British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 8, 2008

H0508pm-09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 8, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Volume 32, Number 9 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, May 8, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 12183 Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 12183 Bountiful and polygamy issue B. Bennett Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness R. Chouhan North American Occupational Safety and Health Week R. Cantelon Bicycle safety S.

Hammell Child Care Month H. Bloy Health care auxiliaries K. Conroy Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 12185 Tree farm licence land removals on Vancouver Island S. Fraser Hon. R. Coleman Hon. C. Taylor J. Horgan Hon. M. de Jong R. Fleming Disclosure of documents in B.C. Rail court case L. Krog Hon. W. Oppal B. Ralston Coroner's inquest into Oak Bay deaths M. Farnworth Hon. W. Oppal J. Kwan Government action on forest industry C. Trevena Hon. R. Coleman N.

Macdonald Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................. 12190 V. Roddick G. Robertson H. Lali R. Fleming

Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 12190 Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 26) (continued) A. Dix N. Macdonald R. Chouhan C. Puchmayr D. Chudnovsky B. Ralston M. Karagianis H. Lali J.

Horgan Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 12220 Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism L. Krog Hon. W. Oppal C. Trevena R. Fleming C. Evans R. Chouhan B. Ralston

12183 THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 The House met at 1:34 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Introductions by Members Hon. L. Reid: I have two announcements today. I actually feel an Emery Barnes moment coming on. I have lots to say, but I'll do my best to restrict my remarks. We have Rebecca Scott in the gallery today, and she is with the Provincial Child Care Council in British Columbia. She is joined by her friend Susan Detford. Both of them have come today to join with us in what I think is a glorious announcement. We had a target of 2,000 additional child care spaces by 2010.

We have in fact exceeded that target and today announced 2,200 new child care spaces across British Columbia. My second announcement — introduction — is that my mom, Cathy Reid, is with us in the gallery today. She's joined by my dear friend Karen Léger. She and I first worked together more than 30 years ago. I'd ask the House to make all four of these guests incredibly welcome. S. Fraser: I'd like to introduce a constituent from Port Alberni, a steelworker and a friend, and that's Rita Lagevest. Would you all join me in making her feel very welcome. Hon. K.

Krueger: In the gallery today we have Jim and Edna Dewar from beautiful Chase, British Columbia, who I met wandering along the causeway yesterday. They had been told the galle ries were full. I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome today. [1335] Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my privilege to introduce 24 Western Washington University students that are here visiting us in the Legislature, learning about our approach to government in Canada and British Columbia. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) BOUNTIFUL AND POLYGAMY ISSUE B. Bennett: I'm speaking today about an issue that my colleague from Nelson-Creston spoke about recently: Bountiful and the practice of polygamy. My colleague is right. This isn't a partisan issue, and I also agree with the hon. member that women and children of Bountiful must be supported. To that end, the Minister of Com- munity Services has helped by placing a social worker in Creston for that very purpose. In addition, the Min- ister of Education has increa sed inspections at the two Bountiful schools. But the real problem with Bountiful is the practice of polygamy.

It damages the lives of women and chil- dren, and it must be stoppe d. Eminent lawyer Richard Peck, QC, said in his report to the Attorney General: "After extensive study of the relevant material, I have come to the conclusion that polygamy itself is at the root of the problem. Polygamy is the underlying phe- nomenon from which all of the other alleged harms flow." The British Columbia children and women on our television screens from Texas recently illustrate that we must take action to support women and children trapped in this polygamist cult.

Over 60 percent of the girls aged 14 to 17 in the Texas compound are either pregnant or already have children. Polygamy engenders child abuse. Girls in polyga- mist cults are forced to ma rry older men and bear their children. Young women are trafficked across the U.S.- Canada border. Boys are ruthlessly ejected from the community at their most impressionable age for the sin of appealing to the younger wives of older men. They become the lost boys of Bountiful. It's time that

section 293 of the Criminal Code be put to the constitutional test. Our legal system does not inspire public confidence when any law is openly flouted. If the polygamy la w is unconstitutional, the federal government can legislate a solution to the prob- lem. If the polygamy law is deemed constitutional, charges can be laid, and we can begin to end this illegal and immoral practice that has been harming women and children for far too long. BURNABY TASK FORCE ON HOMELESSNESS R. Chouhan: It started with a phone call.

Burnaby- Edmonds resident Wanda Mulholland was becoming increasingly concerned abou t the growing number of homeless people she was seeing on Burnaby streets. She picked up the phone and called Staff Sgt. John Buis, district commander of the southeast community policing office. In turn, Staff Sgt. Buis started calling social service agencies and representatives of the local faith community as well as government agencies. The result: the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness was established in January 2005. The Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness leads local initiatives to end ho melessness in Burnaby.

The task force operates an extreme weather response shelter. This past winter the shelter opened for 41 nights, and 785 bed-nights were utilized. The number of people using the shelter tripled over the previous winter. The task force also supports the work of the Outreach Resource Centre at the Southside Church, which was es- tablished at the end of November 2006. It provides weekly access to health care, outr each workers, food, donated clothing and toiletry items. It assists 50 to 60 people each week and has served over 2,300 meals which are provided by members of the Burnaby faith community.

The Outreach Resource Centre receives no core funding and relies on community donations. I was proud to donate $1,000 from my MLA pay increase to help support the centre. My office serves as one of the three clothing donation drop-off locations. [1340]

12184 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 I am very proud that th e nucleus of the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness was formed in Burnaby- Edmonds. The task force pe rforms extremely impor- t a n t w o r k a n d i s m a k i n g a p o s i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n Burnaby. I am proud to have this opportunity to congratulate the task force on their work. NORTH AMERICAN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH WEEK R. Cantelon: This Monday marked the beginning of the 11th annual North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, or as it's known, NAOSH Week. This year's theme is "Start today!

Live it every day!" It's a continent-wide observance of safety involving the United States, Mexico and Canada. It's led every year in Canada by the Canadian Society of Safety Engineer- ing, with the support from their partners, which in- clude the Canadian Centre of Occupational Health and Safety, and Human Resources and Social Development Canada. NAOSH week is observed by every province, and citizens of all three countr ies are encouraged to think and act safely all year round in respect of life, work, home and leisure activity. NAOSH week highlights occupational health and safety every year.

It certainly is a tragedy that's all too common in our society that, at a single moment, a lack of concentra- tion, carelessness, or maybe taking a shortcut can change lives forever, alter careers and crush the hopes and dreams of families. I think the most important thing to understand is that most of these accidents are avoidable. If we just take a moment to pause and think of what we're doing, most of these accidents can be prevented. I urge every workplace, community and citizen to take ownership of their own health and safety.

The danger of unhealthy risks and carelessness can impact our lives and the lives of our families. NAOSH week helps highlight to the public, government and industry the importance of increasing understanding, raising awareness and reducing in juries and illness in the workplace, at home and in the community. I urge all the MLAs in this House as they go home, to travel safely, take care and urge your citizens to watch out. Be more careful of what you do. Think it through, and do it more sl owly and more carefully. Be careful out there. BICYCLE SAFETY S.

Hammell: I don't own a bike, I don't ride a bike, and I won't make riding a bike part of my lifestyle — though I'd like to — until I feel a lot safer on the roads than I do now. I think I'm pretty typical of most British Columbians. Between May 26 and June 1 is Bike to Work Week. During this week I think we should speak out about how to make our communities safer for bicycles. Our communities and the transp ortation systems within have been built to accommodate cars, big trucks and SUVs. These vehicles move fast, make a lot of noise and pollute the air you breathe.

Drawing white lines on a pavement for bicycle-only lanes just doesn't cut it for us typical British Columbians. If our communities were designed to promote the use of bikes, we would see healthier people, a cleaner environment and even, perhaps, fewer cars on the roads. In many countries of Europe there has been a sea change in the number of bicycles being used as daily transportation as a direct result of aggressive government policies. There are auto-free zones, pedestrian and bicycle traffic lights, intersection modifications to accommodate bicycles, bicycle streets, bike lanes and bike paths.

There are reserved bus lanes that can be used for bicyclists but not for cars. There are streets — one way for cars but two ways for bicycles. They have comprehensive strategies for area-wide traffic calming, where, in its most advance form, cars are required to travel at walking speed and pedestrians, children and bicyclists have as much right to the road as a car — revolutionary. Imagine what the world would look like if we had bicycles using roads as much as cars. CHILD CARE MONTH H.

Bloy: May is Child Care Month in British Co- lumbia, a time we recognize the vital importance of quality child care in our own lives and our communi- ties. Our Child Care Month is also a time to recognize and celebrate the important role that child care provid- ers and early childhood educators play in ensuring that B.C. children have the best start possible in life. [1345] Since 1982, many individuals, organizations and municipalities throughout British Columbia have or- ganized events to celebrate Child Care Month.

These events help create awareness in all communities across B.C. of the vital role that quality child care plays in supporting healthy families, healthy children and a strong, thriving province. Many factors contribute to the creation of quality child care. Child care providers, parents, all levels of government — local, provincial and federal — business, community groups and citizens all have a role to play.

