmart, who is part of the bargaining unit.
MacPhail: I'm actually going to slip into 3(1)(b), just for edification,
where it says that the provisions that have been negotiated and agreed upon now
form part of the collective agreement. What role, if any, did the special
mediator, Mr. Kelleher, play in determining the package that would be legislated
under 3(1)(b)? That's part A of that question. Part B is: again, how does one in
that set of bargaining determine what has been agreed upon and signed off, for
lack of a better term?
Hon. G.
Bruce: First of all, to be certain, the mediator didn't play any role in the
determination of this final piece of legislation here.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I say that the mediator didn't actually play any role in the final
determination of this legislation. But in regards to the issues that had been
resolved, the mediator had been part of that process. There were also issues
agreed to between the HSA and the employer. Those particular issues are also
embodied in this legislation; they've been agreed to.
[1435]
MacPhail: I think Mr. Kelleher was appointed as a special mediator pursuant
to the Labour Relations Code. What authority did Mr. Kelleher exercise during
this round of bargaining? Did he actually conduct bargaining since his
appointment? Did he also conduct bargaining since the imposition of Bill 2, the
cooling-off legislation?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Just so that there is no confusion, prior to the cooling-off he was a
private mediator, asked by both parties. Once we invoked the cooling-off, he was
then appointed through the ministry with the power to try and bring the parties
together to come up with a negotiated settlement.
MacPhail: Did the special mediator, in his capacity as a special mediator
pursuant to the Labour Relations Code, make either a verbal or a written report
to the minister?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Yes, as a special mediator he made a report, on my request, on the
issues outstanding and the distance that they were apart. I believe the Health
Sciences Association has published that on its web page.
MacPhail: Did the Minister of Labour rely on that report in determining to
impose the last employer offer on the paramedical professional bargaining
association?
Hon. G.
Bruce: As part of my determination as to where the parties were in this
negotiation, I used that as a basis for some of the required information. It was
clear from what Mr. Kelleher reported that the parties were very far apart.
MacPhail: Did Mr. Kelleher's advice to you have costing of the two proposals
included in it?
Hon. G.
Bruce: No. There was no costing by the special mediator.
MacPhail: The special mediator's involvement: was it ever discussed at any
time about the special mediator making binding recommendations — that both
parties would agree that the special mediator could make binding
recommendations?
Hon. G.
Bruce: No, it wasn't.
MacPhail: On the matters that are outstanding, the minister has referred
that the parties were very far apart. We spent quite a bit of time this morning
talking about the distance between the parties in the nurses bargaining
association and the Health Employers Association. I'm sure both the minister and
I learned a great deal from each other's comments this morning, so we can
probably short-circuit the discussion now. Let me just ask a series of
questions, and the staff may be able to do it while he and I talk about other
issues.
[1440]
What is the
total wage bill — benefits and wages, or whatever number you're using for the
total compensation bill — for the paramedical professionals' bargaining unit?
What is the employer's proposal cost? And what is the union's wage package cost
of the last compensation proposal that they made? This morning he and I were
talking about it in terms of cumulative and incremental, and I'd appreciate that
information as well.
Hon. G.
Bruce: The total compensation base for this group, prior to this settlement,
is $571.09 million. Call it $572 million. The total cumulative cost of this
three-year agreement is $135.2 million. The latest union three-year demand came
in at $417 million. So the difference between the two parties — the cumulative
difference between the employer's offer and the paramedicals' — was $282
million. What this legislation does is put into place an increase — a
cumulative total of three years — of $135 million. What the other party was
looking for was an additional $282 million on top of that.
MacPhail: Maybe we can just agree that even though it was a teleconference,
it was a meeting, because that's 2001 — right? At the meeting that the
minister had with the paramedical bargaining association, was there any
discussion about different, perhaps opposing, views between the employer's
costing and the bargaining association's costing — on the same matters, not on
different matters?
[ Page 396 ]
Hon. G.
Bruce: To the best of my ability, yes, there was, mostly on non-wage matters
— things like LTD, the splits of the fact of 5.5 and the 14.5. Yes, I believe
there was.
MacPhail: Was there any discussion between the bargaining association and
the minister about trying to provide information both ways to resolve those
differences? And what was the time line for delivering on that commitment, both
ways?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Prior to that conversation there had been some discussion around cost
differences, and we'd had a member doing some costing for us to try and make
sure that we were all talking apples and apples and not apples to oranges. Prior
to the conversation that information had been provided to the HSA.
[1445]
MacPhail: Again, I think this is for the public record. It may be from the
website of the HSA, actually. But it was my understanding that the paramedical
bargaining association assumed that work was ongoing with the minister — not
with the employer but with the minister — in trying to work out the
differences and reach a common understanding of the costing of the two
proposals.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Yes, in fact we did find some discrepancies, differences. That's why
we were doing this. It came down to the simple fact that even though there were
discrepancies in which numbers you wanted to choose, the amount of money still
outstanding — if you went with one set of numbers versus the other — was
still a cumulative of $151 million. There wasn't anything definitive as to which
one was absolutely correct. What we were trying to do was make sure that in what
had been proposed, we weren't missing an opportunity here to get a negotiated
settlement. But a cumulative total of difference on the bottom end of $151
million was still far, far apart in regards to where the parties were at.
MacPhail: Again, this legislation addresses two separate sets of
negotiations, and both sets of negotiations have very distinct aspects to them.
I think it's important, as the minister is doing, to treat them with respect as
separate sets of negotiations. I appreciate the fact that he's doing that.
That's why I'm exploring in detail this separate conversation that the minister
had.
Part of the
frustration that's being expressed out there, particularly by the paramedical
bargaining association, who have taken a different approach…. They've had a
very distinct approach to their bargaining as well. They took the unprecedented
action of withdrawing their labour during the cooling-off period. They've never,
ever, done that before. In fact, in their whole bargaining history they've only
withdrawn their labour any time for five days in total. But they took the
unprecedented action of withdrawing their labour in what the courts…. It got
to the extent that the employer was actually saying it was illegal and had taken
them to court.
Their
members are expressing, I think, even more frustration about what they had hoped
would continue on in the form of negotiations in the course of the last two or
three days, and part of that hope, which they would now claim is dashed, was
because of the useful meeting they had with the Minister of Labour.
On July 27
the chief negotiator for the Health Sciences Association representing the
paramedical bargaining association wrote to the special mediator. I'm sure the
Minister of Labour has a copy of this, and if he doesn't, I can give him a copy
of the document I'm referring to. In that document the elements of the costing
become very key. Honestly, I don't mind providing a copy if the minister doesn't
have it available. If I had some help…. Just kidding. The issue of costing is
very key. It almost sounds as if there would be hope, even today, that those
elements of the dispute could be worked out.
[1450]
I'm just
wondering if the minister can give any comfort. I guess the comfort could come
first and foremost by standing down this particular section, but I expect that
won't be the answer, although that would be very good news. This particular
bargaining unit has shown a willingness to work these issues through, and now
those hopes have been dashed. Is there anything we can hold out for the members
that perhaps we could get back on track, short of having the employer proposal
— with which they disagree — imposed?
Hon. G.
Bruce: The paramedicals…. As you well know, negotiation has the ebb and
flow of everything that goes on. I think it was the third week of July — I
haven't got the date exactly; the third or fourth week of July — that they
made another proposal. I think that resulted in coming from a 24 percent to a 20
percent reduction, and then I think there was an add-in of another 2 percent. I
think the bottom line was about 22 percent, so they'd moved about two points.
You read all of those tea leaves, if you like, as to whether or not there's
really serious movement, particularly when one has started so high in their
initial bargaining position.
With that
and then combined with the mediator's report and the conversation on the
telephone — the meeting we had — it was really clear to me that there wasn't
really an appetite to go any further. What I was really hoping was that I could
find some way in this arrangement, this negotiation, to fashion a deal which
would fly. But when parties are that far apart and you start trying to do that,
you can almost be a detriment to moving the whole issue along. There clearly
wasn't any, as I think I termed it, light in the tunnel to put that together.
MacPhail: Perhaps we can find some way by communicating through this
discussion about why it works for health sciences professionals to accept the
employer proposal. Just to take a moment to talk about the health sciences
professionals…. It's a group of
[ Page 397 ]
health care professionals with whom I've virtually not had much experience in
terms of health care delivery. But I have come to know the services they provide
as key in almost every area as the nursing professionals, and in some areas even
more key, to maintaining smooth delivery of health care. It's also important to
not pit the one bargaining unit against the other. By any stretch of the
imagination, one can only say that both are incredibly invaluable to the health
care delivery system.
Having
said that, historically nurses have taken a much higher profile in asserting
their employment conditions in a public fashion. I think patients themselves may
not know in some circumstances whether the person arriving at their bedside is a
health sciences professional or a nurse. The Health Sciences Association has all
of a sudden come into the fore by virtue of the dispute that they now find
themselves in. On one level, that's excellent news because I know all sorts of
young women and men who are now saying "Wow, that's an interesting job, and
I want to get into it." That's good news for us as a province.
