2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 18

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Parental Responsibility Act (Bill

16). Hon. R. Coleman

Introduction and first reading

Provincial Court Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2001 (Bill 17). Hon. G. Plant

Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions

Government action on U.S. decision on

Canadian softwood lumber exports

J. MacPhail

Hydroelectric power services in Nelson

B. Suffredine

Policing in SkyTrain corridor

J. Nuraney

Government action on U.S. decision on

Canadian softwood lumber exports

J. MacPhail

Skills Development and Labour

Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 18)

Second reading

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Bond

B. Lekstrom

Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of Supply

Ministry of Health Planning estimates.

Hon. S. Hawkins

Vote 32: Ministry operations

MacPhail

Hon. S.

Hawkins

Ministry of Health Services estimates.

Hon. C. Hansen

Vote 33: Ministry operations

Hon. C.

Hansen

MacPhail

D. Jarvis

Hon. G.

Cheema

I. Chong

Private Members' Statements

Burnaby Board of Trade and the Burnaby

Business Excellence Award. J. Nuraney

Hon. R. Thorpe

Whalers shrine at Nootka Island. R.

Visser

Hon. G. Plant

Skeena Cellulose. R. Harris

B. Belsey

Kootenay land resource management

planning. B. Bennett

W. McMahon

[ Page 537 ]

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2001

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

MacKay: Finally, today I have some guests visiting from my riding. I'm

pleased to introduce to the House my wife, Edith — it's nice to see you again,

dear — and her friend Eileen Brackenberry from Smithers. Also visiting with my

wife and Eileen in the House today for the first time is my wife's sister

Patricia Prior-Kraft and her husband, Doug. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm pleased to say that finally, today, at long last I'm able to

introduce someone from Vancouver. We are joined today in the legislative

precincts by Myrna and Peter Kitchen, by their daughter Leanne and their

son-in-law Jeff Campbell and by her granddaughter, who obviously is going to be

an active participant in these chambers sometime in the future. I hope you'll

make them welcome.

Nuraney: I have great pleasure in introducing some of my friends today in

the gallery. There are two visitors from London, England, Peter and Nasim

Manuel, who have come to visit beautiful Victoria this afternoon, accompanied by

Nuralla Jeraj, a very good friend and the person who made sure that all my

campaign expenses were in line and filed his papers well before the deadline.

Nuralla Jeraj's wife was recently appointed a Senator in the Canadian senate.

Please make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Bond: It's my pleasure today to introduce a young man from Prince George.

His name is Nick Cotter. Nick's family is very well known in Prince George. I'm

pleased to say that Nick is a student at the University of Victoria who is

currently on a work assignment with the Ministry of Management Services. Would

the House please make him welcome.

Mayencourt: I have the pleasure of introducing Ms. Alison Daem from my

community. She's a volunteer on the Robson Business Improvement Association

Safety Committee. Her name is Alison Daem, and she is here visiting her second

store, Moose Magnets, in Victoria. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'd like to recognize in the galleries today the leader of the

Green Party of British Columbia, Adriane Carr. Ms. Carr has been a regular

attendee of our open cabinet meetings. I hope you'll all make her welcome.

Suffredine: I've waited as long as the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine

to introduce somebody from my riding. I have the pleasure today to tell the

House that the mayor of Nelson, Gary Exner, and the city administrator, Victor

Kumar, are seated in the gallery. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. K.

Falcon: There are two people I'd like to recognize in the House today. The

first is a very bright, objective, incisive reporter from a great local

newspaper in Surrey, the Surrey Now , Ted Colley, who is no doubt here to

see how his hard-working members from the Surrey area are doing.

The second

is a constituency assistant for the member for Surrey–White Rock. I want to

say that Verna Logan is here, and she is a great CA to the member for

Surrey–White Rock and a questionable volleyball player. Welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

Hon.

R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Parental Responsibility Act.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that Bill 16, intituled Parental Responsibility Act, be

introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 16, the Parental Responsibility Act

— another new-era commitment. The purpose of the bill is to hold parents

accountable for property loss or damage intentionally caused by their children.

It allows those who experience property loss or damage as a result of the

intentional act of a child to take action against the parents of the child in

small claims court for financial compensation.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 16

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2001

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[ Page 538 ]

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2).

This act arose in part out of a joint submission made to the judicial

compensation committee by the office of the Chief Judge, the Provincial Court

Judges Association of B.C. and the Ministry of Attorney General.

This act

creates a pilot program for senior judges to elect to serve on a part-time basis

while receiving their pension. The salary for a part-time judge will be the

difference between a salary of a full-time judge and the part-time judge's

pension, up to a maximum of 40 percent of the full-time salary. The program is

intended to allow the Chief Judge of Provincial Court more flexibility in

scheduling judges' sitting days, especially in smaller centres. It's a pilot

program and will continue until March 31, 2005. It will be reviewed at that

time.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON U.S. DECISION

ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS

MacPhail: The government has said that the number one file of concern to

them is the softwood lumber tariff. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance

whether he would consider the option of issuing a provincial bond to assist

companies that cannot secure a bond as a result of the softwood lumber tariff,

and he waffled. So today, after the meeting that the Minister of Forests had

with his colleagues and the federal minister, I'm going to try the Minister of

Forests.

[1415]

It's all

very well and good to say that the government will do what it can to fight this

decision, but that does absolutely nothing to help communities now. So, to the

Minister of Forests: why is the Minister of Forests not prepared to assist

companies now in securing bonds?

Hon. M.

de Jong: First of all, I'm not going to underestimate or try to diminish the

potential impact of last Friday's U.S. decision on forest-dependent communities.

That's why we're doing everything possible, through every available channel, to

have that order set aside.

But I do

have to wonder at this. I wonder how much better equipped forest-dependent

communities and forestry companies might have been to deal with this challenge

if they hadn't spent the better part of the last decade under assault by that

member's former government, whether it was tax policy that made this province an

unattractive place to do business, whether it was growth overregulation or maybe

the big forestry daddy of them all, the jobs and timber accord that lost jobs

instead of creating them.

I know that

the notion of working cooperatively is as foreign to this member in opposition

as it was in government, but that is what we are doing. We are working to have

this draconian, unfair, unwarranted order set aside. In the meantime, we will

consider every available option, along with the federal government, for

assisting those communities that are going to be negatively impacted.

The choice

really is up to this member. She can assist the American side by continuing to

try and sow division in Canadian and British Columbia communities, or she can

get on board and work with us and provide a united front on an issue of primary

importance.

MacPhail: I know that the Minister of Forests is new to his portfolio, but

what the opposition is offering is potential solutions, and these are solutions

that the industry itself is asking for. So he can obfuscate with smoke and

mirrors. He can follow up…. I guess that's what happens when you attend an

open cabinet meeting: more smoke and mirrors for the public to be thrown off the

most important agenda that's facing them.

Let me ask

again, and let me advise again. A provincial bond can neutralize the effects of

a duty. Communities are worried, and layoffs are happening as we speak. These

layoffs are occurring directly as a result of the tariff that's being imposed,

and all the government of the day — the Liberal government — feels like

doing is saying: "We're going to plead with the Americans to do whatever we

can."

The

minister and the Premier have to show leadership. Now, again to the Minister of

Forests: helping secure bonds is a solution. It's a solution available right

now, and it would demonstrate the kind of leadership that's necessary on this

most important file, to quote his own words. Why won't the Minister of Forests

demand that his Premier and the federal government take strong action

immediately and issue provincial and federal bonds to help and assist companies

through this time before a final decision is made?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I wasn't here yesterday, and I read Hansard . I think the

member opposite revealed her true understanding of the issue when she asked the

Finance minister why British Columbia hadn't applied for a province-specific

exemption. Do you know why? Because we are the province under assault. We are

the target of this action by the Americans. I have to assume that's the kind of

question you get from the opposition when the brains of the operation are out of

town.

MacPhail: Just wait. [Laughter.] Keep going.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

[ Page 539 ]

[1420]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm not sure what part of the previous response the member didn't

understand. We are working actively, as we speak, with the federal government.

We are exploring all options, including the one she has mentioned, and (

a) we

are going to ensure that the Americans understand that this order cannot be

allowed to stand, and (

b) we are going to do what we can to ensure that

communities and companies and, most importantly, forest-dependent families are

somehow shielded from an order that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with one further supplementary

question.

MacPhail: It's clear that the minister doesn't have any plan to help the

companies or protect jobs. Companies are having to go it alone without any help

from this government. I have here a copy of the Weyerhaeuser application to the

U.S. commerce department for an exemption on western red cedar — the question

asked exactly: a western red cedar exemption from the tariffs. So to the

Minister of Forests: could the minister explain why neither he nor the Premier

has joined companies like Weyerhaeuser in advocating an exclusion for the

high-end coastal products that would save the hundreds of jobs that are being

eliminated now and would actually help save communities from the punishing

effects of the tariff?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I know that the member is learning her job as well, but you know,

maybe the House would have the benefit of well-thought-out, informed questions

if the member had taken advantage of the offer we made to her to have a briefing

on the file. Then maybe she would understand that the government has done

everything within its power, and continues to do so, to facilitate the exemption

applications that are being made by companies right across this province. Yet

here she is, purporting to disseminate information that is inaccurate,

ill-informed.

I'll tell

you what. Let me make the offer right here in this House. If the member wants to

have a complete briefing on the entire file so that she won't embarrass herself

the way that she is today and yesterday, please call my office and you'll get

that briefing.

HYDROELECTRIC POWER

SERVICES IN NELSON

Suffredine: My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management. My home community of Nelson began generating power at its own power

plant in the late 1800s. When the Kootenay Canal project was built, some of the

power plant's licences and capacity were taken for the benefit of the provincial

grid. Since that time the city has had to purchase power in the winter to

supplement its needs. The taxes of Nelson residents have risen accordingly. Will

the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management commit to helping Nelson solve

this problem?

Hon. S.

Hagen: First of all, I want to assure the member, all the members of this

House and the citizens of Nelson that we are committed to having an open and fair

process in dealing with questions revolving around water licensing issues —

very important questions. In the case of Nelson, we're more than willing to

explore the options that are available to improve hydro services. I know it's a

big issue up there. I look forward to meeting with the member and the mayor

later on this afternoon. We will carefully consider whether the flow of the

Kootenay River is sufficient to permit an increase in licensing for Nelson.