I want to also say a few words about the many out- s t a n d i n g p a r t n e r s h i p s t h a t h a v e b e e n f o r g e d t o h e l p expand child care in our communities — the utilization of empty classroom space in school districts, the refur- bishing of public buildings in much-needed social housing developments. With each of these partnerships and projects, we are working hard to create a strong, responsive child care system , one that supports choice and flexibility. As a province, we have a lot to celebrate during C h i l d C a r e M o n t h .

I t ' s a l w a y s t i m e t o c e l e b r a t e t h e important work of the province's many thousands of dedicated child care professionals, early childhood educators and the parents, children and families across B.C. Thank you for everything you do, and have a happy Child Care Month.

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12185 HEALTH CARE AUXILIARIES K. Conroy: This Saturday, May 10, is Health Care Auxiliary Day. I'm sure there isn't a member in this chamber who doesn't have an auxiliary working in their constituency. However, today I'm going to focus on the work of the auxiliaries in the West Kootenay– Boundary region, in my own and the member for Nelson- Creston's constituencies. In our area there are 11 auxiliaries. Last year they generated some interesting st ats. They have over 600 members, all volunteering their time — an estimate of over 90,000 hours.

They donated over $440,000 to health care in our area and over $12,000 to bursaries for students in the region. They raise money through thrift shops, garage sales, flea markets, bake sales, raffles, teas and gift shops. For you new grandpas in the chamber, your local hospital auxiliary gift shop is the best place to get the cutest handmade knitted or crocheted baby gifts available — very reasonable too.

The interesting thing in ou r area is the commitment of these groups, in spite of the fact that of the 11 groups, only three of them still have a fully functioning hospital, and some of them no longer even have hospi- tals open in their community. Rossland, for instance, has had their hospital closed and the building sold for a number of years now, and yet they'll be celebrating their 70th year of providing volunteer auxiliary services to the community. Nakusp, with a downsized facility, is also celebrating a hundred years of volunteer service.

The Castlegar group re- cently raised enough money to build a new facility for their thrift store on land donated by the city. They also continue to operate a gift shop at a hospital, even though it is now a community health centre and no longer provides 24-7 acute care. I want to commend these dedicated groups for their unwavering support to the health care needs of our area as well as to all the auxiliaries who provide much- needed funds, services and equipment to health care in this province. D. Hayer: I ask for leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Introductions by Members D.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 56 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are three teache rs: Mrs. Sharon Douglas, Mrs. Sue U-Ming, and Mr. Grant Wirtz, and 27 great volunteers, who have taken the time out of their busy

schedule to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome. Hon. W. Oppal: I seek leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Hon. W. Oppal: We have staff here from the legis- lative counsel branch: Carol Dohan, Vicki Temple, Joan Wong and Heidi McLean. I want to thank them for the splendid work they do in the ministry, and I want the House to make them feel welcome. Mr. Speaker: Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. I understand he can introduce his granddaughter by name today. [1350] Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, her name is Rayne.

Oral Questions TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND S. Fraser: In 2004 the B.C. Liberals changed the law to allow the Minister of Forests to remove private lands from tree farm licences. Subs equently, the Minister of Forests authorized the removal of 77,000 hectares from TFL 44, which surrounds Port Alberni. In 2005 the court found that the B.C. Liberal government had dis- honoured the Crown in failing to consult with the Hupacasath First Nation.

Since then, raw logs have been leaving my con- stituency by the shipload, and much of the land base has been impacted severely by extreme logging prac- tices. Today we know that the companies that reap the biggest rewards are two secret government-owned numbered companies. Can the Minister of Fore sts explain why the B.C. Liberals changed laws so that two of their secret num- bered companies could benefit at the expense of the Hupacasath First Nation? Hon. R. Coleman: I'll take the question on notice. Mr. Speaker: Member for Alberni-Qualicum, is it a new question? S.

Fraser: I had to think about that for a moment, hon. Speaker. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Proceed with the new question. S. Fraser: The question this time…. The govern- ment's B.C. Investment Management Corp. now owns 25 percent, one-quarter, of Island Timberlands. That's $166 million worth of shares by two different secret numbered companies. Brookfield Asset Management owns another 50 percent of Island Timberlands, the same Brookfield Management that scored a windfall when this govern- ment waived millions in compensation at the expense of B.C. taxpayers when they released the private lands

12186 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 around Port Alberni, the same Brookfield that bene- fited from the Jordan River and the north Island give- aways, the same Brookfield that just moved much of its operation to Bermuda to avoid Canadian laws and a civil suit. That's the same Brookfield… Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose the question, please. S. Fraser: …that donated $50,000 to the B.C. Liberals in 2007.

This question to the Minister of Forests: can he explain why secret government companies and Liberal friends get to rake in millions while communities lose jobs, first nations rights ar e trampled on and the envi- ronment is destroyed? Hon. C. Taylor: Within the new question there was a little piece that referenced the BCIMC, which is the Investment Management Corp. It is this corporation, of course, that does the investments not only for gov- ernment but for four major pension funds and others as well.

I d o w a n t t o m a k e i t c l e a r o n t h e r e c o r d t h a t , o f course, government does not have any influence with the investment decisions of BCIMC. They are outside of the government entity. Furthermore, the majority of the directors of BCIMC are from the pension funds, and further to that, even the board of directors has no influence on the investment decisions that are made by the Investment Corporation. Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supple- mental. S. Fraser: The Minister of Finance has a perspective, and I have a different perspective.

T h i s g o v e r n m e n t i s t h e s i n g l e s h a r e h o l d e r o f B . C . Investment Corp., the single shareholder. The govern- ment changed the laws to allow the removal of private lands and to allow the raw log exports that we're seeing now from my community and other communities on the Island. This government failed to consult with first nations and then dishonoured the Crown. This government handed sweetheart deals to their friends and supporters and donors.

Now this government and their friends are profiting from it at the expe nse of the Hupacasath First Nation, the Tseshaht First Nation, the people of Port Alberni and all of the taxpayers in British Columbia. [1355] My question to whoever wants to answer it, the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Finance: why did this government put their pocketbook and their friends ahead of the workers, communi ties and first nations in the Alberni Valley? Hon. C. Taylor: The B.C. Investment Management Corp. makes its investment decisions completely inde- pendent from government.

In fact, their board of direc- tors includes an appointee from the Teachers Pension Board of Trustees, an appo intee from the College Pension Board of Trustees, an appointee from the Pub- lic Service Pension Board of Trustees, an appointee from the Municipal Pensio n Board of Trustees. But even these people on the board do not get involved in investment decisions. There's a very strong…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue, Minister. Hon. C.

Taylor: There's a very strong and clear reason why there has to be separation, and it was iden- tified in 1993 by Justice Seaton in his report, where he said that political decisions must be completely separate from investment decisions, which is correct. Therefore, when BCIMC was set up by the NDP government, they followed that model. And we follow that model, where there is complete separation. It is the law that government cannot be involved in these investment decisions, and we are not. J. Horgan: The B.C.

Liberals were slapped by the Supreme Court when Justice Sm ith said that they did a dishonour to the Crown with the deletion of private lands from TFL 44. The then Minister of Forests is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Today Chief Judith Sayers is on the steps of the courthouse in Vancouver asking a simple question: where is the new relationship ? Does it even exist? My question is a simple one for the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Why is it that first nations are always first with rhetoric but always la st with respect when it comes to this government? Hon.

M. de Jong: Well, as the member might expect, I won't comment specifically on matters that might be before the court on this day. But I am more than happy to oblige the member in referring to the myriad steps, agreements, cooperations, pa rtnerships that have oc- curred over the past number of years between the prov- ince of British Columbia and first nations right across this province. I t i s a r e c o r d w e a r e v e r y p r o u d o f . W e t a k e o u r obligations to consult, to accommodate where appro- priate very seriously. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue, Minister. Hon.

M. de Jong: If the member wishes, I am more than happy and will oblige hi m in detailing that long list of partnerships, reconciliation agreements, genuine steps towards developing a new relationship. I suspect I'll get that opportunity in a moment. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12187 J. Horgan: You would think that a minister once bitten would be twice shy. After the deletions from TFL 44 in 2004 we then had new deletions in TFL 25, in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. At that time three Coast Salish first nations…. Two of them were consulted. One said: "Do not delete these lands without adequate accommodation to our needs and interests." A third, the Beecher Bay band, was never talked to.

Could the Minister of Aboriginal Relations explain to me why it is that he, knowing that he had previously dishonoured the Crown, a llowed the Minister of Forests to do it again? Hon. M. de Jong: As I said a moment ago, we take very seriously the obligations that the Crown has to consult and have taken great steps. We're very proud of those steps to develop a new relationship. I am, however, trying to reconcile what I'm hearing from the opposition today with a report I read out of the Campbell River newspaper. The NDP had a meet- ing in Campbell River just a couple of days ago.