But because
they are playing catch-up in terms of public perception of the value that they
contribute, it's been difficult for the Health Sciences Association to make
their case about how valuable they are. No one inside the system disputes how
valuable they are, but the public is saying: "What is that job title you
have? How does that contribute to the health care system?" Perhaps part of
the frustration that the health sciences professionals are feeling right now is
an explanation of the true value of the contribution they make to the system.
[1455]
We need to
examine carefully why the employer proposal being unilaterally selected made
sense in terms of the health care delivery system. It is my understanding, from
information received from labour market surveys, that in certain areas the
shortages for health sciences professionals and the ability to retain health
sciences professionals exceed those of nurses. I assume that's the justification
for the employer to give some people 14 percent and some people 5.5 percent.
However, it's also my understanding that each and every category of the health
sciences professionals is either now in a shortage or very shortly will be in a
shortage and that the competition across the country is the same for their
categories as well. That's background for the following questions.
How does
the acceptance of the Health Employers Association proposal around, let's say,
long-term disability…? Again, this is a situation of almost double negatives.
By accepting the Health Employers Association proposal on long-term disability,
a very important item for the health sciences proposal, the government is
virtually saying no to the health sciences union. So an employer proposal on
long-term disability is that the union gives up its proposal. That's how I read
it.
That was an
area where employees across the board could be valued equitably and treated
equitably. The employer had already created a tension in the bargaining unit by
giving some people 5.5 percent and some people 14 percent, and that really
created a huge tension — justifiably so, if you ask me. But the long-term
disability proposal being accepted could have gone a long way to smoothing that
over. As I understand it, that proposal is now completely lost by the forcing of
the employer's proposal on them.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I think it is very important that through the discussion that takes
place here today we get some understanding of who paramedicals are. It's got
this name, paramedicals, and what does it mean to the general public? I'm going
to take a chance here. I have a little bit of a lisp, and when I start trying to
get around what some of these are, I'm not sure I'll make it through here.
The
physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, profusionists, medical
technologists, medical radiation technologists, nuclear medicine technologists,
diagnostic neurophysiology technicians, a diagnostic medical sonographer: that's
one grouping of paramedicals. Dietitians, health records admin-istrators,
orthotists, prosthetists, psychologists, resp-iratory therapists, social
workers, speech/language pathologists, audiologists, electronystagmography
technicians, diagnostic technicians, neuromuscular technicians,
electrocardiogram technologists, cytotechnologists, electromyography
technicians, visual function assessment unit technicians: that was the second
body.
Now, in
spite of all these names and in the aspect of a little bit of humour, I'm sure
they all have two arms, two legs and are great human beings in the province of
British Columbia. But those names and what they actually do in each one of their
fields…. I wouldn't be able to answer that to you. However, I think, moving
from there, those two bodies…. The first group that I mentioned are considered
as a group — the physiotherapists to the sonographer. That particular body
represents about 60 percent of the paramedical employees. The other group
represents about 40 percent of the paramedical employees.
[1500]
It's that
first group that we are talking about, which would receive up to a 14.5 percent
increase over the course of the collective agreement, where the other group
would be a 5.5 percent increase over the course of the collective agreement.
Now, let's
keep in mind what all of that means. It's already accepted that the paramedicals
in British Columbia are the highest paid. Their total compensation package is, I
think, indisputably the highest pay package in Canada. Again, they receive the
highest mileage rates in Canada and the highest on-call premiums in the country.
There's increased funding for professional development. They're among the
national leaders in shift and weekend premiums. They have the highest-paid leave
and health and welfare benefits in Canada. They also have the maintenance of the
highest vacation entitlements in Canada, with which, if my memory serves me
correctly, a first-year person would receive four weeks of vacation time. This
entire
[ Page 398 ]
package, to be clear, has a cumulative cost over the three years of $135
million.
With
respect to the LTD which was moved off the table — this is the long-term
disability plan — that was a $30 million request. The long-term disability
plan had been an employee-run LTD. It was and is in difficulty. They were the
ones that were running it and, I think, ought to be responsible for cleaning
that up. That's why that was left with them.
All in all,
although these names are tongue twisters to some, it's a very diverse group of
people, extremely important to the health care system in the province. The
legislated settlement will give them and keep them in the role of having the
highest-paid compensation package in Canada. If we're looking again at the issue
of retention and training or bringing more here, certainly British Columbia has
a very attractive package relative to anywhere else in Canada.
We've
spoken about the U.S. call or train that people look at. There's that whole
different lifestyle and marketplace in the medical profession, if you like, that
you would find yourself in, in the U.S. if you were to move there. I think we're
in good stead there. I think it comes down, again, to the fact that if we can
get past this part of the issue, understand the frustration that people have
had throughout this negotiating process and move on to really rebuild the
health care system, in both instances — but this one specifically, as we're
dealing with it — we're on good ground to keep and attract others to British
Columbia once they fully appreciate and understand what's in the package.
MacPhail: Yes, that's a very useful and laudable goal. The only problem is
that we differ on how to reach that, and that's what we're discussing here
today.
In this
particular set of bargaining for the paramedical bargaining association, they
are expressing a great deal of frustration that's very unique to them for this
reason. Correct me if I'm wrong. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think
I am. There were literally six very minor items that had been agreed upon before
the government forced this settlement on them. Those items are of a fairly minor
nature: parental leave, shift posting, housekeeping items, temporary
assignments, provision of the wage
schedule to move it to two decimal places as
opposed to one, and shift premium. Even at that, there were some outstanding
items around shift premiums. Virtually everything else was outstanding.
[1505]
On that
basis, by virtue of setting aside the use of the special mediator, by virtue of
not implementing legislation that, while it certainly would be less than
satisfactory, did not include a third-party mechanism for settlement, the
paramedical bargaining association is left with virtually every proposal but six
being given to the employer. And I use that language advisedly —
"given" — because it was. It was merely that the employer's proposal
was taken and legislated.
Here's the
particular danger in this situation, if I could. What is the future of
bargaining in this province? If indeed it simply means that an employer says:
"I'm going to hold out; I'm not going to move. I'm not going to make any
changes or compromise or reach consensus, because I'm pretty much guaranteed
that my side will be imposed." That, in fact, is what has really
happened to the Health Sciences Association.
I would put
it to the minister that all of the concerns around tensions building up by the
government choosing a winner and imposing a loser are exacerbated in the
paramedical bargaining association by virtue of the incredible imbalance in
meeting the needs of the workers over the employer.
Hon. G.
Bruce: A couple of points. First of all, if I can, there were a number of
agreed-upon proposals from both the employer — the HEABC, that is — and the
paramedicals. The provisions of the wage
schedule that you mentioned were agreed
upon. Housekeeping, temporary assignments, effective termination dates,
levelling, shift posting, transportation allowance and travel expense, callback,
workers compensation, entitlement to leave, night and weekend shift premium,
parental leave, Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency funding and letter of
understanding were agreed to as well.
The
outstanding issues, I think it's important to note, were virtually all
dollars-and-cents, cost allowance, issues. We were right starting in this
negotiation from the standpoint that this particular bargaining unit, this
group, was already the highest-paid in Canada. Their initial offer, their
initial proposal as they held to it, really put them in a position where they
were looking for far more than what was reasonable at this point.
The other
thing that it's important to note, too, as we talk about this is that just prior
to the cooling-off period, the paramedicals had at that point decided, for
whatever reason, that they were going to start to undertake some job action.
That caused me great consternation. They were talking about job action taking
place on, I think, the Monday, ramping up and escalating to pretty much a full
shutdown by the Friday. This would be 50-some-odd days ago.
That was
very much a major factor in our determining to bring in a cooling-off. Then
unfortunately, they took it upon themselves to actually defy the law. They were
breaking the law of the province. I think that's very serious when one looks at
how our democracy works, albeit that people may not like certain things.
Breaking the law is not something that British Columbians or Canadians accept or
take lightly. It was unfortunate that they took that step.
The fact of
the matter, when you still come back to the long and short of it, is the 5.5
percent that one group of that negotiating body is going to receive, up to the
14.5 percent. We're talking multimillion dollars. We've maintained and sustained
them in the ranking as the highest-paid in their field in Canada.
[1510]
appreciate that there may be frustrations with how the negotiations took place.
At the end of the day, though, as I mentioned, it's my responsibility at the
Ministry of Labour to draw a conclusion. It was clear
[ Page 399 ]
that we weren't going…. I mean, what was on the table was already a very,
very generous offer — cumulative dollars. So that's what is reflected in the
legislation.
MacPhail: It is very troubling to note that this bargaining unit has taken
action that's been unprecedented within their own contemplation. One of the
unions involved in this bargaining association had a constitution that until
just a mere decade and a half ago didn't permit them to withdraw their labour at
all. It wasn't government legislation; it was their own constitution. They were
such dedicated professionals that their own union constitution forbade them to
withdraw their labour.
But they
also appreciated the complexities of the health care system, the value of free
collective bargaining, the value of making points on behalf of patient care, and
they changed the constitution. Frankly, it took a huge amount of provocation to
have this bargaining unit exercise their ability to withdraw their labour. In
the course of them doing that, the government declared that illegal, not by
virtue of anything other than fiat from the government. It was a fiat by the
government that turned that legitimate withdrawal of labour into an illegal
action.
