2004 Legislative Session: 5th 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, APRIL 22, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

St. George's Day

J. Bray

Train accident in North Korea

H. Bloy

Agriculture industry in B.C.

Lekstrom

Oral Questions

Surgery wait-lists

MacPhail

Hon. G.

Collins

Employee satisfaction survey by

Fraser health authority

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Collins

Religious education in home

schooling

Krueger

Hon. T.

Christensen

Government response to questions

on B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement

Nettleton

Hon. K.

Falcon

Immigrants' access to income

assistance

B. Locke

Hon. S.

Hagen

Second Reading of Bills

Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill

32)

Hon. G.

Collins

Committee of the Whole House

Education Services Collective

Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19) (continued)

MacPhail

Hon. G.

Bruce

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Education Services Collective

Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19)

Second Reading of Bills

Passenger Transportation Act

(Bill 30)

Hon. K.

Falcon

J. Reid

Nijjar

Hon. R.

Harris

Mineral Tenure Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 29)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Jarvis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)

Hon. M.

Coell

J. Kwan

Mayencourt

[ Page 10367 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Locke: It gives me pleasure today to introduce into the House, on behalf of

my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, a class of grade 9 students from

Tamanawis Secondary School. With them are their teachers, Ms. Cathy Cybulskie

and Ms. Vivian Bridger. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. L.

Reid: I have a number of introductions today. We're joined in the gallery by

Kelly Webb Guichon and Heather King, both trustees from the Delta school

district. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Also in the

gallery today are Jim and Alice Mann, individuals who have been in my life for

very close to 30 years. I'd like the House to extend to them a very warm welcome

as well.

[1405]

Suffredine: It's actually not very frequently that I have guests from my

region. Today I feel a bit like the alter ego of the Minister of Skills

Development and Labour; I've got so many friends here today. There's a long

list. I even had to get a list made: Sarann Press; Pat Casey; Cory Mildenberger;

Roberta Hall; Pattie Adam; Lorraine Manning; Bruce Halstead along with his wife,

Sherri, his son Mathew and his daughter Melinda; and Micky Kinakin and his new

wife, Adriana Huerta. All of them are school trustees visiting Victoria in the

conference of school trustees — and, as well, probably one of my most stalwart

political supporters, my son James. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. T.

Christensen: On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Surrey–White Rock, I am

pleased to introduce one of Surrey school district's outstanding and very

long-serving trustees, Ms. Laurae McNally. Ms. McNally has been a trustee for 19

years now. I had the pleasure of meeting her and the rest of the Surrey school

district about a week ago. They're doing great work for the students in Surrey,

and I would welcome the House to assist me in welcoming Ms. McNally here to the

Legislature.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I rise in the House today to make a kind of very special

announcement. My lovely niece, Jade — otherwise affectionately known by her

nickname, Pino — is celebrating her fifth birthday today. She is the daughter

of my brother Michael and his lovely wife, Catherine. I would ask that the House

join me in wishing Pino a very happy fifth birthday today.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: In the Legislature today is a large number of farmers and

ranchers from all over British Columbia. They are visiting with members, talking

about issues in agriculture. Also, today we're celebrating the 110th anniversary

of the ministry. I want to acknowledge all the good work of the staff in the

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and I ask the House to make our

farmers and ranchers very welcome.

Mayencourt: Over the past couple of weeks I've had the great pleasure of

having an intern working with me in my riding. He's a hard-working guy, and we

finished the speech. So please welcome Paul Rushton to the legislative chamber.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ST. GEORGE'S DAY

J. Bray:

acknowledge that tomorrow is St. George's Day. St. George is the patron saint of

England and lived in the fourth century. Very little is known about the man

himself other than he died in Lydda, Palestine. According to legend, a pagan

town in Libya was being terrorized by a dragon. The locals kept throwing sheep

to placate it, and when it still remained unsatisfied, they started sacrificing

people. Finally, good St. George came along and slew the dragon. At this,

townsfolk converted to Christianity.

St. George

is the patron saint of soldiers, cavalry and chivalry; of farmers, fieldworkers,

boy scouts and butchers; of horses, riders and saddlers; of archers; and of

sufferers from leprosy, plague and syphilis. In the thirteenth century, St.

George replaced Edward the Confessor as England's patron saint.

Many

traditions today are linked to St. George. The feast of St. George is celebrated

on April 23. Many festivals in England still take place in villages and towns.

Knighthoods of the Order of the Garter are bestowed on April 23. St. George's

Day is also a provincial holiday in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are

acknowledging St. George's Day. You may see them tomorrow wearing a white or red

rose in honour of St. George. Today I am wearing blue, which is the saint's

colour, based on the shade of the original garter.

[1410]

I think

Stephenson, and are a major part of B.C. history. William Shakespeare added to

our love of literature. The philosophy of John Stuart Mill has enriched our

lives. Of course, the birth of our style of democracy and the Mother of

Parliaments is in Westminster, and what is critical for us in this chamber —

the concept of fair play — was born on the fields of England. To all I wish a

happy St. George's Day.

TRAIN ACCIDENT IN NORTH KOREA

H. Bloy:

Today my thoughts and prayers are with the Korean community, both here in

British Columbia

[ Page 10368 ]

and abroad. The media has been reporting news of a serious train accident in

the city of Ryongchon, North Korea. It is believed that two trains carrying

flammable materials have collided at a train station about 20 kilometres from

the Chinese border. There have been many unconfirmed reports of serious

casualties. At this time, the full extent of the tragedy remains unclear. My

heart goes out to those who are concerned for the safety of their friends,

family and loved ones.

In my

riding of Burquitlam the Korean community has emerged as a vibrant, successful

component of our neighbourhood and local businesses. The Korean Canadian

business association has been particularly active in Burquitlam and has made its

voice heard on many important community issues. The Korean community has also

contributed to the ongoing revitalization of the North Road area. These are

people who take active roles in our schools and the safety of our community.

These are fine examples of proud British Columbians.

I have been

told by some of these constituents how difficult it is to obtain news from North

Korea. I know this kind of uncertainty can be painful for those who are seeking

answers. As such, I want to offer my condolences in these troubling times, and I

ask the House to do the same.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY IN B.C.

Lekstrom: Today it's my honour to rise in this Legislature to pay tribute to

our agriculture industry and all of the farmers and ranchers in British

Columbia.

The

Ministry of Agriculture has been around, as the minister indicated, for 110

years and is celebrating its birthday this week. I think that shows the

commitment of our great province to what I consider the most important industry

we have. I've stood in this House many times before and talked about all the

different resources we have and the importance of them. In comparison, I think

we could live if we took the gas out of our furnaces, if we shut our lights off,

but it's very clear that the human race would not be here today without the food

on our tables.

I think

we've overlooked the importance of agriculture, not just in British Columbia but

around the world, for far too long. I'm proud to be part of a government that's

bringing that focus back to where it should be, and that's on the importance of

agriculture.

We've faced

many challenges over the last year, in particular, with the BSE crisis and, more

recently, the avian flu. It highlights not so much what government's about but

what the people are about in the agricultural industry and what they're about in

this province. They're about working together. They're about families coming

together to make sure that everybody makes it through these difficult times.

It's about communities coming together to support our neighbours in the rural

areas. It's about the people, and that's what I want to focus on.

Our

agriculture industry is made up of fish farms, our fruit growers and berry

growers, our poultry industry, our grains, our cattle industry, our bison

industry and our sheep industry. I think we have to look in the broad context at

what agriculture is all about. It's not about just putting food on our table;

it's about building communities.

I come from

Dawson Creek, and I represent Peace River South, of which I'm very proud. We

wouldn't be the region we are without our surrounding rural area that

contributes greatly to the economic well-being of our smaller communities, and

that is likewise for any area of this province.

We have

about 61,000 farmers. I know I could go on for some time, and I know I don't

have a lot of time. In closing, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, the

constituents I represent and the government of British Columbia, I want to pay

tribute, as I began my speech with, to the farmers and ranchers in our great

province. I want to thank them for the work they do on all our behalf. We're

grateful.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

[1415]

Oral Questions

SURGERY WAIT-LISTS

MacPhail: We are about to enter a very challenging time in the delivery of

health care in this province. It has come to our attention that those challenges

are growing every day. Can the government confirm that in the four-month period

from September 2003 to January 2004, the number of people on surgical wait-lists

in B.C. grew by more than 3,500 people — a 5 percent increase in just four

months?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Health.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a new question.

MacPhail: These are very challenging times that we are entering into right

now, and it's incumbent upon the government to have answers to these questions

before the challenges become unbearable. Since the Liberals took power, 16,000

more British Columbians are waiting for surgery. Up until last September, 450

people a month were being added to those lists. In the last four months that

number has jumped to close to 900 people a month being added to surgical

wait-lists — a 100 percent increase. Every month the wait-lists grow under

these B.C. Liberals, and in the last four months the rate of increase has

doubled.

Over there

to the government: who is going to take responsibility for this broken promise

to reduce wait-lists, and what is the plan to move forward to reduce the

wait-lists — as they promised in the last election?

Hon. G.

Collins: The member knows, because she's been told previously, that last

year the province of Brit-

[ Page 10369 ]

ish Columbia's health system produced more than 38,000 additional procedures

over and above what was there the year before. That is a significant addition.

The fact of

the matter is that there are big challenges in the public health care system

across Canada. It is the number one agenda item for the Council of the

Federation. All the Premiers are working together to try and deal with the

pressures that exist in the health care system. It is not a unique challenge to

British Columbia nor a unique challenge in the last couple of years, as the

member indicates. It's been a challenge for a long period of time — decades

— and certainly while that member was Minister of Health under the previous

administration, and it continues to be a challenge right across Canada. The

Premiers, this Premier, this government are doing everything they can to help

address those problems and to lead the nation in trying to turn those numbers

around.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

MacPhail: When this government said to the electorate three years ago,

"We're going to reduce surgical wait-lists," they didn't qualify it.

The minister now says these challenges have been before us forever, for a long

time. Well, that's not what they said during the election. The increase in

wait-lists has not only grown by almost 25 percent for their term in office, but

in the last four months the rate of increase has doubled. Given that context,

why is the government spending millions of health care dollars on ads patting

itself on the back?

Let me just

give one example of misplaced priorities of expenditure. This week the Fraser

health authority, whose wait-lists are growing out of control, unveiled its new

logo — looks great. It's an orange heart with a lovely blue swoosh.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon.

member, it's time for the question, please.

MacPhail: Can the Minister of Finance tell us how many health care dollars

were spent to draw this logo while wait-lists continue to skyrocket and who was

responsible for authorizing the expenditures of those tens of thousands of

dollars?

Hon. G.

Collins: In fact, that's a little difficult to take from that member,

because when she was Minister of Health, she ran television ads that featured

the great actress — none other than herself — in those ads. We're learning

every day just how great an actress she actually is.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us have order. The minister has the floor.

[1420]

Hon. G.