POLICING IN SKYTRAIN CORRIDOR

Nuraney: My question is to the Solicitor General. In recent years the

citizens of the lower mainland, and in particular, of Burnaby have been very

concerned about the criminal activities going on in the SkyTrain corridor. The

concern is because most of those criminals carry on their activities in order to

evade the police, since there is no police force existing right now in the

SkyTrain stations or its corridor. My question to the Solicitor General is: what

steps is he taking to protect the public and to curtail these kinds of criminal

activities?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The first thing we should realize is that in policing, we can't

deal with any particular issue in isolation. We need an overall policing

strategy for the province and for the lower mainland. That is why this Premier

had the vision to create a Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General who

would pay attention to those issues for the people of the province.

[1425]

The

important thing to remember about SkyTrain is that what we've done…. I asked

the police services division to review the plan relative to policing along the

SkyTrain corridor and take into consideration a number of issues. One of them is

the limited funding that SkyTrain has available. The number of criminal offences

along the SkyTrain corridor is actually lower than originally estimated, and

therefore we think we can look at a strategic policing model that may work

differently. They are going to be meeting with the different municipal and RCMP

forces, like I already have myself and look at a way to integrate and make the

system work for everyone.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Burnaby-Willingdon with a supplementary question.

Nuraney: The question, Mr. Speaker, is: at this moment TransLink is engaging

security guards to protect the SkyTrain corridor, but these security guards are

not empowered to carry out their duties effectively because of the lack of

jurisdiction. Could the Solicitor General please tell us whether he is

contemplating

[ Page 540 ]

taking any steps to empower the security guards to effectively carry out

their duties?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The people that are doing SkyTrain security now have limited

special constable powers in their jurisdiction. The concern in and around

special constables and their performance and any police complaint process will

come under review when we do the police complaint commissioner review, coming up

shortly. In addition to that, there has been concern raised by the various

police agencies along the line. They are concerned about a separate entity being

set up without the information, the data, the intelligence moving back and forth

from police agencies in an efficient manner so that crime can be combatted. All

of those parties are going to be brought together by the police services

division to come up with a strategy for SkyTrain.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON U.S. DECISION

ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS

MacPhail: We now know that this government won't do anything around helping

companies with provincial bonds. They won't do anything to assist companies with

their exemption applications. But we do know that the Minister of Forests is

contemplating a trade war with the United States. He's threatening a trade war

with the United States. He said the price of energy exports to the United States

should be hiked in retaliation to the softwood lumber duty. But if he had

bothered to ask for a briefing from the previous Forests critic, he might have

seen a press release that was issued by the Liberals — that was prior to them

actually assuming office — demanding that the former government not link

energy exports to the softwood lumber dispute.

To the

Minister of Forests: did he get a briefing from the previous Forests critic? And

if using energy exports as a bargaining chip was such a bad idea in March for

the Liberals, why is floating that idea such a good one now?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I don't know where the member is getting her information from, but

I am first of all inclined to repeat the offer that was made previously. This one has demonstrated yet again that

being relegated to a very small opposition has done nothing to decrease her

ability to be economical with the truth.

We as a government are pursuing —

on this most important, the most important, economic challenge we are facing —

a strategy that will employ the following: first of all, an absolute commitment,

along with every other jurisdiction in Canada, to pursue the obvious and

available legal challenges to have this order set aside. At the same

time we are going to marshal forces in Canada, along with the federal

government, with the assurance from the federal minister that this is the single

most important bilateral issue between Canada and the U.S. We will marshal

public opinion and political pressure to have this order set aside. And Mr.

Speaker, we will challenge the Americans to state upfront whether they are

genuinely interested in finding a long-term, policy-oriented, principled

solution to a trade dispute that has gone on for too long and too often.

[1430]

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call, in this House, second reading on Bill 18, the Skills

Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001. Should we complete that,

we'll be moving into Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll

be discussing the estimates of the Minister of Health Planning.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND LABOUR

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon.

G. Bruce: I am pleased to open this discussion of Bill 18 in the context of

our campaign pledges. For our government it continues the progress of honouring

the commitments we made to British Columbians in our New Era platform

document. We laid out a comprehensive program to the voters, and they responded

by giving us a mandate to initiate those measures. The people have spoken and

we are acting.

The bill

delivers on four specific commitments we made to the citizens of British

Columbia for labour law reform. All of them are aimed at fostering better

working relationships, stimulating investment and job creation, and treating all

workers fairly. We know that to enhance the competitive playing field upon which

our economy will grow, we must restore common sense, flexibility and rights in

the workplace for employees and employers alike.

Restoring

flexibility will encourage innovation and productivity without undue government

intervention. It will help to free our economy to achieve the growth needed to

fuel jobs, pay for services and give choices to our citizens.

We also

know that where public services are involved, we must act in a measured way to

balance the needs of workers, employers and the public. This is because the

public are not at the bargaining table; yet the public bear the costs of

disputes. As a customer they lose the services, and as a taxpayer they bear the

monetary costs of settlement.

The three

changes to the Labour Code and the change to the Pension Benefits Standards Act

included in Bill 18 will do these things. It will restore education as an

essential service, it will restore workers' rights to secret ballots, it will

eliminate sectoral bargaining in the construction industry, and it will restore

pensions to workers where these have been withheld.

This bill

fulfils our campaign commitment of putting students first. Over four million

student-days have been lost over the past ten years, two-thirds of those days

due to non-teaching disputes. This change

[ Page 541 ]

will now reduce the anxiety many teachers felt when faced with the prospect

of picket lines due to these other disputes. Bill 18

restores education as an essential service under the Labour Code, as it was

until 1993.

The bill does this by including the provision of educational

programs to students and eligible children under the School Act, under

section

72. Thus, if a labour dispute threatens the delivery of education programs, the

Labour Relations Board will have the authority to designate services that would

need to be maintained if their disruption would pose an immediate and serious

threat to the delivery of educational programs.

[1435]

Bill 18

does not take away the right to strike by teachers or other school employees. It

does mean, however, that in the event of a strike or lockout, education must

come first, learning must continue, and students must be able to complete their

school year regardless of age or grade level. This is a way of ensuring that the

right to education, which is compulsory under the School Act, is not denied

during disputes. It is a way of ensuring that safe, reliable access to schools

is maintained.

Another

new-era promise kept by this act includes restoring the democratic right to a

secret ballot on certification under the Labour Relations Code. This makes sure

that the same voting rules apply for certification as for decertification.

In 1992 the

Labour Code was changed to allow a union to apply to the Labour Relations Board

for certification without a vote if more than 55 percent of employees in a

bargaining unit had signed union cards. The changes to the code under Bill 18

improve democracy in the workplace by requiring a secret ballot vote in all

union certifications in the same way that decertification of a union requires a

secret ballot vote.

We have

also promised to restore all employees' rights to negotiate contracts by

outlawing sectoral bargaining. In 1998, through Bill 26, a new

part 4.1 of the

Labour Relations Code was introduced. It imposed sectoral bargaining in

industrial, commercial and institutional construction.

Part 4.1 required that

all craft union employers and all craft unions in the sector operate under a

single master agreement. Any newly certified employers would automatically come

under the master agreement. What Bill 18 does is repeal

part 4.1 of the Labour

Relations Code, eliminating the provisions of Bill 26 and restoring the

unionized construction sector to as it was prior to the 1998 legislation.

The fourth

commitment of this bill that we are addressing represents a matter of fairness

and equity for retired individuals. This bill restores individuals' rights to

their pensions. It does so by repealing the law that allowed some pension plans

to suspend pension benefits for early retirees who chose to continue working in

their previous field of employment. A 1999 change to

section 74 of the Pension

Benefits Standards Act allowed administrators of multi-employer pension plans to

suspend the early retirement benefits of members who return to work for

non-contributing employers in the same trade. Bill 18

repeals the relevant

section of this act.

Bill 18 will also ensure that all

people who had their pensions suspended while the provisions were in force

receive reinstated benefits quickly. Unfortunately, this will not be

retroactive.

These are

measured and reasonable changes that restore balance and democracy in the

workplace and ensure that we are able to provide a strong, reliable education

for our children, putting the rights of students first.

I now move

second reading.

MacPhail: Well, I certainly understand the heavy workload that the Minister

of Labour is under. I think he's risen to give the government's point of view on

the state of business and the economy more than any other minister. His workload

is showing; the heavy workload under which the Minister of Labour finds himself

is showing. Here we are today debating yet another piece of legislation where

the target of the government's heavy hand is clear once again.

[1440]

The labour

legislation that we're…. Well, we're probably not going to be debating it,

because I was informed that no one else in the government is even going to

address this piece of legislation — no one. But if there are others that have

a view on this, I hope they do rise and speak to it.

Parts of

this piece of legislation were promised in the election campaign. There's no

question about it. However, in any situation I found myself there was absolutely

no discussion of it, so now is the time for this to be discussed. Now exactly

is the time for the members of the Liberal government to stand up and explain to

the public why this is necessary.

John

Winter, president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said over a year ago:

"It's time business and labour got together and began to pull in the same

direction. We have to knock down the walls of suspicion." That's the

president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. But how do you knock down the walls

of suspicion without an open and transparent consultation process on Labour Code

changes that allows union members, other workers and small businesses to have

their say before a decision is made? How do you get labour and business pulling

in the same direction when every single action that this government has taken to

date…? It actually seems like an eternity, but it's been less than 90 days,

and this government has already introduced several pieces of legislation that

indicate an extreme agenda that's hostile to working people and favourable to

business.

The 1992 Labour Code review panel had

respected management

lawyer Tom Roper, noted labour lawyer John Baigent and veteran

[ Page 542 ]

mediator Vince Ready undertake public hearings and make recommendations on a

revised Labour Code. Those three people, a balanced review representing all

aspects of our economy, agreed on 96 percent of all of the issues they

discussed. Contrast that with the experience of the current government's Labour

Code amendments: no hearings, no consultation with the public, no consultation

with the workers directly affected or their representative bargaining agents.

The one consultation that has taken place is one that happened behind closed

doors between the Liberal government and business leaders.

I'll tell

you something. When there was open discussion during the business summit,

business leaders said something very different when they were subject to the

open scrutiny of the public and the media. They said something very different

about cooperation and balance. So there must have been a different meeting, a

closed-door meeting, a secret meeting between this government and business

leaders.

[1445]

Let's

talk about one area where business and labour actually do pull together

successfully, and that's in many areas of the economy. Let's look at some

examples of how business and labour have worked together on stimulating the

economy.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. I would remind all members to address their

remarks through the Chair.

MacPhail: Let's look at pension fund investment. In this province we have

the B.C. Investment Management Corp. That corporation manages $40 billion —

that's B as in Bob, billion — in public sector pension funds and another $18

billion in trusts. That's $58 billion — more than double the size of the B.C.

government's operating budget. It's the third-largest public sector capital pool

in Canada, and its funds come from the pension plans of unionized government

workers. Another

example: the IWA-Canada pension fund. That alone has investments of nearly $2

billion. More than 650,000 people in British Columbia are enrolled in pension

plans, and most are union members.

