2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Wildfire Act (Bill 91)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Timber Licences Settlement Act (Bill

96)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Municipalities Enabling and

Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 97)

Hon. T.

Nebbeling

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Trade with Asia

P. Wong

B.C. export industry

K. Johnston

Community safety

Mayencourt

Oral Questions

Privatization of B.C. Rail

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

J. Kwan

B.C. Rail privatization bid process

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. Reid

Funding of teachers contract

R. Visser

Hon. C.

Clark

Student spaces in post-secondary

institutions

B. Locke

Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents

Employment and assistance appeal

tribunal, annual report, 2002-03

Second Reading of Bills

Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act

(Bill Pr410)

B. Penner

Committee of the Whole House

Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act

(Bill Pr410)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act

(Bill Pr410)

Committee of the Whole House

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 93)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Collins

Reporting of Bills

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 93)

Third Reading of Bills

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment

Act, 2003 (Bill 93)

Second Reading of Bills

Health Sector Partnerships Agreement

Act (Bill 94)

Hon. G.

Bruce

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Bruce

Railway and Ferries Bargaining

Assistance Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 95)

Hon. G.

Bruce

Committee of the Whole House

Significant Projects Streamlining Act

(Bill 75) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. K.

Falcon

K. Stewart

B. Penner

[ Page 8123 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what you were doing this weekend — I

didn't see you with me there — but I must tell you that New Democrats around

this province had a wonderful weekend, a very exciting weekend, with an exciting

conclusion to a great leadership race.

It gives me

great pleasure and incredible honour to introduce to all of us in this

Legislature our new NDP leader and certainly the next Premier of the province, I

expect — not a great way to get applause in this House, I know, Mr. Speaker.

Nevertheless, we're talking beyond these walls. Would the House please welcome

Carole James, the new NDP leader.

Visser: I would also like to take a moment and introduce the leader of my

household for the first time today. My wife Caroline is here with our daughter,

Charlotte — the actual real leader in our household.

Interjection.

[1405]

Visser: I get voted down every time. Would the House please take a moment to

make them welcome.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'd like to introduce some representatives of Maple Ridge school

board who have joined us today. The chairperson, Cheryl Ashlie; vice-chair,

Chris Luke; and the superintendent, Mike Suddaby, are in the gallery today. I

hope the House will make them welcome.

S. Orr:

I also want to stand today and give my congratulations to Carole James, who I

consider a friend. I want to congratulate her and wish her well in her new

venture. I always felt maybe she should have considered a different party, but

there you go.

Hon. L.

Reid: We have some lovely souls visiting with us today. First, we have

individuals who represent their family interests here in Gordon Head, Victoria.

Mr. and Mrs. Gregson are with us. Their daughter Joan Gregson Litke is visiting

from Milton, Ontario. I'd also like to welcome our transition manager for

aboriginal services for northern British Columbia, Mr. Allen Cummings. I would

ask the House to make these guests very, very welcome.

Stewart: In the gallery or at least in the House or somewhere in the

building with us today, we have a Russian delegation here on a Rotary exchange

led by David Rempel from Maple Ridge, the coordinator of the visit: Vladimir

Molodin, Valerly Gruk, Boris Aronov, Sergey Pigarev, Vladimir Romanuk, Tatiana

Kopylova, Konstantin Jeleznov and Galina Joulidova. I'm not sure of the two who

are driving them today, Liz Artimigirian or Laurie Anderson, but that's the

group. I wish the House would make them welcome here.

Hunter: In the gallery today are 13 grade 11 ESL students from Malaspina

International High School in Nanaimo. They're here with their instructor Mr.

David Butler, and I'd like you to help me welcome them here today.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I think they're probably still recovering from a rather incredible

summer, but we're fortunate today to have in the gallery seven of our finest:

two members of the forests protection branch and five of our direct front-line

firefighters. I'd like to introduce them. Peter Fuglem is the director of the

forests protection branch, and Glenn Poffenroth is a forest protection officer.

Our firefighters today are easily identifiable in the gallery: Ms. Toni Large,

Harley Machielse, Brent Butler, Derek Neuwirth and John Swift. They are here, in

part, to again accept our thanks for a job well done — wherever they were

needed, that's where they were this past summer — and also to anticipate the

tabling of a piece of legislation with which they have more than a passing

interest. Would the House make them all welcome.

Krueger: Mr. Speaker, we have, as you know, three very special guests from

Kamloops with us today, representatives of the B.C. Wildlife Park — that

wonderful wildlife park we're so proud of, with its conservation programs,

burrowing owls and all sorts of achievements, recently named the B.C. Wildlife

Park with its emphasis on our own wildlife. I would like the House, on behalf of

the Speaker and myself, to please make welcome Mary Ann Milobar, Rob Purdy and

Ira "Zeke" Withler.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, we are honoured by the presence of several

Legislative Assembly employees who are with us in the gallery this afternoon. I

would ask all members to extend a special welcome to Joan Barton, director of

the legislative library, who will be retiring in January 2004 after 35 years of

public service. Maureen Lawson, manager of the reference division in the

library, has also made plans to retire early next year. Pamela Welch, tour

coordinator, has completed 25 years of public service. Three other employees

will have carried out plans to retire before the 2004 spring session commences:

Cliff Ruttan, supply supervisor with the Sergeant-at-Arms; Maria Pivetta, a

server in the legislative dining room; and Greg Whincup, acting multimedia

services manager, Hansard Services. Greg's wife, Sheila, is with him in the

gallery today.

[1410]

Please join

me in thanking these employees for their loyalty and dedication to serving staff

and Members of the Legislative Assembly and in wishing those planning to retire

many happy years ahead.

[ Page 8124 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

WILDFIRE ACT

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Wildfire Act.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 91 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm honoured to rise and introduce Bill 91, the Wildfire Act, to

the chamber today. This legislation incorporates existing provisions of the

Forest Practices Code of British Columbia into a separate act to comprehensively

address wildfire-related issues in B.C.

The key

objective of the act is to clarify specific responsibilities and obligations of

not just forest licensees but all users of the forests with respect to fire use,

prevention, control activities and rehabilitation. The bill responds to an

earlier recommendation from the auditor general's report Managing Interface

Fire Risks to establish, in legislation, firefighting priorities for the

protection of life, property and natural resources.

In light of

the devastating events of the past summer, Bill 91 will not be debated and voted

upon this session. I'm introducing the Wildfire Act now so that members can

review the legislative framework, and any relevant recommendations from Mr.

Filmon's fire review can be considered when this bill is reintroduced and

debated in the spring session.

I move that

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

after today.

Bill 91

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

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

TIMBER LICENCES SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Timber Licences Settlement Act.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 96 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today Bill 96, the Timber Licences

Settlement Act. This bill refers to a 1995 amendment to the Forest Act, which

removed the royalty method of timber pricing, and clarifies one aspect of that

legislative amendment. In 1995 the previous administration phased out royalty

rates that were established in legislation for timber licences. The amendment

was made after a detailed consultative process conducted by Mr. Brian Scarfe.

Under the royalty system, certain forest companies were paying significantly

less to the Crown to harvest timber on their timber licences than other

companies who were assessed stumpage on their forest and tree farm licences.

The intent

of the '95 Forest Act amendment was to end a historical anomaly. It was not the

intent to pay compensation to companies that had benefited from artificially low

rates. With Bill 96 we are making it clear — for all purposes, including any

present or future litigation — that companies will not be compensated for the

loss of benefits from a historical anomaly that disappeared with the phasing-out

of the royalty regime.

Hon.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 96

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

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

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING (No. 3) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. T.

Nebbeling presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003.

[1415]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I move the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Five years ago the district of North Vancouver and Canlan

Investment Corp. reached a deal to build and operate a new arena. The agreement,

however, contained a technical error that until recently wasn't discovered. The

district has realized the error and has since corrected it. The district has now

followed the right process, including involving the electors. The agreement now

fully complies with the Local Government Act, and as a result, through this

legislation we are providing legal certainty for the period before the

procedural error was corrected.

I move that

the Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amendment Act, 2003, be

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

House.

Bill 97

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

TRADE WITH ASIA

P. Wong:

I am pleased to report to the House that the Premier's trade mission to Asia was

a remarkable

[ Page 8125 ]

success. I participated in the trade mission with several of my colleagues

earlier this month. The Premier has shown great leadership and commitment to the

people of B.C. to help our businesses gain overseas market shares in both India

and China — the most populous countries in the world.

Shanghai, China, the Premier was on hand for the signing ceremony to build model

homes to display and showcase our building products. China is B.C.'s

third-largest export market, currently worth over $1 billion each year to our

economy. We have a remarkable technology base and valuable resources eagerly

needed in China as well as many other countries. China has many needs in areas

such as technology, education, software, management and professional training

programs. These are the markets where we can help them.

B.C. has

many distinct advantages in continuing to develop our close economic ties with

China. Geographically, B.C. is the closest province to Asia and has one of the

largest populations of Asian immigrants and descendants in North America. Now is

a critical time to promote our province overseas and to attract more capital and

investment to B.C. This will help us to sustain the momentum of our economic

growth and provide more job opportunities for all British Columbians.

I am proud

of the Premier's vision for leading the province into a stronger relationship

with China. Our trading relationship with China puts a lot of food on the tables

of many families across our province, and I urge all British Columbians to work

together in a concerted effort to further develop this important trading market.

B.C. EXPORT INDUSTRY

Johnston: Last week I had the opportunity to attend the 2003 B.C. Export

Awards in Vancouver. The export awards are presented every fall by the British

Columbia government in partnership with the Canadian Manufacturers and

Exporters. The awards recognize the success of British Columbia's top exporting

companies and their contribution to our economy. The exporting industry is

responsible for more than 20 percent of the province's GDP and one in five jobs.

More than $38 billion was injected into our economy last year.