Collins: The important point is that this government has…. The expenditure

of advertising for the Ministry of Health or all of government comes out of the

public affairs bureau. No health dollars are spent on advertising for the health

care sector. I might also add that unlike when that member was Minister of

Health and unlike the ten years that she spent in government, and about eight

and a half in cabinet, the expenditures for advertising in this government are

below what they were under the previous administration. They're actually less.

With regard

to her question on wait-lists, the fact of the matter is that this year — at

the end of year, as well — I mentioned there were 38,000 more surgeries. There

was an additional $20 million for one-time funding for health authorities. There

are 80 additional open-heart surgeries that were performed as a result, 400 hip

and knee surgeries, 3,600 diagnostic procedures, over 500 cataract procedures

and 20 deep brain stimulation procedures.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: The number of replacement hip and knee surgeries…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. G.

Collins: …went up 14 percent last year from the previous year. We continue

to make progress…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. G.

Collins: …despite the opposition of the member.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY

BY FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

J. Kwan:

Not only is the wait-list going up; wait times are also going up. Not only is

the Fraser health authority spending thousands of health care dollars to spruce

up its image, it has also contracted an American polling firm to ask workers if

they have a best friend at work.

Seriously

now, Mr. Speaker, according to internal Fraser health authority documents, this

11-month employee satisfaction survey is costing taxpayers $115,000.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

How can the Minister of Labour justify this wasteful spending on bogus employee

satisfaction

[ Page 10370 ]

surveys when patients are getting no satisfaction at all from the health care

system?

Hon. G.

Collins: The reality is that there are big challenges in the health care

sector, as well, with regard to long-term disability, stress leave, etc., which

cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of dollars

a day. The effort, I assume, is to try and drive those numbers down, increase

employee performance in the workplace, reduce long-term stress leave, improve

the quality of service to patients and also make sure that those dollars that we

save on disability for staff can be put back into the health care system where

they belong.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question.

J. Kwan:

The minister can spin all he likes, but the reality is this: the health care

system is in crisis. Conflict has arisen in the health care system because of

the actions of this government. Let us be clear. The B.C. Liberals promised to

reduce wait-lists.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. The member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan:

But since taking power, they have exploded by more than 26 percent in less than

three years. In the last four months, the problem is getting much worse. While

wait-lists are exploding, the government is spending over $100,000 a year to

determine whether health care workers have a best friend at work and for a new

logo.

Can the

Health…? Well, the Minister of Finance, who seems to be answering questions

for everybody, who seems to think that he's in charge all of the time…. Can

the Minister of Finance tell us: how high will wait-lists…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, let's hear the question.

An Hon.

Member: He's my friend.

J. Kwan:

Is he your best friend? Is there a survey amongst the government asking if the

Minister of Finance is your best friend?

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the question.

J. Kwan:

Can the minister tell us how high wait-lists in B.C. will have to go before he

orders a stop to this wasteful spending?

[1425]

Hon. G.

Collins: I think the timing of the comments by the members is interesting,

seeing as we're talking about friends at work. One of the biggest drivers of

spikes in the health care wait-lists was caused by the nurses' strike, which we

inherited at the time of the election last year from the previous

administration. The doctors' dispute at the….

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Collins: Well, check your facts, member — the doctors' dispute as well. We

are on the verge, as the member mentioned — because strike notice was given by

the health employees union today — of a potential additional workplace

activity, which has the potential to affect the workplace and the performance of

surgeries and the wait-lists. I'd suggest that those two members talk to their

good, close personal friends at work and tell them to get back to the bargaining

table. Let's find a solution and solve this problem.

If I can

conclude, the member talks about the $100,000 and the costs of that to the

health care system. I'd ask her to go back to another one of her close work

friends, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and get the $200,000 back

that they gave them prior to the election, and we'll be glad to put it into

health care.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

IN HOME SCHOOLING

Krueger: My question is for the Minister of Education. Various media reports

today refer to an order affecting parents who home-school their children and the

use of religious materials for the children's education. My impression is that

there has been a misunderstanding.

To the

minister: what are the implications of this matter for families who want

religion to be a part of their children's education?

Hon. T.

Christensen: There has been no change in policy or law. The School Act has

prohibited public schools from delivering faith-based curriculum for more than a

century. In fact, if we look at

An Act Respecting Common Schools from 1865, that

act says that all schools established under the provisions of this act shall be

conducted strictly upon non-sectarian principles. That in no way limits what

parents can teach their children at home.

Public

schools cannot deliver religion-based curriculum in classrooms or by distance

education. That still in no way impacts what parents can teach their children in

their own homes.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

ON B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT

Nettleton: As much as I need to receive an answer from the Minister of

Transportation, I am not go-

[ Page 10371 ]

ing to repeat the B.C. Rail questions raised earlier this week. However, I

seek the courtesy of a reply to the issues raised concerning the sale of B.C.

Rail and first nations rights.

First of

all, I want to remind the Minister of Transportation that I am not a government

member and that he does not have to treat me with the same contempt and disdain

that he and some other cabinet ministers reserve for their backbenchers. I would

caution the minister, as I caution myself, that what goes around comes around,

and we reap what we sow. The minister owes both myself and the official

opposition either an apology or a proper response.

The

minister may wish to take this request on notice, review Hansard and

provide this House with an appropriate and informed response to what are, in my

view, very reasonable questions.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Yes, and I'm trying to fathom an answer to a question that I didn't

even hear. Perhaps what I will do is remind the member opposite, who I don't

believe I've ever referred to as a government member — and if I did, I

certainly apologize for that…. I can't possibly imagine how I would confuse

him for a government member. But what I will do is, perhaps, pose a question to

that member and the NDP. The question I would pose back to them is: what do they

have against northern communities? What do they have against…?

Interjections.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I'm hearing some little noise from the other side over there, and it

reminds me of Carole James. What do we know about Carole James? We know Carole

James wants to say no to oil and gas. That's really going to help the north. We

know Carole James wants to shut down the mining sector. That's a real benefit to

the north. We know Carole James…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. K.

Falcon: …wants to shut down the forestry….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. We will continue when we have order in the chamber.

[1430]

Hon. K.

Falcon: We know Carole James wants to shut down the aquaculture industry.

There's 4,000 jobs and a $300-million-a-year industry. We know they want to say

no to forest-dependent communities. I guess the question you have to ask…. Of

course, that depends on the day of the week…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. K.

Falcon: …because some days of the week she may be for it, depending on

which part of the province she's in. I guess I would say this. In this province

we are proud to stand up for northern communities, and we're proud to stand up

for the opportunities that will benefit those communities.

IMMIGRANTS' ACCESS TO

INCOME ASSISTANCE

Locke: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Recently I have

learned that the government is actively seeking repayment from sponsors of

immigrants who have turned to income assistance for support. In my multicultural

riding I have many constituents who have recently immigrated to Canada and, in

some cases, have sponsored family members themselves. As such, I have heard

concerns regarding the ability of immigrants to access income assistance should

that become necessary. Can the minister tell me what is being done to ensure

that those immigrants that are in need of income assistance in Surrey and across

B.C. will continue to be given the support they need?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Let me make this perfectly clear. The government is not seeking money

from income assistance recipients. What we are doing is actively pursuing

repayment from sponsors of immigrants who are not fulfilling their legal

obligations and commitments to support the relatives they brought into this

province. The majority of people who sponsor family-class immigrants — about

90 percent — live up to their obligations, but 10 percent don't. In fairness

to the sponsors who do live up to their obligations and all taxpayers who

support income assistance clients, it is right that we hold sponsors who are in

a position to support their sponsored relatives accountable for their debt. This

means more of taxpayers' resources in B.C. can go to the people who actually

need those resources.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. members.

The bell

terminates question period. Question period was extended today due to the

constant disruption during the regular time, and we will continue that practice

in the future.

[End

of question period.]

J. Reid:

Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

[ Page 10372 ]

Introductions by Members

J. Reid:

Just joining us in the last few minutes is the school council from McGirr

Elementary School with their teacher, Mr. Reis. This is a group of students who

have a personal interest in politics because of the actions that they're taking

to make their school a better place. I'd ask that the House make them very, very

welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading debate on Bill 32.

Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, they

will be continuing the debates on the estimates of the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Second Reading of Bills

SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The Society

Amendment Act, 2004, amends the Society Act to allow societies to spend more of

their time and resources focused on the purposes of the society and less on

completing and filing forms with the government. The amendments also update a

number of provisions in the act that are now redundant due to other legislative

changes.

[1435]

The primary

focus of the amendments is a simplification of registry requirements for

societies and the streamlining of processes at the corporate registry. A number

of changes have been made to these ends. First, the amendments give this

registrar the authority to establish the forms that a society must use rather

than having the forms in the act itself. This will allow the registrar to keep

the forms current, relevant and as straightforward and simple as possible.

Second, the

requirement that a society file annual financial statements has been removed.

Instead, a society will only need to file an annual report.

Third, the

amendments also remove the requirements that the registrar review and approve a

society's bylaws, special resolutions and annual reports. Instead, the registrar

will simply file the documents and acknowledge their receipt.

In order to

ensure that documents submitted to the registry are accurate and valid, the

amendments also introduce a new

section which makes it an offence to make false

or misleading statements in documents filed with the registrar. The bill also

amends the act in order to align it with recent changes to other legislation.

For example, the bill eliminates the prohibition on the awarding of degrees and

diplomas, because this provision is now governed by the degree-granting

authority act under the Ministry of Advanced Education.

These

amendments will reduce red tape for societies, streamline processes at the

corporate registry and update a number of provisions of the Society Act,

allowing societies to spend more of their time and resources focused on the

purposes of the society and far less on completing and filling out forms for the

government.

Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32,

Society Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 19.

Committee of the Whole House

EDUCATION SERVICES COLLECTIVE

AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:39 p.m.

section

1 (continued) .

MacPhail: Did the minister receive any legal advice about his comments over

the lunch hour?

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's not funny. I'm just a happy guy; that's all.

No, I

didn't.

[1440]

MacPhail: Then I guess his comments will stand for the record as people move

into a very complex set of collective bargaining. His comments will stand, and

they've been noted with a great deal of interest by people communicating with me

over the lunch hour — a great deal of interest. If he doesn't wish to correct

the record at all, then we'll proceed to a vote on

section

Section 1

approved on the following division:

[1445]

YEAS — 31

Falcon

Coell

L. Reid

Bruce

van Dongen

Bray

[ Page 10373 ]

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Collins

de Jong

Harris

Christensen

Neufeld

Anderson

Nebbeling

Mayencourt

Johnston

Belsey

Krueger

J. Reid

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Halsey-Brandt

Bloy

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Stephens

NAYS — 4

MacPhail

Kwan

Brenzinger

Nettleton

On

section

MacPhail: Can the minister explain

section 2?

Hon. G.

Bruce:

Section 2 of this bill provides clarification that the deleted

provisions are not part of the collective agreement. It's designed to avoid

litigation about whether "amended and modified" includes deleted.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could the minister repeat that a little more

explicitly? I couldn't hear him.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Sorry. It provides clarification that the deleted provisions are not

part of the collective agreement.