It's with a
great deal of sadness that I say that, a great deal of sadness to see how
circumstances since June 19 have provoked this bargaining unit into
unprecedented action that they hadn't taken in decades. I think it's incumbent
upon me, then, to ask the minister to put on the record why he saw fit with this
particular paramedical bargaining association…. Why he felt it necessary to
advise his cabinet colleagues…. I assume this was his recommendation to the
Premier. Why did he advise in this particular situation that further special
mediation or further arbitration or third-party resolution wasn't the right
avenue to go in this particular circumstance?
Hon. G.
Bruce: It was very, very clear that the demands and the offers were…. The
difference that we're talking about was huge — multimillions of dollars. There
was already an offer of a multimillion dollars on the floor. What is it — $135
million?
Again, this
particular negotiation started on January 29 of this year, I think. The party
started the whole process. We went all the way through and up to an election.
It's very unfortunate in the way these types of negotiations get into the
political arena in that respect, but indeed they were there. Expectations built,
and at the end of the day we're faced, as a new government, with having to step
into a negotiation and try to come up with a resolution to it.
[1515]
There was
just not in this instance — much like the other one, either — the room, the
ability to bring the two parties together and say: "Look, I think we can
fashion a deal here — multimillions of dollars." So you come back to
the…. Although you want to separate — I don't mean you yourself, the member
opposite, but as one would look at these things that you have two negotiations
taking place…. You have them both in the health sector. The combined total of
what we're talking about here, which the taxpayer has to come up with, is what
in a cumulative way is approximately $750 million over and above what's already
being paid out — a tremendous amount of money. That's what's on the table. It
isn't just a little bit more.
Indeed, had
or another, was there — there was some way of tweaking — I might have had
some way of taking that and trying to fashion a deal. But it was very clear by
this party, and certainly by the nurses, that there wasn't anything there to
play with. Everybody had their positions. They were locked; it was there. We
have a health care system that we need to get on to rebuilding, and what was on
the table wasn't something that was second-rate. What was on the table made all
of the parties the highest-paid in Canada. It's somewhat ironic that we're here
in the House doing this.
MacPhail: Was it the minister's belief, after his meeting with the
bargaining association on August 6, that there was no more room to move on the
part of the bargaining association? Was it the minister's view, after the
meeting he had with the bargaining association on August 6, that there was no
more room to move on behalf of the union?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Just as a point of clarification and a slip of my tongue, I've been
talking about 14.5. It's 14.25 — just to have that read into the record.
It was my
assessment of the conversations I had had that there was clearly no further room
to move. The questions that were asked and the discussion that we had….We were
there. It was a situation where the parties were all locked up.
Keep in
mind, again, that through this whole cooling-off period I had been very clear,
as I mentioned earlier on in this debate, that I was not looking to extend the
cooling-off. We were running to the end of the 50 days, and one ought to get on
with it if they thought there was a way to negotiate a settlement. We weren't
going to go on and on with additional days of cooling off and extending
cooling-off periods to facilitate this, unless there was demonstrable movement
— real negotiation — happening. It was clear the parties were locked.
MacPhail: Why didn't the minister just tell that to the paramedical
bargaining association on August 6, then?
Hon. G.
Bruce: My point was to have conversations with people, as I did. I didn't
just run off at that point after I'd had those conversations; I reflected on
what people had to say. In the other instance, I reworked some numbers, wanted
to make sure that I had heard…. This was not done in haste; it was done with a
tremendous amount of consideration.
[1520]
Section 3
of Bill 15 approved on the following division:
[ Page 400 ]
[1525]
YEAS — 57
Coell
L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Whittred
Cheema
Hansen
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Masi
Lee
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Collins
Clark
Bond
de Jong
Nebbeling
Stephens
Abbott
Coleman
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Orr
Nuraney
Brenzinger
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Johnston
R. Stewart
Hayer
Krueger
McMahon
Bray
Les
Locke
Nijjar
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Sahota
Hawes
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 2
MacPhail
Kwan
On
section
[1530]
MacPhail: I was quizzing the minister earlier in the day about how one
determines what has been agreed upon under 2(1)(b). As I recall the discussion,
it was that most — I'm not sure whether he said all or most — matters have
been agreed upon in writing. The reason I was asking that was because I was
really trying to figure out how
section 4 is going to work.
As I recall
from days way gone by — others in the room may recall those same days gone by
— sometimes there was what was called package bargaining. You would have a
situation where you would have coloured sheets. I'm sure technology has moved
on, and no longer are there coloured sheets. If there still are, then we're
in big trouble. You would have a package. Green sheets would be the sheets that
said "agreed upon," blue sheets for employer proposals and yellow
sheets for union proposals. But there would be package bargaining. Sometimes
package bargaining would say that we agree to this or this is signed off if that
is agreed upon. Very frequently bargaining never concluded until the final,
final day on every matter because everything became linked.
I raise
this because — I don't want to get into the complexities of bargaining — this
clause will be absolutely determining in how the relationship proceeds at the
workplace. If this
section becomes a
section of dispute where everything blows
up again, then the tensions increase, and even with the imposition of the
employer proposal, there's not resolution.
Let me just
ask how
section 4, all subsections (1), (2) and (3), will work.
Hon. G.
Bruce: What this does is allow that if there are items, as we're trying to
put this thing into final form, that the parties have some dispute over, then
we've provided for a process in which there can be clarification and, in the
end, determination as to what happens in that instance. There is a listing, as I
was reading some of them out to you, of agreed-upon issues that both parties
have agreed to which are included in the basis of this contract. This is a
mechanism, and you'll notice that subs (1) and (2) apply to each of the
respective contracts that we're putting through in legislation here. It's a
process to make sure there is a way of determining if there is a dispute.
MacPhail: Does the minister, or perhaps the staff that is advising him, have
any sense about the clarity of the agreed-upon items under 2(1)(
b) and 3(1)(b)?
This legislation's been in the public domain for two days. I have no idea
whether there's any discussions going on or whether all communication is broken
down. Have either of the three parties — the paramedical bargaining
association, the Health Employers Association and the nurses bargaining
association — come forward and said: "What do you mean? What is the
package that's included under 2(1)(
b) or 3(1)(
b) that would then be subject to
4?"
[1535]
Hon. G.
Bruce: We don't believe there is a situation here that is one that's going
to cause the friction that I know you're concerned about and that we all would
be concerned about. For the most part, the big issues are very clear. On the
small ones that have been agreed to, what this is an attempt to do is if there's
an
interpretation — you and I both agree on something, and you thought I
agreed to something differently than what I thought I agreed to…. So that's
the role that either Mr. Ready or Mr. Kelleher would play in determining that
interpretation. No, I don't think there's a lot left on the table that would
cause a huge dispute in this respect.
MacPhail: Well, I need some clarification on subsection 4(3), then. The
industrial inquiry commissioner — in this case, Mr. Ready — or the special
mediator, Mr. Kelleher, is there to provide clarification. It also seems to me
that Mr. Ready and/or Mr. Kelleher have the ability to rule on a dispute, but it
doesn't actually say that. They can provide clarification.
Now, that
also is qualified. The special mediators and the IIC's ability to rule, to
impose clarity, is also qualified by the language in subsection 2(3), which says
that despite whatever…. Or is it? Maybe it isn't. Maybe the special mediator
and the industrial inquiry commissioner aren't limited by subsection 2(3) —
that they have to get sign-off for that clarification by the Minister of
Finance. Maybe it isn't.
[ Page 401 ]
Hon. G.
Bruce: So in reference to subsection 4(3), the role here, as it applies back
to subsection 4(1) and subsection 4(2), is that once this is put into place, the
parties have got 30 days to come forward with those issues that they are in
dispute over. The mediator or the industrial inquiry commissioner, either Mr.
Kelleher or Mr. Ready, would then take those disputes. They would take a look at
them with both parties and make sure that they could provide the proper
clarification and
interpretation. But if there had been no clear agreement, then
it would just revert to the way the contract had read before.
What that
allows for, then, in subsection 2(3) — and I hate to go back — is if the two
parties together were HEABC with the nurses or HEABC with the paramedicals, the
two parties together who wanted to negotiate something else would be able to do
that as long as it didn't have financial implications. If that was the instance,
it would have to first be agreed upon by the Minister of Finance. So they are
split in duty.
MacPhail: Under subsection 4(3) the rulings of the industrial inquiry
commissioner or the special mediator become final and binding and are written
into the collective agreement, as I understand it. So it's final and binding.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Either of the gentlemen, Mr. Ready or Mr. Kelleher, has in this act
the power to clarify. That's what they have. That's what's been vested in them
here. It's the power to clarify.
MacPhail: Well, that's interesting, and actually that is what the language
says. When something is in dispute — and clearly the matters that will be
referred to them are matters that someone had thought were agreed upon and that
now someone says are in dispute…. You've got a bit of a conflict there just by
invoking the clause. One party gets to decide whether it's in dispute or not.