I was taken

by the youthfulness, the energy and the talent that make up the companies in the

British Columbia export sector. Most of us recognize that forestry, mining and

tourism have been and will continue to be the backbone of our economic body, but

I was surprised by what we export to the world. The finalists included exporters

of software, log homes, fireplace inserts, salmon pepperoni, Punjabi dairy

products, video games, alarm systems, baby cribs and airline components.

[1420]

With our

highly educated workforce and an environment created by tax relief, reduced red

tape and improved labour conditions, investment in the exports sector will

prosper. Exporters spend a great part of their life on the road finding

customers for their products. They understand the importance of reaching out and

developing relationships with other countries. They told me how much they

appreciated the efforts of the Premier in his recent outreach to the United

States, China and India and of the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise in his mission to Korea and Taiwan. The Premier and the minister have

opened the door to the world a little wider for British Columbia business.

I believe

that all the companies nominated for B.C. Export Awards are winners, but I would

like to acknowledge FPI Fireplace Products of Delta for being named exporter of

the year and Dr. Julia Levy from QLT, recipient of the leadership award, for

being a trail-blazer in the biotechnology sector. Because of the commitment of

our exporters, the future looks bright for British Columbia.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mayencourt: Today I want to speak about something that's very near and dear

to my heart — I've spoken about it in previous sessions here — and that's

community safety. Community safety starts in our homes. It's something that

cannot be achieved without the involvement of every member of our community, and

it is important that we work together to make our communities safe — safe for

our children, safe for seniors, safe for every one of us.

I think one

of the best ways of promoting community safety is by involving my community in

the discussion about how to get there. As chair of the safe schools task force,

I had the opportunity to hear from people across this province — teachers,

students, parents — all talking about the issues of bullying, harassment and

intimidation. Children were able to share their stories of what it was like to

be bullied and how they would like us to deal with it. This safe schools task

force will be meeting in Surrey again next week at a forum.

As well as

that, I put out a proposal recently to create a school community safety zone

around Lord Roberts Elementary and Lord Roberts Annex. Recently I met with the

parent advisory committees in those schools, where they endorsed the idea in

principle. The safety zone would mean increased police patrols in the area of

the school and stiffer penalties for people who break the law in that area.

I think the

best way we can address the needs of safety in my community and others is to

host public consultations. I've been doing that over the past year, and I will

be doing that again in January so that we can create a safer community. It's my

sincere hope that through these meetings we'll find long-term solutions to the

community's safety concerns. We can all work together to make our communities

safer. Our new-era commitment was to create safer communities across British

Columbia, and together with the people who live and work in those same

communities, we'll make a difference.

[ Page 8126 ]

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL

MacPhail: On Friday the Minister of Transportation said that any deal to

privatize B.C. Rail to CN needed to be better than the status quo. However, in

confidential progress reports by the government's own advisers, they say the

deal is a dog. Those advisers warn of huge layoffs and severe economic impacts

if the B.C. Liberals go ahead and break their promise to the people of the

north. When will the minister and her government finally listen to these

warnings and back off the B.C. Rail sell-off?

Hon. J.

Reid: We have talked to people — the communities, the shippers — and

promised them that we would be looking at their concerns in making an

improvement to the service, an improvement to the economy across the north. We

prepared documents so that we could understand those concerns so that we could

act on them.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: The Finance minister keeps saying, "Wait for it; wait for

it," and of course everybody knows the rumours about the legislation that's

coming into this House. But not only do the government's own advisers say the

B.C. Rail deal is bad, they also say the worst possible deal the government

could make is with CN. So unless they're bringing in legislation to prevent

that, everything is a problem. According to the government's own report, over

900 jobs will disappear in communities already suffering as a result of the B.C.

Liberals' failing economic agenda. Again to the minister: despite what the

Minister of Finance predicts, why is she selling B.C. Rail to CN and selling out

communities, when she was told it's the worst deal for communities?

[1425]

Hon. J.

Reid: The member seems to confuse the gathering of information so that

actions can be taken with the end result. The purpose of gathering information

is so that one can act on it. There is a lot of process that has gone on in

listening to communities, in listening to shippers, to make sure that those

communities are well served.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Every day this minister stands up and says, "Oh, now what

we're doing is this, and why should anybody be worried?" — as document

after document leaks and says how badly this government is handling the file and

why it shouldn't be privatized at all. And of course, the reason why…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …she says for people not to worry is because it's a secret deal

behind closed doors, where the community has been shut out completely.

Not only is

the deal with CN bad for jobs in communities, but the government's own advisers

say it's the worst deal for B.C. Rail's customers — giving it to CN. Why do

they say that? Because it lessens competition and gives CN excessive power in

the marketplace. That means less service…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …and higher costs for B.C. businesses who now depend on B.C.

Rail to move their product to market.

Can the

minister explain why she is selling B.C. Rail to CN when she's been warned over

and over and over again that the deal will reduce competition, raise prices and

further damage our economy? No legislation can make up for that.

Hon. J.

Reid: The document that the member, I believe, is referring to was done this

past September, before the detailed proposals were received from the three

proponents.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: The purpose of gathering that information was to allow government to

go through the evaluation process and understand what the concerns were that we

then had to work with, evaluate and address.

This has

been a process, as we guaranteed from the beginning, that would involve the

communities, that would involve the shippers, to produce the result that would

produce a beneficial and growing economy for the north and, in fact, the entire

province.

J. Kwan:

News flash for the minister. British Columbians have sent her a message around

the selling of B.C. Rail; 32,000 people across British Columbia said:

"Don't sell."

The

government's own analysis that was done says CN would abandon 250 kilometres of

B.C. Rail line, adding some 850 miles to the journey on CN's tracks and driving

up costs by 68 percent. The deal makes the Coquihalla sell-off look like a

stroke of genius.

The deal to

privatize B.C. Rail also provides no protection to shippers if CN decides to

discontinue service on the rail line. According to the warning provided to the

government, taxpayers will be stuck with the bill if the rail line needs to be

restored.

[ Page 8127 ]

To the

minister: can the minister explain…

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…why she's proceeding with the deal…?

Mr.

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

J. Kwan:

Can the minister explain why she's proceeding with a deal that provides no

protection to the taxpayers or the people who depend on CN Rail to do business?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: The Minister of Transportation has the floor.

[1430]

Hon. J.

Reid: The concerns that are being raised here are the ones that we were

looking for to understand what the concerns were that would have to be dealt

with. Indeed, the concern around the Canada Transportation Act is one that we

recognized would have to be dealt with. In whatever agreement we eventually make

with B.C. Rail, that will have to be dealt with in that agreement. That was the

purpose of getting this study done.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

Everybody knows that the deal is done. Maybe this minister doesn't know, but the

Premier's office certainly knows. Answers like that are only getting this

minister into more trouble. Bad spin doesn't make the deal any better, minister.

Every day more information is uncovered, which shows that British Columbians…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

J. Kwan:

…are being sold a bill of goods, and every day — every day — the minister

has something new to say. Will the minister just admit that this deal is a

broken promise…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

J. Kwan:

…that is bad for the taxpayers, bad for the communities, bad for the shippers,

bad for the jobs and bad for the economy?

Hon. J.

Reid: I appreciate the acknowledgment that I have been answering the

questions…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: …and providing new information every day.

B.C. Rail

and the rail network in this province have wonderful opportunities….

Interjections.

Mr.

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

Hon. J.

Reid: The rail transportation network in this province has wonderful

opportunities. It has been hampered by the debt load. It has been hampered by

the inability of the province to put more money into a rail system. We've been

looking for an operating partner that will invest in British Columbia, and that

will be good news.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION

BID PROCESS

Nettleton: To the Minister of Transportation: the CIBC market research

favoured CN in a biased report, even though CN poses the greatest risk of job

losses, has the highest potential for line closures and is reported to be in bed

with government in a sweetheart pension fund and benefits deal that outstrips

the other bidders. Hanging over all of this is the inquiry into wrongdoing, with

the impending December 15 decision by the fairness consultant. Omnitrax, the

sole remaining bidder, may be merely waiting in the wings to possibly become a

winning bidder by default if these numerous scandals eventually overwhelm the

bidding process, which could result in a quick shift to favour them.

question, then, is to the Minister of Transportation. Due to this botched and

discredited bidding process, is the minister now prepared to suspend the bidding

process rather than continue to force a questionable and contentious result upon

B.C. Rail and the people of British Columbia? I would remind the minister, in

considering her response, to remember Coquihalla.

Hon. J.

Reid: I appreciate the member's interest, as indeed many people across this

province have had a great interest, because we want to see the people and the

communities and the industries of this province well served. The process we have

engaged in, I believe, has been very thorough, has been full of consultation,

has been careful, has been considerate and, above all, has been fair. The

fairness adviser is doing a report in two stages, and the first stage…

Interjections.

[ Page 8128 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: …indeed said the process to date had been fair. The second process

of that…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Reid: …I'm sure, will show again that the process has been careful, has

been well administered and has also been fair.

FUNDING OF TEACHERS CONTRACT

Visser: My question is a public written question from Scott Doherty, the

first vice-president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local

1123, to the Minister of Education regarding the minister's responsibility for

education. Why did this government impose a contract settlement on the teachers

of British Columbia and then download the funding of their raises to the

individual school boards?

[1435]

Hon. C.

Clark: The approximate cost of the contract over its life is $338 million.

Our government funded about the first half of the settlement. Since then we've

provided $42 million to school districts in unconditional grants and another $50

million to school districts in unconditional grants in '02-03. Those are both

education dividends that come as a result of our government's good management of

money. It means that we get a dividend at the end of the year because people who

finance our debt look kindly on our management.

We hope

that we will also have an education dividend next year. In addition to that, the

Premier has already announced that $100 million will be flowing to public

schools and the school education budget over the next two years in the face of

declining enrolment of over 15,000 students over the last five years.

STUDENT SPACES IN

POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

Locke: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. For the last 13

years Maclean's magazine has rated universities across the country, with

the most recent review indicating that British Columbia has one of the lowest

numbers of university seats per capita across Canada.