MacPhail: And there was something about litigation. Could he please repeat

that?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's designed to provide clarity about what's deleted.

[1450]

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, all I asked him to do was repeat the words that he said

first, which included about litigation. What did he say? I didn't hear him.

Hon. G.

Bruce: This is to show that words deleted…. So

section 2 provides the

clarification that the deleted provisions are not part of the collective

agreement. What more do you want?

MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I heard the word "litigation."

Could he repeat what he said, exactly, when he stood up? It's just a simple

question. I heard the word "litigation." I didn't hear the context in

which the word was used. Is there something he doesn't want to reveal by just

repeating what he initially said?

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, I'm sorry, not at all. I was just trying to provide clarity. What

this does is try to assist so that there's clarity in the act, so that it would

avoid court opportunities or court action — litigation, if that's the word

you're looking for.

MacPhail: Repeat the sentence, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm telling you what's there — whether it's amended and modified.

What this does is very clearly state that the deleted provisions that are in

this act are not part of the collective agreement.

MacPhail: Carry on.

Hon. G.

Bruce: That's it. That's what this is.

MacPhail: Well, then I'll just have to rely on Hansard to have the

record. Somehow he thinks, because I didn't hear, that his words are going to

disappear into thin air. He said, as I recall…. I mean, honest to God, he must

be embarrassed about it. All I wanted him to do was repeat the words, and he

refuses to do so. What effect will this clause have on litigation?

Hon. G.

Bruce: What this does is provides the clarity — all right? So you've

deleted a number of parts from the bill, and what this does, within the

collective agreements, so that you don't get through a hassle of court

challenges and such…. It's very clear that this is deleted.

MacPhail: If you won't repeat it, I'm just going to ask my staff.

Hon. G.

Bruce: All right. I'm not sure what else you actually want me to say. It is

a clarifying bill, a clarifying

section of the bill that these provisions are

not part of the collective agreement.

MacPhail: What effect does

section 2 have on the ability to litigate?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'll try this then. Clarity is meant to minimize or avoid litigation.

Does that help?

MacPhail: So can the minister tell us what's being deleted? What is the

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

schedule he

tabled in the House two days ago, entitled Teachers' Collective Agreement

Deletions ?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes.

MacPhail: I was asking the minister this morning about how one could proceed

through the courts or what legal avenues someone would have to invoke the rights

that the minister gave before lunch to renegotiate these clauses. He said LRB

would look after it. I asked whether that meant to…. Oh, I'm sorry; he said

the matter could be referred to the LRB. Then I asked whether the matter to be

referred to the LRB was whether it was bargaining in good faith or whether the

[ Page 10374 ]

matter could be referred about whether these clauses could be negotiated. He

didn't answer the question.

Given the

minister's comments before lunch about the ability to renegotiate some of these

clauses in this schedule, how does that jibe with what he just said — that

section 2 is there to avoid litigation?

[1455]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's be clear. The clauses that are deleted…. That's what

section

2 applies to, to provide clarity. They're deleted. In respect to the issues of

negotiation for things that are not ultra vires to the School Act, the parties

can sit and can, if they wish to, negotiate those particular issues. It takes

the two of them to agree to that aspect, but it can't be issues that are

inconsistent with the School Act.

MacPhail: You know, Mr. Chair, this bill is completely and fundamentally

flawed, and this minister is struggling to avoid admitting that. His words are

all entangled. You had to see the feedback that we got over the lunch hour about

how fundamentally flawed, from a legal point of view and a collective bargaining

point of view, this legislation is. And all of those flaws are exacerbated by

this minister's words. What litigation is this clause designed to avoid? I'll

use the minister's own words — "to avoid."

Hon. G.

Bruce: The clauses that have been deleted — this brings finality to it and

avoids litigation around them. They're finished. It allows us now to move ahead,

for the parties to begin their negotiations. This has been a year and a half,

two years. What is it — a year now? What are we — 2004? It was a 2001

agreement. What this does is bring finality to that, and the parties can move

ahead and start negotiating their new contract.

MacPhail: Okay. So this afternoon — gee, 48 hours since the legislation

was in — we have a third version from the minister about what's going to

occur.

Yesterday

in second reading, here's the version he said: "Oh, the Leader of the

Opposition is wrong when she says these clauses in the

schedule are illegal.

She's wrong. They can be renegotiated." That's what he said in second

reading reply.

Then this

morning he wouldn't identify which clauses were ultra vires. He said the clauses

that aren't ultra vires in this list can be renegotiated, but he wouldn't

actually specify, because of course he's getting tripped up on his own words. He

said: "Well, Mr. Rice, the arbitrator, said these clauses should be

deleted, so we just took his word for it. But don't worry. We think that they

can be renegotiated."

Then this

afternoon we learn — the minister tripping up on his own words again but

telling the truth — that clause 2 says you can't litigate. On the basis of

this list, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions…. They're

deleted, and clause 2 is there to make sure that there will be no litigation

around this list.

Could the

minister tell me, given those words, what the LRB would examine under what

section of the Labour Relations Code relating to a challenge brought to the

negotiability of the list of teachers' collective agreement deletions? I want

the clause in the Labour Relations Code that a party would invoke on application

to the Labour Relations Board, as the minister said was available this morning.

[1500]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if the member meant the inference that

earlier this morning I wasn't telling the truth, but I'd like clarity from the

member in respect to that comment.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I said he was telling the truth this afternoon. What

more does he need? There's no other inference. But feel free.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Figure out what it is you want me to withdraw.

Could

the minister answer my question, please? On what

section of the Labour Relations

Code would an application be brought forward pursuant to the Teachers'

Collective Agreement Deletions , as he said was available to the parties this

morning?

The

Chair: Shall

section 2 pass? Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm waiting for an answer. Is the

minister refusing to give me an answer? He was the one who gave me the

information this morning that the matter could be brought forward to the LRB. Is

the minister refusing to answer my question?

The

Chair: Member, there seems to be an issue here that the minister has asked

whether or not you have stated whether he has told a mistruth. Sit, member,

please. The question is to ask the minister: do you feel as though he…? Are

you implying that he misspoke this morning?

MacPhail: Sorry. Am I to take direction from the member? I will take

direction from the Chair, but I don't understand. Either there is an accusation

made or not, and it is the Chair's responsibility to rule. I am not going to be

grilled by the minister. Mr. Chair, feel free to make a ruling.

The

Chair: We're dealing with

section 2 of Bill 19. Let's proceed.

MacPhail: Could the minister answer my question, please, Mr. Chair?

The

Chair: Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 10375 ]

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, what is going on here? Is the minister refusing to

answer my question? Or is he trying to make up parliamentary procedure as he

goes along?

The

Chair: Member, are you implying that the minister did not tell the truth to

this House?

MacPhail: I never have, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: Thank you. Carry on,

section 2 of Bill 19.

MacPhail: Could the minister answer my question, please? On what

section of

the Labour Relations Code would an application be brought forward? I hope he is

feeling comfortable enough to do that, Mr. Chair.

Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Mayencourt: On behalf of the member for Nanaimo, I'm very pleased to

introduce a group from Mountain View Elementary School. I believe that's you

guys up here. They're here with their teacher, Mr. DeGear. I would ask that the

House please make them feel very welcome.

[1505]

Debate Continued

Hon. G.

Bruce: Not knowing the specifics of how the case would be applied, it would

more than likely — could possibly — be under

section 11 of the code. The

parties can go to the Labour Relations Board. It would be up to the parties

grieving or the parties applying to decide which sections they wish to follow

under the code to make application.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. The parties will take direction from this debate.

That's who they'll take direction from.

What's

section 11, please?

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, they won't take direction from this debate in this respect. This

is Bill 19, and it's to deal with the whole aspect of being able to allow the

parties to move ahead to negotiate. This isn't about how they're going to go and

make their approaches. I'm not about to sit here and try and hypothecate on what

steps the parties may take at the table in bringing forward their positions, if

they thought they needed to, to the Labour Relations Board. That will be up to

the parties themselves to decide if, in fact, they get there.

MacPhail: I will repeat my question. What is

section 11 of the Labour

Relations Code that the minister listed as a potential application that could be

brought forward on these matters?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'll get the specifics of 11. If the member would like to continue

with her questioning, and we'll get that answer for her…. I want to be sure

that I've got the right

section in my mind. If the member would like to carry on

with other questions, we'll dig that up.

MacPhail:

Section 11 — I found it, Mr. Chair. It's "Requirement to

bargain in good faith."

I have

trouble with this whole debate. As an experienced legislator, I have trouble

with this whole debate — that somehow this minister says the Labour Relations

Board is not going to be guided by this discussion, this debate in this

Legislature. He is completely wrong. He knows he's wrong. The Labour Relations

Board has to be guided by this legislation, because this legislation affects

collective bargaining. That's how it works at the Labour Relations Board. When

matters of collective bargaining are guided by legislation, then the Labour

Relations Board has to take that into account. I can hardly wait to hear the

explanation of how that's not the case. I can hardly wait.

They take

an application pursuant to bargaining in good faith. Where does the Labour

Relations Board have to go to look to see what's allowed to be bargained? Not

the Labour Relations Code; they have to go to Bill 19. That's where they have to

go. In fact, it's probably the reason why

section 2 is here.

Here's what

the minister said the first time that he refused to repeat when I asked him the

intent of

section 2, the matter we're discussing right now. He said:

"Section 2 of this bill provides clarification that the deleted provisions

are not part of the collective agreement. It's designed to avoid litigation

about whether 'amended and modified' includes deleted." Thank God for

technology.

[1510]

This

section that we're dealing with right here is to say these sections, deleted

pursuant to the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions , are not part of

the collective agreement, and

section 2, just to hammer it home, says:

"Don't try to litigate any aspect of whether those sections are deleted or

not."

I was just

putting that new information we have as of this afternoon in the context of what

the minister said this morning about, "Feel free to renegotiate, and feel

free to go to the LRB," if one party has any issue around the

negotiability. Those were my questions. The minister says to me: "Section

11. Bargaining in good faith. And oh, by the way, nobody is going to be guided

by the words in this Legislature." Really? Then maybe the minister can tell

me how a bargaining-in-good-faith application would proceed pursuant to Bill 19.

Hon. G.

Bruce: To reiterate, the parties can sit at the table and negotiate. That's

actually what we're trying to get to. It's been two years of this past agreement

which we've been trying to get through and finalized. Actually, with the passage

of this Bill 19 adding finality to the former contract, the parties can then

begin their

[ Page 10376 ]

negotiations going forward. If there are sections of the list that were

presented as deletions that are not ultra vires to the School Act and that both

parties wish to discuss and put on the table to negotiate, they can do that.

You have it

absolutely right. There it is. These parts have been deleted as was the

recommendation by Mr. Rice, and with that the parties can move ahead and begin

their negotiations. But if there are things they wish to debate or put on the

table for negotiation that are in contravention of the School Act, they will be

disallowed. If there are things they wish to debate and negotiate that are not

and if both parties want to negotiate those issues, they can.