Of course, they had a political agenda they were trying to advance. It was…. [1400] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Minister, just take your seat. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue, Minister. Hon. M. de Jong: It was on the generation of elec- tricity, not a political position that Chief Ken Brown of the Klahoose First Nation sh ared with the NDP. But what was interesting is that at this public meeting, the Chief wasn't even allowed to speak. Here's what the Chief said: "All the NDP did was perpetuate more myths. It was appalling, and there was no reference to first nations.

Ultimately, they" — the NDP — "are trying to compromise aboriginal economic opportunities." Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we're not con- tinuing. R. Fleming: Well, all that shows is that the minister who dishonoured the Crown a couple of years ago is — guess what — back before the courts now. My question is to the Minister of Finance. She's responsible for the B.C. Investment Management Corp., as she's already acknowledged. She appoints board members. She appoints the chair. Government is the sole shareholder.

Given the manner of how this share purchase was made, how TFL land was given away without first nations consultation and with respect to the deplorable environmental practices goin g on in these stands of forest, I want to ask the minister: does she think the investment in Island Timberlands meets the IMC's own ethical investment standards? Hon. C. Taylor: I will repeat that government does not get involved in the investment decisions of the BCIMC. I'm happy to go over again the structure and the reason for the structure, should the member opposite wish it. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. R.

Fleming: Cabinet members are aware of the portfolio, and cabinet will be aware that this govern- ment has dishonoured the Crown in respect to these lands that we are specifically talking about. The ques- tion for the minister is: do es she have any concerns about a solely government-owned entity becoming a major investor and now trying to profit from the land that dishonoured the Crown in the first place when those lands were removed? Hon. C. Taylor: Cabinet is not aware of the portfolio of BCIMC. Government is not involved with the Invest- ment Management Corp.

The majority of the members of directors come from the pension funds. The teachers fund, the Public Service Pension Board, the Municipal Pension Board and the College Pension Board form the majority of directors, but ev en they are not involved in the investment decisions of the corporation. In fact, BCIMC's corporat e governance principles and proxy guidelines are supplemented by conventions such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises, the standards of the International Labour Organization.

The board works very hard to ensure that BCIMC is managed well and that the pension funds are well taken care of. I will repeat again: government is not involved in the investment decisions and should not be involved in those investment decisions. [1405] DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE L. Krog: The Attorney General said yesterday in this House that he couldn't answer questions about how the Premier's office handled disclosure in the B.C. Rail corruption investigation. But exactly a year ago the Premier spoke at length about this issue during esti- mates debate.

The Premier affirmed that his office was not at all involved and that they didn't interfere. Yesterday we learned that wasn't true. The Pre- mier's deputy, Ken Dobell, was directly involved. Here's the issue. The RCMP was about to interview members of cabinet in its final round of investigations. The Premier's deputy was in formed of the nature and content of the documents that were to be the subject of those RCMP interviews. The Premier's deputy was not

12188 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 entitled to know about or discuss that, because he had not signed a legal undertaking to keep that information confidential. The Attorney General kn ows the laws. Did those actions not taint that invest igation, and what is the Attorney General going to do about it? Hon. W. Oppal: We've been clear throughout that we're not going to engage in specifics about what's before the courts. It's not a question of what I'm going to do about it. It's what the judge will do about it or won't do about it. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. L.

Krog: It's pretty clear the Premier didn't have any trouble answering questi ons about this last year. The Premier just ten weeks ago told Mike Smyth at The Province: " We have taken every step we can so that there is no political interference." But we now know that the opposite is true. The government broke its un- dertaking not to disclose any information about the documents to anyone outside the vetting protocol — documents which Justice Bennett has said relate to the consolation prize issue were discussed with the Pre- mier's deputy minister.

Th ese documents, which were to be the subject of RCMP interviews with cabinet min- isters and senior officials, were discussed with the Premier's deputy. My question is again to the Attorney General. By going outside the protocol, by breaking its undertaking to the court, did the government not taint this investigative process? And again, what is the Attorney General going to do about it? Hon. W.

Oppal: I would have thought the answer to that question was made abundantly clear when the Deputy Attorney General sent a letter to that member and stated as follows: "The real point in your letter, however, appears to question whether I have made decisions on the disclosure of government documents independent of political input. I have exercised the responsibility I was given to…." Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue, Attorney. Hon. W.

Oppal: "I have exercised the responsibility I was given to determine whether to assert privilege on any government documents completely independently, free of any influence. There has been no attempt by anyone to influence my decisions. I have been left entirely to my own judgment to decide these ques- tions, and I have not consulted with anyone other than receiving legal advice from Mr. Copley." B. Ralston: The Attorney General should be aware, and I'm sure he is aware, t h a t M r . S e c k e l o n l y g o t involved later on. The initial protocol was different.

The protocol was set up to preserve the integrity of the investigation while documents were vetted for privilege. Only four people were legally permitted to see those documents. All of them had to sign an undertaking that they would not disclose the document or discuss it. Mr. Dobell was not on that list. He was not permitted under the process sanctioned by Mr. Justice Dohm to see or hear about the documents, but he did. The government violated its undertaking, and that is a problem for the integrity of the investigation.

The Attorney General, in the independent, non-partisan aspect of his office — the office he holds — has an obli- gation to protect the integrity of the Crown. How will he exercise that obligation here? Hon. W. Oppal: The answer to that question is clear and simple — by letting the court do its work. [1410] CORONER'S INQUEST INTO OAK BAY DEATHS M. Farnworth: The Solicitor General is responsible for the coroner's office. Does the Solicitor General have confidence in the decision of the coroner in the Oak Bay inquest to call the Crown prosecutors to testify at the inquest?

Does the Solicitor General agree with that decision? Hon. W. Oppal: I think it's clear that all of us in this House want answers as to what took place during that tragic incident of September 2007. The coroner has convened an inquest to dete rmine those very difficult issues of fact and law invo lving the incident. I think that we should let the coroner's inquest take its course. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. M. Farnworth: W e a l l , I w o u l d h o p e , w a n t t o s e e the truth and the facts on the table.

The last time I checked, again, the Solicitor General is responsible for the coroner's office. My question again to the Solicitor General, who is responsible: does he support the deci- sion of the coroner to call Crown prosecutors to testify at the inquest of the Oak Bay tragedy to get to the truth of what happened? Hon. W. Oppal: There is a very important legal issue involved here. To step back a bit, the Crown took the unusual step of having a regional Crown testify as to what reports, what information and what evidence they had before them before certain moves were made. Now, the coroner has made an order.

I would recommend to the member opposite that perhaps he read the Crown Counsel Act. The Crown Counsel Act confers independence and discretion upon members of the criminal justice branch. That's what is happening here now, and that's why, pursuant to the order made by the coroner, an appeal is being taken of that order.

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12189 J. Kwan: The coroner's inquest is not a fault-finding mission. Rather, it must investigate such deaths "to assure the community that the facts are not concealed, overlooked or ignored in any way." The coroner goes on to say: "To extend special privileges to any person or groups of persons may compromise the integrity, or appear to, of this process." By the silence of the Solicitor General, is he saying that the coroner is wrong? Hon. W. Oppal: Nobody is making any comment about whether the coroner is right or the coroner is wrong.

The fact is that he made an order. That order is one in which he has compelled Crown counsel to testify. The criminal justice branch, independently of any political input, has determined — quite correctly in my view — that that order ought to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. J. Kwan: I have a quick and simple question for the Solicitor General. Does he agree with the appeal of this case right now? If he doesn't, will he stand up in this House and say that he expects the inquiry to get the answers that they need, to make meaningful suggestions for changes?

If they are not able to do that, then everyone involved in the case would not be compelled to testify, and British Columbians might very well not get at the truth of the situation. Does the Solicitor General agree with the appeal? [1415] Hon. W. Oppal: There's nothing in this process that will prevent British Columbians from getting at the truth of what happened. It has got nothing at all to do with the truth. If the opposition wants to play political games with the process, it's their business, but there's an important principle of law involved here.

It's set out in the Crown Counsel Act, and that will be determined ultimately in a review to the Supreme Court. GOVERNMENT ACTION ON FOREST INDUSTRY C. Trevena: The Elk Falls sawmill is set to close tomorrow. That's 257 well-paying, family-supporting jobs gone from Campbell River — another 257 jobs lost and zero effort from the Minister of Forests and Range. The workers at the mill commissioned a study that showed the sawmill was viable, but TimberWest has been starved of logs, thanks to this minister's inaction.

I'd like to ask the minister: what will it take before he finally does take some action to help the workers and their families in Vancouver Island's forest-dependent communities? Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if the member is aware of it, so I'll make her aware of it. The CEP have entered into discussions wi th the owner of the mill with regards to whether they are interested in purchas- ing the mill or not. They are also doing a business plan and actually doing a business study with regards to that.