As the

Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I

heard a number of presentations from concerned students and educators, worried

that B.C. will not be able to meet the growing demand for post-secondary

education. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell this House what is being

done to ensure that students will be able to access the post-secondary education

they need?

Hon. S.

Bond: I think it's also important to point out that in the Maclean's

survey this year, we would want to say thank you to the institutions in this

province who do an outstanding job. Three of the universities that we have were

ranked in the top five in their categories in the country. That is absolutely

excellent. I want to point out that the University of Northern British Columbia,

although not ranked in the top five, did move up one ranking and has an

exceptional ranking in this country.

More

importantly than that, the Maclean's survey does not include in its

statistics the number of seats that are included in this province in colleges

and institutes. When you look at the whole picture across the country, British

Columbia's numbers actually rank above the Canadian average in terms of the

seats per capita. We think the work that colleges and institutes in this

province are doing is also excellent and must be considered when we look at the

total number of seats.

Let's look

at the facts. Since 2001 this government has added almost 6,000 seats to the

post-secondary education sector, and from our perspective we will continue to be

aggressive in working with institutions to add seats across all of the

institutions in the province.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M.

Coell: I rise to present the 2002-03 annual report for the employment and

assistance appeal tribunal of the province of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Bill Pr410.

[1440]

Second Reading of Bills

CANADIAN PENTECOSTAL SEMINARY ACT

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

Bill Pr410

does a number of things, but primarily and in essence it changes the name of the

Canadian Pentecostal Seminary (West) to the Canadian Pentecostal Seminary. There

are a number of other provisions to make sure that the organization continues to

operate during this transition. At this point I'll wait to see what direction,

if any, members of this House have on this bill.

Motion

approved.

Penner: For a moment I thought maybe debate was about to break out. I was

hoping to hear from the Minister of Forests.

I move that

the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered

forthwith.

[ Page 8129 ]

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr410,

Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

CANADIAN PENTECOSTAL SEMINARY ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr410; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1

to 15 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Penner: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Penner: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr410,

Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate for Bill 93.

Committee of the Whole House

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 93; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:44 p.m.

MacPhail: At second reading the opposition voted against this legislation,

Bill 93, the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003. We still have

concerns and will reflect those concerns by voting against the bill at third

reading. However, I must say that with the incredibly important legislation

that's still on the agenda and that needs to be debated, and with the government

going to be introducing major legislation tomorrow — two days before the end

of session — we are not going to be afforded the time to debate this

legislation at committee stage. Our energies must be allocated in other areas,

given the legislative agenda that's before us now and about to come.

[1445]

Sections 1

to 11 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 12 in the hands of the Table.

[SECTION 12, by deleting paragraph (

a) and substituting the

following:

(

a) in subsections (1) (

a) and (2) by striking out "motor",

(a.1) in subsection (1) (

c) by striking out "motor vehicle liability

policy" and substituting "third party liability insurance

coverage", and .]

Amendment

approved.

Section 12

as amended approved.

Sections 13

to 36 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name in the hands of the Table.

[SECTION 37, by deleting paragraph (

f) and substituting the

following:

(

f) by repealing subsection (2) (g), .]

Amendment

approved.

Section 37

as amended approved.

Sections 38

to 40 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 41 standing in my name in the hands

of the Table.

[SECTION 41, in the proposed

section 94 (2) by adding the

following paragraph:

(b.1) defining for the purposes of the regulations under this Act words or

expressions not defined in this Act; .]

Amendment

approved.

Section 41

as amended approved.

Sections 42

to 85 inclusive approved.

On the

schedule.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to the

schedule standing in my name with the

Table.

[SCHEDULE, by adding "1 [in the definition of "universal

compulsory automobile insurance"] in the right hand

[ Page 8130 ]

column opposite "Insurance Corporation Act" in the

left hand column.]

Amendment

approved.

Schedule

as amended approved.

Title

approved.

Hon.

G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:47 p.m.

The

House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill

93, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with

amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon.

G. Collins: By leave, now.

Leave

granted.

[1450-1455]

Third

reading of Bill 93 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 64

Coell

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Nettleton

Wilson

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

Falcon

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 93,

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 94.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

HEALTH SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS

AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 94 be now read a second time.

This

government has committed to putting patients first in our health care system,

but as we all know, we can only sustain a high-quality health care system if we

operate within our means. Last year this government brought in the Health and

Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. A key goal of that legislation was to

give health employers the flexibility they needed to ensure the most efficient

use of public dollars in the delivery of non-clinical services. By achieving

greater efficiency in non-clinical services, we are able to free up more dollars

to improve patient care and to make sure people get the health care they need

when they need it.

We are

continuing towards our goal to putting patients first. What Bill 94, the Health

Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, does is create opportunities for government

and health authorities to partner with the private sector in adding capacity to

the health care system. It means that public-private partners who provide

non-clinical services in the health care system will be able to operate on a

level playing field with other health employers.

This will

be good news for the people in the Fraser Valley. Their existing hospital was

built in 1953 and saw its last renovation in 1980. Fraser Valley residents have

heard talk of a replacement hospital as far back as 1986. Over those 17 years,

they've been promised a new facility many times — in fact, at one time, with

even a sod-turning. Millions of dollars have been spent on planning, but without

an operating budget, the construction on this much-needed hospital never began.

[1500]

That is why

we're bringing in a different model for the new Abbotsford hospital and cancer

centre. With Bill 94, this project can proceed. This legislation permits a

public-private partner to contract out non-clinical services if that

public-private partner makes a capital investment in health care by building a

new health facility or upgrading an existing one and negotiates an agreement to

provide those non-clinical services in that specific facility. This is the same

process that health

[ Page 8131 ]

authorities have in place now and continues this government's mandate to put

patients first.

In the case

of the Abbotsford hospital, non-clinical services provided by the private

partner to manage the facility will include housekeeping, food preparation and

delivery, laundry, security and landscaping. I'd like to make it clear that all

clinical services, such as those related to diagnostic procedures, lab work,

emergency and non-emergency surgery and medical imaging, will continue to be

delivered by government through health authorities.

I also want

to stress that all medical services will continue to be provided within the

universal, publicly funded health care system according to the principles of the

Canada Health Act. This legislation also clarifies the definition of true

employer as one whose employees carry out the work under the direct supervision

of that employer. Projects will be designated under the act on a case-by-case

basis. Each designation will be by way of regulation.

This

legislation opens a way to partnerships that will add capacity to our health

care system and create new facilities for patients. Public-private partnerships

have a proven track record in British Columbia, the United Kingdom, Portugal,

Spain and Australia. In fact, in the U.K. public-private partnerships have been

used to construct 40 new hospitals with another 60 on the way, 150 new schools

with another 250 underway, and numerous road and rail investment projects.

In fact,

all new hospitals in the U.K. are now built through public-private partnerships.

The Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre project team looked at other

jurisdictions such as the U.K., and they learned what must be done to ensure

success of public-private partnerships. Key findings that have been incorporated

into B.C.'s hospital project include ensuring that clinical leaders such as

doctors, nurses and health care professionals contribute to the specifications

for services and clinical design. In addition, these same people will assist

with the evaluation of the designs, as outlined in the proposals from the

proponent's terms.

In the

Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre contract, there are provisions for the

public sector to step in and take over a service, such as laundry, if the

partner or its subcontractors are not performing to the required standard. This

allows the health authorities to protect patients and staff and to ensure that

quality services can be maintained. The costs of the health authority stepping

in will be deducted from the partner's service payment. The contract also

provides for incentives for the public-private partner to exceed the already

very high levels of service quality required in the agreement. The

public-private partner also faces penalties for providing services below the

quality demanded or outside the time frames required.

Many

members of this House might be surprised to learn that more than half of the

long-term care facilities in this province were built and are run by

non-government groups. We already have a number of first-rate municipal

facilities in B.C. that were built through public-private partnerships: the Port

Hardy water treatment facility, where the public-private partner built it at a

30 percent saving over the original budget; the Cranbrook multi-purpose

recreation complex, with construction completed six months ahead of schedule;

Skyreach Place in Kelowna, where the municipality will buy back the land and

building after 30 years for one dollar; and the Chilliwack arena, which is

currently under construction utilizing the P3 model. The city expects $8 million

of savings over its 25-year term. Chilliwack has used various forms of

public-private partnerships for the last eight years and estimates savings of

about 25 percent per project.

I want to

remind the House that it wasn't long ago that the Vancouver General Hospital

tower, now the Jim Pattison Pavilion tower, was built with public funds.

Construction of the 19-storey shell began in 1988 and was completed in 1991. In

1999 the trauma special care unit and radiology project were completed, but it

wasn't until 2003 that the tower was open for patients. The cost of maintaining

the partly completed pavilion for 15 years, and the forgone savings by not

moving into the pavilion when scheduled, is estimated to be $170 million.

[1505]

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: That is just one example of wasting precious taxpayers' dollars.

Phase 1(

a) of the Royal Jubilee Hospital here in Victoria, constructed by the

last administration, saw the final cost of construction rise 33 percent from its

original budget. The Surrey Memorial Hospital expansion saw costs rise 11

percent. The Kitimat hospital saw a 38 percent increase.

These cost

increases happen for a number of reasons, such as unforeseen scope changes,

unanticipated equipment requirements or inadequate costing during the planning

stages. Under a public-private partnership, these costs would have been fully

scoped out and anticipated early in the project. Construction would have been

completed on time and on budget because of due diligence done by the

private-public partners in the planning stages.

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to speak.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Efficiencies built into the operational phase would have saved even

more costs. Equally important, the province would not have borne 100 percent of

the risk during design and construction, as the agreement would have placed the

risk squarely with the public-private partner. Our government has taken the

right steps to ensure success. Partnerships B.C. examined many P3 models,

highlighted what was done right and what could be improved upon, and

[ Page 8132 ]

created a British Columbia public-private partnership process that will

succeed.