Just as a

side statistic about the benefits of unionization, in Canada 78 percent of

unionized workers have pension plans, compared to 26 percent of non-union

workers. I'm sure this government won't stand up today and say: "Oh my God,

it's awful that working people have pension plans." Working people in a

unionized workforce have pension plans at more than thrice the rate of a

non-unionized workforce because of free collective bargaining and the right to

organize. That's why our economy is doing so well, and that's why we have

pension plans that flow from collective bargaining and collective agreements and

have a huge positive impact on this economy. It's a direct line; it's not

complex. It contributes to the economy. Yet this government refuses to listen to

any voice on the economy except its business backers.

So the

question is: why are workers so thoroughly disrespected when it comes to Labour

Code changes that will affect their daily working lives, but so valued for their

pension fund investments? How will a government that disrespects workers

with its legislation encourage pension funds to invest in this province to

create prosperity and jobs? That question has to be answered, and it has to be

answered by this Liberal government. They're cloaking this legislation in being

good for the economy. They just state it. They just think that it'll become a

truism, that British Columbians will say, "Yes, sir, three bags full"

because our Liberal government is saying it's good for the economy — that

we'll all just accept it.

Yet here we

have a direct attack on the ability of working people to organize into unions,

to create benefits for their families, to get decent working wages, to have

pension funds that invest at thrice the rate in this economy, of the

government's own operations, and somehow that means nothing. Somehow the voice

of its corporate CEO backers is a bigger voice. Well, I'll say this to the

Minister of Labour and the Liberal government: the only reason that this

province has a good, solid investment is because of working people investing

their pension funds in this province and that corporations have directly

benefited from it. The unionized pension funds invest in the companies in

British Columbia. The reason they're able to do that is because they have a

negotiated pension plan as a result of the right to organize. Somehow, now the

threat…

An Hon.

Member: What's your point?

MacPhail: …to the right to organize is supposed to be good for the

economy. That's the point, hon. member. That is the point.

But because

this government is so blind — so blind — to a balanced approach to the

economy, they want to completely set aside working people's investments in the

economy. For any member to have to say, "What's the point?" shows a

deliberate and wilful disrespect of working people's investment in the economy.

[1450]

Let's talk

about how this piece of legislation is going to bring balance and fairness to

the British Columbia public. Let's talk about what this government is really

doing, which is provoking chaos in the province unnecessarily. When the

government could actually resolve problems facing the economy around, for

instance, the softwood lumber tariff and take direct and concerted action on

behalf of the resource-based economy in the province, they choose to stand up

and obfuscate. They choose to stand up and actually mislead on how they're doing

nothing for the lumber industry. But they manage to stand up and introduce a

bill that they claim would bring economic stability to the economy. In fact,

it's exactly the opposite.

[ Page 543 ]

Essential

services for education. I ask any member of government to stand up and tell me,

first of all, how essential services legislation in education is going to work.

They can't refer to any other area of the country to help them. They can't refer

to that great mecca of B.C. Liberal envy, Alberta; they can't refer to that

great mecca of B.C. Liberal envy, Ontario. In fact, they can't refer to any area

in North America to provide them guidance on how essential services designation

will work, because it doesn't exist anywhere else.

Let's just

look at the history of essential services legislation to see what the intent of

that is. Essential services legislation exists to ensure that workers continue

to have their rights democratically guaranteed, their democratically guaranteed

right to collective bargaining. That includes taking job action, while making

sure the services to the public that are critical to the health, safety or

welfare of the residents of British Columbia are protected. Even though

essential service levels were in place, even though the Labour Relations Code

contained essential service rights for the employer and the public, those

weren't respected when the nurses and health sciences workers took legal strike

action. Those weren't respected. This government just trampled on those

essential services designations.

There was

free collective bargaining in the context of the provision of essential services

designation. Every single essential service designation was met during the

period of bargaining that the health sciences professionals and the nurses were

taking. What happened? What did this government do? This government now says

that essential services is going to take a fair and balanced approach. This

government trampled on those designations. This government said: "Oh yes,

we have essential services, and the nurses and the health sciences professionals

are meeting those designations."

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Please continue.

MacPhail: The nurses and the health sciences professionals were meeting the

test of the law on essential services. Yet this government said: "Gee, we

don't have a strong enough hammer still. We're going to take away their right to

strike, even given that they were providing complete essential services."

So now we have a situation where the government is saying: "Oh gosh, let's

see. We've got teacher bargaining coming up, and we don't have the beginning

hammer of essential services. So let's put that in place for teaching, and then

let's see whether we actually need to take away the full right to strike, as we

did with nurses and health sciences professionals."

[1455]

The legal

right to strike under essential services provisions was immediately outlawed by

this government when it was legally complied with by nurses and health sciences

professionals. So why should teachers and education support workers believe that

they will actually get the right to undertake job action under new essential

services legislation, when in fact we know that the Liberal government couldn't

even live within the law of the land of decade-old legislation that worked

effectively?

Why doesn't

this government just admit to its true extreme agenda — that they're banning

the right to strike in the public sector and that they want an end to free

collective bargaining? Why don't they just stand up and admit to that?

We'll look

at the specifics of this now. Let's just examine some of the specifics. Let's

look at the secret ballot certification. The members of the Liberal government

take great pride in…. Well, I guess they take great pride. We'll see today how

they speak to the issue. We'll see how these proud Liberal government members

stand up and defend their legislation, take their place in the debate and defend

their actions and explain to British Columbians how this is good for the

economy.

For 40

years, under W.A.C. Bennett and other B.C. administrations, there was

certification by majority of signed membership cards — for 40 years. The only

place now where your signature on a declaration is not a valid legal test is on

a union card. It's a signature that, on a declaration, is good enough to get a

mortgage on your house. It's good enough to purchase a car. It's good enough to

get married. But this government is reversing a tried-and-true test of a

substantial majority wanting a particular action. They're reversing that now,

and they're saying to working people: "Sorry, your legal signature, in a

substantial majority, is not good enough."

No other

occupations require votes to determine workplace representation. There's no vote

to belong to the B.C. Medical Association. The B.C. Medical Association

negotiates with this government each and every day, and this government accepts

it as the doctors' legal bargaining entity — or the professional engineers' or

the Bar Association. All of those organizations that bargain wages and benefits

on behalf of their members determine their own membership and the legal proof of

that membership, and this government turns over money to those organizations

each and every year and recognizes them for all sorts of input into the

government.

So it's

only for workers wanting to join a union and exercise their collective

bargaining rights that this government says that your legal signature isn't good

enough in a majority, in a substantial majority. That's what the legislation

said: you had to have a substantial majority and a legal declaration, a legally

subscribed card. And that wasn't good enough.

Mr. Roper,

Mr. Ready and Mr. Baigent….

Interjections.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I hope that people will rise and take their rightful

place in debate when their opportunity arises. I wait for them to do that.

[ Page 544 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Thank

you.

Please continue.

[1500]

MacPhail: Mr. Roper, Mr. Ready and Mr. Baigent reported that after the

introduction of secret ballot votes in 1984, the rate of employer unfair labour

practices rose by over 100 percent as employers intervened to avoid

unionization.

Here's what

their public hearings determined: "Unions would sign up a clear majority of

employees as members, and a vote would be ordered. Then key union supporters

would be fired or laid off, while threats of closure dominated the campaign and

the vote itself was viewed as a vote on whether or not to continue with

employment rather than as a vote on redefining the employment

relationship." It

substantially shifted the grounds on what was actually being determined.

continue the quote: "It is not acceptable that an employee's basic right to

join a trade union be visited with such consequences and illegal

interference." The report concluded: "The simple reality is that

secret ballot votes and their concomitant representational campaigns invite an

unacceptable level of unlawful employer interference in the certification

process." Now, that was real consultation.

I know that

perhaps this government doesn't like to hear this information, because those

comments came from three people representing employer, union and a neutral — a

well-respected neutral — and they all agree on those comments. That's one

reason why — in addition to B.C. — Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick,

Prince Edward Island and all the territories accept union certification by

majority of signed membership cards. They all

accept certification by the majority of union membership cards.

So here we have,

again, this government in its 90-day extreme agenda going against the tide of

the rest of the world, going backward to the old days of unbalanced, unfair

treatment of workers that almost every other economy has discarded.

Let's talk

about the real effects that this change will have in the workplace. Let's talk

about the human face of the changes that will occur as a result of this. Cory

Murphy was hired by a glacial water company on Vancouver Island as a lab

technician in 1999 — a real person here that we're talking about. Workers at

the firm were unhappy with the way they were treated and with the discriminatory

wages, so they joined the Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers Union.

They signed

up a majority of workers, but when the company contested the certification, the

Labour Relations Board ordered a vote. For nearly two weeks workers were subject

to anti-union propaganda. Workers were laid off. There were threats of assault.

Ms. Murphy personally experienced direct physical intimidation outside her home

and verbal abuse on the job. Fortunately, the union was certified. But how many

other workers in similar circumstances would be unfairly and illegally deprived

of the right to union representation?

Attempting

to hold the vote in a workplace that's demonstrably not a democracy on workers'

fundamental right to union representation is simply wrong. The reasons for

government taking this action without clear consultation are abundantly clear.

It will make it harder for workers to join unions, and that's the absolute fact.

Pure and simple, it will be harder for members of the workforce to join unions.

[1505]

Let's look

at another

section here. Let's look at sectoral bargaining in construction in

the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, called the ICI sector. I

think we should actually just call this the Phil Hochstein Independent

Contractors and Business Association amendment, because even amongst the

business community this one is very controversial. This government, this

business-friendly Liberal government, has chosen a winner and has invoked a

loser. The winner is Phil Hochstein, the head of the Independent Contractors and

Business Association. The losers are other business people in the construction

industry. It's clearly a payback to one of the B.C. Liberals' largest

contributors — over $83,000 in donations from the Independent Contractors and

Business Association alone from 1996 to 2000.

There's no

crisis in the construction industry, and there's no evidence whatsoever that

these provisions have had any negative effect on our economy. What these

provisions have done is ensure that workers in the construction industry who

wish to join a union have a reasonable opportunity to do so. These provisions

have been in operation in Quebec for more than 20 years without problems at any

level.

Let's just

think about this in terms of a useful expenditure of the legislators' time.

Perhaps it would be a more useful expenditure of time to take action on a real

crisis in construction, and that's the crisis of leaky condominiums that this

government refuses to do one thing about. Of course, I guess that's because the

independent contractors and others really want to avoid their responsibility for

that action.