I've been

trying to listen to what you perceive to be the inconsistencies of the message,

and I've thought it's been pretty clear all the way through in that respect.

What we're doing is adding finality. This is what this is — absolutely. We're

saying this is the end of all that's gone on around this contract, of what Bill

27 did and then Bill 28 — to bring finality to this.

The BCTF

have suggested they would like to get on with negotiating a new contract. You

can't get on with negotiating a new contract till the current contract is

finished with, and that's what we're doing here. If I had gone back and done the

other aspect of appealing, with money and time we would have been another six,

eight or 12 months doing that. You couldn't have gone on to the contract.

If I had

appointed a fifth arbitrator, having gone through four already, with the British

Columbia Teachers Federation virtually rejecting each one of those three and

finally with the fourth then not participating at the table…. I had little

confidence that by appointing a fifth, they could sit down and go through all of

what we're talking about here back and forth and reach an agreement.

Then

knowing that the parties had asked me, particularly the BCTF, to be able to

begin their negotiations, I looked at where we're at and said: "Look. Why

don't we just move ahead? Why don't we just get on with life? We've kind of had

this go-round." Here is a man that is the final arbitrator on this, who is

now on the Supreme Court bench. I've mentioned this before, and I mention it

again because I want people to understand we're talking about four very

reputable individuals, the final individual being a person that's now been

selected to sit on the bench. We're just actually trying to move this ahead.

[1515]

appreciate the fun and games of it all, but this is actually very

straightforward. It says: here is what Bills 27 and 28 did. Here are those

issues of the 60 contracts that needed to be deleted and were. We have taken

that and applied that through Bill 19, and now the parties, with the passage of

Bill 19, can get on negotiating their new contract.

MacPhail: Actually, this didn't occur to me, but someone e-mailed me over

the lunch hour to say that it's the Minister of Labour besmirching the

reputation of Mr. Rice. Here's their logic. The minister admits that all he did

was take Mr. Rice's list holus-bolus. Mr. Rice declared these as having to be

deleted because they were ultra vires to the legislation. I asked the minister

for his own view on what was ultra vires or not, and he refused to give that and

said that we took Mr. Rice's recommendations. He just repeated it a moment ago.

This person

said: "But it's the minister holding out hope that some of these may not be

ultra vires. It's the minister himself saying that Mr. Rice got it wrong."

I thought:

well, isn't that perceptive? That's actually true. It's this minister who is

somehow suggesting the parties can agree or determine that some of these are

ultra vires.

This person

said: "Why is the Minister of Labour besmirching Mr. Rice's reputation?

Either he embraces Mr. Rice's work and agrees with it, or he says it's

wrong."

Can the

minister, given his analysis that he did of this list of teachers' collective

agreement deletions that he is now legislating as final deletions…? He just

said that. He's legislating a clause that says no one can litigate about whether

it's a deletion or not. Then the minister says that the parties can agree. After

having declared that, the minister just said: "But the parties are free to

negotiate terms of these clauses that have been deleted to renegotiate them if

they're not ultra vires." That must be an informed comment. I'm sure the

minister wouldn't just lead people to a dry well.

Could the

minister just tell me one clause in here of the pages of deletions that he or

his ministry have come to the conclusion could be renegotiated, as he's held out

not once but half a dozen times? Just one — that's all.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Just for clarification, you know, Mr. Rice, when he wrote in his

determination here, said: "I appreciate that deletions of important

provisions from the collective agreement doesn't mean necessarily deletion from

school board policies. However, the provisions for special needs students, for

example, it seemed to me were in some ways worth preserving. It seemed to me

that the parties could cooperate and reconstruct parts of the agreement in ways

that would not infringe

section 27(3) of the School Act, and I would recommend

that both parties think about it. " Pretty clear what he said there.

MacPhail: Thank you for reading that once again. When I asked the minister

the question this morning about where that concept, that recommendation, is now

enshrined in a right under the legislation, he said it wasn't. Maybe he would

like to rethink it. He did repeat it just now.

Please,

could the minister point to the article, the clause, in Bill 19 that enshrines

that recommendation? I'm going to stop right then. If the minister says this

clause enshrines that recommendation of Mr. Rice's, we're movin' on.

[1520]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'll be clear again. If the item or the issue that the parties wish

to negotiate is not in contravention of — not ultra vires to — the School

Act, they

[ Page 10377 ]

can negotiate it, if the two parties wish to do that. That's the clarity of

all of this. It's very specific. They can go to the table. Both parties can say,

"Hey, here's part of the issue that we would like to negotiate," and

if they're in agreement, they can begin their negotiations on that as long as

it's not in contravention of the School Act.

MacPhail: Seeing as how the minister won't point to a clause in the

legislation that enshrines that recommendation of Mr. Rice — he refused to; I

just asked him to — will his words stand as a commitment — this debate, his

words right now? Does he offer those as a commitment that the parties can

renegotiate clauses? He just said them.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I don't know how much more clear I can be. If the items that the

parties wish to negotiate are not in contravention of the School Act, they can

negotiate those items. The parties have to agree to negotiate and find a way

through it, but they can. If the items that they are bringing forward are in

contravention of the School Act, they can't.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I wasn't going to call division on this section, but

the inability of the minister to point to any

section of the legislation that

does anything other than take away rights and the ability to have a judicial

process available to either party, including clause 2, makes it absolutely

incumbent that these legislators, once again, put their support or disapproval

on record for this denial of rights, both judicially and collectively — on

record.

[1525]

Section 2

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Coell

Bruce

van Dongen

Bray

Lee

de Jong

Harris

Christensen

Neufeld

Jarvis

Anderson

Nebbeling

Mayencourt

Johnston

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 3

MacPhail

Kwan

Brenzinger

J. Kwan:

I just noticed in the visitors' gallery….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Oh, sorry. Pardon me. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

[1530]

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan:

I'm just so eager and excited to see these visitors in our visitors' gallery. I

just noticed that school trustee Allan Wong is in the visitors' gallery, and it

appears his family might be with him too. I see children. No wonder I'm so

excited. Children — and I think his wife is also here. I would like the House

to bid a very friendly welcome to trustee Allan Wong and his family.

Debate Continued

Section

3 approved.

On

section

MacPhail: I've got to read this into the record, Mr. Chair. It's one for the

history books. This is under Bill 19, the Education Services Collective

Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, which deletes 400 clauses from collective

agreements throughout the province with teachers.

Here's what

this

section says: "For certainty and despite any decision of a court to

the contrary made before or after the coming into force of this subsection,

nothing in this

section is to be construed as authorizing a board or the

Provincial union to enter into a collective agreement that includes a provision

that is prohibited under

section 27 (3) or void under

section 27 (2), (5) or

(6)."

Wow. That's

a pretty tight clause, isn't it? Forget the judiciary; forget the ability to

appeal to the judiciary. This says not only can't you go back retroactively, but

don't you dare try to exercise any rights in any court looking forward. It kind

of rings hollow, the minister's little fairy dust that he is sprinkling over

this bill, that somehow any matter of these 400 clauses can be renegotiated and

that there are legal avenues available to renegotiate.

Can the

minister explain the necessity for that clause? Is he worried about something?

Hon. G.

Bruce: What we're trying to do is bring finality to this contract. I'll go

through the steps again, because I'm sure there are other viewers now that have

joined us and maybe others in the House, and they don't know all that's gone

through with this.

We went

through a negotiation. We then went into a strike situation with the teachers in

this province through the BCTF. It's not something that was unique to this

government. Actually, the same problems were found with the former

administration. It's not something unique to British Columbia. In fact, one can

check across the country, and you will find similar circumstances with other

provincial jurisdictions. It's not something unique to Canada, because you will

find this occurrence troubling through most other parts of the world, actually.

[ Page 10378 ]

In fact, as

I tried to work, because under Bill…. Now, I don't want to get them mixed up.

I think it was Bill 28 or 27. I forget which one of the two. I also had the

ability, the authority to review the negotiating process, the structure of the

educational framework in the province, so I embarked upon that. I asked the

parties whether they thought the system we utilized today was a good system and

was one that was successful.

It's pretty

tough, after 12 years of no true, fully negotiated agreements, to be able to

claim it was successful. It's pretty tough to be able to claim it was simply us

and that it actually had crossed three different types of political

organizations and, as I mentioned, right across the country — although

different legislation in each one.

Parties

did, though, say to me that they were interested in trying to find a new

structure. I said to them: "Listen, let's not waste anybody's time here. I

won't waste yours; you don't waste mine. This is all the parties. If we're

serious about it, then let's go down that road together." Each of the

parties agreed that they were serious. We then agreed on bringing forward Mr.

Don Wright, who is a former Deputy Minister of Education, to conduct the

process. He's currently doing that and trying to see whether or not there is an

opportunity to build a new negotiating model which would bring through

resolution at the table.

[1535]

Following

that, of course, within this legislation, also because of the fact there were, I

think, 62 contracts at the time because several districts had two bargaining

units in them — I hope my memory is not failing me — I was given the task of

appointing an arbitrator that would then go through the legislation and make

sure that there was consistency in all of the other contracts, the other 60

contracts, and bring clarity to that. So I appointed an arbitrator.

The first

arbitrator that I appointed was actually on a list that the parties generally

pick from, a reputable individual. The British Columbia Teachers Federation

objected to that individual but accepted his recommendation of a subsequent

arbitrator. I appointed the next individual — accepted the first arbitrator's

recommendation and appointed the second arbitrator. Very quickly into it, the

British Columbia Teachers Federation took issue with that individual as the

arbitrator, and I was left then with having to try and find a third arbitrator.

I found a third arbitrator, appointed him and asked him to carry on with the

work that needed to be done through all these contracts. It was found by the

British Columbia Teachers Federation that they took objection to him because, in

fact….

MacPhail: Point of order. Debate has to be relevant, Mr. Chair. We're on

section 4, and this is completely irrelevant.

The

Chair: Minister, on

section 4.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's not irrelevant at all. What we're talking about is how we got to

this position.

MacPhail: On

section 4?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yeah.

MacPhail: You're going to link it to

section 4, are you?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The whole part of it. It all comes down to the fact….

MacPhail: Are you going to link it to

section 4?

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

Minister?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I can appreciate the member's anxiety about this, but one has to take

the whole picture. You can't just pick out a little piece of it. We wouldn't be

here if the parties had actually worked their way through it as they were meant

to do. I can't force the parties to sit there and agree to it. After four….

MacPhail: What has that got to do with

section 4?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's got everything to do with this entire piece of legislation. What

we actually have is a situation where at the end of the day….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please, member. Let's hear the answer.

Hon. G.

Bruce: At the end of the day you had a fourth arbitrator, who brought

forward his recommendations. So we've had this very protracted year and a half

of shenanigans and interventions, if you like — or what have you — by the

British Columbia Teachers Federation, to the point then that after this

arbitrator brought forward his recommendations…. Keep in mind that the British

Columbia Teachers Federation withdrew from the table when he was finally

accepted as the arbitrator. They did not stay at the table, and they left.