In the

coming months we expect to select the private partner for the Abbotsford

hospital and cancer centre, and construction should be completed by the end of

2007. It will be an acute care facility built with private dollars but

completely owned by the people of B.C. right from day one. It's a win-win

situation for patients, health providers and the public in British Columbia.

This bill, along with the work of Partnerships B.C., is another step to making

the Abbotsford hospital and other projects a reality.

I move

second reading of Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act.

MacPhail: I wonder how many government caucus members are going to get up

and speak to this. Mr. Speaker, I will be addressing this bill at length,

because of course what the minister has just described has absolutely nothing to

do with this legislation. The claims he makes, just like all of his cabinet

colleagues…. They make great claims about what they can deliver and say it's

all there in the legislation. Well, it ain't. It isn't at all. The claims he

makes about the success of public-private partnerships are nowhere in the

legislation — none whatsoever.

He's not

replicating a model that already exists in other areas around public-private

partnerships. He's giving, through legislation, by fiat, a guaranteed profit to

the private partner of any project at the expense of working people. That's what

he's doing. Gee, there's a lot of risk-taking by the private partner, isn't it?

This minister just stood up and said: "Oh, it would be the private partner

that takes all the risk."

No, this

legislation is a giveaway to the private partner to guarantee that the private

partner can go to the very bottom in operating costs, and that's how they'll

make the profit. That's how they will. They'll assume no risk. They've been

given their own cookie jar, which they can reach into day after day after day,

of goodies they can pull out at the expense of our health care system and at the

expense of working people. This government has legislated the cookie jar for the

private employer.

The reason

why they're doing this is for the MSA General Hospital in Abbotsford, a hospital

that was fully budgeted with public funds when this government took over. This

government squandered that money — completely squandered it. They're two and a

half years into their mandate, and not a plan has been identified. The people

bidding on the hospital are scurrying away.

[1510]

Let's see.

The original plan was about $220 million for MSA Hospital, and we're now at a

$300 million hospital. Let's see what $80 million over budget on a $220 million

hospital is. Would that be 40 percent over budget? They haven't even got a

private partner yet, and they're so desperate that they have to introduce this

legislation to help them even more out of their incompetence.

With less

than a week left, with four days left in this session, I am speaking today on a

bill that will have profound and disturbing consequences for years to come. And

isn't it interesting that the Minister of Labour is shepherding this bill

through? He's already shepherded through…. He's the only Minister of Labour in

the history of British Columbia who has broken more collective agreements than

in all of North America. I guess he wasn't satisfied with that record. He wants

to add to his score by introducing this legislation that not only completely

disregards collective agreements but takes away the basic labour rights of

working people. It takes away their protection under the Labour Relations Code.

I guess he wasn't satisfied with that great record that he already had.

This is a

bill. It's only five pages long, but it rips apart generations of progress in

labour relations. It reaches into negotiated contracts with a heavy hand, and it

nullifies agreements made in good faith. But agreements made in good faith and

this Liberal government are an oxymoron. This bill stands as a testament to this

government's willingness to sacrifice fairness, balance and the rights of

working people in the service of a narrow and extreme ideology — a narrow and

extreme ideology that they've been singularly incompetent in implementing

anyway.

The

government is going to great pains to minimize the bill's purpose and effect —

great pains. I suppose that's to be expected. After all, we are in the waning

days of a fall session that's supposed to be about cleaning up legislation held

over from the spring — great parliamentary reform brought in by this

government. They were not going to ram legislation through the way the previous

government did. If I hear that one more time, I'll have a physical reaction. Not

only are they ramming this legislation through, tomorrow they're going to

introduce legislation ramming the sale of B.C. Rail through. With two days of

debate left in this whole session — two days — they're ramming it through.

Here we are

with the most draconian legislation, Bill 94, in the area of labour relations.

This government introduced it last week and is ramming it through this week —

so another broken promise. The Government House Leader likes to say how awful he

was treated by the previous government and how much better they are. What's

better about this? What possible tenet of democracy is this government daring to

purport by introducing draconian legislation like Bill 94 and ramming it through

in days, in a fall session, at a time when nobody has had a chance to examine

this legislation?

Today,

despite this government's promise to do exactly the opposite — to not do this

— we are debating fundamental new laws that forever shift the balance of

rights between working people and their employers. There's nothing clarifying

about this legislation. There's nothing mild about this legislation. It is

extreme, and it's ideological. They are ramming through Bill 94, a bill to yet

again break their own election commitment to respect negotiated agreements.

[ Page 8133 ]

They're not

trying to find ways to exempt corporations involved. Well, actually, this

legislation does exempt corporations involved in private-public partnerships

from the most basic provisions of B.C.'s labour laws and labour jurisprudence,

and this government says that the private partners are taking all of the risk.

No. It will be the taxpayers taking all of the risk, because this is a little

gift to the private contractor that they won't have to deliver anything.

[1515]

I must say

that there is absolutely no doubt that this is exactly what this bill does. It

breaks an election commitment by the Liberals to respect negotiated agreements,

and it exempts corporations from the most basic provisions of B.C.'s labour laws

and labour jurisprudence. It's an affront to the basic democratic principles

embedded in a free collective bargaining system, and it's an affront to the

principles of fairness and balance that are central to good government.

But this

government doesn't believe in good government. This government wants people to

believe that its health care policies are all about putting patients first.

Isn't that interesting? We have a Minister of Labour who's giving goodies away

to private contractor employers and breaking contracts, and somehow they think

they can justify this as being about good health care policies.

We know

that's not true. Besides, the people of Nelson or Kimberley or Port Alberni or

New Westminster would not for a moment believe this government puts patients

first. Neither would the residents of Ladysmith. I wonder how well that message

box flies with Ladysmith residents, for this minister — his own constituency.

I wonder if they can keep their lunch down when they hear the Minister of Labour

saying he's putting patients first in Ladysmith. Tell that to the seniors who

have had their Pharmacare cut, are paying more in MSP fees and are being kicked

out of long-term care homes.

I had to

laugh when the minister stood up and said: "I wonder if it's news to people

in this House that long-term care homes have been privately built and privately

run." Duh. Of course everybody knows that. These are the very homes this

government is shutting down right now. Those privately managed and privately

built homes are still subject to the health authorities. The patients still

receive funding out of tax dollars to reside in those nursing homes. The Canada

Health Act doesn't protect long-term care services.

But until

the introduction of this legislation, the health authorities were responsible

for ensuring proper care in those long-term care homes, and this legislation

changes that tenet forever. "Putting patients first" — I don't know

how the minister can say that with a straight face, under Bill 94. Tell that to

all the British Columbians who are disgusted when they see this government

breaking another campaign promise and spending thousands of dollars on political

advertising, trying to spin the public about its massive changes to health care.

That in itself is another broken promise. They just want to get the truth out. I

love it — how all of a sudden, now that they're government, it's so hard to

get the truth out, they say. So they have to spend hundreds of thousands of our

tax dollars on ads — and believe you me, they're partisan — political ads,

explaining to people about what they're doing to our health care system.

This

government has been tearing the heart out of B.C.'s public health care system,

creating chaos and disruption ever since they were elected. With this bill, they

are legislating long-term instability that will hurt British Columbians and the

care they receive as patients in our health care facilities. Make no mistake

about it; that's exactly what Bill 94 is about.

Let's

examine the effect of Bill 94. Well, employees who have negotiated a binding

collective agreement with their employers have a right to expect that the

conditions of that agreement are respected and upheld. That's what collective

bargaining is all about. If there's a dispute, as there often is, both employers

and employees can resolve their differences through an impartial Labour

Relations Board. That process is at the heart of fair and balanced labour

relations in this province. Frankly, until this legislation, that's the method

of labour relations throughout the country.

[1520]

This bill

tosses all of that aside. An employee working for a company that signs a

contract to provide services in our health care system now automatically sees

parts of their collective agreement disappear — made illegal.

Imagine

that. A freely negotiated legal collective agreement, and this government,

through the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, says that a freely

negotiated collective agreement is now illegal. The employee has no say. The

employee has no resource by legislation, and with no notice, the employee's

fundamental right has disappeared.

I recall a

current Premier who promised openness and accountability. I recall a Premier who

promised not to tear up collective agreements. I recall a Premier who ran and

received a mandate on a promise of improved health care, public health care for

people, when and where they needed it. Well, what a shameful day today is with

the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. I cannot even keep up with the

many broken promises this Premier and this government have now accumulated. On

every count this bill is a betrayal of those promises. It is a draconian piece

of legislation that puts the lie to the new-era promise.

Here's the

real new era of health care brought to us by this government. Let me go over

that. This B.C. Liberal government has been dismantling B.C.'s health care

system piece by piece, and it wants to sell it off to the highest private

bidder. We know that. We absolutely know that. The Premier has been talking

about doing that for ages, absolutely ages. This government has now opened up

B.C.'s public health care system to multinational corporations such as Aramark

and Sodexho.

Now, with

this legislation, he wants to take the contract-breaking provisions of Bill 29

that it rammed

[ Page 8134 ]

through on a Sunday in its early days, and he wants to extend those

contract-breaking provisions ad infinitum now with this legislation — extend

them to any and all possible private companies, to contractors and

subcontractors. Even sub-subcontractors now can ignore collective agreements. In

fact, this government is allowing, by law, contract-breaking provisions to any

company taken on by a health authority as a private partner.

Let's be

clear. Despite what the minister said — that this wouldn't apply to physio

services, clinical services, emergency services — there is nothing in this

legislation that guarantees that — nothing whatsoever. That was made up out of

the head of the Minister of Labour because he knows British Columbians will be

extremely upset when their emergency room services are privatized, when their

day surgeries are privatized, when their physio services are privatized.

The

minister likes to say: "Oh, it's about landscaping." If I hear about

one more landscaping service being privatized — as if people believe that's

all this government is doing — I'm going to break a blood vessel in my head,

because there's nothing in this legislation that precludes day surgeries.