All of those negotiations, as I understand it, are bound by a confidentiality agreement between the two parties, which isn't unusual with a public company. I should advise the member, though, that we have provided funds to assist the union with their business study. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. C. Trevena: The minister has talked about a confiden- tiality agreement. I would have thought that the minister, if he' s th e m in i st er re spon s ib le for thi s , wou l d be ab le t o explain what was actually being discussed here, not just being able to say that there were things underway.

The mill is about to close. That is 257 jobs, and that is an issue of policy and inaction. It's an issue of fibre supply, and it's got a knock-on effect with the other mill in Campbell River, the Catalyst pulp mill. The pulp and paper industry is benefiting from the best market for years, and yet the Catalyst mill is still having to close down another machine, which is another 145 jobs at risk. I have to ask the minister: how long do forest- dependent communities like mine, like Campbell River, have to wait before something is done to protect the jobs in the communities? Hon. R.

Coleman: We met with Catalyst last week. We've told them we will work with them on their fibre issues and try and find solutions for them. N. Macdonald: Well, for three years this minister has done nothing while B.C.'s most important industry has collapsed. Then we hear that the minister, who won't help anyone, gave a massive cut on the cost of logs from public land to the community of the Minister of Energy. Nobody else gets it. The person who sits beside him gets a massive cut in his… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. N. Macdonald: …cost of logs.

When you think it cannot get worse, we receive an e-mail from Paragon Wood Products saying that the statement made by the mini ster on Monday during question period was inaccura te. The minister told this House he was working with Paragon on the issues with regards to getting access to logs, and Paragon Wood Products says that no such thing is happening. So the most charitable that one can be is that there has been a misunderstanding. What specifically is the minister doing to help Paragon Wood Products get logs? He said he's working on something. Paragon has said nothing of the sort. What is it?

What specifically is the minister doing to help Paragon Wood Products get logs?

12190 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 Hon. R. Coleman: I actually talked to my staff again about Paragon the other day. We put up sales in that area that Paragon would have an opportunity to bid on. If they wanted to bi d on that fibre, then they can buy it. Then they can trade the logs with someone else to get the fibre mix that they want. The member should know that they use a specific portfolio of logs that they need to trade in order to get enough fibre to do what they want to do. [1420] But you know, Mr.

Speaker, the member sits there, and he always wants to say the government has done nothing. Well, I've got a surprise for him — $185 mil- lion in Northern Development Trust, $640 million to the mountain pine beetle strategy, $120 million to miti- gating roads, $20 million into forest roads, $25 million into international investment to find places for new product, 257,000 trees replanted last year, $1.8 million invested in value-added. We worked with the indu stry.

We worked with it aggressively, and quite frankly, it's about time those people on the other side recognized that there has been more investment in the forest industry in British Co- lumbia by this government than they did in ten years. [End of question period.] V. Roddick: As the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning, I would like leave to present a petition. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Petitions V.

Roddick: I rise today to present one-half of a petition, and my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview will present the other half, with over 22,000 signatures collected by members of Greenpeace asking the federal g overnm ent to pu rsu e and, o n behalf of the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada, adopt truth in labelling — specifically, genetically modified products — which is highlighted in our provincial ag- riculture plan Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families. Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fairview with the other half. G.

Robertson: I rise to present a petition — the other half of the petition that the member for Delta South men- tioned — f r o m 1 0 , 6 9 1 p e o p l e a c r o s s B . C . c o n c e r n e d about the threats of genetically engineered foods posed to human health and enviro nment. They are calling for mandatory labelling of gene tically engineered foods through right-to-know legislation in this House and federally, which is now compulsory in 40 other nations. D. Hayer: I'd like to seek leave to make another introduction of students. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Introductions by Members D.

Hayer: I have another group of students from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead — 56 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy School, one of the best schools in Canada. They're visiting here. Would the House please make them very welcome. H. Lali: I request leave to present a petition. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Petitions H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to present a petition on your behalf with 288 signatures in the southern Interior. Hon. P. Bell: I seek leave to do an introduction. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Introductions by Members Hon. P.

Bell: Joining us in the House today is my executive assistant, Sean Mu rry, and his mother Susan Whitney. Would the House please make them very welcome. R. Fleming: I seek leave to present a petition. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Petitions R. Fleming: This petition to the Legislature is re- garding residential care and seniors health care issues. It requires and asks government to annually explain their specific intentions to achieve residential care tar- gets, meet seniors health ca re needs and, for other rea- sons, indicators on seniors health care. Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second reading debate of Bill 26 and in

Section A, Commit- tee of Supply — for the information of members, the be- ginning of estimates for the Ministry of Attorney General. [1425] L. Krog: I'd ask leave to introduce a bill. I don't recall the Clerk calling for…. Mr. Speaker: Sorry, Member. Second Reading of Bills HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 (continued) A. Dix: It's an honour to get up in this Legislature again and speak to Bill 26, which is the Health Statutes

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12191 Amendment Act. As members will know and people who were paying attention to the debate yesterday will know, the debate on Bill 26 began yesterday evening. The minister spoke briefly in that debate. I spoke somewhat briefly in that debate, as well, for approxi- mately 27 minutes. I have a little bit of time left. I don't plan to use all of that time, needless to say, because the Minister of Health, I know, is anxious to not just hear from m e, althou g h he is no dou bt rapt in that reg ard. He appreciates it. He'd like to hear from other mem- bers as well.

I would like to continue on and perhaps review briefly where we left off. [S. Hammell in the chair.] As members will know, Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, deals with three issues, and I think they're critical issues for us to deal with in this House.

The first, of course — the one that we were talking about yesterday evening at some length and will con- tinue to talk about at some length — is to implement a decision by the Supreme Co urt and then a subsequent negotiation between the Facilities Bargaining Association, which included the HEU, the BCGEU and other unions and the government, pursuant to that decision of the Supreme Court. Members will remember what happened with Bill 29. Members will remember what happened and its impact. We talked a little bit about this last night.

The government had promised, specifically in the name of the Premier, that they would not tear up or take away rights from health care wo rkers. They subsequently proceeded to do just that. You'll recall that when asked a direct question prior to the 2001 election, the Premie r said that he would not do it. He said no. He further said, when asked the ques- tion: does a 48-year-old housekeeper who has finally, after decades of struggle, come up to an average wage have anything to worry about in terms of privatization from the Liberal government ? The Premier said: "I say no.

What she's going to find is that people in B.C. and the government respect the value of the work she does. Most importantly, she's going to find the quality of the work she's able to do more rewarding and more fulfill- ing." That's what they promised. Then, as you know, they proceeded to tear up that contract by legislated diktat.

They proceeded to tear up protections for working people in the health care sector that had been around not from an NDP government, not from a deal from an NDP government, but from bumping provisions that existed for 30 years at that time and contracting-out provisions that had dated 20 years from that time — namely, from the period of the Bill Bennett Social Credit government. They in fact stripped those provisions from that contract. I think it's important to remember, as we sit here in the Legisla- ture today, how they did that.

They betrayed these workers by telling them that they wouldn't do it, and then they did it. This is the behaviour, remember, and the reason we're here today. Certainly, the government didn't volunteer to come here today and acknowledge that what they did was disgraceful and wrong, though it was. They didn't vol- unteer to come here today. They came here today because the Supreme Court of Canada said that the government's actions violated the Charter rights of those women workers. It precipi- tated the largest layoff of women workers in the history of Canada, and their actions violated their Charter rights.

That's why we're here. The provisions in question that had been around for decades — this government chose to do that with. [1430] How did they do that? So metimes there are changes in the legislative schedule, and there are sometimes things that frustrate us here in this Legislature — the use of closure and so on. Some 70 members on the government side — they were all there, pretty much . There were 77 of them at the time; 76 voted in favour. The then Leader of the Opposition, Joy MacPhail — recognized by the people, if not the government — voted against it.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant voted against it at all stages, and the member for Peace River South voted against it at second reading. They were all here. They decided that it didn't matter what they'd promised people . In fact, you know what the excuse was that they used to violate the rights of those workers leading to this massive layoff? You'll like this, hon. Speaker. Health care sustainability — that's what they used. What did they do? Friday, January 25, 2002….

It's important to dwell on this, to say that not only did they have 77 seats, not only did they choose, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, to violate the freedom-of- association rights of those workers leading to the largest l a y o f f o f f e m a l e w o r k e r s i n C a n a d i a n h i s t o r y , b u t h e r e ' s how they did it. Just so people understand what the Legis- lature was like, there were 77 of them, and there were two very courageous opposition MLAs, Joy MacPhail and the current member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Here's what they did. They have all those advantages, all that power.

They'd won an election. They didn't bother talking to any of the workers involved, the workers that they promised they would never, ever do this to. Here's what they did. On Friday, January 25, 2002, they introduced the legislation and read it a first time at 1:42 p.m. On Saturday, January 26, 2002, they drove through second reading debate. They sat on Sunday so that there would be no opportunity for anybody to respond to this outrageous action, an action that has now been sanctioned by the United Nations and by the Supreme Court of Canada and that we're here, in part, to over- turn today by this bill, Bill 26.