He then

went about his work. When his work was complete, they then challenged his work

in court. I then listed the options that were available for me to proceed with,

and I have chosen this one to bring conclusion. What

section 4 does is bring

finality to it all. We're not then going back through a whole court process on

all of this. We're going to say to the parties: "It is done. That last

contract is done. You live by it, and now, from that standpoint, you can sit

down and negotiate your next contract, which you have asked to be able to

begin." Now the BCTF with the parties can do just that with the passage of

this bill.

MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I'll tell you, based on the comments that this

minister has been repeating over and over and over again to justify this

legislation about arbitrators…. Here's what really happened. I'll

[ Page 10379 ]

read it in under

section 4, because I guess this is part of

section 4.

Here's what

really happened on the appointment of arbitrators. The BCTF had a prevailing

objection to the legislation and to the process, but they began proposing names

before the government even began appointing. In fact, they said, as the minister

noted, that they would agree to Don Munroe as arbitrator. In fact, the BCTF

approached Don Munroe to see if he would be willing to serve, but Don Munroe

declined when he saw what the job would be. How's that not cooperating?

[1540]

The

government then named Colin Taylor. The BCTF renewed their objections to the

legislation and to the system of appointment of a contract-stripper, as they

called it. The position was that the legislation was bad and that they had an

objection to the arbitrator's jurisdiction on that basis. Colin Taylor scheduled

time to hear that objection, but then Colin Taylor, the arbitrator, resigned. He

resigned before he even heard that objection. But on his way out….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, feel free to offer another version, anyone over there —

feel free. On his way out, Mr. Taylor suggested George Adams from Ontario to

arbitrate. The government appointed George Adams. The BCTF explained to him what

the process was and then followed up in writing that they thought, the BCTF

thought, that he was eminently suitable. He declined the appointment. The BCTF

didn't object; he declined the appointment.

The

government appointed Mr. Glasner, who was willing to do the job. The BCTF raised

the fact that his wife was a teacher, and Mr. Glasner decided to withdraw. The

minister impugns motives that they objected to Mr. Glasner on that basis. They

just raised it as a point of information for people to consider, and Mr. Glasner

decided to withdraw.

The

government then appointed Mr. Eric Rice. So stop this balderdash that this

legislation results from the intransigence of one side of the parties to the

process on the basis of appointment of arbitrators.

Mr. Chair,

I have to tell you, I wasn't going to read that into the record. It came before

this minister said it for the first time. But his repetition to a question under

section 4 of that information that is completely irrelevant to

section 4 made me

do so.

What is it

that the government is afraid of in terms of court proceedings that requires

this clause?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's great you got your piece added in there, and I appreciate that.

Final analysis, of course, is that there's much more to all of that, and then

the parties didn't stay at the table where they could have stayed if they'd had

any real interest in trying to resolve this.

What are we

afraid of? Absolutely nothing. We're right here, right out in the open. We

brought in the bill and told you what we're doing. We're bringing closure and

finality to this so the parties can get on to negotiate a new contract. There is

nothing behind anything. There is nothing under any rock or in any corner. It is

very clear. It states it right there,

section 4. You've clearly identified it.

It says to move forward, to move on — that this issue is finished. It is not

going back and around and around. It is not going to go through challenges. It

is there, and it is done.

Now you had

asked the British Columbia Teachers Federation of me: could we move on with our

negotiations? You can't if you've got a contract that's not finalized. We've

finalized it. I have suggested that there were different options I could have

chosen to take. I have mentioned that. I have given you my reasoning as to why I

decided to do this, and I'll have to stand by that. I understand that. I elected

to take this action to bring finality to it because I think that we've gone on

long enough in the whole process, and I didn't see the spirit that was there to

actually go through the orderly transition that was meant to have happened with

an arbitrator. Whether it was the first, the second, the third or the fourth,

they never stayed there. So this is finality.

Section 4? Yes, member, it's

finality. It finishes this.

We're a

year and a half, two years now…. We're at the end, within a matter of months,

of this contract. It expires on June 30, 2004. They'd like to get on with their

negotiations. If they wish to, they can.

[1545]

MacPhail: Here's this government's version of: how dare the teachers not

cooperate with the process. We bring in legislation that imposes a collective

agreement and takes away your right to strike, teachers. "What is it you

don't like about that? How dare you not cooperate with that." Then we

impose on boards of education those collective agreements, and we don't fund

them. "What is it you don't like about that, teachers? How dare you not

accept the layoffs that resulted in that and the decreased education of

children. What is it you don't like about that, teachers?"

Then the

minister appoints an arbitrator who is a contract-stripper. In fact, that's what

Mr. Rice says. His decision says: "All I have the ability to do is to

delete. I don't have the ability to modify or amend." He admits it himself.

Then the

minister says: "How dare those teachers not cooperate with that." The

minister completely misconstrues the appointment of the arbitrators as if it is

all the teachers' fault. I guess he will now stop saying that, now that the real

version is on the record. He uses that as an excuse to "bring

finality." My gosh, those teachers — how dare they not cooperate with all

this draconian legislation that affects the children in the classroom, that

affects special needs kids, that has fewer teachers in the system because this

government imposes collective agreements, strips contracts and then won't fund

them. Oh, that is so outrageous.

Then, just

in case after all that battering and hammering the teachers might want to seek

some legal recourse again, the government says: "Don't you dare go

[ Page 10380 ]

to court because if you do go to court, teachers or school boards, and the

court does something, it is going to be illegal. It is going to be illegal

looking backward, and it is going to be illegal looking forward."

Is the

minister contemplating using this

section in any other area that may affect his

ability or his government's ability to go to court?

Hon. G.

Bruce: We fish, don't we? First of all, the story is prescribed about the

arbitration process. There is much, much more that goes on through all of that.

I can go back and go around it again if you want, but the point is that at the

end of the day….

MacPhail: Feel free. Feel free.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yeah? Well, I've said it I don't know how many times.

MacPhail: Yeah, until you were challenged.

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, it's still the truth of it. You went through four arbitrators.

The fourth arbitrator, the party….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Clearly, there wasn't an appetite to be part of the process. Clearly,

that was the case. It wasn't actually the teachers; it was the British Columbia

Teachers Federation that…

Interjection.

The

Chair: Member. Member.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …from time to time just has a little bit of a political agenda. I

don't know if my memory is failing me, because I'm getting older — I've been

here far too long, as the member opposite I'm sure would applaud — but it

seemed to me that somewhere in their ten years, the former administration's ten

years, they imposed a few contracts. I'm pretty sure they actually imposed some

form of contract with the British Columbia Teachers Federation — I think three

times, in fact. There is all sorts of revisionist history.

MacPhail: You opened up that one. That's good. You opened up that one.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, it's there. You as a government had the same sorts of

challenges there of having to deal with it. Of course, as I mentioned earlier

on, it is not unique to British Columbia. It is a situation that goes across the

country.

So this,

actually,

section 4…. You know, the member opposite, the Leader of the

Opposition, has made it abundantly clear that this is finality. This is

finality. I have tried to explain why I think it was necessary to do that. I've

said it on numerous occasions now. I've explained the options to anybody that

was interested. Somebody else might have picked option A, somebody might have

picked option B, and somebody might have picked option C. But that somebody at

this point had to be me, and here I am, so I've done that.

[1550]

On balance,

of all of the information I had to move things along so we can get on with the

process of being able to negotiate new contracts, if they want to do that…. To

add finality of a contract that expires on June 30, 2004, it was now time to

bring it to conclusion. That's what we've done here, and that's what

section 4

is all about.

J. Kwan:

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan:

Visiting us in the visitors' gallery today is a group of students. The

Britannia Community Services Centre is hosting visitors from Madawska, Ontario.

They're doing an exchange for about a week with each other. There are 18 grade 6

students in the visitors' gallery today, with seven adults accompanying them.

They are here, of course, to learn about the parliamentary system in the B.C.

Legislature and how it works with government in terms of history, as well, with

the B.C. Legislature.

They have

been touring around the Legislature today, and I've just greeted them outside in

the rotunda. They're sitting in the gallery now. I would ask the House to please

welcome them and to demonstrate to them how the finest tradition of B.C.

politics works in the Legislature of British Columbia.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, let's be very clear that it is a unique record of these

B.C. Liberals that they impose collective agreements that strip collective

agreements and that they impose collective agreements and provide no funding for

the collective agreements. This is a unique achievement — a dubious, shameful

achievement, but nevertheless unique of this government.

Clause 4

says to the world that you can't go to court if you are worried about your kid's

class size; you can't go to court if you are worried about your kid's safety in

fire drills if he or she is a special needs student; you can't go to court if

your child isn't getting help with proper designation. That's what this clause

says. Don't worry about looking to the future; don't even think about going to

court, because you can't do it. That's what clause 4 is about.

I can

hardly wait to see the Liberals stand up and say: "Wow, I support

that." I wonder if they would impose the same standard on themselves as

they challenge the legally won court decisions of families with autistic

children. Will they impose the same clause on themselves in that circumstance?

[ Page 10381 ]

[1555-1600]

Section 4

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Coell

Bruce

van Dongen

Bray

Lee

de Jong

Harris

Christensen

Neufeld

Jarvis

Anderson

Nebbeling

Mayencourt

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Suffredine

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 3

MacPhail

Kwan

Brenzinger

On

section

MacPhail: Here's another fascinating section.

Section 4 was about: don't

even think about going to court on anything to do with the deleted clauses of

the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions . Don't even think of

exercising the rights that you may have achieved in court retroactively, but

don't think about going…. If you go to court, and some court has the gall to

make a decision or matters to that, it'll be declared illegal.

That's

section 4. Most of the Liberals voted in favour of that. No, I'm sorry. All of

the Liberals voted in favour of that.

Here's

another clause. We have

section 4. Now

section 5 says:

"

(1) Despite

any decision of a court to the contrary made before or after the coming into

force of this section, (

a) the deletion under

section 1 of words, phrases,

provisions and parts of provisions from a collective agreement between the

British Columbia Teachers' Federation and the British Columbia Public School

Employers' Association is deemed to have taken effect on July 1, 2002, and (

b) those deleted words, phrases, provisions and parts of provisions must not for

any purpose, including any suit or arbitration commenced or continued before or

after the coming into force of this section, be considered part of that

collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002."

Does

this

section cover the LRB?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Perhaps the member could be a little bit more specific as to what she

means by that.

[1605]

MacPhail: The

section says: "Despite any decision of a court to the

contrary…." Does that include the LRB?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm not aware and don't believe that there's anything before the

Labour Relations Board that's relevant to this and the ruling of Shaw.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. I don't understand that answer at all. Under

section

5(1), there is the word "court" used in the first line. Does the word

"court" capture or include the Labour Relations Board — yes or no?

Hon. G.

Bruce: This clarifies that the Rice arbitration is the law of the land and

that from there whoever is adjudicating would have to be cognizant of that

ruling, of that adjudication.