In this

legislation this government has put in place provisions that somehow, they say,

will bring balance and will restore the economy. Well, I ask the Liberal members

to stand up and tell us about the job action statistics in the 1990s compared to

the 1980s. Let me just help a bit with that. There have been the fewest-ever

days lost to job action in a decade, in the 1990s.

Yes, I know

this government likes to stand up and say four million days of school time were

lost in the last ten years. The public rightfully says: "Oh my gosh —

four million days? That's unacceptable." Well, I guess the public has to

weigh this. I merely ask the public — families, parents and working people in

this province — to consider when they say, "Yes, four million days of

school time is lost," that's given a population of 600,000 students. Over a

decade, 600,000 students lost four million days. That's a little more than a

half-hour a year.

Maybe the

government could figure out ways of saying it in a much more balanced way:

"How do our children spend more time in the classroom?" Maybe

[ Page 545 ]

that would be a good approach. But no. What do they do? They put out this

statistic of four million days lost to labour disruption, as if somehow that's a

statistic that stands without examination in the context of what it means in

terms of time for our children in the classroom.

[1510]

What's

happened in the private sector in terms of days lost to labour disruption, the

lowest ever in the 1990s? Was there labour disruption? Yes. Was bargaining

resolved? Yes.

I think

also, Mr. Speaker, that you might want to look at even the statistics in the

public sector for the 1980s compared to the 1990s. Again you will see a positive

trend toward labour peace with the Labour Relations Code that was brought in.

Why? Because that Labour Relations Code was brought in after wide consultation

and extensive debate in this Legislature, debate that went on week after week

after week, where MLAs took their place in the debate and met with people

affected by the changes and adjusted and made recommendations for change. That's

the debate that took place, and it proved to be very effective, because the

Labour Relations Code changes that were brought in brought about economic

stability to this province.

What is the

essential services legislation that we have before us? What purpose is it going

to serve? Why is it that the Liberal government brought in the application of

essential service legislation to our children's education in kindergarten to

grade 12? What does the government expect to achieve?

The

government has two responsibilities in our education system. The government is

responsible for making sure that our children get the best education possible,

and they are responsible for making the policies so that our children get the

best education possible. It turns out that they're also the employer — or the

funder of the employers, the school boards. They have two roles here, and it is

with a fine, fine sense of fairness and equity that a government must bear out

their responsibilities in those two areas. It is reprehensible for a government

to use its legislative arm to bring down a big hammer as the employer and shift

the balance solely to the employer's rights in a free collective bargaining

situation.

What has

this government done? They've said: "We don't give a whit about being fair

and balanced and making sure that we don't abuse our role as a legislator to

give the upper hand to the employer in free collective bargaining." That's

exactly what they've done in this essential services legislation.

Again,

let's look at how this government talks to people in British Columbia. They use

statements like: "No child's education should take second place to adults

fighting, adults not being able to agree." Who wouldn't agree with that

statement? Who wouldn't agree with that? As a parent I agree with that. My

neighbours agree with that. I'd ask anyone to stand up and challenge that

assertion. But is that what this is about? The arrogance of this government, the

arrogance of the members sitting opposite.... Is that what this is about? Of

course it isn't. Children's education is paramount to teachers, it's paramount

to school trustees, and it's paramount to parents. Of course it is.

[1515]

As a parent

I have had an experience with teachers that is unparalleled. Has it been smooth

sailing? No, it hasn't. I live in the real world. But I will tell you that every

single teacher that I have had the pleasure of dealing with in the system has

had my child's education as their first and foremost consideration — their

first and foremost consideration. The teachers who've taught my child meet with

me at 8 a.m. as a parent, and at 6:30 at night they're at the neighbourhood

kids' baseball game to see how the school team is doing. Then they use that

baseball game the next day in math to teach the kids. That's the dedication of

teachers in the system.

Somehow

that government, the Liberal government, is isolating teachers as being a

group that doesn't care about children's education. They're being subject to

legislation here that says: "Your legal right to bargain collectively is

going to interfere with children's education." Stand up, Liberal members,

and tell me how that's going to occur. Stand up and cite examples of where the

teachers that you know have put their students' education second. Stand up and

tell that.

How will

this essential services legislation contribute to better education for our

children, which is the cover that the Liberal government throws over this

legislation, the cloud of obfuscation that this government throws over this

legislation? How will it work? We have school board trustees sitting there.

Stand up and say how what's happened in the past has been so awful and how this

will make it better.

How will

the Labour Relations Board deal with essential services designations in our

classrooms? How will it deal with it logistically? How will it deal with the

incredible increase in workload that will result from any major dispute

involving teachers or support workers? We're in bargaining right now; the

collective agreement for teachers expired June 30. So this government can't

stand up and say: "This happened in the past, and it's the responsibility

of the past, and isn't it awful what happened in the past." This collective

agreement expired on their watch, well into their new-era mandate.

Already

well into their new-era mandate, with brand-new collective bargaining happening,

they've brought down the hammer of essential services legislation because it's

going to make our children's education better. So I can hardly wait for the

members opposite to stand up and tell me, come September, how my child, their

child, his child will have more stable and consistent education in the

classroom.

Let's think

of the questions that the LRB will be forced to answer under this legislation.

Let's just look at it. We're three weeks away from school startup. Three weeks

away from school startup, I don't even know whether this government, as an

employer, has deigned to meet with the teachers to bargain yet. I don't even

know. But if they have, bargaining certainly

[ Page 546 ]

hasn't broken off. Bargaining hasn't hit a snag. There's no problem.

[1520]

Let's see

what's going to happen in September when our children go back to school. What

are the questions the Labour Relations Board will answer? I hope the members

take note so that they can help answer these questions for the public. Are

teachers essential in May but not in October? Are shop teachers essential to

students pursuing a technical trades education? We had a nice, soft-lob question

to the Minister of Advanced Education yesterday, asking what she is going to do

about the skills trade shortage. She said: "Oh, it's of serious concern to

me." That's it; it's of serious concern. Maybe she can stand up today and

say: does that mean shop teachers are essential? Is that how this government

chooses priorities? Maybe it is. Just let us know.

essential services differ from school to school, from district to district, from

classroom to classroom? Every classroom's different. There's no question about

it. In one classroom there are special needs students that are unique. In one

school there is a focus on first nations education that doesn't exist in other

schools. One school has a band program; another school doesn't. Physical

education is treated differently. There are differences between elementary

schools and middle schools. There are differences between middle schools and

secondary schools.

Are we

going to have essential services designated on a classroom-by-classroom basis?

Maybe we need to have essential services designated on a student-by-student

basis. I know this government likes to pretend that there's no choice in our

education system now and that they've invented choice. But let me tell you that

when this government gets into having to determine essential services, they will

see the wide range of choice that exists in our education system. They will see

the wonderful programs that our children are taught each and every day. They

will see the choice that parents have, and they will see how important the

choice is to parents when they try to answer the questions around essential

services and try to distinguish.

I'll tell

you something. Every single aspect of the education of our children is

important, and every single aspect of the importance and value of the education

of our children is rooted in the commitment of our teachers and our support

workers to that education. No one can claim credit alone, or singly, for the

wonderful education system that we have in this province. It has been brought

about by the dedication of teachers, parents, school trustees, and, yes,

officials in the Ministry of Education as well.

So here's

another question for the Minister of Labour. This is going to put a huge burden

on the Labour Relations Board. Lawyers will benefit. There's no question that

lawyers will benefit, because there will be lots and lots of time spent at the

Labour Relations Board determining essential services. There's no guide. We

don't have any guide for this, because this government, once again, made a

promise not based on anything to do with reality — but made a promise. They're

delivering — have no idea how it's going to work. But I can tell you, lawyers

will benefit. I can tell you that.

This

government spent $360,000 just in the last round of nurses bargaining to

determine essential services, and that's after years of experience. That's after

years of board decisions on essential services — last round, almost half a

million dollars on just determining essential services in a well-established

sector, where it's very clear what health and safety and the welfare of people

mean and who is in danger. Yes, lawyers will gain — there's no question about

that — but there's going to be a very big burden on the Labour Relations

Board.

Does the

minister expect to add extra resources to the Labour Relations Board to do this?

They're cutting everywhere else. They're making cuts to programs. They've given

away all of the money that's available to have a smooth running of operations in

government. They've given away that to tax cuts for corporations. How is the

Minister of Labour going to manage the huge pressure the Labour Relations Board

is under? I wonder whether he would stand up today and say whether he's

contemplating the introduction of user fees for the LRB.

[1525]

As people decide whether this legislation is the right way to

go, stand up and

let people know that user fees are on their way, that those attending the Labour

Relations Board — school trustees — are going to have to pay at the Labour

Relations Board to have those services provided. Stand up and tell teachers,

"Sorry, you're going to have to use your resources to pay user fees at the

Labour Relations Board," because that's the next shoe to drop. That is the

next shoe to drop — Labour Relations Board user fees — because this

government is adding such chaos to the labour relations system, and they don't

have any money to actually provide the services. That will be the next shoe to

drop in this legislation.

Believe you

me, as a parent and as a person who represents some of the most dedicated

schools and school staff in all of British Columbia, I'm anxious to hear the

answers to those questions, because I know this legislation is going to pass. I

know that there will not be one Liberal MLA who will stand up and dare ask these

questions. Instead, they'll throw soft lobs with no answers back. Not one

Liberal MLA will stand up, ask these question and get real answers. I know the

Minister of Labour won't give the answers to me. I know he won't.

I know that

the people in East Vancouver who operate within an inner-city school want to

know what it means for their children, whose lives are made better by school

activities, by education activities in the community and by education activities

in the community centre where the whole community looks after the children, not

just the time in the school. I am sure they want to know how their children's

life in the community and education time is going to be affected by the turmoil

that will result from this legislation. I

[ Page 547 ]

know they'll want answers to these questions as well. They'll want answers

now, because school startup is in three weeks and bargaining with teachers is

ongoing.

The turmoil

isn't coming from the teachers. It's not coming from the teachers at all. The

turmoil that will be created in the education system is coming from this Liberal

government, just the same way that the turmoil and chaos in the health care

system came from this Liberal government as well.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Before I

finish, I want to talk about this issue in terms of this legislation, in terms

of other parts of the legislation. Let's go back to the question of

certification votes. Let's go back and talk about the certification vote

process. Here's some more questions then. Here's some more questions for the

Liberal MLAs. They're so anxious to have their voices on record about what

really happens with secret ballot votes for union certifications. I would put it

to the members that the harsh reality of secret ballot votes for union

certification is that employers continue to attempt to deny workers the right to

union representation.