There's nothing in this legislation that precludes these contract-breaking

services and private employer services from our emergency room or physio —

nothing.

[1525]

Mental

health clinical services — they're covered by this legislation too. I see the

Minister of State for Mental Health there laughing. He probably doesn't even

know what's in this legislation. He can't possibly, because mental health

services, out-patient mental health services, will now be provided by a private

employer. That private employer has the right to break the contract of the

nurses who are providing those mental health services, and the Minister of State

for Mental Health thinks that's just great, absolutely great.

This

legislation doesn't apply just to the proposed Abbotsford hospital, though

likely what this minister will try to say is that this bill is just about the

privatization of the Abbotsford hospital. We know that this government is so

desperate to give away to its biggest political donor, the Independent

Contractors and Businesses Association, the single largest donor ever — ever

— to the Liberals….

Interjection.

MacPhail: You have one. It's the Independent Contractors and Businesses

Association.

Interjections.

MacPhail: Oh no, Mr. Speaker. Let's be clear.…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Deputy

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

MacPhail: The single largest donor ever to the Liberal government is the

Independent Contractors and Builders Association. There are dozens of

corporations who have given hundreds of thousands of dollars. CN gave $107,000

to the government, but the single largest donor to this government is the

Independent Contractors and Businesses Association — absolutely the biggest.

Now they're getting their reward.

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Order.

MacPhail: Of course, they've known about their reward for over a year. In a

private dinner between the Premier and the Independent Contractors and

Businesses Association one year ago, the Premier promised what we're now seeing

in legislation. Isn't that terrific? I guess when CN gives you $107,000, you get

to buy the only….

Interjections.

MacPhail: I love how these Liberals mock their reliance on corporate donors

— their wholly complete and unfettered reliance on corporate donors — and

they think that's hilarious. They think it's absolutely hilarious that they get

90 percent of their donations…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Order.

MacPhail: …from corporate donors. They think that's hilarious. Individuals

won't donate to the B.C. Liberals. They don't donate to the B.C. Liberals. Not

at all. In fact, very few individuals donate to the B.C. Liberals. We do know

that the corporations love this government — absolutely love it — because

they get an immediate payoff. CN donates $107,000 to this government; they get a

profitable rail line. It's wonderful. The independent contractors donate as much

as anyone could possibly imagine, and they get a private hospital where they

don't have to put up with those silly little collective agreements — the first

time ever in our health care system. The first time ever in our health care

system, and this government mocks the fact that they're delivering for their

single largest donor. They all mock it. In fact….

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Order.

MacPhail: As always, the sterling decorum of the Minister of Labour rises to

the top — rises to the top.

[ Page 8135 ]

I'm sure

the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association are gleeful with this

legislation — absolutely gleeful.

[1530]

Let's start

with the Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre and see what Bill 94 does there.

Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. This government that was going to restore the

economy and could do things ever so quickly and ever so better…. There's not a

shovel anticipated to go into the ground for at least a year for the MSA

Hospital. Let's see. That will be after three and a half years of this

government, and they haven't built a gosh darn thing in the health care system

— not one thing have they built. They've closed down a lot of hospitals, but

not one thing have they built. I guess the minister….

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Order.

MacPhail: I guess the minister is still ashamed from his terrible disaster

of health care–building back when he was in government in 1988. I know he must

still be cringing.

He likes to

blame that disaster of the tower at Vancouver Hospital on the NDP. Well really,

it was the NDP that had to clean up the mess of his government in 1988 — the

mess of his government building a tower that was not needed, that was

inappropriately located and that was a huge financial burden on the health care

system. Fortunately, they were tossed from office, but he's so interested in

repeating his errors of that ill-fated time in the Social…. Oh, by the way,

Mr. Speaker, you would of course remember that it was the Social Credit

government that messed it up so badly.

For years

the health care system had to figure out what to do with a Vancouver Hospital

tower that wasn't needed and was not in any way to do with patient care. Well,

here we have more legislation that has nothing to do with patient care, and

another disaster — the Abbotsford hospital.

The

government hasn't built one single thing to add beds — not one — including

the MSA Hospital, and here we are. The MSA Hospital has gone so off kilter that

they're now having to ram through legislation to give more goodies to the

private contractors to see whether they'll actually do anything out there. Bill

94….

Interjection.

MacPhail: I love it — the Minister of Labour heckling, saying the private

contractors get nothing out of this. What has he been smoking — a big cigar?

Has he been smoking a big Cuban cigar that's gone to his head? This is all about

what the private contractors get. Bill 94 makes it very clear that the true

owner of the proposed Abbotsford hospital will not be the Fraser health

authority.

It's the

first time ever — breakthrough legislation. In fact, for the first time ever,

the real owner of a hospital in British Columbia won't be any part of the public

health care system. No, for the very first time, the true owner of the proposed

Abbotsford hospital and cancer care centre will be the private partner that wins

the contract to build and operate the hospital.

Will they

be carrying any risk because of that? No. The Minister of Labour said in his

opening remarks that the risk will be carried by the private owner now.

Show us.

There is nothing in this legislation or the request for proposals that says that

at all, Mr. Speaker. Under Bill 94 the real owner of the hospital will be some

private banking or construction consortium, some multinational — I guarantee

it — whichever one makes the best pitch to this cash-desperate government as

it struggles with the structural deficit it created, the largest deficit in B.C.

history.

We've seen

with B.C. Rail the kind of boneheaded disastrous business decision this

government is prepared to make and ram through in legislation in order to try

and compensate for giving away the store on its first day in office, when they

gave — on that first glorious day for the rich in this province — the

biggest tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy. Unfortunately, it wasn't

enough for those corporations or those wealthy people. They're wanting more, and

now they've got Bill 94. Now they've got even more. The wealthiest, those

corporations and the rich — they've got Bill 94.

[1535]

The deals

this government envisions making with private consortiums and multinationals

will be equally disastrous as the B.C. Rail deal. It does beg the question:

since when do construction magnates and bankers know what's best for patients?

Well, for the first time ever, British Columbians are going to find out what

those American construction companies know about patient care.

This

government has tried to pretend to the community of Abbotsford that the new

hospital would be part of the public health care system, but Bill 94, the Health

Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, shows very clearly that the winning private

partner can run the hospital and cancer care clinic and run them as for-profit

centres. This is all part of the deal — running the emergency room and just

about any other part of the hospital as part of the winning firm's contract to

recover their costs.

This from

the Premier who promised in the election that he wouldn't privatize health care,

because he was going to do such a good job of improving the public system. This

was a Premier who went on-air and said: "Oh, private health clinics?

They're going to shrivel away and die under us." This is exactly what the

Premier said: "They won't be needed, private health clinics, because our

government will make the public health care system."

Well, there

were fewer private health clinics when this government took over than the

fingers on this hand. How many are there now under this government? There are

over two dozen private health clinics flourishing in this province since this

government took

[ Page 8136 ]

over. Let's see. That would be a 600 percent increase in the number of

private health clinics since this government took over. I wonder how the Premier

feels about them not withering away and dying, even though that was what he

promised.

This from a

Premier who promised in the election that he wasn't going to privatize health

care, when according to this government's own policies the only services that

must be managed by the public health care system are the services to the sickest

patients in acute care beds. That's all that's left now. If you're in an acute

care bed, you get to stay in the public health system. Everyone else is part of

the private health system.

I know that

the Liberals hate to hear this kind of stuff. I know they actually can't stand

it. But here's how much the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association

of B.C. donated to this government from '96 to 2002 — our latest figures:

$238,000. Wow. Single largest donor. When you put them all together…. You

don't just look at what the rail companies gave — CN was the largest donor

amongst rail companies — and who's the largest donor among forest companies.

The single largest donor of all the thousands of corporations who gave to this

government is the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association —

$238,000 — and it's paying off.

Here's what

we've got left in our public health system according to this government: you

better be in an acute care bed, or else you're not part of the public health

system. By the way, they're closing down acute care beds like crazy — closing

them down. Let's talk about Port Alberni, Nelson, Ladysmith. Gone are those

acute care beds, and now we know the reason why. It's because the government

wants everything but the acute care beds turned over to the private system.

They're achieving it two ways: just straightforward privatizing of the other

services and then shutting down acute care beds that remain as part of the

public health system.

[1540]

Well, as

Health minister Colin Hansen has already admitted, the definition of

non-clinical services is so broad that the private sector could now run the

hospital emergency room, its day surgeries, its rehabilitation beds, the

out-patient cancer clinic and any other out-patient services for profit. The

private partner, through this bill, has the right to employ virtually all the

employees in the new hospital defined as non-clinical, including psychiatric

nurses in out-patient care clinics, nurses delivering cancer treatment in an

out-patient form, physios, emergency room services, counselling services. All

those now, because of Bill 94, will be privatized. The employees of the private

employer will be employees not of the public health care system but of the

private partner, as part of its contract to design, build and operate the

facility and recover its costs.

Bill 94

makes it very clear who will be in charge of patient services. The title of a

key

section of this bill reads — I know this may come as news to the Minister

of Labour: "Designated private sector partner is true employer." Bill

94 also makes it very clear, in its definition of health care partner, that the

health care partners this government envisions are as broad a group as is

possible.

I don't

know what the minister was talking about in his second reading remarks that said

health services such as emergency room and clinical services, psychiatric

services, counselling services and out-patient cancer services won't be

affected. He's dead wrong. In fact, through this bill, this government is

extending the contract-breaking provisions to all and sundry, not just to the

company that provides the capital but to the company that provides equipment as

well. Somehow the minister says contractors aren't getting anything out of this.

It also provides contract-breaking abilities right into the public health care

system, to every contractor and subcontractor, right down the chain.

Given how

dismal the economic record of this government is — or this government

delivering on anything it promised to their biggest donor — they're now having

to give even more away to private partners who want to get involved in health

care so that they can make a lot of money. They just have to keep giving more

and more to these private partners, who say: "Ooh, it doesn't look like

it's a good government to work with." Here's some more candy, Bill 94, for

their political donors.