Fair enough. That's what a dispute is about.
[1540]
But if a
matter that had been in the agreed-upon
section now gets referred to the special
mediator, the IIC, because one party says it's in dispute, doesn't that open up
a whole can of worms? Why would this clause even be needed? This is again why I
worry about the haste and the unilateral enforcement of this. Why is this clause
even needed? Either a matter is agreed upon or it isn't.
Here's what
I see happening. The employer may be feeling pretty cocky these days, because
frankly, this is their proposal. They got everything that they wanted. They woke
up on August 7, and it was a great day for health employers in this province and
a very sad day for the people who deliver the services in the province, because
the employer proposal was imposed and forced on the workers.
Why
couldn't you take time to actually get clarity on what was agreed upon? Why is
it up in the air?
Hon. G.
Bruce: I don't think that I would ever categorize seven months of
negotiation as something being done in haste. We had 50 days of cooling off, and
we'd come to the point where, as I mentioned earlier, it was clear the parties
had locked up. Nothing was going anywhere.
Now, what this
section does….
We don't
believe there's a lot of dispute out there in respect to what's being put in
place here. It would absolutely be wonderful if both you and I could know that
what we've agreed to, we've agreed to, when we're in a negotiation. We think
that it's very clear. What we're allowing for is the provision where you think
you heard me say something that I thought was different. What we have is a third
party there — in this instance, either Mr. Kelleher or Mr. Ready — to simply
say: "No, that was not agreed upon," or "Yes, that was agreed
upon, and this is the
interpretation."
Now, I
don't expect that there's a flood of issues out there. I really don't. This is
really dealing more with the
interpretation of what one group thought they had
agreed to with the other. This is not moving into a whole process of negotiation
and arbitration.
MacPhail: Let me just put on the record, then, my concerns. Perhaps the
government can take my concerns under advisement as this process continues on
what will be a very rocky road.
I am
concerned about this clause. I am concerned that this clause will be used as a
tool to further provoke a tense situation or further provoke the enforcement of
one side's interests over another. I hope that's not the case. I certainly have
the greatest, greatest of faith in Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Ready. However, let me
just say that I regret the fact that it is a piece of legislation that has been
hastily brought forward in a way that many interpret as unbalanced and unfair.
This clause may be used as either a shield or a weapon — either one — and both
would be unfortunate.
I also
wonder why, if the IIC and the special mediator are given this responsibility,
their responsibilities couldn't have just been expanded to arbitrate on the
entire matter or settle it. But I've made that point over and over again. So I
put it to the government that it will be their responsibility to see that the
parties invoke this clause fairly and that it not be used in an aggressive way.
[1545]
What I mean
by that is that employees who are already in despair over the lack of
consideration of their proposals will be terribly, terribly concerned if indeed
the employer decides that there are items that others thought were agreed upon
and that are now not agreed upon. By the same token, it would be terribly,
terribly unfair if items that had been part of a package — and that package
wasn't included in here — then became a single, agreed-upon item to the
detriment of the employees.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I can assure you that this will not be used in a provocative manner.
In our estimation, it's very clear. It's a mechanism so that…. The items
you're talking about are really non-monetary items of
[ Page 402 ]
interpretation. I think it is prudent to have a clause like that in there so
that if there is some misinterpretation that one has from the other, there's a
process for that to be cleared up with.
Let's keep
in mind that this is a piece of legislation that for all intents and purposes
provides for both parties to have the highest-paid total compensation package in
Canada. What we're doing here is trying to bring some finality to what has been
a very long, protracted and frustrating negotiation. No one would hope more than
I that we would find a way from here to start rebuilding the health care process
— keeping in mind, albeit, that this is not the way we wish to end disputes.
But in fact it does give both of the parties a compensation package that makes
them the highest paid in Canada. This particular clause, as I mentioned, is just
that: a tool for clarification. The bigger issues were settled.
Section 4
approved.
On
section
MacPhail: Was the proposal from the nurses bargaining association, as I
recall, for a two-year proposal?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Originally it had been two, but in their last days they were talking
three.
Section 5
approved on division.
Section 6
approved.
On
section
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, you did note, on
section 5, nay on division. Thank you.
I referred
to this earlier, about when this becomes law. It could be just that I
forget how one does this, but how does this become law? When is it the law of
the land? When is the collective agreement imposed?
Hon. G.
Bruce: On royal assent, by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
Sections 7
and 8 approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without
amendment.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 3:49 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 15,
Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act, reported complete without
amendments.
Mr.
Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
[1550]
Hon. G.
Bruce: Now, Mr. Speaker.
[1555]
Bill 15,
Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act, read a third time and passed on
the following division:
YEAS — 68
Falcon
Coell
Hogg
L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Whittred
Cheema
Hansen
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Roddick
Masi
Lee
Thorpe
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Campbell
Collins
Clark
Bond
de Jong
Nebbeling
Stephens
Abbott
Neufeld
Coleman
Weisbeck
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Orr
Nuraney
Brenzinger
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Trumper
Johnston
R. Stewart
Hayer
Krueger
McMahon
Bray
Les
Stephens
Abbott
Neufeld
Coleman
Weisbeck
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Orr
Nuraney
Brenzinger
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Trumper
Johnston
R. Stewart
Hayer
Krueger
McMahon
Bray
Les
Locke
Nijjar
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Sahota
Hawes
Kerr
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 2
MacPhail
Kwan
Hon. G.
Collins: I call second reading of Bill 5.Perhaps I can give members a minute who have
to go to the other committee.
[ Page 403 ]
[1600]
BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
(second reading)
Hon. G.
Collins: I move that Bill 5, the Budget Transparency and Accountability
Amendment Act, 2001, now be read a second time.
Bill 5
makes several amendments to the existing act. These amendments are to fulfil our
commitment to truth in budgeting and increased accountability. The amendments
require the appointment of an accounting advisory board to provide government
with advice on the implementation of generally accepted accounting principles.
This advice and the work of the committee are to be completed over the next two
and a half years, after which time government will be required to adopt these principles in
all of its accounting policies.
This bill
also fixes the budget date each year as the third Tuesday in February. In
keeping with this change, the time frame for the prebudget consultation process
by a committee of the Legislature is being advanced by one and a half months.
Ministerial
accountability is being enhanced by the requirement that ministry service plans
and service plan reports make it clear, by a signed statement by the minister,
that it's the minister who is accountable for the objectives in the plan and the
results in the report.
Budget
transparency is being enhanced by the requirement that all of the material
assumptions and policy decisions underlying the three-year fiscal projections be
included as part of the government's strategic plan.
Government
fiscal accountability is being enhanced by curtailing the use of any special
warrants to natural disasters and to the period surrounding an election.
Finally,
these amendments also repeal the Environment and Sustainability Statutes
Amendment Act, which was passed fairly quickly days prior to the calling of the
last election. The government believes that the auditor general is in a very
good position to undertake environmental auditing without the need for a
commissioner and has given additional resources for this purpose.
There are a
couple of issues with regard to this bill that I know are of interest to the
public in general. Generally accepted accounting principles are something that
our party, in opposition, spoke strongly in favour of. It's something the
auditor general has been pushing for, for a number of years, as well as the
auditor general who preceded him. It is something that I know governments across
the country are grappling with. It is not an easy task to take the entity, which
is probably an interesting choice of words, that is or isn't government — and
there's a big debate about that — and try to put it into these generally
accepted accounting principles.
I know
there are challenges there; there are difficulties. I think those that have to
make it work raise legitimate questions as to how we might do that and what the
process might be. That's why the government has decided to draw from outside
expertise in the accounting profession — people outside of government who
would have something to contribute — to bring them together to help, along
with the auditor general, the comptroller general, the Ministry of Finance and
other government officials, to try and figure out how we decide, first of all,
what the entity is that is government and then put it into these accounting
principles.
I don't
underestimate the challenge that we face in doing that. It will be difficult;
there's no question of that. We've given ourselves two and a half years to get there. It's
not something that one can just do overnight. There are questions around
quarterly reports and the exchange of data between schools and hospitals on a
regular basis throughout the fiscal year,
whereas right now there isn't a lot of
exchange of financial information between those entities in government at all.
So it's going to require a change in culture; it's going to require a change in
the amount of communication back and forth. I don't expect that's going to be an
easy thing to change.
As well, it
will require greater communication between Crown corporations and agencies and
the central part of core government. I often questioned in opposition why it
seemed that government ministries and Crown corporations didn't seem to talk
very well, and I'm finding that it just seems to happen that way. We're trying
to improve that dialogue. We've found the new boards of the Crown corporations
that we have put in place to be very cooperative in trying to do that, but
again, that's a change that's going to take some time to implement.
[1605]
I'm excited
about this; I'm looking forward to it. I don't underestimate for a minute the
challenges that we're going to face in trying to achieve it. But if we can do it
and do it in the time frame that we're setting out for ourselves as a target —
we're pretty intent on hitting our targets, in case people hadn't noticed —
then it will be a challenge, and we're looking forward to doing that. If we do
that, I think we'll be a leader, certainly in Canada and North America, for the
clarity and transparency and openness and the standards by which we hold our
entity of government to account. So I'm looking forward to doing that.