Sunday — committee stage. Really, one would do well to read the debate. Bill 29 committee and third reading commenced at 11:30 p. m. that Sunday evening — 11:30 p.m. They drove th rough committee stage on that and a whole bunch of other bills. They had 77 MLAs, and they were so disrespectful of parliamentary procedure and of the rights of those workers that this is how they behaved.

12192 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 Bill 29 committee and third reading debate com- menced at 11:30 p.m. — two members of the opposi- tion — on Sunday evening and adjourned at 4:57 a.m. when royal assent was granted. That's how this was done — in the dead of night, legislation by exhaustion after two days of debate, stripping away rights that they said they wouldn't strip away, stripping away rights of freedom of association that they have now been sanctioned for by the Supreme Court of Canada. Oh yeah, the Minister of Transportation was there. Oh yeah, he was there.

The Minister of Transportation was there, and this shameful behaviour that he attempts to justify was behaviour that was sanctioned by the Inter- national Labour Organization, sanctioned by the Supreme Court. That's what they did. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. A. Dix: That's what they did. With that majority, that's the manner in which they behaved. Of course, no consultation, the disrespectful approach to the work that these workers did…. Can you imagine? We talked about this yesterday, and I think it's important to reiterate this point.

The work done by the workers who are affected by this legislation is extremely important to all of us. It's hard work — cleaners in hos- pitals, care aides in care homes, food service workers, people who provide security. Sure, I understand that maybe the Minister of Transportation doesn't think that compared to his record of service, that record of service matters. [1435] I understand that. I understand that's his position, but that work matters. It matters to us. It sure matters to us as patients. It sure ma tters to us when our family are patients. It sure matters to seniors in long-term care homes.

It sure matters to seniors. It sure matters to communities. It sure matters to the children of people in care. Can you imagine that keeping our hospitals clean is not seen as work worthy of respect? Of course it's worthy of respect. It's the most important work people can do, and this is the way they were treated. This is what Bill 26 seeks in part to undo — not only this disrespect for work, for manual labour, for work that isn't as credential ed as the work that they would like to reward more. This is how people are treated. Their rights are stripped away.

What it meant for many people is that they lost more than 50 percent of their salary and all of their benefits. We could go case after case that we know of, of people we've met who ended up working 60, 70 or 80 hours a week. Those cases are real. For the people who were affected by Bill 29, this affected their lives, their health and the social determinants of the health of their children. This is what this government did. This is the way they behaved, and it was wrong.

Of course, this is important for members of the opposition to highlight, and of course we support over- turning, as the Supreme Cour t suggests, those parts of Bill 29 that were struck do wn by the courts. Let's be clear. There's more we'd like to get rid of. We'd like to get rid of it all, and that's one of the things we plan to do when we win the next election. Really, if you look at this bill and see its effect on people…. We've talked at length about its effect on real people, people who do important service in our com- munity, people who volunteer in our community. How did it affect them? Interjection. A.

Dix: Well, you know, I don't need to quote back the disparaging words that ha ve been said in the past by members on that side. The laws that apply to every- body else were taken away by this government. So it's not us talking about real people and unreal people. This is what they did. Th is is their action. They did it in the dead of night in the worst and, I would argue, the most unscrupulous of ways. That's how they took away these rights, and now they're sanctioned by the Supreme Court. I know they're defiant, but they're here today because they were sanctioned by the court.

Those individuals who contribute so much to society…. We know the stories, and surely all the mem- bers across know the stories, the effect on families, the effect on relationships, the effect on all those things — how it destroyed in many respects the lives of many people. It took away from children tens of hours of attention from their parents every week. It hurt families, it hurt communities, and it disre- spected the work. So we've talked about that impact, which is a very personal im pact. It impacted communi- ties in a very profound way.

It created a new tier, if you will, of low-paid jobs that in the view of the govern- ment side of the House aren't as worthy of basic rights that have been in place for decades, basic rights that have been negotiated with previous governments — not NDP governments but Social Credit governments. Basic rights — everybody has them, but not these workers. What effect did that have on communities beyond that? I would suggest to you that when you ask people to maintain their standard of living, to go from working 35 hours a week to 70 hours a week….

There is example after example of people who had to do that because those members on the government side, at 3:30 in the morning, decided to strip away those rights — example after example of people. You're not just taking away from their families, although you are. You're not just taking away from their kids, although you are. You're taking away from the entire community, from people who are able to partici- pate in community life as volunteers.

This is about, in a sense, social exclusion in the most reprehensible of ways. [1440] You had a whole new tier of workers who used to b e a b l e t o s u p p o r t t h e i r f a m i l i e s , w h o w e r e n o l o n g e r able to support their families — and the consequences on down for the community.

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12193 Of course, it had a profound impact, I would argue, on the quality of health care . There's no question about it. Where wages are low, where benefits are nonexis- tent, where hours are scheduled as part-time, where workloads are extremely heav y and turnover high, it has an impact on the entire workplace — on the quality of care that's provided, on the quality of cleaning ser- vices that are provided, on the quality of everything provided in a hospital or a long-term care centre. Clearly, it had that effect, and we know it had that effect.

We know that was indeed the intent. Not only did this lead to cuts in salaries and benefits and family- supporting jobs for thousands of people, the largest layoff of female employees in history and many other workers as well, many male workers as well…. We know that. But it also meant — and this is the fact of it — that on top of cutting the benefits, they also cut the hours. They also cut the hours, which meant that hospitals were dirt- ier, the quality of security and of food was less. This is what happened. This is the record of what they did.

As a result of this contracting-out, hospital-employed nurses and other health care workers had to phone call centres to get a private sector cleaner to come to a certain area to attend to an emergent situation. This was true of security as well, in many cases — a point that the B.C. Nurses Union has repeatedly made to the gov- ernment in terms of their brie f around safety of nurses, critical to the retention of nurses. It was destructive to the working life of public hos- pitals, long-term care homes and other health care institutions.

In addition to th at, I think it's fair to say the contracting-out and the use of commercial confiden- tiality to protect the government from scrutiny around those contracts meant that the accountability of the health care system for issues such as cleaning, food services and others was diminished as a result of this action. What cleaners tell us and what we know because the government cut the number of hours…. There's FOI information, and we know this.

FOI information that they were finally forced to release by the freedom-of- information and privacy commissioner said that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority reduced cleaning hours by 153,500 hours every year when it privatized hospital cleaning in 2003. The standard of cleaning has gone down. And what is the response? We only discovered this after they were ordered to release the information. The contracting-out of this allowed the government in effect to hide the in- formation, to hide what was going on in these contracts. So what do they say? Westech Systems — here's what they say about cleaning.

Contrary to all of the evidence-based reports, here 's the government's posi- tion on cleaning expressed by one of the people they hired to perform external and independent annual housekeeping audits, Dean Waisman from Westech Systems Ltd. What did he say? He made the following public comments in defence of privatized cleaning services. He said — contrary to all of the evidence, I would suggest — of anyone who actually goes to a hospital…. Hon. S. Bond: I seek leave to make an introduction, please. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. S.

Bond: I am delighted today, on behalf of the Premier, to welcome to the precinct 29 visitors from St. Augustine's School in th e Premier's constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey. They are grade 7 students trav- elling with obviously some of their parents and their teacher Donna O'Hara. The group is here today to experience the history of these amazing buildings and to learn more about the business of government and parliamentary tradition and, I am certain, to take some photographs and notes that they will share with their family and friends when they return home.

I would ask my colleagues to please join me in welcoming this incredible group of students and the adults accompanying them here to the precinct today. [1445] Debate Continued A. Dix: Just to review, Dean Waisman, president of Westech Systems Ltd., in defending the government, claimed: "All the hospitals in B.C. are doing a great job." He went on to say, however: "There is no correlation be- tween the level of cleanliness and the spread of infection." This is the government's position. Privatize its ser- vices. Devalue the work.

They appear to be experts in cleaning, although I suspect that they wouldn't want to do the work that the people they attacked with Bill 29 do. But here's their position. They say there's no correla- tion between the level of cleanliness and the spread of infection. "No one has ever been able to prove that cleanliness and infectious diseases are connected. There's no scientific evidence, so to speak," he said, adding: "Handwashing is key to curbing the spread of infection." Indeed, handwashing is important in curbing the spread of infection.

But no one less than the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and others dispute this posi- tion of the government that having dirtier hospitals isn't a danger to the public. Everybody is vulnerable when they go to hospital. We didn't need scientists, al though there is a mountain of evidence to show that Mr. Waisman is wrong about this. There's a mountain of evidence. We don't need that. We just have to listen to our parents and everyone from th at point on who told us that, in fact, there is a connection between dirtiness of a hospital and the spread of infection. We know this.

There's a connection between the dirtiness of hospital and the quality of care. We also know, as a result of the bill that we're deal- ing with today, at least, that provisions are being stripped away in this Legislature and that our hospitals are dirtier. What we also know is that these services had a noticeable effect across British Columbia. In rural B.C.