[1530]

Let me just

review a study. Now, who did this study? I know the members opposite always want

to challenge me on my labour background. They somehow think that's to be

denigrated because of my family history and my workplace history in the labour

movement. They think that because I have amongst my colleagues people who have

dedicated their lives to making the wages and working conditions of working

people better, somehow that's bad. Well, I'm very proud of my labour background,

but I've also moved on. Unlike some members opposite who haven't moved on, who

still see that they have to be captured only by those who donate to their

campaigns and have to deliver only for the corporate CEOs, I've moved on.

In ten

years of representing British Columbians, I understand that all people in

British Columbia have to be fairly represented, whether they be from a community

in the north, a domestic worker in Surrey, a taxi driver, a forest worker, a

young person who cares passionately about the environment, a small business

person or a CEO of Weyerhaeuser. All those people have to be represented fairly

in my role as an MLA.

Yes, I do

bring the experience of the labour movement. I bring the experience of my

education, my church and my family, and not one of those life experiences is

more important than the other. Yet members in this chamber, from this Liberal

government, have not yet understood that their role as a government is to

represent everybody — not one of them.

Interjections.

MacPhail: I hear the comments of people surrounding me, the comments of the

Liberal backbenchers. They denigrate union activism each and every day. There is

not one Liberal member — I guarantee it — who will stand up today and say

that this government made a mistake in excluding union activists from

consultation — not one. Or if you are, do it. Stand up and say why you decided

to exclude union activists from consultation.

Interjections.

MacPhail: Actually, the members' constant referral to the election proves

the point that I'm making. This government is so arrogant about the election

results, so arrogant that they think they don't have to consult with anyone. The

fact that the members constantly say, "The Liberals won and you lost, and

we don't have to worry about anyone else," proves their arrogance and

proves the point that I'm making, Mr. Speaker. It exactly proves the point. Their actions prove exactly what I'm

saying, which is that they think they have a right to ignore working people in

this province. If they didn't ignore working people, they'd pay attention to

some of the effects of their legislation on working people.

Let's look

at a recent study that researchers at Queen's University did. Queen's University

examined 420 responses from employers — the group that this government has

chosen over and over again to side with — who dealt with a certification

application between 1991 and 1993. Let's look at it, because this Liberal

government has said: "We choose employers. That's who we're going to listen

to." That's what they say. "We won an election, so we have a right to

just listen to employers." That's basically, unalterably, what this Liberal

caucus has said each and every day, in their arrogance, since May 16.

[1535]

Well, that

report found that 94 percent of employers actively opposed union certification

applications; 88 percent engaged in actions to frustrate union access to

employees; 68 percent used direct communication with employees to oppose

certifications; 29 percent tightened work rules or monitored employees; 12

percent admitted to other unfair labour practices during the organizing drive.

The study also found that certain types of employer resistance during the

organizing drive erode employee support for the union and increase the

probability of early decertification. That's what the report said.

Is that

perhaps what this government intends — to make sure that if, by chance, the

secret ballot leads to certification, it will prepare the ground for

decertification, as this study showed? Is that what this government's real

intent is? I suspect it is.

We can look

to other fair and balanced reports on essential services. The 1992 Ready, Roper

and Baigent report…. As the members may remember, they did a report on labour

law reform. They also looked at

[ Page 548 ]

essential services provisions and recommended that essential service be more

narrowly defined as those necessary or essential to prevent immediate and

serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British

Columbia.

The report

also stated that the designation of essential services should not "unduly

interfere with the right to strike or lockout." How, then, does the Labour

minister expect to meet the standards of this esteemed panel of experts by

introducing essential services legislation that goes far beyond the reasonable

limits that they have suggested? In fact, let's just actually look at the

language that the legislation has. I bet you I'm reading it for the first time

to people here.

It says: "The minister may direct the board to

designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that

the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious

disruption to the provision of educational programs."

Whereas every

other jurisdiction in North America that has essential services designation

talks about danger, because that's what essential services is about — so that

it doesn't interfere with the right to strike or lockout says it has to

be immediate and present danger — this government has changed that to say

immediate and present disruption.

What that

really means — and why doesn't this government come clean with its extreme

agenda? — is that if there's a disruption by virtue…. How can a teacher or a

support worker exercise her right to strike, or an employer exercise his or her

right to lockout, without there being disruption? So of course the real intent

of this is to ban the right to take any job action. That's exactly what this

legislation is about.

[1540]

Let's look

at what other experts have said about the changes that this government is making

in its obfuscation of saying this legislation is good for the economy. Another

study, by two Montreal management professors, illustrates the problem with

certification by secret ballot in the workplace. They found that

captive-audience speeches by employers to workers have a consistent negative and

significant effect on certification. Yet another study, from Cornell University

in 1997, found that union support and certification probability also declines as

the number of captive-audience speeches increases. It's sort of like the same

negative effect on a member of the captive audience in this assembly, I might

say — that same deleterious effect that this audience has on legitimate

debate.

A second

British Columbia Labour Relations Code review took place in 1997, and there was

another esteemed panel. That esteemed panel consisted of Jim Matkin, the former

president of the B.C. Business Council; mediator Vince Ready; former LRB Chair

Stan Lanyon; and labour lawyer Miriam Gropper — again, another open, balanced,

consultative approach to change, something that has yet to occur under the

Liberal government. It again looked at the secret ballot vote on certification,

and it again reached the same conclusion five years after the 1992 panel —

same balanced approach, different people, same conclusion: "We continue to

believe that the risk of increased incidence of unfair labour practices during

certification outweighs any advantage in using the secret ballot during the

certification drive."

Mr.

Speaker, the reason I'm quoting all these studies and these reviews is because

I'm waiting for the Liberal government to present their own studies and their

own independent reviews and their balanced approach in consultation to indicate

why this change is necessary. That's why I'm going into such detail to suggest

that there's been an academic review and a practitioners' review in a balanced

way to say that these changes are not only unnecessary but will be harmful. I

await the members rising and contributing to the debate in a way that justifies

their actions.

The use of

the secret ballot vote to determine certification in the United States has had a

terrible effect on workers. American labour leaders estimate that each year

10,000 workers lose their jobs simply for trying to exercise their rights to

join a union. I wonder if the members in the Liberal government would stand up and

say that a doctor who wants to join the BCMA should have to risk losing his job.

I wonder if a member on the Liberal side will stand up and say that a lawyer who

wants to join the Bar Association should be subject to the risk of losing their

job simply because they want to associate with their colleagues. I wonder if

the government members will stand up and say that.

Even though

our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians the right to join a

trade union and even though all the evidence indicates that an unfair vote on

certifications will reduce that right to join a union, this government continues

to push forward with legislation that clearly detracts from the spirit of the

Charter. They're breaking new ground. They're not joining the majority of

Canadians here on the secret ballot vote. They're going backward; that's what

they're doing.

[1545]

Now just a

couple of final comments about what's going to happen in the coming weeks with

this legislation. This government will pass the legislation. There won't be any

protests in the street. There won't be rallies on the lawns of the Legislature.

There will be letters to the MLAs. There will be concerns raised. The business

community may have sober second thoughts about what has really occurred here,

but the real effect of this legislation will show up in our classrooms.

The real

effect of this legislation will affect our children, the very people this

government says it's trying to protect from chaos and disruption, the very

people this government pretends to care about. Schools start up in three weeks.

This government has said that this legislation is absolutely necessary because

of the millions of days of labour disruption in the last decade, but the reality

of education labour disputes is far different from the scare-tactic numbers that

the Minister of Labour throws out.

The reality

is that since 1992, our children in kindergarten to grade 12 have lost only an

average of 27 minutes per student per year to teacher job action.

[ Page 549 ]

Children have fire drills, a very important exercise, that last longer than

that — and more than once a year. Somehow this government uses that as

justification for bringing in this legislation, which incredibly strengthens the

hammer they hold as an employer in teacher bargaining.

I know all

sorts of people are saying that this is about support worker bargaining as well.

Perhaps the Liberal MLAs can actually check to see when support worker

bargaining takes place again. It's years away, so let's not kid ourselves. This

isn't necessary for support worker bargaining. Support worker bargaining reached

a collective agreement that's lasting, well, for the next couple of years.

Teacher bargaining is happening now.

Twenty-seven

minutes per year per student. I mean, I don't say that's good. I don't say that's okay, but I do ask:

is that enough? The same time it

takes to have one fire drill.... Is that reason enough to completely tilt the

balance of teacher bargaining that's ongoing? Is that reason enough to change

the rules midstream?

Is that the

kind of discussion this government had during the election? Is that the kind of

discussion you came clean with during the election campaign? Did you meet with

teachers in your community and say that's what you were going to do? Well,

I must say, Mr. Speaker, this government gave no indication….

Hon. L.

Stephens: That's not true. It's in black and white.

MacPhail: No, there's no question it's in black and white about essential

services legislation. There's no question about that and no explanation. Not

once did they say that their essential services legislation would redefine

essential services as a disruption. Not once did they say that. Not once did

they cloud the discussion to say: "Really, our essential services

legislation is taking away your right to strike." That's what this

legislation does.

[1550]

The 27

minutes per year lost to labour disruption, which is unacceptable, has not had

the same negative effect that covers the definition of essential services

existing everywhere else in North America — that it's a danger to health,

safety and security or the health, safety and welfare of British Columbians. Of course, because it doesn't meet that test, this government changed it

so it doesn't have to be a danger; it just has to be a disruption. Why

didn't you just come clean and tell teachers you are taking away their right to

strike? Why didn't you have that honest debate? Why didn't you stand up and say:

"Oh, by essential services we don't mean the definition that applies

everywhere else in the world. We're going to change that definition to say that

if you disrupt the education, that's reason enough to take away your right to

strike"?

In fact, let's look at exactly what did happen to the

education of our children during the last ten years. What did happen to the education of our children? The

completion rate of high school students has gone from the second-worst to the

second-best in the country. That's what's happened in the last decade. Teachers

have worked with parents and students and administrators and community members

over the last decade so that now we have the second-best record in the country

of students completing high school.

It was the

second-worst at the beginning of the decade, when some of these members were in

government — under a different party label, of course. It was a different

party label, but they were still in government. It was called the Social Credit

government. When the Social Credit government lost office, we had the

second-worst rate of completion of students in all of Canada. Oh, by the way,

that Social Credit government had essential services legislation in place.

Then the

law was changed, and we had labour peace. We had improvements in education, so now our children complete high school at the second-highest rate in all of

Canada. Stand up, members, and enter the debate and tell me how this essential

services legislation, turning the clock back to the 1980s, is going to be good

for students. Tell me.