MacPhail: Why is the minister refusing to answer my question? It's either

yes or no. Does the word "court" in

section 5 include the Labour

Relations Board — yes or no? Surely, it has been contemplated — that

question.

Let

me just clarify why I assume it's been contemplated. It is because

section

5(1)(

b) refers to arbitrations. Arbitrations can be appealed to the Labour

Relations Board. That's where you appeal them — not to courts, not to the

Supreme Court. So I assume it's been contemplated.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Thank you for that clarification. Yeah. If there was a grievance that

had been launched relative to the Shaw ruling, as there have been grievances

that I have mentioned, this legislation takes effect. This legislation, Bill 19,

takes effect.

If you come

back to where we were on

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

section 4, but

section 5 — and the finality of all of this, this is the finality. We're

not going to go, then, through a whole array of grievances that had been

launched as a result of the Shaw ruling to the Rice award and all the rest of

it. We're being very clear. As I said, there's nothing under any rock or in any

corner. This is the finality to that contract so that the parties can move

ahead. If there were grievances that had been lodged, they wouldn't have

standing now if they were utilizing the base of the Shaw report.

MacPhail: The minister keeps referring to — I'm sorry — the Shaw report.

I just can't hear him at the end. The Shaw what?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The Shaw decision.

MacPhail: The Shaw decision is Justice Shaw's decision from the B.C. Supreme

Court that overturned the Rice arbitration. Is that all that's captured by this?

Is that the only decision that's captured by this clause?

[1610]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm not aware of any other, but I want to be clear. What this is

saying is that the Rice arbitration, with this legislation, is what is in

effect. I'm being very clear on this. I think probably you're wondering, okay,

if there were a grievance that would have been lodged…. I don't know what

all's going on there in everybody's world, but I do know this is the starting

point. This is the basis that you will work from. Now, moving ahead very

quickly, you can get on with negotiating new contracts if you want.

[ Page 10382 ]

I'm trying

to figure out where you're going with this, what you're trying to bring to this.

The simplicity of it, as I'm trying to understand that, is that if there is a

grievance that's been lodged, this is the starting point of how they will be

adjudicated. If they had been lodged as a result of the Justice Shaw's report,

they won't have standing. This is the law right here. This is finality.

It's the

same, relative to 4. We are moving on now. It's the same part. This was closing

all of that off so we're not going back and through here and around and around.

As I've mentioned, that's actually been the manner of operation for the last

while — arbitrator after arbitrator after arbitrator, appeal…. It's right

from a work stoppage, going back to how this whole thing first came into place.

I'm not hiding anything on that; I'm telling you exactly that's what it is. This

is finality. This is it for this contract. There it is. "You've asked to be

able to negotiate your new contract; now you can. You can get on with that if

you choose to do so. Your contract expires at the end of June of 2004, so it's

been three years."

MacPhail: Well, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the reason why I'm asking

these questions is to explain what the words mean. It's a fundamentally flawed

piece of legislation — completely. The minister holds out a false hope of

renegotiation of these clauses — a completely false hope. I wonder if that's

the basis on which these Liberal MLAs are supporting this legislation. I can't

believe that the Liberal MLAs are supporting this legislation, the heavy hand of

the law that overrides the courts.

The

minister says: "Oh, the process has taken so long." Yeah, collective

bargaining takes a long time. And when the government intervenes by stripping a

collective agreement, imposing a settlement, refusing to fund it, it really does

affect collective bargaining, and it affects the relationship between the

parties. He's absolutely right.

But I will

expect, Mr. Chair, that the parents of the children who are affected by all of

this government's contract stripping and draconian laws side with the educators

who are dismayed by this and not with this government. The minister says that he

wants to get on with negotiations. Really? I can imagine what kind of

negotiations those are going to be with this government's record.

Government

takes great pride in no strikes. Well, they don't allow people to strike; they

impose collective agreements. They don't allow people to take job action; they

bring in legislation. Mr. Chair, I predict that Bill 19 has actually made the

next round of bargaining more complex and has frustrated that round of

bargaining. This government has skewed collective bargaining in favour of the

B.C. public sector employers association. This minister has not only done that,

but he's now held out a completely false hope to people that they can

renegotiate some of these clauses.

I hope

people will take him at his word in this Legislature. I hope people will table

this whole list and renegotiate it, because that's what the minister said they

could do. That's exactly what he said they could do.

[1615]

Mr. Chair,

I note that there's no sunset clause in this legislation — none. In

section

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

b) those deleted words, phrases, provisions

and parts of provisions must not for any purpose, including any suit or

arbitration commenced or continued before or after the coming into force of this

section, be considered part of that collective agreement on or after July 1,

2002." What effect does this language have on a renewed collective

agreement?

Hon. G.

Bruce:

Section 5(

b) doesn't have any impact in respect to going forward. I

want to be clear that contracts negotiated going forward, of course, cannot be

in contravention of the School Act. That's the guiding basic principle. But 5(

b) doesn't have any impact on a new contract being negotiated. You know, it's

interesting too. The member opposite in a few comments here sort of implies that

the only people that would ever be interested or concerned for the students and

the educational system are…. I take it it's the executive of the British

Columbia Teachers Federation. It all has to be done in the contractual aspect of

things. There are many, many people: moms, school trustees, dads, principals,

vice-principals, counsellors.

MacPhail: Why don't you ask them whether they support you? Why don't you ask

them?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I don't need to. On May 17, 2005, that'll certainly happen. I know

that. I don't have any argument with you about how popular I am or not. I

understand that.

We're

making some tough decisions. We're making some decisions that have had to be

brought about mainly because of the former administration's decade of decline in

this province. I know that, and so do the general public. When you make

difficult decisions, it's not often that people cheer you. It's human nature.

They're not going to. It takes time to work things around and to rebuild.

You know,

there's no doubt about it: the former administration left us a huge mountain to

climb to be able to get this province turned around and back on its feet. We all

knew — with the leadership of the Premier of this province — it was going to

be a challenge, but we weren't going to win the day on popularity. We know that.

There's

nothing surprising in any of these numbers and such that come out today. We know

that. When you make tough decisions, your popularity is not going to go up. When

you make the right decisions, you've got to work your way through that, and

you've got to work through with the general public. The general public will make

their decision. That's a year from now. You and I know that. It's a fixed date.

They'll all get that opportunity.

Also, with

all the processes in there, this agreement that we were talking about…. Sort

of sometimes it im-

[ Page 10383 ]

plied the rush to bring in legislation, whether it's this part or Bill 27 or

Bill 28. I mean, it was after, I think, 80 days of negotiation. There were three

issues that had been settled in this particular dispute back in 2001 — three

issues after 80 days. The facilitator of those discussions, Stephen Kelleher, a

respected individual, also now a justice…. It's been a difficult, prolonged

harangue. What we're doing here is saying to everybody: "Look, this is

over. It's done. This contract is finished." There's finality through this.

It expires on June 30, 2004. By putting this over here and finishing it, the

parties can then, if they choose to, carry on with the negotiation. That's what

all this does.

[1620]

MacPhail: Can the minister walk me through the legislation and demonstrate

how the future collective agreement is not affected by this legislation? The

legislation deletes 27.1 from the School Act. The only clause left that refers

to any collective agreement is this retroactive clause, and it says it cannot be

considered part of that collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002. There's

no sunset clause to this legislation. Could the minister demonstrate to me how

it is that that July 1, 2002, has no meaning if there's a new collective

agreement agreed upon?

Hon. G.

Bruce: This refers to this collective agreement, the one that we're in.

MacPhail: Where? Where does it say it? Show me.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It says right there. It says: "those deleted words, phrases,

provisions and parts of provisions must not for any purpose…be considered part

of that collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002." This is the

collective agreement that we're in.

As we

stated through the beginning and the body of this in negotiations, you can't

negotiate those things that are in contravention of the School Act, so that's

that part going forward. Anything else you can go ahead and negotiate. This

particular act is clear on what those items were as it applied to the contract

as it was stated — taken out. They're fixed, and now, going forward, here's

what you're faced with. Then this contract that they're in right now expires on

June 30, 2004.

MacPhail: I'm actually thrilled about that, because then this clause becomes

meaningless on June 30, 2004 — completely. I'm thrilled about that. This

clause has absolutely no meaning as of June 30, 2004, then. That's the effect of

this minister's words.

[1625]

Section 5

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Coell

Bruce

van Dongen

Bray

Lee

Harris

Christensen

Neufeld

Jarvis

Anderson

Nebbeling

Johnston

Krueger

J. Reid

Hayer

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Suffredine

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 4

MacPhail

Kwan

Brenzinger

Nettleton

Section 6

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Mr. Chair, I move that we rise and report completion without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:29 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1630]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

19, Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R.

Harris: I call now for second reading of Bill 30.

Can we have

a quick five-minute recess?

Mr.

Speaker: We'll pause here for a few minutes while the minister's on his way.

[1635]

Second Reading of Bills

PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ACT

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

[1640]

In 2001

under the leadership of our Premier, we made a commitment to spur economic

growth and increase competition in the commercial transportation sector. It is

with this commitment and this strategy in mind that I propose Bill 30.

The current

Motor Carrier Act was introduced in 1939 and has not been significantly changed

since. Yet we all know that the world has changed very dramatically since 1939.

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

for innovation

[ Page 10384 ]

and that it prevents carriers from meeting the needs of their customers.

The

legislation presented today will replace the Motor Carrier Act with the new

Passenger Transportation Act. This legislation places a focus and a priority on

safety. It ensures that service to smaller communities in the heartlands of our

province is maintained. It allows the commercial transportation industry to

respond to market forces, and it gives operators the flexibility needed to meet

the needs of their customers.

This bill,

to summarize some of the key points briefly, ensures continued public safety. It

protects and enhances transportation services. It continues regulation of the

industry to ensure that the public has access to transportation services, and it

allows the commercial transportation industry to be more innovative. It also

allows operators to quickly respond to changing market conditions, something

that is becoming increasingly important as we move into a more competitive

world.

Industry

has been telling us that they want better enforcement measures to deal with

illegal, unlicensed operators and to continue to be governed by provincial

legislation. We will maintain provincial regulation of taxis. We will streamline

the application process. We will also be increasing penalties against illegal

operators, and we will require dispatchers and brokers to use licensed taxis.

I would

like to offer an example of the restrictive nature of regulation under the

existing Motor Carrier Act. Some wine tour companies could take passengers to

one winery but not to another only a short distance away. The Passenger

Transportation Act will remove the area of operation restrictions for these

kinds of operations. That was a very common restriction under the old Motor

Carrier Act.

In addition

to providing greater flexibility, this act will ensure that service to

communities is protected and maintained. Under the Motor Carrier Act, charter

buses have to prove a need for service, which could result in a lengthy

application process, and are granted licences often with many restrictions. The

new act will remove licence restrictions that forced charter bus operators to

work in a certain area. It will remove restrictions on the type of service or

market and provide greater flexibility so that they can meet their customers'

needs.