As well,
one of the issues that appears towards the end of this legislation — an
amendment — is the amendment to repeal the act which I mentioned earlier: the
Environment and Sustainability Statutes and Amendment Act, 2001, which was
passed earlier this year. It set up this — I don't know how to put it —
unusual accountability structure within the ministry or within the auditor
general's office. It was designed to have an environmental commissioner who
would be hired by the auditor general and who would report to the Legislature
but not be accountable directly to the Legislature.
It was
something that the previous government put together in a fairly expedited way, I
might say, in an attempt to…. After ten years in government, in the last
[ Page 404 ]
week or so they decided this was something they were going to proceed on.
There was a number of pieces of legislation that appeared almost out of nowhere
at that point in time. This was one that I felt was different. The
accountability structure was different. I raised that at the time in the Public
Accounts with the auditor general and my colleagues there. I raised it on the
floor of the House at the time as well.
Government
has decided that there is nothing within the current Auditor General Act or
office that precludes the auditor general from auditing anything in the
environment that he chooses. In fact, he's very much at arm's length. Although
he reports to the Legislature, he has traditionally been given great latitude in
the elements of government that he chooses to audit.
In fact,
one of the more time-consuming reports for Public Accounts to deal with over the
last number of years was a very comprehensive audit of drinking water in British
Columbia and the quality of drinking water, which is something that I know
members from right across the province face as an issue in their communities.
Because of the geography of our province there are almost countless types,
varieties and sizes of systems to deliver water to the people of this province.
Some of them work very well, some of them require maintenance and upgrading, and
others are pretty unreliable at the best of times.
This, I
might add just to highlight the significance of this report, was done well
before the Walkerton tragedy, which has become an issue of some national
importance and discussion over the last couple of years. This audit was being
instigated and undertaken and reported upon by the auditor general well before
that happened. So it gives an idea of some of the types of auditing that that
office has done. Certainly the auditor general is able to do others in the
future, if he and his office so choose.
In fact, to
put that out there, people can notice, if they look at the vote this year for
the office of the auditor general, that the money that was allocated to his
office remains there. Obviously, as we go through and build
next year's budget, we'll be looking at everybody's budgets. As I've told the
auditor general, we would like to change a bit of the way that works — the way
the officers of the Legislature are accountable for their budgets. Right now it
seems that it's done through Treasury Board, and I think it would be more
appropriate for there to be a recommendation to come from a committee of the
Legislature around those budgets first to Treasury Board. I don't like the idea
of having an officer of the Legislature accountable exclusively for their
funding to Treasury Board. It's sort of contrary to what it is that we're trying
to do and contrary to the philosophy of independence.
We're going
to be looking at ways that officers of the Legislature can report to committees
of the Legislature. Those committees can ask the tough questions and can
question the officers on their business plans, their performance plans, what
their goals are, how they're going to measure that, how they're going to achieve
that and also on the funding that they need to do that. Then those committees
can make recommendations to Treasury Board. So we're going to try and do
something a little different there.
[1610]
The auditor
general's budget was increased fairly significantly — about $800,000 — in
order to accommodate this environmental commissioner that was put forward in the
last legislation. That money remains with that vote, and at some time through
this year we'd like to be able to provide the opportunity for the auditor to
come back to the Legislature with an idea of what he wants to do with his
funding, what he wants to do with his budget. Should it be higher? Should it be
lower? What are the projects that he's looking to undertake?
I think
that will be a fairly significant move forward, and as I said, the auditor
general has never hesitated in the past to audit those areas that he thinks
necessary and to comment pretty strongly on them from time to time. I expect
that he and his office will continue to do that as it pertains to the auditing
of environmental issues. I expect he will be able to do that job as competently
as he has done the other jobs that he does.
Mr.
Speaker, I know that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has comments she'd like
to make as well. With that, I will sit down and let her take her place in the
debate.
MacPhail: I reply at second reading of Bill 5, the Budget Transparency and
Accountability Amendment Act. The government is quite right in predicting that
my comments will be restricted to the repealing of the commissioner for
environment and sustainability in
an act that was introduced on March 29, 2001,
but had been announced and put into place much sooner than that. The public
announcement of it was done at the beginning of the year 2001 after much
consultation amongst a wide variety of people who care about preserving B.C.'s
natural history. Because this is a bill that repeals
an act, it's important for
British Columbians to understand what the act that is being repealed contained
and what its goals were and why the act was brought into place on their behalf.
When the
then Premier announced the commissioner for environment and sustainability,
people around the country applauded the government. Not only people whose sole
passion or major passion was protecting the environment, but very smart and
progressive business people applauded the appointment of the commissioner for
environment and sustainability. Indeed, the auditor general applauded the
appointment, welcomed the appointment and worked very vigorously to make sure
that the appointment proceeded.
The
environment and sustainability commissioner reported to the Legislative Assembly
as an independent officer, and he or she would be an independent officer. Let's
be clear: there hasn't been one selected yet — or there wasn't one selected.
The commissioner would be an independent officer of the Legislature. That means
that it would be the MLAs to
[ Page 405 ]
whom the commissioner would report and through us to the public. With a
hugely skewed Legislative Assembly, I expect that takes on less import.
Nevertheless, that was the intent of the commissioner being an independent
officer of the Legislature.
Today we
see the Liberal government removing that independent officer and somehow saying:
"Oh well, don't worry; be happy. We'll make sure that the intent of the
officer of the Legislature prevails." Well, just yesterday we saw what they
did with another independent officer of the Legislature. We saw legislation
introduced where the child advocate role would now be completely under the
jurisdiction, for up to two years, of the government and the government alone.
No one else but the government will have any control over who that child
advocate is — an independent officer of the Legislature.
[1615]
Again, this
repealing of the independence of the commissioner on environment and
sustainability is a trend by this government. I would say that it's a trend that
shows the real unannounced agenda of the Liberal government because, indeed,
when the legislation was introduced, the then critic, the minister from Saanich
North and the Islands — who didn't actually get the role of minister of
environment; actually, there isn't a minister of environment; anyway, he was
then the Environment critic — said: "Mr. Speaker, the opposition will be
supporting this bill in principlel." And they did; they voted in favour. So
it wasn't as if this was one where, like others, the then-opposition,
now-government said that this was one where they may repeal. They did indicate
very clearly other pieces of legislation where they would certainly go into
review. This one was never on the list. This was never on the list, because the
Liberals knew that if they had somehow taken a piece of world-class legislation,
which actually was acknowledged internationally, and had said, "Sorry, we
don't agree with having an independent commissioner on the environment,"
that would have been an issue that they would have had to account for during the
election. We all know that British Columbians consider amongst their highest
priorities protection of B.C.'s natural heritage and having a sustainable
economy.
Sometimes
we engage in jargon and in words that we're very comfortable with. But maybe the
ordinary public who are busy maintaining the needs of their family, who feel the
values that we do, don't express their values in the same way. A sustainable
economy — the definition of that is clearly outlined in the legislation that's
being repealed. It basically incorporates a fundamental ethic that must inform
the policies and actions of all government ministries and Crown corporations. It
requires that the entire provincial government, all Crown corporations — which
will be interesting as we engage in this discussion further — and government
ministries have to meet the test of sustainability.
The
government of the day had already met the international goal of protecting 12
percent of the land base. They had been enforcing a very aggressive Forest
Practices Code, and they had been supporting locally developed land use plans
across the province. Just in case anyone wants to attack me for using the third
person, let it be clear that I was part of the government that enforced this
legislation and had as a value a sustainable economy that protects the
environment. So that took place.
How were we
going to bring about the commissioner for environment and sustainability? It was
going to be administratively within the office of the auditor general. The
auditor general of the day worked with us to establish that. It was very
supportive. There was going to be an all-party legislative committee that would
be established for referring sustainability matters to the commissioner for
investigation. The commissioner then would take those matters of referral and
would issue a report. The reports were to be on the state of the province's
ecological health issued every two years, annual reports on government, ministry
and Crown corporation performance against publicly stated sustainability
commissions and then specific reports on sustainability issues at the
commissioner's discretion.
[1620]
Indeed,
British Columbians would have been able to submit complaints to the commissioner
for referral to the appropriate ministries or Crown corporations. The
commissioner could enter into protocols with other related government agencies
— for instance the ombudsman or the Forest Practices Board — to eliminate any
potential duplication. Every single aspect of openness, accountability,
administrative clarity and efficiency was contained in the mandate of the
sustainability commissioner in the legislation that's now being repealed.
The auditor
general was going to be responsible for hiring B.C.'s first environment and
sustainability commissioner. The auditor general would have selected and led a
search committee. There was going to be balanced representation by government
and opposition members. There would be representatives from environmental
organizations, the business community, labour unions and first nations
communities — much different, I might add, from the Progress Board appointed
by this government, which is of a single description. It was going to be very
balanced and include all interests. That's all gone now. With the stroke of a
legislative pen, this Liberal government has repealed, done away with, discarded
the environment commissioner.