Let me

leave some questions for the members as they enter the debate. Just how well

thought out are these plans of the government? The current Education minister

said on June 30 — it was on tape — that the government had not yet decided

how to distinguish between essential and non-essential teachers. I know the

members say that these issues were thoroughly discussed during the election.

"Oh, we discussed it, yes. People voted on this." Now, let

me see. The election date was when? May 16. On June 30 the Minister of Education, the person responsible now, said: "We haven't decided. We don't know

yet how we're going to distinguish between essential and non-essential

teachers."

I'm very

interested to hear what the member for Langley told her constituents when she

said: "We'll be invoking essential services." She probably should have

informed the Education minister. She should have talked to the colleague

responsible for the education system now. It's a Liberal policy that will be in

effect for years and will affect our children's education in three weeks, and

this government had no idea what it was talking about. They had no idea what it

meant when they were espousing essential services legislation. Gee, that should

fill British Columbians with confidence about the due diligence used in this

legislation.

I look

forward to the members of this government rising and answering all of the

questions raised. Let them take their rightful place in debate and explain to

British Columbians, explain to students, explain to teachers, explain to parents

what they mean when somehow they say: "These legislated changes are

necessary (1) to improve the economy and (2) to improve our children's

education."

[ Page 550 ]

[1555]

You know

what, Mr. Speaker? I know they'll stand up with all of the rhetoric out of their

New Era document, which explains nothing in this area — absolutely

nothing in this area, and they will give no comfort to British Columbians in

this matter.

I will be

voting against this legislation for this reason: this legislation is bad for the

economy — it's bad; it will have a deleterious effect on the economy — and

it will contribute absolutely nothing to the well-being of our children in their

education. I speak as a parent, I speak as an MLA, I speak as a person who

represents a community of inner-city schools, and I speak as an MLA who

represents the views of all British Columbians, not just the employer corporate

donors and backers of this Liberal government.

Hon. S.

Bond: I want to just speak briefly about the word "arrogance." I

am sorry that the member opposite, first of all, didn't stay to hear us debate,

despite the fact that she challenged us to do that, and that she would suggest

that the people of this province chose 77 men and women who are sitting in this

House today, are going to represent their interests and, much more importantly,

represent a broad spectrum of people who live in communities, whose children

attend inner-city schools, who are teachers, school trustees, school board

Chairs, ex-mayors — people who care about the issues in their communities….

Let's talk about the arrogance of suggesting that the people of this province

didn't choose men and women who are going to represent their interests in this

House.

In addition

to that, I would like to point out that the member opposite contends that we

didn't consult with anyone. I want to suggest and to remind her, even in her

absence, that each piece of this legislation was clearly articulated and laid

before the people of this province, in addition to the plan of the member

opposite, and the results were clear and obvious. And it is time to deliver on

this promise.

This is

absolutely about what's important for students. I'm disappointed that we

continue to hear that there's some other motive behind this legislation. Our

Premier speaks passionately about how important education is to us as

government. I know that the individual members and we as a group believe it is

our top priority. It will help us improve the economy, and it is essential that

we take care of this legislation now.

You see, we

believe that education is the cornerstone of our society, and it's never been

more critical than it is today. That's why this government has introduced this

legislation to restore — and I underline that word — education as an

essential service. It was removed by the previous government in 1993. We're

restoring essential service legislation.

This

amendment to the Labour Relations Code ensures that educational programs are

protected in the event of a school strike or a lockout. This legislation is a

statement of our principles. Education must come first, learning must continue,

and students must be able to complete their school year, regardless of their age

or grade level.

Let's be

clear. Schools are about children's and students' needs, not about adult needs.

The fact that adults can't resolve a contract dispute is not a valid reason to

deprive children of their right to an education. Students should not pay the

price if teachers, school support staff and their employer cannot settle their

differences. The member opposite would suggest that that is not our motive. It

is absolutely what this legislation is about. Let me repeat that: students

should not pay the price if teachers, school support staff and their employers

cannot settle their differences.

[1600]

It's

significant that the legislation introduced yesterday designates education, not

just teaching, as essential, because when you look at the number of days that

B.C. students have lost due to labour disputes, two-thirds have been due to

disruptions by support workers. This is not an exercise in denying anyone the

right to engage in free collective bargaining. It is about recognizing that our

children's right to an education must take precedence over labour disputes.

Teachers and support staff will have the right to strike. That's not being taken

away. Employees will continue to bargain, and they will still be able to put

pressure on their employers. They just won't be able to shut down schools,

because we believe it's time to ensure that the rights of students and parents

are the focus of this government. Rather, they will have to maintain a level of

services in schools as determined by the Labour Relations Board.

With this

legislation, there is a balance between the right of workers to bring pressure

on employers through job action and the right of students to receive an

education. A strong public education system is key to our plan to renew British

Columbia, to restore it to the vibrant, growing and prosperous place it should

be. Our government committed to restoring education as an essential service in

British Columbia, and this legislation will deliver on that commitment.

Lekstrom: I rise this afternoon to speak in favour of Bill 18. It's

unfortunate that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has decided not to

participate and hear what we had to say, when certainly it was part of her

comments — wanting us to get up and speak. I'm not speaking today because of

the comments of the member but because of what I believe in my heart.

The issue

of Bill 18 is a very important issue not just when we talk about labour but to

British Columbians in general. I look at the essential service...for

education. To debate whether ten minutes or one hour or two hours is acceptable

for our children to lose in education is not the point. Not one minute is

acceptable, in my heart. I stand before this House today, supporting Bill 18 not

because it was put forward by our government but because I believe

wholeheartedly in Bill 18 and everything that it encompasses.

[ Page 551 ]

I'm very

proud to have a union background. I spent 17½ years working for the British

Columbia Telephone Co., and 15 of those years I worked very hard for the

Telecommunication Workers Union. I worked hard for them. I represented the

workers; I represented the employees. I learned a great deal, and I did it with

a great amount of pride, honesty and integrity. I can tell you that the unions

that support the workers do it so that they can build a better lifestyle. We

provide a government that allows that openness, allows that honesty, and we are

going to build a better British Columbia through the bills and the legislation

that we bring before this House. That is the job we are elected to do.

Many

members have spoken about the numbers we've represented here. Seventy-seven MLAs

were elected to this House based on straightforward honesty, and that's what was

encompassed in our document. I want to make sure that the hon. member for

Vancouver-Hastings understood that I'm standing here supporting Bill 18 because

of one reason. I believe in it in my heart, and I believe wholeheartedly that

it's here to help all British Columbians, not one sector.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I think it's important to note the comments that have been made by

all members of the House here this afternoon in respect to the debate on Bill 18

and also the aspect of what consultation took place. I think it's very important

to note, and it's been stated — and I'd like to restate it one more time — that

there was an election. It was on May 16. These aspects of Bill 18 were very

clearly enunciated in the election platform of the B.C. Liberal Party. It was no

surprise to anyone that these were the things that we were talking about during

the campaign which we intended to carry through with in regards to our program

as government.

[1605]

We went

through probably the most important consultative process that any party wishing

to be government or any government then in place could go through — that is by

consulting the voters, the electors of British Columbia.

I say this

humbly, because it's a huge responsibility that each and every one of us has in

this House: to represent the views and the wishes of the people of British

Columbia. Overwhelmingly, the people elected a B.C. Liberal government — 77 of

79 seats. But more than that was the fact that 58 percent of the population

supported this government. I think it has only been two or maybe three other

times that a government in British Columbia has received that large a majority

— in fact, a majority vote. That in itself is a huge undertaking — a

responsibility that we carry here as members in this Legislature: to uphold what

it was we had said and that the electors had voted for us to undertake.

What we are

doing today here through Bill 18 is simply carrying forward what the voters had

indicated to us on May 16. We're following through on an expression of will by

the voters to make these changes. In regards to the things that we're doing and

how one would quantify or evaluate each of these items, compared to what had

taken place or why we would make these changes, one only needs to look at the

small towns of British Columbia and what they've been through. They've been

through devastating times in the last ten years. One only needs to look at the

forestry industry; it's been hammered. One only needs to look at the IWA —

8,000 fewer members today than what there were a few years ago. One only needs

to look at the mining industry — half of what was here years ago.

The economy

in British Columbia, the labour force, the work climate and the opportunity for

people in this province were absolutely thrashed by the NDP government — a

province that has so much to offer and so much in the way of resources. People

ought to have been working from one end of this province to the other with not

just one job but the opportunity of two and three others. So it's somewhat

destructive that the member opposite would start to bring forward thoughts as to

why we are doing these things, when we as British Columbians have lived through

the most horrendous time that people in this province have ever lived through:

the past ten years.

That's why

we're making these changes. We see it, and obviously the voters of the province

see it likewise. There need to be substantive changes, balanced changes and

measured changes so that once again British Columbia can be the leading province

in Canada. Once again the people can have jobs from one end to the other. Once

again the people in the communities, the small communities — all of them in

the province — can feel, with some security, that there will be a better day

tomorrow. That's why we're undertaking the changes that we are today through

Bill 18. That's why we're undertaking the other changes that have been brought

to the House already, and there'll be more to come as we rebuild the province of

British Columbia.

This bill

is measured. It's for all of the people of the province. I believe it's one more

step of rebuilding the economy, one more step of making and returning British

Columbia to its rightful place as a leading province in Canada. Bill 18 sets out

four more of the promises and commitments that we made as a government, as a

party running for government, which we have upheld and are implementing within

our 90-day agenda. It's important to note that as a party and as a government,

we said that we would undertake certain things, and we as a government are

following through with those undertakings that the people of British Columbia

have charged us to do.

I move Bill

[1610]

Second

reading of Bill 18 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 67

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Hawkins

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

[ Page 552 ]

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Harris

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 1

MacPhail

Bill 18,

Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, 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 Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry

of Health Planning.

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 4:18 p.m.

The

Chair: I call Committee of Supply to order.

Hon. G.

Collins: In order to accommodate the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I would

just move a brief recess to the call of the Chair.

The

committee recessed from 4:19 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH PLANNING

(continued)

vote 32: ministry operations, $4,798,000 (continued) .

[1635]

MacPhail: Just for the information of those watching, we'll probably be just

about a half-hour here, so if Health Services wants to…. Actually, I think it

is Health Services next, but the ministers may have to change.

One of the

areas that I'm particularly interested in from an MLA perspective — so this

will be a little bit more focused in terms of planning for health — is the

area of community health care, particularly the delivery of community health

services in an integrated way to compensate for the pressures on hospital

emergency rooms.