Let's be

clear. The only way these private employers are going to make money — and

they're in it to make money — is to pay the lowest wage they can get away

with, and the patients be damned. This government doesn't care a whit about the

conditions of patient care. In fact, we should point out that in this bill, this

government is actually having to open up its own previous contract-breaking

legislation for health sector workers. As if Bill 29 wasn't enough in terms of

breaking contracts, this legislation — Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships

Agreement Act —, even amends that contract-breaking legislation to give more

away to private employers.

Well, we've

actually been down this promise-breaking, contracting-out road before. It's a

disgracefully well-worn road for this B.C. Liberal government and for this

minister in particular. Bill 94 picks up the job of tearing up contracts that

this government started in January of 2002 with Bill 29. Bill 29, as you will no

doubt remember, Mr. Speaker, broke one of the Premier's key election promises:

the promise that he wouldn't break contracts or tear up contracts. In December

of 2000 the Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition, told the Hospital

Employees Union's Guardian magazine: "I don't believe in ripping up

agreements. I have never said I would tear up agreements. I am not tearing up

agreements." I guess that'll go down in history along with the promise

saying: "I'm not going to sell B.C. Rail."

[1545]

Well,

thousands of health care workers voted for the Premier because he made that

promise to them in the lead-up to the election, only months before the 2001

election. Then this government, a government that campaigned on openness and

accountability to the

[ Page 8137 ]

public — laughably enough — called an emergency session in January of

2002 to bring in a bill specifically to break that election promise, just like

they're going to do tomorrow when they bring in legislation with hours left to

examine it, to debate it. They'll bring in legislation to break the election

promise not to sell off B.C. Rail.

What do

people say in this…? Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh. The Liberals say: "Oh,

isn't it awful that the new NDP leader won't have a seat in this

Legislature." I had to laugh at that, Mr. Speaker. As if there's any debate

in this Legislature. As if this government, unlike any previous government in

the history of British Columbia, has treated this Legislature — and the

promises it made — with respect. Every day it stands up and introduces

legislation that's controversial and extreme, and rams it through because they

have an overwhelming majority. I had to laugh when the chair of caucus, the

member from Chilliwack said: "Oh, it's awful that the new NDP leader is not

going to be in this chamber."

Well, this

chamber isn't about democracy. This chamber isn't about debate. It's about the

tyranny of the majority to break every election promise they made, and Bill 94

is a perfect example of that. In fact, the leader of the NDP will serve the

people of B.C. extremely well by being anywhere but here. The people of B.C.,

even though my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I try desperately

every day to hold this government to account…. Not one single constituent who

is not represented by the NDP gets a fair hearing inside this Legislature.

The

Minister of Labour didn't meet with health care workers on this matter. They met

with the private contractors and promised the private contractors, but the

Minister of Labour didn't meet on any level except to say: "Here's what

we're doing." Oh yeah, there were lots of negotiations with the private

contractors, but not with the health care workers affected by this. No.

Even in his

own constituency he refuses to meet with health care workers. In fact, he

refuses to meet with anybody in his own constituency, from what I've heard. The

leader of the NDP will be more properly serving the people of British Columbia

by going to the Minister of Labour's constituency and listening to them and

bringing their concerns back to this chamber.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Oh, is that some flopping I hear the Minister of Labour doing?

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Order, members. The Leader of the Opposition has

the floor.

MacPhail: I hear the minister flopping around over there, Mr. Speaker —

flopping around in a braggadocio way.

In December

of 2000 the Premier said he wasn't going to tear up agreements. But they brought

in the legislation, Bill 29, to rip up a collective agreement that they

themselves had imposed. They brought in three contract-breaking bills — three

contract-breaking pieces of legislation. Of course they sit down and negotiate

with workers, and then they impose settlements on employers and workers. Then

they have to bring in legislation to say: "Oh well, we didn't actually mean

that contract that we signed. Here's legislation to break it."

[1550]

This open

and accountable — god, I can hardly say that with a straight face…. This

supposedly open and accountable government called an emergency session in the

Legislature and rammed three bills through in January of 2002, over a weekend,

with absolutely no opportunity for members of the public to even review this

legislation. Of those, Bill 29, for anyone who may have forgotten, was the

contract-breaking legislation that was this government's first all-out assault

on health sector workers.

Of course,

two years into the B.C. Liberal mandate, we and British Columbians are used to

the B.C. Liberal style. They're going to go out with a bang in this session,

ramming draconian, controversial legislation through. They're going to just go

out with a bang in November 2003. We now know that abusing its legislative

majority and ramming through legislation is how this government chooses to do

things. They love it. They revel in it. They absolutely revel in it.

The Premier

makes an announcement today, saying: "Tomorrow I'm going to bring in

legislation on B.C. Rail. Oh, there are only two days of debate left, and the

public won't have had a chance to see it? Oh, am I not being democratic?"

And the Minister of Transportation thinks it's going to be such good legislation

that everybody is going to welcome it with open arms. Well, she's wrong about

that, because the details of it have leaked, and she's wrong. She's absolutely

wrong.

Even given

that, what is the problem with this government actually letting people see the

legislation they're ramming through, with letting people actually have a chance

to look at it and understand the implications? That is a concept this government

refuses to accept. Democracy — thrown out the window. Democracy — gone out

the window. I thought they would be proud of their overwhelming majority. I

thought they would love the fact. Why aren't these government caucus

backbenchers taking home this legislation, Bill 94, and having public debates on

it? Not one of them has done it.

The only

person who has been to a public forum recently on health care has been the

member for New Westminster. She faced 300 angry, angry people over their broken

promise, and they're now shutting down St. Mary's Hospital. Her constituents are

calling for her resignation, and this Minister of Labour says they're putting

patients first?

St. Mary's

Hospital will be shut down, with all those acute care beds gone — the only

part of our health care system that's still part of the public health system now

that we have Bill 94. And this Minister of

[ Page 8138 ]

Labour says they're putting patients first? Surgical wait-lists are up,

absolutely, in the Fraser health authority. Of course, the majority of those

surgical wait-lists will be taken care of now with the private health clinics

that have flourished under this government.

We know

that abusing its legislative majority and ramming through legislation is how

this government loves to do things — whether it's through emergency sessions

or, like today, at the very end of the legislative session, ramming through

draconian legislation so that the public has no time even to review it. Of

course, we know now that breaking election promises is actually a hallmark of

this B.C. Liberal government, from the promise not to privatize B.C. Rail to the

promise that tax cuts would pay for themselves. That's what this government's

record has ended up being all about.

Let's just

call the B.C. Liberal government "Broken promises are us." Instead of

admitting that this government got their tax cut promises completely wrong,

instead of admitting that their voodoo economics was way off base and that tax

cuts have never paid for themselves, what did this government do? It was such a

failure that they had to make up for their failure, and they opened up war on

the health sector workers by ripping up their collective agreements. They opened

up war on the health sector workers who were delivering services to the most

vulnerable.

[1555]

That's what

it did in Bill 29. It did it with mistruths by completely misleading people

about what the wages and working conditions were of those workers — a group of

mainly women, many of whom are immigrants to this country, who work hard in our

health care facilities. Those same workers had been led to believe by the

Premier and this government that their jobs were secure, but this Premier broke

his commitment to those workers to his everlasting shame, all because of his

decision to give away huge tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy and because

of the fiscal, financial and economic incompetence of this government.

Now that

this government is even further in the hole economically, they are going even

further than they did in Bill 29 with this legislation we're debating today, the

Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. They're doing much more than merely

maintaining the contracting-out provisions they legislated in Bill 29. While the

explanatory notes…. My God, these explanatory notes are getting to be little

gems. They're like the misquotes of George Bush. There's going to be a little

bible of explanatory notes that had nothing to do with the legislation that's

being introduced.

The

explanatory note attached to Bill 94 will be front and centre in that book.

Here's what the explanatory note of this bill says. It says: "This Bill

will facilitate development and implementation of public-private partnerships in

the health sector, enabling improved delivery of cost-effective non-clinical

services to the public."

What kind

of explanatory note is that? It's the only explanatory note. Since when did we

stop actually using explanatory notes to explain the legislation? Since when do

we start using explanatory notes as political spin-doctoring? Is that what the

public affairs bureau does now? Is that what they do — write explanatory notes

for legislation?

That

explanatory note is completely misleading and doesn't describe the legislation

at all. Shame on this government. I have no idea what they've done to the public

servants who draft legislation. I have no idea, but it's clear that explanatory

notes are now part of the public affairs bureau, the Pravda of this

government. Even Pravda wouldn't have the ability to mislead people on

legislation.

Bill 94

does not only affect the public-private interface, but it also delves into the

private-private interface at the contractor and subcontractor level —

absolutely. It limits the ability of private sector employers and unions to

negotiate a collective agreement. It limits completely the ability of a union

and an employer to negotiate any contracting-out provisions or protection. Even

if a private sector employer wanted to, they couldn't under this legislation. By

extending the contract-breaking provisions practically ad infinitum, this B.C.

Liberal government is attempting to deprive workers of their right to union

representation in situations where health authorities contract out services.

In giving

private partners carte blanche to subcontract services at will, they are trying

to prevent unions from improving wages and working conditions for workers across

this province. Despite what this Minister of Labour may try to say, this bill

does not apply to the proposed private hospital in Abbotsford; it doesn't even

apply to P3 facilities generally. Bill 94 could apply to any contracted,

non-clinical service anywhere in the health sector, including community services

provided from any designated facility such as a long-term care home, a group

home or an assisted-living complex.