Under the

new act, intercity buses will be able to meet the needs of customers by having

the ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Intercity buses will

continue to be regulated by the Passenger Transportation Board to ensure

adequate service to our heartland communities on low-usage routes.

This bill

will eliminate the Motor Carrier Commission and replace it with the Passenger

Transportation Board. The new board will be smaller. It will be streamlined, and

it will be more efficient. The act also creates the position of registrar of

passenger transportation. The registrar will process new applications,

investigate complaints concerning illegal carriers and have the ability to

impose sanctions and recommend regulatory amendments.

[1645]

Under the

leadership of our Premier, we are opening up the commercial transportation

industry to more competition and are providing more flexibility. It's about

keeping public safety a priority and ensuring that service is maintained and

improved. The Passenger Transportation Act is about letting business do what it

does best, which is operating its businesses. It's also about keeping yet

another of our new-era commitments.

J. Reid:

I'm proud to stand and support this piece of legislation. The Motor Carrier

Commission, as the minister has stated, was encumbered with many outdated

regulations and requirements. While they were able to address that in the last

couple of years in some reform, a lot of what was required was embedded in

legislation, which made for frustration on the part of those who wished to

streamline what they were doing, as well as frustration with the Motor Carrier

Commission.

Knowing

that things do change and times do change, it's important to look at what the

basis of the legislation was, what it was trying to accomplish, and to see

whether there is a way of doing that in a friendlier fashion to still comply

with the original intent. As the minister has stated, the original intent was

around safety, to a large degree, and around security of service.

Looking at

the safety aspects in this piece of legislation, it is embedded with safety all

the way through to make sure that the requirements so that people travelling in

transportation vehicles provided from someone else, from a different business,

could feel secure, could know that their interests had been looked after and

that the government was upholding its duties in regulating their safety in these

vehicles…. The act is able to address that in a very straightforward way,

making sure that people can comply easily and that as long as they comply, it

won't impede their time in order to get permission to operate their vehicles.

Safety has been maintained all through this act to the highest standards — to

the same standards that everybody has to operate under today. That certainly has

been important.

Some of the

changes that the government was encouraged to take a look at…. Some of the

frustrations that were faced were the inability of many carriers to respond

fairly quickly and to prove, before they even started their business, that their

business was going to be successful. This was for all of us, faced in our

constituencies with people who had ideas and innovations and who wanted to start

a business around transportation, an incredible frustration. How do you prove a

business is going to be successful before you've even attempted it? It was also

frustrating for the Motor Carrier Commission to have to accept what that proof

might be and, indeed, how that would be put before them.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

certainly believe that people should be able to start a business and be able to

look to their own experiences and have innovations that would then…. They

[ Page 10385 ]

would be allowed to succeed or fail without having this burden of proof in

advance. We know that many wonderful innovations in business have been preceded

by some business failures initially. As long as the safety aspect is always

maintained, we believe that people should have the right to take on a business

venture and risk their own capital in that business venture and, certainly,

provide innovations to the motor carrier industry.

We've also

looked around the province at different changes in society. One of those

changes, as we know, is an aging population. An aging population has different

transportation needs. While right now we have taxis, limousines and the bus

system, we need to let the private sector react to changes in demographics and

come up with ideas that will serve the needs of new customers.

[1650]

We are

certainly aware of challenges facing people who can no longer keep their

driver's licence. We certainly want to maintain safety on the road, but those

people are put in a very difficult position in accessing the transportation they

might need at a cost that they might be able to afford.

We believe

that the taxi industry is a good and sound and stable industry in this province

that serves people well. We want to support that industry, and this legislation

continues to do that. In fact, it actually enhances the ability for the taxi

industry to maintain itself at a very high standard, which, again, I believe we

do have in this province.

One of the

frustrations of the taxi industry was pirate taxis. Those were the taxis that

were not getting properly licensed and, therefore, did offer a safety hazard to

people who might choose to ride in them. This piece of legislation enables those

operators who were not having to comply…. With more direct challenges, with

more direct intervention and with quicker punishment for people who were not

going to be complying with their safety requirements, we believe that it is

indeed a very positive aspect of this legislation and has been much needed.

We know

that lines are blurring in the industry — for example, between taxis and

limousines. As limousines shrink and taxis might become more luxurious, there

has to be a way of being able to meet the future needs. There has to be a way of

putting flexibility within the legislation so that the people who are

responsible for licensing have the ability to make decisions wisely. We believe

this legislation will also do that, which will be a positive aspect to those two

industries and, again, be helpful to consumers, who ultimately are the ones that

end up benefiting from this type of legislation.

We do know

that intercity buses are very important to people in this province and very

important for transportation in rural areas. We looked very hard at that

industry to look at how we can improve it and at the same time allow the

operators to be as efficient as possible and still allow the integrity of that

industry so we're not going to lose routes in rural areas. This legislation

accomplishes that as well, making sure that those intercity bus operators have

the flexibility that they didn't have before — for example, to lower their

rates. Before, if they wanted to lower their rates on routes, they had to go

through a very cumbersome process. Now they can lower the rates if they want to

in order to attract customers. We believe that will be beneficial for the

industry. At the same time, it maintains the integrity of the industry so that,

again, people in rural communities can be assured that they'll still have the

same bus service as they have today.

This

legislation addresses many of those concerns. It's a practical piece of

legislation. It is responsive to the needs of business. At the same time, it

holds safety at the absolute highest standard and in the highest regard. I

believe this legislation will go far in meeting future needs, encouraging

innovation and looking after the consumer. I will certainly be supporting it.

Nijjar: I felt it was very important to rise today and speak on this act.

There is a great significance in the lower mainland. I represent the riding of

east Vancouver — Vancouver-Kingsway. Throughout the lower mainland we know

that many of the taxi drivers live in our communities. In many cases, they're

immigrant class. They are new Canadians, families — a culture where there is a

great importance on mortgages, saving money and paying for our children's

education, as the onus is on the parent.

[1655]

There's

this commitment within the taxi industry, of those that drive taxis, to working

as hard and diligently as they can for the families. We all are aware and know

of that type of thinking. As we know, many taxi drivers are in our communities.

We have been in discussions with them over the last three years and even

beforehand, as this government was then in opposition.

We know

that taxi licences throughout the lower mainland even — across British

Columbia but in the lower mainland — could be $300,000 or $350,000 for a

licence. It is like buying a home. The investment is basically the same thing.

The commitment and the necessity to be able to manage to continue to pay down

what is really, in effect, a mortgage while you're taking care of your family

and putting your kids through school and trying to pay off your mortgage on your

house is a very difficult and very trying thing.

It is

important, then, that government, when making changes, bring about changes that

recognize what is already there — what system is already there, where families

and individuals have invested greatly in the system. When this government looked

at making changes, I as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and many of my

colleagues, especially those from Surrey — Surrey–Green Timbers,

Surrey-Tynehead and Surrey–Panorama Ridge — and even my colleagues from the

rest of Vancouver, like Vancouver-Fraserview, worked very hard to ensure that

the voice of the taxi industry was understood by the government and that the

needs of the public interests represented through the gov-

[ Page 10386 ]

ernment were understood by the taxi industry. There was a real discussion and

compromise to be had. The public policy was put in the forefront.

We were

able to come up with a decision that allowed us to, in effect, not destroy the

lives and the investment of the individuals in the taxi industry but yet pull

forth from them and work with them to establish some directions that would

strengthen not only the taxi industry ultimately but, more importantly, the

service to the public — for example, increasing penalties to those that take

advantage of the taxi industry for their own use and try to bypass regulations,

bypass licensing and try to act as taxi drivers, etc., and going after them,

much like a lot of things that we have done in other regulations when it comes

to environment and forestry. You have to go after those that break the law and

violate regulations and not then put this black cloud over the whole industry

and say that everyone is punishable and everyone is going to be a victim of

someone else's wrongdoings.

The taxi

industry is a good industry. The taxi industry has worked well. They ask that

government continue to regulate. We have done that. We have done that to protect

the taxi industry, but at the same time we work with them to work at the larger

picture — the public interest. Those discussions are not easy. It's very easy

for government to have come in and said: "Well, it makes absolutely no

sense for government to regulate to this extent." This could very well be

seen as the type of thing a government would be doing in a different era. But

that's not reality. Reality is that there are investments there.

My hat goes

off to the ministry and the Minister of Transportation who was willing to not

only listen but, more importantly, to then take that information from the MLAs

that represent those communities — the information and the views of the taxi

industry — and bring that together and bring forward to them things that they

could live with, such as certain penalties and so forth. It is a good

compromise. It is a good direction for the public interest.

You know,

there is now going to be greater safety in taxis, with cameras. That is

important for the taxi industry. They wanted that. It is good that they have had

an ability to…. What we've seen over the last six to eight months have been

several incidences that have made the front page of the paper, with taxi drivers

being stabbed and attacked.

[1700]

The public

is assisted; the industry is assisted; tourism is assisted. The taxi industry is

assisted through other things that government is doing. Bringing in 2010 and

bringing in the convention centre are two things that…. When I and all my

colleagues drive in taxis, as we do when we go back and forth from ferries and

airports trying to move around the province to hear views, taxi drivers say all

the time what an impact they look forward to from the construction and then the

use of the convention centre. Even they see more investment and more tourism

happening after 9/11. Of course, there was a great impact on the taxi industry.

We're doing

the best we can to revive the economy for everyone in British Columbia.

Obviously, the taxi industry benefits from it when they see more people coming,

more people investing and more people moving around because there are more jobs,

more interaction and more trade.

The

Olympics are one prime example of bringing people to British Columbia. But then

it's countless things — the World Junior Hockey Championships and World

Firefighters Games, which are the second-biggest games of the sort in the world.

These are great things.

I'm very

proud to have worked on this file. I'm very proud, as are my colleagues from

Vancouver, Burnaby, the lower mainland and Surrey, especially, that

participated. I'm very proud of the work of both the former Minister of

Transportation, who started all this and led the way, and the current Minister

of Transportation, who was able to basically close the deal on this.

Hon. R.

Harris: I want to say a few words around this bill because I do support it,

and I think it is a great step forward in terms of evolving the transportation

industry. I want to talk a bit more about its impact in rural communities,

because I think that is a major feature of this bill that certainly works for

me, and I know it works for a number of MLAs that represent other rural

communities.

I think the

first thing, though, about this bill that is important for everyone to get and

to understand is that it does, in fact, still focus its primary energies on

protecting the safety and integrity of the transportation system and the

operators that work within it. That's fundamentally, I think, what most people

are concerned about. We want to know that the vehicles that are on our streets

and our driveways are in fact operating in a safe manner, that they're

maintained in a safe manner and that those standards are really at the highest

level. This bill in no way impacts negatively the standards that were in place

prior.

As a

previous trucker who used to deal in the motor carrier world and certainly had

some experience trying to navigate through that maze of regulations and

requirements, I can appreciate the need to modernize this act. It is interesting

when I hear that the original act was from 1939. I didn't know that. But I can

tell you when you sort of tried to work through the maze and tried to make

things work for yourself as a businessman, it became very apparent that there

were a lot of hurdles and a lot of obstacles to try and get a business going and

to operate within the motor carrier world.