It was my

experience, both as a person in a very high population urban area and as

Minister of Health, that there was a large amount of integration necessary to

deliver community health services that would then assist in alleviating the

pressures on our emergency rooms. I'm wondering under what service plan the

Premier directed the minister — or perhaps it's an item separate and apart

from the service plans asked for by the Premier — the planning for that would

take place.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: That is a very important question, and it's the way that we hope to

move in delivery of health care services to take pressure off our emergency

rooms, as the member says. I think the member knows that the government is

involved in primary care projects. There were seven. Her government was involved

in setting those up, and they seem to be fairly successful. I think that those

kinds of questions are better put to the minister responsible for Intermediate,

Long Term and Home Care. She is responsible for the planning, and we will assist

her with that.

MacPhail: Just to be clear, is that on community health, as well,

that those questions should be directed to the minister? I'm talking about

primary care service delivery in the community.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: If it's public health care, then it's certainly appropriate for the

Minister of Health Services.

MacPhail: Is there any planning element going on in those two areas now,

which would be the minister's responsibility?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: There is planning around community services and around the primary

health care projects that I had mentioned. There are seven in the province right

now. We have $19 million in federal funding to use for primary health care

reform, and we plan to access that and roll out some more projects. There's a

Reach clinic that we're looking at as a model as well.

MacPhail: I'll just make a very brief sales pitch here on behalf of

community health clinics, particularly clinics that I am familiar with, like

Mid-Main, Reach and Vancouver Native Health. I'd be happy to have the

[ Page 553 ]

minister, in her planning exercise, visit it with me if she hasn't already

visited. I think the Minister of Health Services has been there anyway. There's

a lot to learn. There need to be improvements made even on the current community

health models. I know that support for families is greatly improved when we have

services offered in the community on a daily and timely basis and on weekends as

well.

[1640]

While that

may seem like a commonsense statement — well, it doesn't seem like it; it is a

commonsense statement — it does require a lot of planning to shift services

from the acute care model to the community health model. There are all sorts

of factors one needs to consider that even surprised me. I do hope that is a

priority in the health planning that the minister is responsible for.

There's

another area where I'd like to ask the minister what her role is in Health

Planning, and that's in the area of delivery of Pharmacare and pharmaceutical

support in the health care model. I note that the Minister of Finance made quite

a point of saying that there's overexpenditure in the budget in the area of

Pharmacare. However, I also have not seen any planning about how that might be

managed or changed. So perhaps the minister could speak to her role in planning

for delivery of a Pharmacare model that meets the government's budget.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: The member makes some good points around community care and primary

care, and that is certainly a priority as we move forward in health care in this

province. With regard to Pharmacare, we did make a new-era commitment — and we

plan to keep it — on reviewing the reference drug program. That is something

we will be planning to do. We want to make sure that patients have access to

pharmaceuticals, but we also, in a very responsible way, have to ensure that the

cost is sustainable. There are a lot of pressures on the health care budget this

year. Certainly, when we looked at the budget planning — the budget that her

government had put forward — there was only a 2 percent lift for Pharmacare,

when we knew that every other year it had been anywhere from 14 to 16 or 17

percent. So we are having a careful look at that.

I think the

questions around the Pharmacare program are better suited to the Minister of

Health Services. As far as long-term planning, we are committed to reviewing the

reference drug program.

MacPhail: I appreciate the direction to the Minister of Health Services, but

the reason why I'm asking is because I would assume that the government would

expect that there would have to be long-term planning — that pharmacological

treatment is an integrated part of treatment outside of the acute-care model or

supports the intermediate and long term care model. I hope it is part of the

integrated planning.

I notice

that the Premier's directive to the Minister of Health Planning is just to

consider the advisability of including Pharmacare in regional health authority

budgets. I might recommend possibly to the Premier that that directive also

include long-term planning for the management of Pharmacare costs.

This is one

where I will brook no pushback whatsoever from the government saying that there

was no action taken here, because our province led throughout the mid- and

late-nineties in putting forward programs to manage the costs of Pharmacare in a

way that gave best patient care, as well, as a goal. We worked with academic

institutions and health boards and doctors and nurses and pharmacists to manage

those costs in a way that greatly enhanced patient care but didn't give away all

the health care dollars to the big pharmaceutical companies.

I think the

federal government has shown a decided lack of leadership in this area. It's an

area that they seem incredibly timid to pursue in terms of the pharmaceutical

industry's dominance of the fastest-growing health care costs. It's my view that

they do that with only their bottom line in mind and not good patient care. That

is particularly so in the case of mental health delivery as well.

[1645]

I've got

two other areas to explore. One is capital with the Minister of Health Planning,

and the other is the health goals for British Columbia. In the area of capital,

there are all sorts of rumours floating around throughout the province about

plans for capital spending in health. I will pursue the individual questions

with the Minister of Health Services. However, I note: "Develop a framework

for financial and human resource allocation, including capital and

equipment." Could the minister explain what that means and what her plans

are to meet that goal?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Yes, it is in my area of responsibility to develop a capital plan

for the province. This is very, very early on. We've taken some short-term

strategies that we thought were a priority, one of them being the nursing

strategy, the first steps of which we introduced today, a $21.4 million

investment for nurses across this province. We're very proud that in eight short

weeks, with a lot of planning and interministerial cooperation with the Minister

of Advanced Education, the minister responsible for immigration, Health

Services, my ministry worked very hard to roll that out.

These are

longer-term plans. We are still assessing right now what the regions should look

like and the role of the region versus the role of the province. This also ties

in with that population-based formula that we talked about. So, yes, we will be

developing that plan. Have we started yet? We've started the assessment.

MacPhail: Actually, the minister provoked a question as she was commenting

there. I think her budget is $5 million, or almost $5 million. Can she give a

breakdown of how that's going to be spent?

[1650]

Hon. S.

Hawkins: The minister's office has a budget of $580,000. There is a line

item for system

[ Page 554 ]

innovation for $1.6 million, and that will be used for primary care renewal

and for tertiary care access. That will also be used for the chief nurse

executive position that we're hiring. That nurse, as I explained this morning,

will be responsible for advising my ministry on recruitment, retainment and

education issues around nurses and will help us plan for that health human

resources plan that I'm responsible for developing. Under governance and

accountability there's $2.6 million. That is inclusive of the provincial health

officer's office. Also included in there will be staff that we will hire for

human resource planning and capital planning. Of the FTEs that we have filled

right now, we have transferred approximately 25 staff from Health Services —

or we share with them — and the rest will be hired or seconded as we need

them.

MacPhail: That information is located in the Estimates . Anyway, I

thank the member for putting that on the record.

I was

curious as to system innovation and the minister's responsibility for that. Is

that sort of a human resource system, or is it technological systems as well?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: The part of the budget under system innovation, which includes $1.6

million, wouldn't be used to buy technology, but it certainly would be used to

assess it. It's also there for looking at strategies, perhaps, around

technology. But it's not for purchase of technology.

MacPhail: No, I didn't expect it to be.

I recall

the Health ministers' meeting — the minister can tell me if this should be

directed to another Health minister — either amongst her

provincial-territorial colleagues or, also, with the federal government, to

discuss a Canada-wide patient record technological innovation and the planning

for that. Can we have an update on that, please?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: The Minister of Health Services will explain that.

MacPhail: It makes perfect sense that the provincial health officer is with

the Minister of Health Planning. His role — to date it has been a he, I think

— is a very important one and certainly is all about planning, making sure

that the system moves in a direction that raises the healthiness of British

Columbians. I have always found his reports extremely helpful in terms of

putting in perspective the role of government in making sure that our citizens

are as healthy as possible. In fact, it's just interesting to read the goal of

the office of the provincial health officer. The mission statement is: "To

maintain and improve the health of British Columbians by enhancing quality of

life and minimizing inequalities in health status." It's a very eloquent

statement that should capture the goals of any government on behalf of its

citizens, whether they are infants, children, youth, adults, seniors, aging.

[1655]

Two things could happen here. One, I could go

through the goals. There are six goals of the provincial health officer as of

this year, and we could ask for the plan of action on those six goals. Or

perhaps the minister wants to take a general approach for this set of estimates,

in preparation for the next set of estimates, about the role that the provincial

health officer will play in her planning function.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: The provincial health officer plays a very important role, and I

have very high regard for Dr. Perry Kendall. We've been through some pretty

interesting challenges, if I can put it that way, in the past couple of months,

and certainly the deputy provincial health officer has been involved with some

of the day-to-day stuff like the meningitis outbreak we're currently

experiencing in the Fraser Valley. We are very well off, having people of their

calibre advising us.

Yes, there

are health goals in place, and we will be assessing them. We will be using them

as targets, as goals, if you will, to help us plan what our goals are for our

population. Of course, we are responsible for setting performance standards and

measures for our regions. The goals that the provincial health officer has

developed are very broad, and they cut across a lot of ministries.

I think we

will be looking at them as ideals to reach, to strive for, but in reality we

will be setting specific standards and performance measures for regions to meet.

We will be getting the advice of the provincial health officer on the

appropriateness of some of those as well.

MacPhail: I think, for the record, that what we'll do in the next round of

estimates this time…. Not this time next year, hopefully.

Interjections.

MacPhail: In 2002. It's one area where I actually agree with the Minister of

Health Planning. Let's do it earlier.

Just to

read into the record, so we can judge by the record, the health goals for

British Columbia: goal 1, positive and supportive living and working conditions

in all our communities; goal 2, opportunities for all individuals to develop and

maintain the capacities and skills needed to thrive and meet life's challenges

and to make choices that enhance health; goal 3, a diverse and sustainable

physical environment with clean, healthy and safe air, water and land; goal 4,

an effective and efficient health service system that provides equitable access

to appropriate services; goal 5, improved health for aboriginal peoples; goal 6,

reduction of preventable illness, injuries, disabilities and premature deaths.

conclusion of the estimates of the Minister of Health Planning, I think that

from my perspective certainly, an appropriate ending of the contribution I can

make to these estimates is to say that in the coming

[ Page 555 ]

year, these are goals by which we can judge progress. The Minister of Health

Planning has a huge and very important job ahead of her. I wish her the best of

all in achieving her assignment. I hope she's given the adequate resources to

carry out the health planning in the province, and I hope that all of us in

British Columbia — the government members, opposition members, the public,

health care providers — take into account the health goals as we judge our

success.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: We've got a lot of work to do, and we're quite excited about our

future here. I think there are good things happening in the ministry. Certainly,

there are some challenges ahead as we work on our service plans, work with the

regions, with health providers, administrators, patients and British Columbians

so that we can restore some stability in our health care system and restore

confidence in it once again.