12194 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 many workers with long service found themselves without jobs when the facility in which they were working was closed under the Bill 29 revision. They had no jobs to bump into. The effect was profound in the Kootenays and some parts of the Okanagan. The loss of health care jobs in rural B.C. often went hand in hand with the loss of jobs in the resource sector. Two incomes in a family suddenly disappeared. Of course — and we know this — Bill 29 contracted out seniors long-term care facilities across the province as operators privatized direct residential care.

This meant care aides, this mean t licensed practical nurses, and it even meant registered nurses — all of whom were in fact part of the Bill 29 settlement. While this phenomenon was most pronounced in the Lower Mainland, on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley, what happened in those care homes was tragic. Care aides that work ed with seniors and LPNs who had worked with seniors for decades saw them- s e l v e s l a i d o f f . C a r e h o m e s t h a t w e r e l o v i n g p l a c e s t o be were suddenly transformed overnight.

Pay cuts for those workers and changes and con- tracting-out of those servic es meant that many places which needed to, by definition…. To do the work they were doing, they had to have an atmosphere of family. Because the care homes were forced, sometimes by contract, by the government to contract out the work, they were forced to cut the wages of their workforce. They were forced to lay off and take away the benefits from their workers. They we re forced to have high turnover of workers and, in some cases, the repeated layoff of whole workforces. The real effect of Bill 29 on seniors care was pro- found.

They hurt individuals and families with this. They hurt communities with this. They hurt the health care system with this. Th ey violated the freedom-of- association rights of workers — the largest layoff of female workers in Canadian history. They did it at three in the morning on a Sunday, even though they had a 77- to-2 majority in the Legislature at the time.

This is what we're talking about with this piece of legislation. [1450] All of that occurred — the parliamentary shenanigans, the taking away of people's rights, the undermining of health care institutions — after the Premier himself had promised, not in a broad statement but specifically, that it wouldn't happen. He had promised specifically that it wouldn't happen, and the members on that side of the House all stood and voted for it. It was wrong. We here today in the Legislature — and other members, I hope, will come and rise in this debate — have to note what happened.

As we implement the Supreme Court decision wh ich repudiated this gov- ernment's action, at least in part, we have to note that the continuing effect on the health care system of these changes is still being felt. Workers are not going to get those years back. Workers are not going to get those jobs back. They are going to get some compensation, and current workers are going to get some future bargaining rights. But the consequences of the mistakes made in 2002 are still profoundly felt today by workers across British Co- lumbia and, of course, by people who need health care across British Columbia.

This was a profound and unfortunate action by the government. Today, as an opposition that I can proudly say spoke out about this at the time, as an opposition that fought valiantly agains t this…. One of the argu- ments made by the government was that you could get 56 weeks of job security after working for one day. That's what they were claiming. It wasn't the case, but that's what they were claiming. Here's what the then Leader of the Opposition, Joy MacPhail, said: "It's a patent untruth that somebody gets 56 weeks of job security after working one day.

It's going to come back to haunt this government, perhaps in court — the absolute untruth of the repetition of that kind of statement." Well, it did haunt the government. Their actions were in part overturned by the court. Their contempt for the institutions here hasn't been overturned yet, but we have great hopes for May 12, 2009. There are other provisions of the Health Statutes Amendment Act which I would comment on.

The first i s c h a n g e s t h a t c o m e o u t o f w h a t ' s g o i n g o n a t t h e Medical Services Commission in British Columbia really since this government came to office — namely, that extra-billing cases are piling up. Government chose, of course, not to proclaim the changes in the Medicare Protection Amendment Act th at were put forward in 2003, and all over British Columbia we've seen case after case of extra-billing now being referred to the Medical Services Commission. One of those cases, the Copeman case, took years to come before the Medical Services Commission and get resolved.

In fact, the issues were raised not by me but by the ADM of the Ministry of Health, Craig Knight, in June 2005. There wasn't a decision in that case until 2007. Of course, we couldn't see the decision. Why was that? Because the legislation couldn't have imagined that a government would be, as this one has been, so encouraging of extra-billing. We've seen, in fact, that the Copeman case was the first extra-billing case of its kind. The previous cases before the Medical Services Commission dealt with disputes between the Medical Services Plan and doctors.

What we've seen since this government came to office is case after case of extra-billing that requires intervention. We believe — and that's why we put for- ward private member's legislation last fall, after the Copeman decision, that proposed to expand public access to Medical Services Commission decisions — it's a good thing that the public may have some access to that, given that we have a government that has consis- tently and repeatedly encouraged extra-billing in Brit- ish Columbia for medically necessary care. Clearly, it's problematic in the Copeman case.

It's why we would very much like to hear what the Medi- cal Services Commission had to say in the Copeman case. We think that a fee is being charged on medically necessary primary care in that case. It's not just the

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12195 Copeman case. There are cases that we've brought to the Medical Services Commission. [1455] Remember, this is how it works. The government — which has decided not to avail itself of the legisla- tive tools it needs to investigate such cases, which were brought in, in Bill 92 in 2003 — says that it will only investigate those cases in the case of complaint. Well, fortunately, there have been cases of complaint. People have come forward courageously and said to this government in some cases….

And it's a very difficult thing to do when you're waiting, for example, for surgery, as in, the case of Barbara Gosling of Williams Lake in 2006 when she comes forward and says: "It's wrong for me to go to my doctor's office and be given an ap- pointment in 2008 and have a sign on the door that you can see the same doctor in two weeks for 350 bucks." She thought that was wrong. Because of the way the law is structured now — and this was a law not intended, I have to say, to deal with this wave of extra-billing we've seen under this g o v e r n m e n t … .

N o w t h a t w e h a v e t h i s w a v e o f e x t r a - billing, we obviously need greater access to that process. So this legislation attempts to go some of the way. It's not as far as we'd like to see it go, and we'll be discussing that at committee stage. Some of the way to saying that maybe Barbara Gosling, when she brings su ch a case, when she has to do that…. She needs surgery, and she has to bring the case forward because her government won't do it on her behalf. She has to bring the case forward because the government won't do the audits needed to ensure that the Medicare Protection Act is upheld.

She does it — that she should have access to that information. We're going to support those changes. We believe that the approach we've taken that in extra-billing cases and in cases involving the fundamental principles of health care, there is a compelling public interest in every case in the disclosure of information…. But we will support this step, and we'll talk to the minister about how it will work at committee stage. Hon.

Speaker, I think you see together in these actions the privatization of care that led to Bill 29 and a deci- sion that the government — surely in retrospect, surely after the United Nations co ndemned them, surely after they lost at the Supreme Court — has acknowledged was a serious mistake. The growth of extra-billing for medically neces- sary care, which we've seen from this government since they came to office…. This legislation deals not with the successes of the government but the forced failures of the government to deal with these serious issues.

Bill 29, and what the government did to health care workers, was wrong. We on this side of the House said it was wrong at the time. It was a betrayal of the basic rights of workers in British Columbia. It was a betrayal of those rights. They said they wouldn't do it; they promised they wouldn't do it. They were warned it was illegal by the then Lead er of the Opposition. They proceeded to do it at three o'clock on a Sunday morn- ing, so anxious were they to target those workers and to take away their rights. The lives of those workers were changed in a way that they will never get back.

The lives of their children were changed. The quality of our health care was af- fected negatively. Our hospitals are dirtier as a result of it. The care provided in seniors homes is worse — all because a government decided it wanted to exert its power in a reckless and unacceptable way. So those courageous worker s fought back.

They took it all the way to the Supreme Court, and today a small victory — three provisions of that law, three sections of that law struck down and compensation that doesn't go anywhere near making up for the loss the community felt and the workers in ques tion felt, but an agreement that nonetheless recognizes the profound injustice that they faced. We on this side of the House, of course, support Bill 26. Of course we support Bill 26, a piece of legislation that the government was forced kicking and screaming, via the Supreme Court in Ottawa, to introduce. Of course we support it.

But it would be wrong not to recognize the damage done to our communities, the damage done in the largest layoff of female workers in Canadian history, the damage done to health care, the dam ag e done t o all of u s. W e m u st never fo rg et what happens when a government acts in such an outra- geous and reckless fashion. [1500] N. Macdonald: Like my colleague, I rise to speak about the Health Statutes Amendment Act, which is Bill 26. What Bill 26 does, in part, is repeal certain parts of 2002's infamous Bill 29. Bill 29 was an attack on health workers.

It was an attack on health care, an attack on friends and neighbours of ours, and it showed a complete disrespect for those w o rk er s . P e o p le t ha t ar e w a t ch i ng sh ou l d hav e n o i l lu - sions that the changes to that 2002 Bill 29 have anything to do with the B.C. Liberal government's sense of decency. There's nothing about trying to set things right with this bill. The B.C. Liberal government has been forced to do this because the Supreme Court of Canada has told them that parts of Bill 29 are not only immoral, but they are illegal.