[1600]

Let's

consider an example to understand the reach of this legislation, the Health

Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. If Vancouver Hospital is designated as a

health sector partner and Vancouver General Hospital contracts out, say,

cleaning to corporation X which provides cleaning equipment, that is capital

equipment under

section 2(a)(

i) of this legislation, and this bill kicks in. If

corporation X is unionized, it can shake the union out. It can shake the union

right out from its domain under

section 4 by subcontracting out to Mutt and

Jeff's cleaning services, even if it's a wholly owned subsidiary. If Mutt and

Jeff's cleaning services is unionized, then it in turn, under

section 5 of this

legislation, can get rid of its union by sub-subcontracting to Mutt and Jeff's

mother service, and it can shake its union. So on and on it goes.

The

pressure downward of this bill means that it threatens the working conditions of

British Columbians in many other sectors. Through this bill this government,

which campaigned on openness and not breaking contracts, is creating a situation

in which not only are they taking away the possibility of health sector workers

earning a living wage, but they are threaten-

[ Page 8139 ]

ing the wages and working conditions of people across the sectors, across the

province.

One wonders

why they have to do this. Why is it that the government can give huge profits to

the private sector through giving away public assets, but they have to attack

working people? Why is it? Why is it that they have to tie behind their backs

the hands of working people to make the lowest of low wages? I thought that the

economy was going to be so great for working people. It turns out not only is

the economy failing, but they have to attack working people through the wages

they earn — all on behalf of their corporate friends. What a government, and

the government caucus members sit back and let this happen.

Here's

something that it doesn't say in the explanatory note — the Pravda

note. Here's what this bill will mean. Here's the implication of this bill

stating that the employer at health care facilities will no longer be the public

health authority, that the employer will now be the private investor. Now that

completely opens up our B.C. health system to the North American Free Trade

Agreement and all the implications of that. Oh yeah, no one's referred to that

yet.

Under the

North American Free Trade Agreement, the minute a government opens up a

previously publicly delivered service to a private operator, all services then

have to be opened up for delivery under NAFTA —

chapter 11 of NAFTA. Maybe the

minister is not familiar with it, but that's exactly what

chapter 11 of the

North American Free Trade Agreement says. It says that once a government goes

down the slippery road of privatizing any services, all services are deemed to

be privatized, and they have to be opened up to competition. Another great day

for British Columbia.

This

government legislates the definition of an employer as a private employer, that

private employer will come from outside Canada, and our whole health care system

is now up for grabs. I bet you this government didn't even read

chapter 11 of

the North American Free Trade Agreement. They were so desperate to give away to

their friends, I bet you they didn't even read it.

[1605]

The

government likes to talk about opening up B.C. Bill 94 opens up our public

health care system in the most disastrous way possible. It doesn't only

threaten; it makes legal our prized public health care system being vulnerable

chapter 11 challenges under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Chapter 11,

of course, of the North American Free Trade Agreement also allows investors to

sue governments for public policies that curb profits, even those that protect

public health or the environment. So here we have the government saying to a

private employer: "Here you are. Here's legislation. You're the employer.

We're going to help you as much as we can through legislation so you can break

union contracts and pay the lowest wage possible." That private employer

also now, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, can sue the government

for not allowing them enough of a profit. Oh, what a glory day for British

Columbia.

I note that

the Minister of Labour didn't mention that in his opening remarks. I note that

the explanatory note doesn't say: "Breakthrough legislation now allowing

the North American Free Trade Agreement to apply to our health care

system." Gee, I don't see that in the explanatory note. Maybe this

government — which would not come as a surprise to me — doesn't actually

know what it's doing. Gee, that would be a surprise, wouldn't it? Only a

surprise to the government caucus members — everybody else in this province

knows that this government doesn't know what it's doing.

So I am

moving an amendment, if I may, to the motion for second reading — a copy for

the minister. I move the motion for second reading of Bill 94, the Health Sector

Partnerships Agreement Act:

[I move that the motion for second reading of

Bill 94 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting

therefor the words "six months hence."]

On the

amendment.

MacPhail: I am moving that we hoist this legislation, that we take this

legislation and say we're not going to debate it and pass it and ram it through

today, but we'll come back in the spring and debate it. After all, that's what

the government promised it would do. Any controversial legislation, it was going

to just put in for exposure. British Columbians would have a chance to debate

and pass or debate in their communities and comment upon it, and they would be

allowed to have their input. Well, my motion just to say let's hoist this

legislation now and debate it six months hence…. I'm actually making good on

the government's promise on that.

Let's

examine whether this legislation weakens our public health care system according

to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Let's examine that. Let's find out

how broad and how deep this legislation is, because you certainly couldn't tell

it from anything the government said. You couldn't tell it from their news

release. You couldn't tell it from the explanatory notes. You certainly couldn't

tell it from the minister's second reading remarks.

There are

hundreds of people who want to have a say about Bill 94. This motion, my

amendment to the motion at second reading, makes that possible. What's the harm?

What's the rush? They haven't even got a private contractor for the MSA

Hospital. They haven't even finished the request for proposals. I understand

people are dropping out left, right and centre. There's not going to be a shovel

in the ground for at least another year. Why not let this legislation be out

there in the community? Why not let the people have a chance to look at this?

[1610]

You know,

George Ferguson, the 30-plus-some-years mayor of Abbotsford, who was very

narrowly defeated in the last election and still has wide community support,

said on the private building of MSA Hos-

[ Page 8140 ]

pital: "Why don't we put it to a referendum?" There's the mayor,

who ain't no friend of ours…. He certainly would be closer, I guess, to the

previous party that the Minister of Labour belonged to — the Social Credit

Party. He's saying that even the private building of MSA Hospital is so

controversial in Abbotsford, it's time to have a referendum.

Well, we're

not even asking for that, although it does seem like a fairly good idea. God

forbid that this government put anything to popular purview. No. All we're

saying is let's not pass this legislation. Let's not ram this legislation

through. Let's actually take six months to consider it and then have a debate

where the public can be fully engaged and the community of Abbotsford can have

its say. Then we can see whether this legislation is the right legislation to

pass.

Deputy

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on the amendment.

J. Kwan:

I rise to support my colleague's amendment to hoist the motion, to delay the

passage of this bill for another six months so that the community, the people of

British Columbia, would have an opportunity to review in detail the bill and its

ramifications. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the bill was just brought into the

House last week, last Wednesday. On Monday we're now debating second reading on

this bill, and there are only three more days left in the session of this House.

The bill

has substantive ramifications for British Columbians. Whether you are a health

care worker or a patient, whether you're the person who provides for the

services, whether you are a person of senior age, an old person or a young

person, or a business person, it doesn't matter. It has significant

ramifications for the people of British Columbia. The Government House Leader

had promised, had said that this session the government is only going to be

dealing with cleanup items, fixing the mistakes they had made from the last

session. We saw a lot of legislation that was of that nature.

The House

came back. It was recalled with a fixed calendar. We were called back into this

House on October 6. The House Leader, the Minister of Finance, has said it was

all to deal with minor items, to fix this and that — the errors the government

had made in the last session — and that there were no substantive bills to be

debated in this House, so not to worry. Not to worry — there will be plenty of

opportunities for British Columbians to deal with substantive bills.

But here we

are in the final days of the Legislature's fall session, and the government

introduces a series of significant bills to be rammed through by this majority

government. We have three days left in debate. Three days left in debate, and

what do we still have to deal with in this Legislature that is now on the books?

We have a

bill in which this government is going to override municipal government

authorities, which is yet to be debated in this House in its entirety. We're now

in committee stage with that bill, Bill 75. We're not finished with that bill.

There's still much more work to be done, questions to be asked and answers to be

had from the minister relating to that bill, and this government, I predict,

will just ram through debate with that bill.

[1615]

We have a

bill that's yet to be debated in committee stage from the Minister of Water,

Land and Air Protection, where she's allowing holes to be drilled underneath

protected areas, a substantive bill that would impact our environment with huge

ramifications for the protection of the environment — which, incidentally, has

completely escaped the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection's mind. After

all, it is her mandate — supposed mandate — to protect the environment. But

there's a bill on the books still to be completed in its debate, with only three

days left in the House, that allows for industry to drill holes underneath

protected parks in British Columbia.

Then,

supposedly tomorrow, there's another piece of legislation that this government

is going to bring forward dealing with B.C. Rail. Another substantive bill, no

doubt, and we have yet to see it. When that gets introduced tomorrow for first

reading, Tuesday, then presumably the government will call second reading on

Wednesday. On Thursday, the last day of the Legislature, the government will

call third reading, committee stage, on that bill. Never mind that the

opposition will barely have time to keep pace with all these new bills.

Just today

the government introduced, I think, three new bills in the Legislature. In the

dying days of the Legislature, the government introduced three new bills.

There's another one to come tomorrow. Substantive business is yet to be

completed. There is no reason why this piece of legislation, Bill 94, has to go

through in this session. There is no reason whatsoever.

There is no

hurry for the government to rush through this so-called Health Sector

Partnerships Agreement Act, save and except, perhaps, that this government is

embarrassed with what it's putting through. After all, it highlights — it

hoists — attention to the fact that this government, this minister, this

Premier and this Liberal government have broken yet another promise in the whole

long litany of promises they have broken. And there is no end to it. You can't

even see the end in sight of the many, many broken promises of this government.

This bill,

Bill 94, highlights the fact that this government broke one of its major

promises — that they would not break collective agreements — that this

Premier had promised to British Columbians during the election campaign. Not

only did they break collective agreements, they brought in a bill to override

collective agreement rights — Bill 29. Then this Minister of Labour is proud

of the fact that this government, this Premier, has misrepresented his election

promises by breaking his promises to British Columbians.

We now have

Bill 94 before us, breaking those promises to British Columbians in the health

care sector, breaking the promises to British Columbians that

[ Page 8141 ]

they would not violate collective agreement rights. Here we are. This bill

extends and goes beyond Bill 29 in the breaking of those rights and those

promises.