David Boyd,
the environmental lawyer at University of Victoria's eco-research chair, said:
"This announcement is a positive step towards a sustainable future for
British Columbia. Concerned citizens now have a new tool to hold the government
accountable for its environmental commitments." And that tool is now gone.
It's now gone.
Now, why do
we need an environment commissioner? There are those who now sit in the chamber
that rue the day that there would be any environmental protection or requirement
to have a sustainable economy. I'm surrounded by them, with
[ Page 406 ]
the exception of one — surrounded by them, except for the member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Actually, after ten years it's a little bit…. I
must say the points of view that are now represented by some in this Legislature
do come as a surprise to me. It does come as a surprise to me how unable some
members are of understanding the needs of the future of the province and the
absolute necessity for the government to have a sustainable economy.
Let's look
at why we would need an environment commissioner. There's a lot of rhetoric and
a lot of good, hard, principled commitment, as well, by some members towards
their responsibility to the taxpayers. We hear about it a lot in this chamber
— our obligation to the taxpayers. Well, there are many, many hundreds of
thousands of taxpayers that expect the government to actually make a commitment
on their behalf to not destroy the environment as the economy does its work.
Many, many British Columbians hold that as their highest value, as a matter of
fact. That's what the environment and sustainability commissioner would have
done. It just would have represented the taxpayers in making sure that their tax
dollars are being spent in a way that invests in a sustainable economy and
doesn't destroy it.
The federal
government's had a similar position for many years, and it's been a very
effective tool to enhance accountability. The United Kingdom recently announced
plans to proceed with an environment commissioner as well.
[1625]
There was a
financial commitment that I understand will remain — for this year anyway. I
hold out great hope that the $5 million that's committed this year to
enforcement and…. Well, actually, no. I'm sorry. At the same time that the
environment and sustainability commissioner was announced, the government of the
day also increased the then-Environment ministry's budget by $4.9 million for
enforcement and conservation initiatives, and that budget has been slashed. That
budget was eliminated. So the first shoe to drop is the elimination of any
programs that are conservation initiatives or conservation enforcement
initiatives. That's gone. And now the commissioner on environment is gone as
well. I guess that makes sense, because if you're going to cut programs that
enforce a sustainable economy, you wouldn't want anybody actually examining your
actions on how you're achieving that sustainable economy. It was going to be a
very efficient office. The commissioner was supposed to have a very small staff,
and it was to be integrated with the office of the auditor general to make sure
that the structure was cost-effective and wasn't another layer of bureaucracy.
In their
zeal to rid themselves of the environmental commissioner, the Liberal government
is somehow saying that this was done in haste, at the last moment. Well, the
public knows that's not true. There was wide consultation on what model would be
used for an environmental commissioner. It went on for months, absolutely
months. Maybe even the then Liberal opposition had a say in that. They were
invited to have a say in that. I don't know whether they actually responded, but
consultation occurred with the business community, resource industries,
environmental organizations, first nations communities, local governments. There
was a broad consensus that there should be a commissioner, and the commissioner
was going to be able to issue a comprehensive report on the ecological health of
British Columbia every two years. Then there was a rather groundbreaking
initiative as well, which is that individuals would be able to make direct
appeal through written submissions to the commissioner. All of that is gone now.
I regret
that. I regret it deeply because I think it represents a chilling trend in this
province — a chilling trend that perhaps is espoused by the member for
Chilliwack-Sumas, who thinks environmental protection is socialism and therefore
thinks it's a terrible idea. Well, you know, young people today think that
environmental protection is the way our economic development must go, because if
our environment isn't protected, there is nothing left to grow the economy in a
sustainable way. And this legislation was very clear about the factors that had
to be taken into account as the commissioner examined the achievement of a
sustainable economy. It wasn't just about whether people wanted to make sure
their old-growth forests were in place. Their values would be incorporated, but
they weren't dominant over other values. The values of people who cared about
social programs had to be incorporated. People who cared about the economic
growth of our province — their concerns had to be incorporated. It was a very,
very balanced approach. And all of that is gone because, regardless of what the
Minister of Finance says about making sure that the auditor general…. I'm
sorry; I shouldn't put words into the Minister of Finance's mouth, because I
didn't hear him. But I have a sense that he was trying to reassure us:
"Don't worry; even though we're repealing this legislation, we'll take care
of the principles incorporated in that legislation."
[1630]
Well, there
is nothing, no mandate, that the auditor general has on which to judge the
outcome of a sustainable economy — nothing. There's no definition of what a
sustainable economy is or principles by which one judges a sustainable economy.
That's all been repealed today. So I don't know under which the auditor
general…. And this, of course, is nothing to denigrate the auditor general
himself, because he must be guided by legislation. He can only be guided by
legislation. Now that legislation which would have guided him toward examining
the government's record on sustainability is discarded, abandoned, thrown in the
garbage heap.
It is a sad
day for British Columbia, but I expect British Columbians are getting used to
this government's dangerous and risky trend toward eliminating all environmental
protection and environmental protection enforcement. It's a dangerous trend, a
risky trend, and I would suggest it's an extreme agenda on which we find the
government
[ Page 407 ]
going. It's not one that has been discussed at all by the Liberal government.
Let's just
review it very briefly. This legislation repealing the environmental
commissioner is one piece. We had, through budget cuts, the elimination of
the endangered species protection officers from the now Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection. That was done in the very early days. Then we had the
elimination of the moratorium on grizzly bear hunting a few days later. Then we
had budget cuts announced on July 30. Actually, I'm sorry. The budget cuts
weren't announced; they were just done. They weren't announced, and we had to
dig through the records to find that there were millions of dollars cut, gone,
out of green economy initiatives. So I can understand why you wouldn't want an
environmental commissioner, because there's nothing the government is doing to
promote a green economy.
Then we had
the government eliminate all programs to deal with climate change to perhaps
meet the goals of the Kyoto protocol that are due early in this decade. Those
are gone. We had the government announce that oh, my gosh, they couldn't wait
around until next year to have a consultation on offshore oil and gas drilling.
They were going to get going now. They were going to drill that oil, get
that…. It wasn't "if" they were going to do offshore oil and gas
drilling. Really, the Minister of Energy and Mines said: "We're gonna do
it." Of course, you probably can understand their haste. I don't accept it
or agree with it, but you can understand it, because they've made such massive
tax cuts for the corporations. They now need that offshore oil and gas revenue
to make up for the deep, deep hole they've dug themselves with their massive tax
cuts.
Also, just
in looking at the structure of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air and the
structure of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, the government
basically shifted all of the responsibilities out of the then Ministry of
Environment and put it into the Ministry of Sustainable Resources, which is
basically to deliver cutting permits and mining permits. All of the enforcement
mechanisms on environmental protection were shifted over to the ministry of
cutting permits and mining permits, and there's no protection initiatives left
in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air. It has basically been gutted of that
responsibility.
We could
have relied on the sustainable commissioner to do this work as an independent
officer of the Legislature, given that there were massive cuts in government
operations. The public could have relied on the environmental commissioner to
protect the interests of the public. Now that's gone as well.
[1635]
So where do
we go from here, and why do we need to be concerned? Why do we need to be
concerned about this legislation? Of course, again, the then-critic, the member
for Saanich North and the Islands, said in the debate: "We're not opposing
this bill or the concept or the principle of the bill in any way, shape or
form." That's what he said. He did have a concern about the accountability
loop and the structure of the appointment process. He did raise a process
question — not the legislation but a process question.
In fact,
I'll quote directly: "We're not opposing the bill or the concept or the
principle of the bill in any way, shape or form. What I am saying, though, is
that we are very uncomfortable with the accountability loop and the structure of
the appointment process. I think the minister probably understands that."
But he says: "He may not agree with it, but that's fine. I just wanted to
express that. I don't think that by disagreeing with the way the individual is
appointed, you're gutting the bill in any way, shape or form." It will be
very interesting to see how the Minister of Finance somehow now says that it
does, that the bill needs to be gutted completely. It will be interesting to see
how he reconciles that.
I expect
that this action today in Bill 5 is a continuation of a trend toward delivering
for the corporate CEOs that financed the election of this government. That was
demonstrated by an announcement today where we have the former transition
officer of the Liberal government now appointed as the head of B.C. Hydro.
Now, B.C.
Hydro is a key to having a sustainable economy — an absolute key. In fact,
B.C. Hydro has done a great deal of good work in terms of triple-line
accounting. For those who are new to this discussion, triple-line accounting is
where a corporation is required to report on its profitability, its surpluses or
its deficits in three ways: one, financial; one, environmental; and one, social.
B.C. Hydro adopted that. That's one of the underlying premises on which an
environmental commissioner would operate as well.
But I think
that today we see, with the change at the top of B.C. Hydro, another plank along
the route to dismantling any requirement for a sustainable economy, with the
appointment of Larry Bell as not only the chairman but the CEO of B.C. Hydro,
all wrapped up in one nice cosy package. The reason Mr. Bell can be
appointed as the chair of B.C. Hydro is because the government, just days ago,
removed the prohibition of directors of B.C. Hydro from holding shares in a
private energy company. So it all fits. It's a nice little jigsaw puzzle that's
all falling into place now. Today was another little piece in the puzzle.