How often is it that this Legislature passes legislation that is condemned by the Interna- tional Labour Organization of the UN? How often does that happen? It is condemned by other parts of the UN, other bodies of the UN, and the Supreme Court of Canada rules it illegal. How often does that happen? There is a typical lack of shame from this Premier and from the government. If the Premier could get away with not listening to the Supreme Court, he would. So there's nothing about this that has to do with any sense of decency. We need to remember some of the background, because the background is important.

In 2001, as the Premier was moving around the province, running to take over government, he went in front of health workers and told them to their faces that contracts would not be ripped up. He knew what the

12196 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 contracts were. He understood all the facts that he needed to understand, and he told them to their face: "You can trust me. We will not rip up your contracts." Well, we can see what happened. Not only was that word broken, but the actions were even illegal. That is the history. That is what is going on. That is the history of this government, and that is what Bill 26 is here to try to correct. As I said, it has everything to do with the Supreme Court of Canada forcing this government to do one tiny bit that's decent.

The Premier also told those workers that he had no privatization agenda. But what we have seen continu- ously is that whether it's health care or anything else, there is an attempt to sell off this province very often to people very closely connected to B.C. Liberals as either donors or B.C. Liberal insiders. That is the consistent pattern. Well, I think one of the strange things is that when you look at that 2001 New Era document, you cannot quote from it without a sense of irony. Everything that's talked about, whether it's — what? — the most open and accountable….

It's hard to sa y it with a straight face, because the things that were promised have turned out to be the complete opposite. It's Orwellian, but that is the reality. In terms of timing, the Premier was barely in the door of this Legislature, having taken control of the levers of power, and the commitments he had made were almost immediately broken. There is no sense that they were commitments that were genuinely given. One can have no sense that that was the case. Whether it's B.C. Rail — that promise not to sell B.C. Rail and the argument that a thousand-year lease is somehow not a sale….

Whether it's something like that or the promise not to have political hirings and then hire the past president of the B.C. Liberal Party…. I mean, there's a whole list of things. [1505] Amongst that list was the promise that they were not going to rip up contracts for health workers, and they step in here and do it. They do it in the most dra- conian way.

They have a majority — 77 to 2 — and t h e y s t i l l h a v e t o b e n d r ules and bend rules and use their majority to ram throug h legislation that the UN condemns, that the people of B.C. condemn and that the Supreme Court says is, at least in part, illegal. What were some of the im plications? I just want to remind people, too, that there are many in this House who were complicit in that. The Premier drove the agenda, but each member of the B.C. Liberals voted for it except for one. So the rest are complicit in that deci- sion. What's the impact?

You had a 15 percent wage cut for many of the workers that remained. You had 9,000 to 10,000 health workers let go. If people think there are no t implications up to this day, they're wrong. We are dealing with seniors con- cerns that are brought to us regularly. They almost always tie back to a lack of workforce. The very care aides that we so desperately need now were treated with complete contempt by this government. To be honest, it's a contempt. That attitude is still here with this government.

They think these jobs are wo rthy of contempt when we know that our friends and neighbours are doing jobs that deserve the highest respect. These are jobs that are difficult to do. They are jobs that are critically important, looking after many, including those that are dearest to us — our seniors, our mothers, our fa- thers, our grandparents. Ye t this government treats with contempt those people that look after them. It's unfathomable. So let's put one more thing, one more mark on this government's wall of shame, because with this firing, you had the largest mass firing of women workers in Canadian history.

That wall of shame is filled with other things. It's the same government that gave us the biggest annual debt in the history of B.C. That was this government. They gave us the most bungled project, the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project, in the history of B.C. We can tack that up there too. They gave us the most homeless and the highest child pov- erty in five years. All of those can get tacked right up there with Bill 29 and this mass firing.

Bill 29 was part of this government's privatization agenda, and that's an agenda that we know — we've seen it here in this Legislature this session — continues to this day. The government needs to misrepresent their intentions, as they did with care with these work- ers. They need to misreprese nt their intentions because they know there is no public support for their privati- zation agenda, especially on health care. People know that public health care is something that will serve people the best, so it has to be done in a way that escapes the scrutiny of the public.

Not only is treating heal th workers with contempt wrong, it's also poor public policy. These are people that seniors depend upon. Seniors' families depend upon them. They do what I feel is very important work. They do what any number of British Columbians would feel are very important jobs, which many of us would find a challenge to do — keeping a hospital clean, keeping seniors' homes clean, working with seniors often at a time when they are the most vulnerable, often at a time when they can be difficult as they've moved possibly into Alzheimer's. So what do we have?

We have the Supreme Court needing to force this government to do anything that can in any way be called decent in terms of their han- dling of health workers. [1510] In terms of those that have spoken against Bill 29, in terms of some of the organizations…. I've mentioned the Supreme Court, and of course, this is what has forced the government to do something correct. But you also had the International Labour Organization of the United Nations. It is not often that a body like the United Nations has to comment on legislation made in a province of Canada.

It is not often that they will condemn the actions of a government. It is not often that they will talk about a set of laws and say that they are contrary to international standards. It's not often that that

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12197 happens, but this B.C. Liberal government found a way of having legislation from this House, from this province, condemned by the United Nations and the International Labour Organization. You would have thought that that would give pause for thought. You woul d have thought that the idea of keeping promises you make would have given pause for thought, but it didn't. They had to wait until the Supreme Court of Canada forced them to do one little part to fix the damage that was done with Bill 29.

You also had the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. So you have another committee of the United Nations turning their attention to British Columbia and this Legislature, this government, and condem ning their actions as be- ing part of a series — Bill 29 was part of a series of laws — of actions from this go vernment that the United Nations felt were directed specifically against women. So you have that in play. It's hard to see how anyone could not reach that conclusion.

You're cutting people's pay, those that remain, by 15 percent, and that same Premier turns around and gives himself a 54 percent raise. Those are the standards. Somehow that is rationalized by this Premier. The privatization agenda is partially with Bill 29, but it included the closing of public seniors residential care facilities. It included the closing of rural hospital beds. So the attack on health care workers was part of a bigger program. The mismanaging of the public interest was there primarily to serve a very narrow corporate interest, and you see it.

You see the companies that donated, the companies that are connected to this government, which have benefited from these sorts of programs. You see Retirement Concepts and so on — there's a whole list of them — which have benefited from this, but you cannot say that was in any way in the public interest. Time and time again, this government chooses a very narrow corporate interest and puts that ahead of the wider public interest. You see it with the B.C. Rail giveaway, because it was a giveaway. You see it today with the B.C. energy plan giveaways.

You see it with the forestry and the collapse it has caused there. You see it with the convention centre expansion — all of those. Bill 29 was part of a pattern of privatization that has done incredible damage. As Bill 26 works in some way to repair a small part of that damage, it is something that, of course, you have to push and then work to cor- rect the rest of the damage that was done with Bill 29. So what do we have here? We have a history of broken promises. We see cont empt for health workers, we see failed care for seniors, and we again see a history of sloppy management.

I know that all the colleagues here, the NDP, want an opportunity to speak on this. I'm going to pass over now to one of my colleagues. I'll finish with just mentioning the pride that N D P e r s f e e l i n t h e t w o M L A s t h a t w e h a d h e r e b e - tween 2001 and 2005 and the pride that we had in their fight to try to stop this. I think people need to know that an NDP government believes in respecting those that do important work like th is. With that, I turn over to my colleague. Thank you for the opportunity. [1515] R.

Chouhan: Given that I am in the middle of my budget estimates debate, my remarks are going to be quite short. But I must say that it's a great day. It's a great day for me to stand up and tell this government and the members on that side how wrong they were in passing Bill 29. That was the largest mass firing of health care workers in the history of Canada. It was a complete destruction of our health care system.

It was a sad day when Bill 29 was passed and the workers who had worked in the system for years and years and years were told that they didn't mean any- thing, that their contribution was not recognized and that from that day on, they sh ould just leave as if they had never existed. It was a shameful day. It was a sad day. In November of 2000 the Premier met with the newspaper of the Hospital Employees Union, called The Guardian .

When he met with the editors of our newspaper The Guardian, the conversation between the Premier — he was the opposition leader at that time — and the HEU members was very candid, open and blunt. One of the editors of The Guardian who inter- viewed the Premier at that time asked this question — and I'm going to read: "Monitoring the pulse of HEU members, their sense of a Gordon Campbell govern- ment would be the privatization of health care service and their jobs." The Premier — at that time the opposition leader — answered: "I don't think they have to worry about it. Their sense should be that I and the B.C.

Liberals recog- nize the importance of HEU workers to the public health care system. They are front-line workers who are neces- sary. You can't talk to anyone in the health care system who does not recognize that, and I want HEU workers, like other workers in the public health care system or in the public service, to recognize their value, and we will value them." Madam Speaker, I think I can't use the "l" word in this House. It's unparliamentary, and I won't use it. But I must say that what the Premier at that time told the editors of The Guardian…. He did not tell the truth. He totally misrepresented himself.

Then the next question was asked. A 48-year-old housekeeper who has finally, after decades of struggle, come up to the average wage in B.C. — does she have anything to worry about in terms of privatization from his government? The Premier, the opposition leader at that time, said: "I say no. What she's going to find is that people in British Columbia and the government are recognizing the value of the work she does.