[1700]

Certainly,

all the members in this House are encouraged by some of the processes that have

been set up to give us input on how we can make that happen. The legislative

committee on Health is appointed. The government Caucus Committee on Health

meets regularly. I know we're going to do good things in the coming year.

Vote 32

approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH SERVICES

On vote 33:

ministry operations, $9,361,610,000.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Just in terms of some opening comments, when I first was asked to

take on this responsibility and after being sworn in as Minister of Health

Services, there were some big challenges that were put on my desk immediately.

It's a ministry that at that time, with the blue book as it was tabled at the

end of March, had a budget of $9.3 billion. As is obvious from the estimates

that are before us now, that has increased because of some restructuring of the

responsibilities of the ministry and also some additional funding pressures that

have been recognized in that budget, but at the time it was $9.3 billion.

I think

what really took me aback so much in those first couple of weeks was being

advised of the $400 million of cost pressures that the ministry was facing over

and above that $9.3 billion. I think every minister who comes into this House to

present their estimates…. It's incumbent upon them to be able to say to all

members of this House that they have their budget under control, that spending

is set out in the estimates and is under control, and that within their

ministerial responsibilities they're going to deliver programs within those

envelopes.

I wish I

could say that in terms of the responsibilities of Health Services, but what has

become obvious to me is that spending in health care in British Columbia is not

in control. We have seen it rising by significant increases every single year.

There are elements of the budget, such as the Pharmacare budget, which have been

rising at a rate of between 15 percent and 20 percent a year, which is clearly

not sustainable. In the years that I spent as Health critic in the opposition, I

remember the various Ministers of Health who many times would say that the

health care system as we have it is not sustainable, that we have to see change,

and yet we haven't seen that change.

I think

part of our challenge in dealing with the Health ministry budget is to ensure

that we do bring that spending under control and that priorities are set so that

British Columbians get the health care they need when they need it. We have to

bring that kind of stability, certainty and predictability to the health care

system, because that's clearly the only way that our health care system's going

to survive in this province.

[1705]

One of the

changes that has happened and is reflected in these estimates that are before

the House is the inclusion of two ministers of state. Within the Ministry of

Health Services there are two ministers of state: the Minister of State for

Mental Health and the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home

Care. Certainly this is an innovation that I think is quite exciting. I know

other provinces are certainly looking at this model as a way of bringing proper

political accountability to a very, very large financial responsibility, which

in the budget we have before us is 39 percent of our provincial budget. In past

years there was one voice at the cabinet table to represent and be accountable

for that huge spending envelope. I think that in this new model there is an

opportunity for us to ensure that there are more voices.

I think

it's also important that people understand the way it is structured. As Minister

of Health Services I have overall responsibility for the ministry, and I have

the able assistance of the two ministers of state to help in that task. Their

roles are very much those of advocacy roles. In the case of the Minister of

State for Mental Health, it is the first time that there has been a voice at the

cabinet table advocating solely for and specifically focused on the interests of

those who are facing mental health challenges in British Columbia.

In terms of

intermediate, long term and home care, that is also an area of such vital

importance. In the dialogue that we had with British Columbians last fall, it

was another area where there was anxiety. There wasn't the sense, at least, that

there was a strong advocate for those issues. So that minister of state is

certainly filling that role.

Within the

ministry it's presenting new challenges in that there are no conventions in

terms of how three ministers, in essence, try to function as the political

accountability for a ministry of this size. Certainly in the directions that

have been given to us by the Premier, they set out the areas that he wants us to

take responsibility for. There has been very good coordination among the three

ministers. I'm sure there are going to be times when we will probably be saying

different things in different ways, and people will

[ Page 556 ]

probably try to read things into that. But certainly the experience we've had

to date is an excellent one in terms of everybody shouldering their share of

that load to try to face some of these big challenges in health care.

I know that

the Leader of the Opposition has lots of issues she wants to raise in the

ministry. From her experience as a Health minister in the past, I know she

appreciates the complexity of this ministry and how many different staff people

may be necessary to assist us in answering the questions she may have. I would

welcome her suggestions on how she would like to approach this challenge,

perhaps also in terms of when she may want to have available the two ministers

of state so that they can directly answer questions that fall in those specific

areas. Perhaps if I can turn the floor over to her, hon. Chair, we can proceed

as she sees fit.

MacPhail: I appreciate the Minister of Health Services' opening remarks. I

also want to put on the record that the Minister of Health Services spent a

great deal of time trying to offer me a briefing or to work out the order, and I

was simply busy with other tasks. So I thank him and his staff for that, and

we'll just do that business now, if we could. I think it'll come as a surprise

to the minister about the approach I want to take in the form of his estimates.

Let me just explain why.

I spent a

great deal of time, given the context of time available here, on the

Ministry of Health Planning, because that's a change since the election. I

thought it important to explore the role of the Minister of Health Planning in

the context of change in our health care delivery system.

The

Minister of Health Services does have a huge task ahead of him, and I wish him

nothing but the greatest of success. I don't think it's the most difficult

portfolio of government. I would suggest that the Ministry of Children and

Family Development is the most difficult portfolio. However, I do think that

given the context of what is the highest priority of British Columbians, he has

the responsibility for that. That's why I wish him only well, and that's why I

was so interested to see the role of the Minister of Health Planning in

relationship to the huge job this minister has.

[1710]

I want to

focus in this set of estimates on the changes that have occurred as a result of

the government being elected. That will perhaps come as a surprise, because it

will take far less time than in the past about estimates. I'm responsible for

what went into the budget. It might be a bit of a stretch to say I know what

went into the budget, because it's such a huge portfolio, but I share my

responsibility for what went into the budget up until the election. I would say

that the issues I want to discuss are the changes that have occurred since then,

in allocation specifically. Then I will add some of my own areas on top of that,

which I want to know the minister's approach to. I'll outline that now, if I

may, and then we can pause just to see about order of staff or whatever, or we

can start.

One is the

changes since the election in budget allocation, and that means both additions

and deletions. I'm interested in the change in the structure of delivery of

health services at the front line — there may not be any yet, and I appreciate

that — and at the executive level. I am interested to know the changes in the

area of capital expenditure, if any.

I am

interested in addiction services. I think I recall that being transferred to the

Minister of Health Services. Sorry, Mr. Chair. This also goes for any of these

categories that apply to the ministers of state as well, and we can certainly

deal with them in the context of the ministers of state, one by one.

If there

are any thoughts that the Minister of Health Services has on his priorities of

health service delivery…. I fully understand that they've been outlined in the

New Era document and were discussed during the election, but if has there

been any update in the thoughts of the Minister of Health Services in his two

months of experience? I mean that, honestly, with the greatest of

respect.

The other

area that I am interested in, one that I spoke about briefly with the Minister

of Health Planning, is the area of community health and primary care delivery.

Those are my issues.

Hon. C.

Hansen: That's a long shopping list to start with right off the top, so

we'll bite these off in manageable chunks here. First of all, just in terms of

the changes in the budget from what was presented in March to what was presented

in this latest restatement of the budget, one significant change was the

transfer in of the drug and alcohol programs from the ministry of children and

families. It's not a change in the amount that's budgeted. It's simply a

transfer to reflect the transfer of the programs from Children and Family

Development.

What we saw

in terms of the actual budget is that there was an increase of $45 million in

the Pharmacare budget. It was projected that there would be a $91 million

shortfall in the Pharmacare budget from what was tabled in March. As a result of

this $45 million increase to the Pharmacare budget, it still leaves us $46

million short. There clearly are going to be some challenges for us to manage

within what has been allocated.

[1715]

There is an

increase of $19 million to the Medical Services Plan to enhance the primary care

services. This is actually as a result of dollars that were provided from the

federal government as part their primary care changes. Those dollars flow

through to the ministry to reflect the cost that we will be incurring in

delivering those programs.

There is a

$6.9 million increase to the emergency health services to fund the cost

increases as a result of the recent CUPE collective agreement. There's a $1.5

million increase to regional programs, adult mental health, to fund the recent

BCGEU settlement to agencies such as Riverview Hospital and the Forensic

Psychiatric Institute. I guess that's basically it.

[ Page 557 ]

The other

big one is the result of a ruling from the auditor general in terms of the shift

from capital expenditures to operating dollars. It was $77 million that was

previously in capital that, as a result of that direction, was shifted into

operating. So that's also reflected in there.

The final

point is a $6.5 million reduction in the ministry's debt-servicing budget, and

this is based on revised cost estimates from the Ministry of Finance.

Just to get

direction from the member, I'm not sure if she wants to pursue that or go on to

the other issues that she raised. Or does she want to deal with these one at a

time?

MacPhail: I assume that's across the $9.38 billion, including the ministers

of state, including Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

Interjection.

MacPhail: For the record, that was yes.

That

explains the difference in the budget. Perhaps I should just expand a little bit

on why I'm taking that approach. Some try to look at this discussion of

estimates as either an endurance contest or a "let's fill in the space

available." We may get to that in the years down the road. There's no

question that this is one area that was explored thoroughly in the election, and

the results are evidence of that exploration. What I want to do is just explore

the changes that are in mind — the government has, again, spent so much time

on health planning — and then watch and see. The next year around we'll

have perhaps a much more detailed explanation.

The

minister is quite right that this is a portfolio that's extremely complex and

one that Health ministers across the country face challenges with. In fact, I

think the federal-territorial-provincial debates that get the most attention are

debates around health care. That's because Canadians face issues in common

around the future of our health care system.

I hope the

minister fully understands that I recognize the importance of the portfolio,

that I fully appreciate the importance of the expenditure of $9.3 billion to the

taxpayer and that I know the government needs to be held accountable for each

and every one of the expenditures of those dollars. However, I also take my

responsibility for what occurred up until the election. There's a new era. I see

my role as one of exploring in a way that I hope — and I mean this sincerely

— adds to the debate and prepares the ground for what may occur over the

course of the year, in preparation for a thorough discussion of the new era in

2002. It's on that basis that we proceed. For those that are listening or that

may want to view the record on this, I acknowledge that in this particular area

the discussion was very thorough during the election.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I appreciate the member's comments. She made reference to the

budgets for the ministers of state. One of the things that the Premier has been

very careful of is to not create ministries within ministries. These are not

meant to compartmentalize aspects of health care but rather to make sure it

remains integrated, which I think is essential if we want to have a

comprehensive, seamless delivery of health care at the local level. So there is

no specific budget for the Minister of State for Mental Health other than his

minister's office budget. It is clearly, as before, integrated with the

ministry's budget.

[1720]

I made a note of five issues that

the member wanted to pursue.

One of them was the changes in the structure of the delivery of health care

since the election, in terms of both front-line and executive level. The

answer to her question is that there have not been significant changes. Our goal

has been to try to bring stability to patie