So we have
Larry Bell, who won't have to give up any of his private energy company
responsibilities or ownership — none. He's now the fox in charge of the
henhouse. He's now able to operate B.C. Hydro theoretically in the interests of
the shareholders, the taxpayers of British Columbia — to have a publicly owned
energy company that works on behalf of all British Columbians. He's now got a
conflict of interest, I would say.
An Hon.
Member: That's slanderous.
[1640]
MacPhail: He's got…. I'm sorry. The member's making comments that are
surprising me, Mr. Speaker. That's all.
[ Page 408 ]
We have the
chair of B.C. Hydro, the CEO of B.C. Hydro — interesting, he's chair and CEO
— and he holds shares in other…. Unless maybe he has shed himself of those
shares, but then why would the government have amended the legislation to make
it very comfortable and very easy for Mr. Bell to now become chair of B.C. Hydro
when, just days ago, he wouldn't have been eligible because he owned shares in a
private energy company? He was actually a director of TransAlta Utilities Corp.,
a private energy company that wants to take over…. No, I guess he is still a
director of TransAlta Corporation, a company that has expressed an interest in
making sure that they have their share of the rights to hydro sources for their
own profit in this province.
It turns
out now that he's in charge. He's in charge of B.C. Hydro. Of course that makes
sense, because TransAlta Utilities Corp. donated $10,000 to the B.C. Liberals in
1999. So it's all a full circle, and it's all come together not only with this
piece of legislation. Larry Bell's work will be much easier to do now. He won't
have to make sure that there's a sustainable economy. He won't have to make sure
that B.C. Hydro operates in the best interests of the British Columbia
shareholders. Nobody will be watching him as he does that, because the
environmental commissioner is gone — absolutely gone.
I just
wonder whether this is the road down to greater deregulation and privatization
of B.C. Hydro, because of course Mr. Bell was the one who privatized the then
Crown corporation, B.C. Gas. It used to be a Crown corporation in British
Columbia, and British Columbians got the benefit of their own resource and got
to pay a British Columbia price for B.C. gas, just the same way that they now
get to pay for their hydro. That's because it's a Crown corporation. It was a
Crown corporation where directors had to have as their sole interest, with no
conflict, the interests of the shareholders only — B.C. taxpayers.
Mr. Bell,
when he was the former chair and CEO of B.C. Gas, decided to privatize B.C. Gas,
carve it off and turn it over to private interests that are now making
unparalleled profits on the backs of British Columbians. B.C. Gas is now in a
record position of profit, as are the transmission lines that supply TransAlta
Corp., for instance. Mr. Bell's a director of that, and now he's a director of
B.C. Hydro, so because of the privatization of B.C. Gas, ordinary B.C. families
are now paying double and triple the price for natural gas.
The members
of the government sit there and mock. I can understand that, because they don't
have any interest in the needs of working families — none. They somehow claim
that their tax cut is the best news that British Columbians could ever have.
That's what they claim, Mr. Speaker. But you know what? My constituents…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
[1645]
MacPhail: …have had their annual tax cut eaten up by one B.C. Gas bill —
one B.C. Gas bill. For anybody to doubt that, I'll provide the information for
that.
Today it's
all unfolded. The strategy of the government is all there. It isn't a
conspiracy. It's very direct. It's absolutely there. Every single concept of the
hidden agenda has now been revealed: do away with the sustainability
commissioner. Do away with the commissioner that would monitor our environmental
protection as it relates to the economy. Do away with any need for Hydro
directors to have only their responsibility to the shareholder in their
interests. Turn B.C. Hydro over to the man who was responsible for privatizing
natural gas and responsible for natural gas prices to skyrocket, and now allow
him to perhaps do the same thing to Hydro in terms of deregulation and
privatization.
I wonder
why, just as recently as March of this year, Mr. Bell said that he wouldn't take
over any official government position. Probably because he knew he would have
had to divest himself of the shares in TransAlta, amongst other shares. If Mr.
Bell has divested himself of those TransAlta shares and is no longer a director
of TransAlta, then I will acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. But certainly that
wasn't part of the announcement today. In fact, I predict that's why the
legislation was introduced: to permit him to do that. That's why he's now
reversed his position from March, when he said he wouldn't take any government
position.
We have a
piece of legislation here that joins with Bill 4, the balanced budget and
ministerial accountability legislation, which now puts British Columbians in a
greatly weakened position from what they were just weeks ago. Not only are
British Columbians more at risk, but our environment is more at risk as well.
The people will understand that and will be dismayed by that, because it's not
what they were promised. It's not what the Premier promised them during the
election. It's not what he said. He said that he would do everything to not only
protect but enhance the environment in British Columbia today. This shows
exactly the opposite. He said one thing then, and he does another thing now by
this legislation.
I hope
those that lauded the legislating of the environmental commissioner and those
that demanded B.C. Hydro work for only the interests of the public and not the
private energy company interests will call their MLAs. I hope
they'll call the Premier and say: "What exactly did you mean when you said
you would have a sustainable environment in British Columbia? What exactly did
you mean when you said you wanted a sustainable economy? What exactly did your
then-critic mean when he supported this piece of legislation and said it didn't
need to be gutted?"
But there's
so much action going on. There's so much going on in haste, and with this
extreme agenda it is very hard for British Columbians to feel anything other
than numb. I'm sure that's what they do today.
[ Page 409 ]
[1650]
I do hope
the fact that there will be absolutely no one monitoring and holding the
government accountable won't mean the province slips away
from its world-class record on the environment. With Mr. Bell now being in
charge of B.C. Hydro and no one holding him accountable, I do hope it doesn't
mean that Hydro rates will now skyrocket as natural gas rates did because of his
actions around privatization.
Hon. G.
Collins: That was interesting. I'm going to just take a few minutes, if I
can, to close debate on Bill 5. There's actually a whole bunch of Bill 5 that
the member didn't say anything about, so I'm assuming that she's fine with that
and agrees with us about some of the accountability measures that we're putting
in place — moving to generally accepted accounting principles.
I can
understand why she wouldn't want to talk about that, because it was her
government that had a bit of a problem around 1995-96 with talking about a
balanced budget during an election campaign and then, shortly afterwards, it
coming out that in fact there was a hidden agenda. In fact, the auditor general,
that independent guy — you remember him — the member was talking about,
actually said that the government was less than…. I can't remember the exact
terminology. I could probably go and find the report, but it certainly left no
doubt that the government had misled British Columbians about the true state of
the finances as they went into an election campaign. They campaigned on two
balanced budgets when, in fact, they were both in deficit. They knew they were
in deficit. They got elected by a very tiny majority. I think the public kept
that in the back of their minds for the last six years and actually revisited
their votes, in some cases, in 2002 as opposed to what they'd done in 2001.
The member
opposite encouraged the people of British Columbia to phone their MLAs and to
phone the Premier and tell them what they think. Well, I've got some news for
the member opposite. The people of British Columbia are phoning their MLAs, they
are phoning the Premier, they are phoning the ministers, and they're telling us
how good it feels to finally have a government that's doing what it said it was
going to do.
Once again
today the member opposite is complaining about the pace of change in British
Columbia. I am amazed how she can do both. She can say that there's this
incredible pace of change…. I must say that there is a great pace of change,
and we're all working very, very hard to undo the damage of the last ten years.
We figure the harder we work now, the sooner we'll start to see the benefits. So
we're not taking any time in waiting for other people — the member opposite,
one of the members who helped create the problem — to catch up as we start to
solve the problem. We're not waiting for her to catch up; we're never going to
wait for her to catch up. We're going to continue to do what we told the people
of British Columbia we were going to do during the election. We're going to
continue to deliver on that day after day after day.
Then the
member talks about the hidden agenda. Well, our agenda was in our New Era
campaign document that was there for everybody during the campaign. Most of it
was out for two years prior to the election. It's on the website. People can go
there now — www.bcliberals.com. Hit it and you'll find the New Era.
You'll find our commitments, our 90-day commitments, and tick them off as we
achieve them. We are moving at a very quick pace. I'll agree with the member
opposite. In fact, we're working at a feverish pace to deliver upon the things
that we said. We don't have time for a secret agenda. We're spending all our
time delivering on our public agenda.
I would
hope that the member opposite would just calm down that rhetoric a little bit,
maybe go on the website and find out what it is that we're actually doing and
realize what the rest of British Columbia realizes, which is that we're doing
what we campaigned on. We're doing what we said we were going to do, and the
people of British Columbia are extremely happy with that.
[1655]
I do want
to spend a couple of minutes countering some of the comments by the member about
Larry Bell. Larry Bell was a civil servant in this province for decades. He
served under a number of governments; he served under a number of Premiers. He
worked his way up through the system. He was Deputy Minister of Finance, and
then he was deputy minister to the Premier. Then, prior to being appointed as
the chair of B.C. Hydro now, he actually was the chairman once before at B.C.
Hydro and in fact was a great chairman of B.C. Hydro. I can think of no one more
qualified in the province of British Columbia; I can think of no one with more
integrity in the province. I can think of no one with more talent in the
province to take on the role of chairman and CEO of B.C. Hydro. We are so lucky
that he said yes.