I will say,

though, that over the last couple of years there certainly had been attempts, as

the member for Nanaimo-Parksville pointed out, by the motor carrier board itself

to become more flexible and to operate and be a little more — I guess, from an

operator's perspective — customer-friendly. There were some inherent

challenges. Certainly, its inability and lack of flexibility in how it issued

licences and moved forward just continued to create a barrier to new business

and new opportunity.

[ Page 10387 ]

We do talk

about things like tourism in the north as the emerging business. For us, we

don't see it as emerging, but we certainly see it as one that is going to grow

significantly. I can remember from the times that I lived in the Queen Charlotte

Islands and the member for North Coast's riding, as well as even in the

Kitimat-Terrace area today, that the limited ability to actually get public

transportation if not any transportation between cities is difficult.

An even

greater challenge has been how, in fact, if you had an idea that you wanted to

start up commercial bus transportation routes that started to take in some of

the spectacular dynamics of our region of the province, the motor carrier became

a very large hurdle, mainly because of that requirement that you needed to

provide proof of success before you could even get going. You had to actually

have a business that started at the top end rather than a business that you

started to put into the marketplace and would build and grow, and success would

build upon success.

[1705]

This bill

finally starts to put in place some of those flexibilities, some of the

abilities of people who want to go from Terrace up to Bell II or want to bring

in folks, especially with the cruise ships coming into Prince Rupert this

season. I think we're going to be seeing 32 of the large-class cruise ships.

That's over 60,000 visitors. We know that a large chunk of those folks are going

to come back to the northwest two to three years out.

There are

people already planning how they will start to move those people around the

regions — the kinds of tour operations they want to put in place, the

businesses and the opportunities. We need a modern Motor Carrier Act that, in

fact, reflects those dynamics of starting up those businesses to be successful

so that those folks can actually plan today with some certainty that they're

going to get through a process quickly, that it's going to be a process that

allows them to, quite frankly, react to the clientele and the market they have.

Part of

starting up a business is, in fact, that whole unknown. One of the members

talked previously about the changing demographics of our communities and how

transportation needs need to change to fit those new needs. Certainly, as we

look at creating centres of excellence around health and with an aging

population, there is a need to find ways to make sure that we have carriers.

Actually, there are tremendous business opportunities about setting up

transportation systems that meet those kinds of clientele so that we have those

transportation systems that actually fit well with the clientele, that those

business proposals match well with the objectives of the individuals putting

them forward.

This is a

good act. It's one that people who work in the motor carrier world have been

asking for, for a long time. It protects the integrity of the taxi business,

which I know has had concerns, by maintaining that structure. What it also does

is put in place some flexible regimes that allow — especially in the rural

part of this province — the opportunity for businesses to step forward, to

establish themselves, to get up and running, to build a successful business and

to operate.

It provides

the flexibility of being able to react to the marketplace, which is even more

important, quite candidly. I think anyone who has been in business knows that

once you've started up, things don't always work out quite the way you wanted

them to, and you need to be able to adapt and to change. That's very important

in today's society.

This

actually fits very well with our government's role of not, in fact, putting in

place rules and structures that are one-size-fits-all. This actually provides

that kind of flexibility and mobility within the community, and certainly within

the motor carrier world and the transportation world, so that we can have

businesses that can react to that.

At the core

of it all, at no point do we compromise safety in this. We maintain a standard

in the province that I think is probably the highest in the world. I can tell

you that the people I know that work in the transportation sector are of the

highest integrity. These are folks that are proud of their equipment; they're

very proud of their operators; they're very proud of their businesses. That's

what we're trying to build in this province — people that are proud to be in

business and want to be successful.

I think it

is a very good piece of legislation. I'm pleased to be able to stand here to

support it. I think it is exactly the kind of thing we need to continue to do in

this province as we attract business and continue to build on the successes that

I believe we've already started to make.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill

Motion

approved.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that the bill be moved to the Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30,

Passenger Transportation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R.

Harris: I now call second reading of Bill 29.

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move the bill now be read a second time.

The Mineral

Tenure Act is the legislative authority for mineral titles acquisition and title

maintenance. With Bill 29, government is making significant changes to B.C.'s

system for subsurface title acquisition and management. It is a modernization of

the mineral titles acquisition process first established in the mid-1800s.

I'm pleased

to announce these changes, which will enable a new Internet-based system for

acquiring mineral and placer claims in the province. It will be called

[ Page 10388 ]

Mineral Titles Online . The new on-line system will be simple and

straightforward to use.

[1710]

This is

only one of the steps that we are taking to improve and enhance mineral

exploration in British Columbia. You will recall that our Premier has a vision

for mining in the province of British Columbia. He laid out that vision very

clearly during the election in the New Era document. He laid it out to

all British Columbians, and we are fulfilling those obligations to the people of

the province to actually make the mineral industry an industry that will

continue to grow in British Columbia and provide all the great resources that it

does.

facilitate that kind of growth, to continue to facilitate the kind of growth

that we have seen since being elected in 2001, we knew that we had to actually

modernize some of the systems we use for registration and claim-staking.

Although claim-staking is part of the history of British Columbia — as I said

earlier, from the mid-1800s there has been mining in this great province, and it

has been done by the two-post claim system — there comes a time when you have

to start moving to a system that actually is more accurate, more responsive,

easier to manage by government and easier to do by the prospector and those that

are out there making claims on the land base.

We have

done a number of things. I just want to basically recap a little bit, because

this is in a greater vision for this province and for the mining industry —

and what benefits it brings to this great province of ours.

When we

initially took office, mining was almost extinct in the province. I can only say

that having spent a decade here with the NDP, ten years watching them actually

discourage mining in the province, it was very disheartening for me and I think

very disheartening for those that do this kind of work — prospectors that go

out on the land base and prospect for minerals to provide jobs and economic

activity in all parts of the province and specifically the rural part of the

province.

Immediately

on coming into office, we initially reduced taxation for the industry to

encourage it, to foster it, to actually get some confidence back in British

Columbia in the mining industry. As I said earlier, we know it waned hugely, and

so we knew we had to build on that. The Premier knew we had to build on those

kinds of things and that it would take a while. It would take a lot of hard

work.

Mineral

Titles Online is just one small part of that whole procedure to bring that

confidence back, that gusto, that zest that those miners bring to British

Columbia in doing what they do so well, and that's going out on a huge land base

and actually finding minerals. So we did the taxation issue. We reduced personal

taxes. We reduced or eliminated sales tax for mining equipment used on mine

sites. We eliminated the corporate capital tax — a tax on debt. We reduced the

corporate tax. We did a number of other things along with that. The taxation was

just one part of it that was used by the previous administration to drive

industry, and specifically the mining industry, out of the province.

We knew we

had to do some other things. We had some pretty long consultations with the

mining industry about things we had to do to rebuild this great industry in this

great province of ours. We went out, and we talked to them and actually got from

the mining industry some of the things that they wanted done. They came forward

with a mining plan for British Columbia with a number of suggestions — I

believe, five or six of them. We've slowly been working at implementing those

requests to actually bring back mining into the province here.

[1715]

I would say

that the two-zone system that we initiated a year ago for mining said there are

two zones in British Columbia — one for mining and one where you can't go

mining. You can't go mining in parks and ecological reserves and those places

that are set aside for other purposes for people in our great province. So we

retain that environmental, and very good environmental, need to actually have 12

to 13 percent of our province set aside in parks for future generations. We've

done that. That was just one of the steps we wanted to do to make sure people in

British Columbia could enjoy the great natural beauty that this province has and

always has had. But we still wanted to encourage mining on the rest of the land

base, so we put in a two-zone system which clearly laid out where you can mine

and where you can't mine. We've done some other things with coal leases — can

you imagine, to actually allow coal companies to use gravel on their site to

gravel their roads, for all roads? — all those kinds of easy things to do that

actually encourage more investment in the province.

We know

that mining is important to each and every one of us, regardless of where we

live in the province. You know, from the time you get up in the morning — in

fact, even before that; from the time your alarm clock goes in the morning….

When you look at your alarm clock, and it's made out of metal, you know or you

should think about how that came out of the ground in some form of rock. Then it

was actually processed and made into metal and steel. The phosphorous that's on

the hour hand and the minute hand so that you can see them in the dark — all

part of the mining industry. That's just a simple thing from when we first

start.

When we

started thinking about that, when our Premier was thinking about a vision for

mining in the province, we thought about some of these things that we have to do

to encourage it back again. You know, another simple process takes place in the

morning. Most people — or, I would imagine, all people — brush their teeth.

There are four different kinds of minerals in toothpaste. I'm not sure which

toothpaste, but on average there are four different minerals in toothpaste. It's

amazing when you think about it how we just take it for granted that all this is

here for us all the time.

Then when

we started working towards doing some of these things like Mineral Titles

Online , like the two-zone system, the tax breaks to encourage the in-

[ Page 10389 ]

dustry back into this great province of ours so they can provide well-paying

jobs — jobs that waned under the NDP, jobs that went away…. The NDP, I

guess, didn't care about those good jobs — average jobs that paid about

$90,000 a year for working in the mining industry; good, family-supporting jobs

that each and every one of us wants in our communities. Regardless of whether

you live in Vancouver or you live in Smithers, you want those good jobs.

The folks

in Vancouver depend on the mining industry more than they probably realize. If

you look at the port and you look at all the minerals that go out of the port;

if you look at the shipments, the coal, the copper concentrates — you name

it…. On and on and on, it is all part of that great port system that we have

in British Columbia in the lower mainland and, I should say, on the north coast.

We wanted

to encourage that industry to actually come back and start producing those jobs.

We have mineral wealth like you wouldn't believe in this great province of ours

— absolutely unbelievable. All we need to do is encourage the industry to come

in, develop it — the private sector — create the well-paying jobs that I

just spoke about for each and every one of us that will be family-supporting

jobs, taxation that will actually support communities, support community growth

wherever it happens to be in the great province of British Columbia.

[1720]

You know,

what we've done so far and are continuing on with Mineral Titles Online ,

a system that will change the way we do things, actually is starting to show

some really good signs. I want to use a few statistics. If you go back to the

year that we were elected, year 2001 — appointed to government, actually, June

5…. The previous year saw $25 million of exploration money spent in British

Columbia. That's a pretty miserable, small amount when the industry tells us we

need a minimum of $150 million a year and upwards to actually have sustainable

mining in British Columbia. That means that mines do close because the ore is

depleted, and you need new mines coming on stream to be able to continue to have

this industry in our province. Those are some of the things that we were faced

with when we came into office.

Since we

came into office, since we started making the changes immediately, since we

moved forward with changes to actually encourage the industry in the province,

we've seen nothing but an increase, an incline in dollars spent on exploration

and the amount of claims that are staked. We knew that when the dollars were

going up on the exploration and people were actually going o