More importantly, she's going to find the quality of work she's able to do is more rewarding and fulfilling." Deputy Speaker: Member, after consultation with the Clerk, I think that to say something that skirts the edge of being unparliamentary…. You need to be very careful, and to say something in another way is

12198 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 actually being unparliamentary. So I think I'd like to remind you of that. [1520] R. Chouhan: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will keep that in mind. The next question was asked, and I want to make sure that it's on the record: "One of the things that's novel about health reform in B.C. has been the employ- ment security agreement, or the health labour accord. In the past you have said you would rip it up. What's your position today?" He answered: "First of all, I don't believe in ripping up agreements." Another joke.

"I wasn't happy with the health labour accord, and I said that quite clearly in 1995. Having said that, I think the question today is how you maintain the quality and the talent of the people who are in this system. I have never said I would tear up agreements. I said I disagreed with the HLA, and I did. That's just the way it was. I'm not tearing up any agreements." After that interview, when Bill 29 was introduced and passed, who would believe what this Premier and this government had done to the health care workers?

I have been asked in the past many times to run for political office, and I've been a member of the NDP since 1975. Every time I was approached, I said no. But after what this Premier and this government shame- lessly did to the HEU members, I said, "Yes, I will run," so that I could come to this House and tell this gov- ernment how wrong they were. The end result of that heinous act on the part of this government was that more than 8,000 members lost their jobs. Many of them were women.

These women who worked in the health care system for years and years finally reached the top of their wage scale, approximately $18 an hour. With a stroke of the pen, this government took away all that service they had and all the hard work they did and rendered them meaningless. Their ser- vices were privatized. As a result, those who are able to get back to the health care system were working at $10 an hour. Many of these women, who I personally met with, were single mothers raising children. In one case, one woman had two children who were just graduating at that time.

One of them was going to go to university. As a result, she could not afford to help her children go to university. Not only that , she had to sell her house and what she had. As a result of that, that child has not been able to go to university since then. She was forced to work somewhere at minimum wage so that she could help her mother. That's just one story. There are hundreds and hun- dreds and thousands of those stories that I could talk about here today. At that time 77 members of this gov- ernment were sitting on the government benches. Each one of them stood to support Bill 29 — shamelessly.

One of them even called the members of the Hospital Employees Union nothing but toilet bowl cleaners. It was very insulting. It was very hurting. It was so hurt- ful that when some of the members confronted him, he was not able to answer that. [1525] The work of hospital employees in housekeeping and food services is so impo rtant to make sure that for patients who go to hospitals and seniors who go to long-term care facilities, their health is taken care of — to make sure that they get the service they need. What we have seen since the privatization of health care services — namely, the housekeeping….

When you visit these hospitals, you will still, after that many years, find a urine smell coming from the hallways and bloodstains in the elevators, because the workers who were qualified, skilled and experienced were let go. Instead, the private company hired a smaller number of employees, and they were forced to do more work. As a result, we have dirty hospitals, and we have fewer services for patients and seniors. The members of the Hospital Employees Union are not only working in the housekeeping and food ser- vices. There are more than 66 different classifications.

They do every important work in a hospital or in a long-term care facility, but this government had no regard for what they do and what they did. I think the best thing this government can do is all stand up and say, "We are sorry," and apologize. I expect the Premier to stand up himself and say sorry and apologize. That's the only way you can send a positive message to those health care workers whose jobs were taken away, whose lives were destroyed. That collective agreement that was ripped apart…. I must tell you that at that time, 92 percent of the employers ratified it.

It wasn't that the employers were not agreeing with it. It was a freely negotiated collective agreement. The HEABC and the employers' representatives on that bargaining committee recommended acceptance. Some 92 percent of all employers across B.C. accepted it, but this government was so determined to teach a lesson to the Hospital Employees Union because they didn't like their politics, and they punished their membership. That's the sole purpose of this Bill 29.

For all these workers who are now working in the health care in- dustry at the rate of $10 to $12 an hour, it has become very difficult for them to make a living, given that the rates for B.C. Hydro, transit fares, gasoline and natural gas are all going up. How on earth can any reasonable person expect them to make a living? As a result, many of these employees are working two or three different jobs at $10, $11 or $12 an hour to make sure they have enough for their children.

The consequence is that when parents are so busy doing multiple jobs, staying away from their children, the children are not having that contact with their parents and feel neglected. I know at least five families whose children ended up in the wrong place because of that. They're having a hard time. They're going through counselling and all sorts of different measures. They want to make sure that their children do not end up in the wrong company. [1530]

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12199 The impact of this Bill 29 on the workers' lives is so negative. Even though we can pass Bill 26 and we can have somebody working in the health care industry, they are so negatively affected that they cannot get back to where they were before. The private operators, as a result of Bill 29 — and I know that, because I met with them…. I negotiated some of these collective ag reements with them. Their main concern is the bottom line. They are not con- cerned about the well-being of their employees or the patients or the seniors. [K.

Whittred in the chair.] Then the day came, June 8, 2007, when the Supreme Court agreed with the health care workers and told the government that the government was wrong. That was the happiest day for me and thousands and thousands of health care workers. Because I don't have much time, I'll just read one quote from that decision. The judges in that decision said: "We conclude that the protection of collective bargaining under

section 2(

d) of the Charter is consis- tent with and supportive of the values underlying the Charter and the purpose of the Charter as a whole. Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaf- firms the value of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter." Madam Speaker, you can' t find a clearer message than that — that what this government did was wrong. They were absolutely wrong by taking away the right to collective bargaining from those health care workers.

Given that I have to go back to the other House now, I would say in conclusion that if this government has any shame left, they should apologize. They must apologize and make sure not only that certain provisions of Bill 29…. They should withdraw the whole Bill 29. That's the only way they will be able to talk to those health care workers and tell them that they mean business. C.

Puchmayr: I rise in support of this bill, Bill 26, certainly because it does correct to some degree some- thing that took place in this chamber — something that had such an incredibly severe impact on people in Brit- ish Columbia, on women workers, new citizens and new immigrants in British Columbia. It's something that happened in this House — a bill that was brought in, Bill 29, in the wee hours of Sunday morning at three o'clock — when there was a massive discrepancy between the government and the opposition. We had two members in opposition, and the government had 77 members.

They brought in a bill that was illegal, that broke the laws of Canada and that violated the constitution of Canada. It did so in such a way that it even drew comments from the International Labour Organization, which is located in Geneva. [1535] This is legislation that was wrong. It took away people's rights to bargain freely. It took an order of this Legislature to violate something that I think is near and dear to all Canadians and all people that live in democratic societies. I think the standard of living that we enjoy today in this country is certainly….

Part of that is because people can collectively sit down with their employers in an association and come to a conclu- sion or an agreement on what is a fair distribution of that wage or that wealth. Wi th that, they can continue on to participate in the community and be a sustaining force in that community. When you take legislation such as this and literally rip the economic heart out of families, not only do the families suffer directly or the children or the community or the sports teams that so me of these family members are involved in and volunteering….

It has such a sig- nificant impact on the community as well. You know, you take jobs at around the average of $18 an hour, which isn't a really high wage for someone that does such valuable and important work in our hospitals and in our health care systems…. You take those jobs, and first of all you terminate the people or have the ability to terminate them all. You've taken away the Labour Code provisions of successorship rights, so they can't assert that they still have the right to that job even though there's an imposed collective agreement or an imposed wage with- out a collective agreement.

You've taken a huge earning capacity out of that community. People had to leave their communities be- cause of that. People could no longer afford to live in their communities, and people who ran small businesses in those communities were certainly affected as well. Some of the wage cuts were between…. Well, the wage cuts were between 15 and 42 percent. You can imagine the buying power when you lose 42 percent of your income.

Even if you were able to retain that job at a 42 percent loss of income, that's going to make some significant economic changes on how you spend in your community, how you sustain your community. How your community is affected is certainly a contributor to this type of wage reduction. The ILO has certainly spoken out, and it's not the first time it's spoken out. That same government, the Liberal government that imposed Bill 29, also imposed Bills 2, 15, 18, 27 and 28 as well.

These bills affected more than 150,000 workers in health, education, com- munity and social sectors, and imposed contracts on teachers, health science professionals and nurses. In some cases the government has merely ripped up the contracts, which again violates practices that are welcome in democracies all over the world. If you look at those democracies that enjoy the right to association, the free right to association, you'll see that those coun- tries have a higher standard of living than a country that does not permit the right to association.

I've heard comments from the Transportation Min- ister, I think, when someone was concerned that organ- ized labour wasn't involved in some of the decisions on transportation initiatives. He bellowed out: "Thank God." That's the kind of attitude that some of the mem- bers on the other side would like to espouse when it comes to issues such as freedom of association.

12200 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 There are many types of associat

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0508pm-09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0508pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c3cc239482a562d34de32e2a40d61fc6fd9f0323

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