Heaven
forbid that we should actually have a chairman of B.C. Hydro who knows something
about energy. We've had different chairmen of B.C. Hydro over the years, and I
seem to remember someone by the name of…. Was it John Laxton, one of the big
fundraisers for the NDP? He ran as a candidate for the NDP. He was a good buddy
of Mike Harcourt, and he put him in as the chairman of B.C. Hydro. And what
happened? Well, the member raised the issue about private interests, public
interests, conflicts and different competing interests. John Laxton went out and
started a company of which he owned a big chunk of the shares, wasn't clear
about disclosing that and didn't come clean when the issue was found out. He
embarked upon a private business interest which included the assets, talent and
resources of the people at B.C. Hydro while he was the chairman.
I know that
Mr. Laxton now feels that he did nothing wrong. He's entitled to that opinion. I
think that the record out there is clear, and I think the people of British
Columbia can make their judgments accordingly. But I can tell you, we are so
lucky to have
[ Page 410 ]
somebody like Larry Bell take on this job — who actually understands
energy, has been there before, understands what needs to be done and is going to
restore B.C. Hydro to a professional company. He'll attract a professional board
of directors who will be accountable. He will do the right thing for the people
of this province; I have no doubt in my mind.
The member
opposite says that there will be no accountability, that there'll be nobody
watching over him. For a decade while I was in opposition minister after
minister, House leader after House leader, Premier after Premier of the NDP
would stand up here every year and talk about appointing a committee of the
Legislature to oversee Crown corporations. Never did they do it.
We put in
place that committee on the opening day. We'll be appointing the members of that
committee in the very near future. B.C. Hydro and Larry Bell will have to come
to members of this Legislature. The two members of the NDP opposite will be able
to be there, and they'll actually be able to ask questions of the chairman of
the Crown corporation. They will actually be able to question their business
plan, what their agenda is, what they're doing, where they're going and whether
they are hitting the measures that they've set as targets. That's something
that's revolutionary in British Columbia.
If the
member opposite has concerns about B.C. Hydro and whether or not they are doing
what's in the interests of the province or behaving in an environmentally
sensitive or professional manner, she will have for the first time as a member
of the Legislature the opportunity to ask those questions and to grill Larry
Bell and others at B.C. Hydro about where they're going and what they're doing.
That's not a hidden agenda. That's the most public agenda and accountability
that we've ever seen with Crown corporations in the province. I think it's a
great innovation. I look forward to the member saying that when we finally get
it in place.
One other
thing about Larry Bell, because I'm a big fan of this gentleman…. I think he
is a huge talent, and as I've said, we're very lucky to have him. I know that
the previous government saw the wisdom of having him involved with them in the
past as well. I was sort of joking previously as the member was talking. I was
sort of joking with her that she had some impression that Larry Bell was taking
over the world, that this was part of his hidden agenda to take over the world
— first B.C. Hydro, tomorrow Berlin. I don't know. That was the agenda that
she was putting forward.
It seems to
me that as part of the previous administration's attempt to improve the quality
of the food on B.C. Ferries, to improve the quality of service on B.C.
Ferries…. Where did they go? They went to the private sector. They went to
White Spot, which Shadow Holdings Inc. owns and of which Larry Bell is the
chairman. The government seemed to be enamoured with his ability to provide help
at B.C. Ferries, but somehow it's a big conspiracy now that he's bringing his
expertise to B.C. Hydro. I just think the member should get off that rhetoric a
little bit and recognize the talent of this individual that we have and what a
privilege it is for the people of British Columbia to have a gentleman of this
calibre heading up our largest and most significant Crown corporation.
[1700]
I want to
come back to the other comments that the member made, for just a minute, if I
may. She talked about this environmental commissioner, about how committed the
previous government was to doing it. It was a really big deal, and it was the
best thing they'd ever done. Why did they wait to the very end of a ten-year
mandate to do it? If they wanted to do it, why didn't they do it in '91 or '92
or '93 or '94 or '95 or '96 or '97 or '98 or '99 or 2000? They waited until
literally weeks before the election was called for that bill to be introduced in
this House and passed.
Now, I
think there were ten, 12 legislative sessions — there may have been more; I'm
not sure of the exact count — in the time that the member opposite sat in
government and was able to bring forth her agenda on an environmental
commissioner. But no, it came in at the very, very end — week 2 away from the
call of the election campaign, something like that. After ten years of
government they brought it in. You have to question the sincerity of that effort
at the time and whether or not they really took the time to think through the
process.
The member
read into the House some of the comments of the previous critic from the
opposition. I want to put into context the debate that took place and how we got
there. Certainly if the member wants to, she can go back and look at the Public
Accounts Committee. When this issue came up with the auditor general, there was
some discussion about the structure. I raised some very significant concerns
about it at that time, about the way it was being done, if it was the right way
to do it, why the auditor general couldn't do this work. I'm not sure if it was
around the debate or the discussion about his business plan or not, but
certainly the issue came up before Public Accounts. That provided context for
our initial impression of what the government was now moving on doing.
As well,
when the bill was debated in the House, the quotes that the member read from the
former critic from the opposition at the time indicated his concern. This was
our first real opportunity to look at the bill. The bill came in….
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Collins: The member has already read the quotes, and they're there. I don't
dispute what he said. I want to provide for people a sense of what he was saying
and why he was saying it. The member opposite recalls that at the time the
government of the day was on its deathbed, languishing around 12 percent, 14
percent, 16 percent, 17 percent in the polls, clamouring to hang on to a few
seats to form official opposition. That was what the issue was about at the
time. They were trying desperately to bring back some of their environmental
supporters that had been with them traditionally, who had fled them because of
some of
[ Page 411 ]
the things they had done. This was one of the pieces of legislation they
introduced in that session.
At the
beginning of the session the now-Premier, the then-Leader of the Opposition,
stood up in the House and said: "We expect a flood of activity from the
government over the next little while. We will do our best to review it in the
short time available to us, but we reserve the right to review, to amend, to
appeal anything that comes in, in this session based on the fact that we will
take the time to look at it." That is what we have done.
If you look
at the comments of the member that spoke, the critic, you can see what he
was saying. He had concerns about the process of the appointment. I still have
great concerns about it. I think it's a fundamental flaw with the legislation
that was in place. Second of all, the accountability process, which I addressed
prior to when the member attended this debate…. She'd understand the concerns
that I have and that we have and that we've come to feel are significant enough
that we need to get rid of this legislation.
The auditor
general is perfectly….
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Collins: The member says it's too bad we didn't tell people. It's too bad
she didn't introduce this legislation a year before so the people of British
Columbia and members of the Legislature could have had a real opportunity to
look at it. She's the one who's now complaining that stuff is happening too
fast, so there's a bit of hypocrisy there. There's a bit of hypocrisy there, and
I understand the tenderness from the member for Vancouver-Hastings.
Let's look
for a minute, if we can, at what it was that caused and motivated the previous
government to do this legislation. At the time, as I said, they were
bleeding votes to the Green Party as they got closer to an election. They were
in danger of not winning any seats in the Legislature. Let's look at what it
was….
Interjection.
[1705]
Hon. G.
Collins: The member says that British Columbians actually care about this
issue. Let me put forward some of the issues that British Columbians care about
and some actions that government took which resulted in them losing the support
of British Columbians. Let's just look, for a moment, at the NDP's record. They
were the party that decided to take Burns Bog and pave it and put up a parking
lot. I'm sorry. Actually, it wasn't a parking lot; it was a theme park. They
were going to take Burns Bog, cover it with asphalt and put up Ferris wheels and
cotton-candy stands, and somehow that was environmental protection. And it went
beyond just the intent. They actually guaranteed a $25 million loan to a private
sector company so they could go out and plan how to pave it and put up Ferris
wheels and cotton-candy stands.
I wonder
what the environment commissioner might have said about that one. I wonder what
the people of British Columbia might have said about that one. In fact, I know
what they said about that one. They came out in droves; they were outraged. And
I know that back then, they phoned their MLAs, and they phoned the Premier and
told him what they thought of what the government was doing. You look at the
record. You look at what the minister did when she was a minister, and you have
to question what her motivation is for now draping herself in a green flag,
dousing herself with olive branches and pretending to be Madam Environment for
British Columbia. I think you have to look a little bit at what the actions were
and take off the green-coloured glasses that perhaps the member opposite is
wearing.
Let's just
look at one other thing — SE2 — because this links right there with Hydro.
We know there were discussions back and forth between Hydro about how they were
going to get the power from SE2. For people who aren't familiar, this is a
natural gas cogeneration facility that, of course, the government wouldn't want
located across the border in Canada, because of the problem that it would put a
whole bunch of new greenhouse gases into the air. It would put more particulate
matter into the air. So it was put right across the border. You could almost
stand on the border and wave at the guys that are going to build SE2 in the
Fraser Valley, just on the other side of the border.
I know
that the member from Chilliwack, the member from Abbotsford, the member from
Matsqui and the new members who were electe