So save and

except, perhaps, that this government is embarrassed and perhaps they don't want

it publicized for British Columbians to know that they have misrepresented their

election promises — that they have betrayed British Columbians, that they have

caused British Columbians to believe during the election that they have nothing

to worry about with respect to collective agreement rights in the health care

sector — only to turn around to find that it is completely false….

[1620]

The

government turned on a dime, just like that, and ripped up collective agreements

and, just like that, tore up collective agreement rights in the health care

sector and, just like that, betrayed the thousands of British Columbians who

thought that the Premier's word was worth something. As it turns out, it is not

even worth the paper that the new-era commitments were printed on. It is not

even worth that.

The sad

thing is that you'd think it is important for all politicians to have honesty

and integrity. You'd think that if you made a promise to the people based on a

platform that you would stick to that platform, you would honour that commitment

and you would honour that promise — except, of course, if you are a person, as

has been demonstrated by the Premier, to whom honour means nothing. You can

throw out your own word — tear it apart and throw it out and completely

disregard it and break promises to British Columbians.

By doing

that, the Premier is saying to British Columbians: "Do not count on what I

say to you, because I deem it to mean nothing. I'm not going to honour what I

say. It doesn't matter what the issue is, whether it be about collective

agreement rights in the health care sector, whether it be about the selling of

B.C. Rail, whether it be about protecting education, protecting our environment

or protecting our health care. It doesn't matter. Everything I say can be deemed

irrelevant when I feel like it and don't honour it. That's completely my own

prerogative if I don't want to honour my own words." That is the action

that this Premier and all the government bench MLAs have demonstrated with this

piece of legislation.

Why is the

government rushing through? Why do they want to rush through, with only three

days left in the House, with substantive legislation that still needs to be

debated? Are they ashamed, or are they trying to expedite the payback to their

friends? Are they trying to do that?

It is

interesting. As my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings identified, it just so

happens that the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C.

donated during the years from 1996 to 2002…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members.

J. Kwan:

…some $238,000 to the Liberal Party — not a payback.

It just so

happens — another coincidence — that the Premier made an official

announcement last Tuesday night, while speaking at the Independent Contractors

and Businesses Association dinner in Burnaby about this bill. Nice venue —

that's just another coincidence. That's the choice of venue that the Premier had

chosen to make this big announcement to say, "I'm not going to honour my

words. I've broken it, and I'm extending Bill 29 far beyond what exists

today," and the reach and the grasp of that extension will go to

contractors, subcontractors and sub-sub-subcontractors.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Basically,

it's a free-for-all in terms of violation of collective agreement rights and

driving of work conditions and wages of the health care sector to the bottom.

[1625]

Interjection.

Kwan: You know, the Minister of Labour is saying: "Well, have you read

the bill?" I wonder if the Minister of Labour himself has read the bill,

because if you judge by his comments when he introduced the bill, it's a clear

demonstration…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order. The member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has the floor.

Kwan: …that the minister has no understanding of the bill. Or if he does

understand the nature of the bill, he's hiding it from British Columbians. He

doesn't want them to know. If you judge the language of what the minister had

put out…. I've actually just pulled Hansard so that you can see the

minister's comments.

The

minister says he is committed to putting patients first in our health care

system. Among the first to benefit from this bill will be the residents of the

Fraser Valley. How funny that is. He says to protect health care, to benefit the

residents and patients and put them first…. When the government, this

minister, puts forward a piece of legislation that ignores standards and quality

of performance for patients, for health care workers, he is not putting the

patients first.

There have

been lots of frightening stories about the privatized system in health care in

the United States and how the patients do not benefit. In fact, there's a United

States example as well as a Canadian example in Toronto, where the privatizing

of health care service delivery hurt patients.

You have

situations where, in that privatization scheme, food could be out in a hospital.

The delivery of water to patients in their bed — those services are gone. You

can have the private company providing for a service that could see food

services with a private company, Sodexho, that has body parts as part of a food

service delivery. Real examples — I'm not making

[ Page 8142 ]

it up. Somehow this government says: "Oh, but that's good. That's good

for the public. It's putting patients first." Your thumb could be in your

meal, but that's putting patients first.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

That is exactly what happened. The member who wishes to be a minister, who's

dying and doing everything he can to be a minister, is going: "Give it a

rest." Well, he can't bear the fact…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan:

…that this government's putting forward legislation that compromises patient

care. Then the government bench doesn't want the opposition talking about it.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

You know, if the member for Vancouver-Kingsway wishes to rise and speak on the

floor, he's welcome to do so, and I challenge him to do so.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1630]

J. Kwan:

If the member for Vancouver-Kingsway wishes to rise to speak on the motion,

there are lots of opportunities for him to do so. I challenge him to rise in

this House and be on the record with respect to this piece of legislation.

There is no

good reason whatsoever for this government to rush through debate for Bill 94.

The government needs to examine the issues I've raised. British Columbians have

the right to know and understand the ramifications of this bill. They have the

right to be consulted. They have the right to have their voices heard. They have

the right to have their opinions expressed and represented by the muted MLAs on

the government side. They have the right to do that.

The

constituents of these muted MLAs on the government side expect their MLAs to

rise in this House to represent their best interests and to raise their

concerns. The government needs to support the extension of debate. That's all

this amendment is asking for: an extension of debate to allow more time for

examination, for review and for opinions to be expressed.

The member

for Vancouver-Burrard scoffs at the notion, yet they go around campaigning

saying: "We're so accountable, and we're so open, and we're so

consultative. There's something we want to do." Yet when it comes to real

issues that matter to British Columbians, you see the government time and time

and time again exercising its bullying tactics to rush through legislation and

ram through legislation with this huge majority. Never mind that they promised

consultation.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The arrogance of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He goes: "I wonder how

we got the majority." I'll tell you exactly how they got their majority,

Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

They got that majority because they misrepresented what they were going to do

during the election campaign. They have broken their promise. On this bill

exactly they have broken their promise. They said they were not going to rip up

collective agreements. They said they were not going to rip up collective

agreement rights for the health care sector, and they broke that promise.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has the floor. Let us stick to the amendment in front of us, please.

J. Kwan:

They broke promises. That's how they got their huge majority.

All this

bill asks for is for this government to honour…. Now, I shouldn't use that

word, because they know no honour. They don't know the definition of the word

"honour." After all, the Premier has broken his word so many times

that I've lost count. To use the word "honour" and to understand that

they would honour their word…. That concept has gone — whoop! — above

their heads. They have no idea what that means, so let me not use the word

"honour." Let me just say that they have an obligation to let dialogue

and debate take place for Bill 94.

[1635]

The delay

of passage of this bill by six months would simply allow for dialogue and input

in a lopsided Legislature, where the government, displayed by its members'

arrogance…. The public's voice must be and should be accounted for and be

allowed in a society where we claim there is democracy. If democracy is truly a

value that these Liberal MLAs and the government support and hold true to, then

let that debate take place. Let the public have the information so that they

know what the ramifications are of Bill 94. Let the public send their input into

this Legislature. Allow for a hoist motion of six months' delay of this bill to

be passed in this Legislature.

There is no

reason whatsoever that we are in a big rush to pass this motion or this piece of

legislation. You'd think a hoist motion of six months would somehow dismantle

the government's schedule, that somehow it would mess up their ability to get

the job done.

[ Page 8143 ]

Well, nothing could be further from the truth. It does none of that. There is

plenty of time for debate. There is no need for a rush in the passage of this

bill.

This bill

should have been done in what the House Leader, the Minister of Finance, had

said and committed to doing — that substantive bills would have time for

debate, that substantive bills would be allowed exposure. That's why, after all,

this government has set fixed times on the legislative calendar. It's supposedly

to bring order into government business. Well, what order is that, when the

government brings forward a substantive bill in the Legislature with only three

days left and wants to ram it through when there's a still a boatload of

legislation that is yet to be completed — and we still expect new legislation

tomorrow, substantive legislation?

I would

challenge the members in this House to be true to their word under their new-era

commitment, and that is that they support consultation with British Columbians.

Well, let that consultation take place. Let this piece of legislation go out to

the community, invite their feedback — have town hall meetings and invite

their feedback — before the legislation is rammed through by the majority of

this Liberal government.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, we are voting on the amendment to Bill 94 as moved by

the Leader of the Opposition, which reads as follows: "I move that the

motion for second reading of Bill 94 be amended by deleting the word 'now' and

substituting therefor the words 'six months hence.'"

Amendment

negatived on the following division:

[1640-1645]

YEAS — 3

Nettleton

MacPhail

Kwan

NAYS — 63

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

Halsey-Brandt

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Wilson

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

Mr.

Speaker: The amendment is defeated. The question is second reading of Bill

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

I am rising to speak to Bill 94.

Mr.

Speaker: Have you spoken yet, hon. member? I was out.

J. Kwan:

No, I haven't.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

On the main

motion.

J. Kwan:

I rise to speak on second reading of Bill 94, entitled Health Sector

Partnerships Agreement Act. Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the Minister of

Labour's comments, you actually would never know what the bill is about and what

the ramifications of this bill might be. The bill, as I mentioned, was

introduced last week. Here we are doing second reading. No doubt, with only

three days left in the Legislature, the bill would be rammed through committee

stage and passed by this government, and it will be enacted.

The

significance of this bill is frightening. If you look at the bill, the bill

allows for, under the

definitions section, the government to…. The

definitions

section talks about what health care facilities would be included in this bill.

What it allows for is for this government to designate their facility behind

closed doors with no public scrutiny. The public will not get to know how the

government designates a facility to be included under this bill. It will be done

in a secretive way with no scrutiny from the public.

[1650]

The bill

allows for, basically…. It is so wide-open in its definition of what could be

deemed to be a designated health care facility that virtually anything could be

designated and be included under this bill. It could be that a partner who

provides for capital investment or building in a health care facility…. That

could allow and would allow for a designation under this bill. It could be an

investor who provides for investment in modifying or renovating a health

facility, and that would allow for the investor to be included and be designated

under this bill. It could be something as simple, I suppose — and we'll

canvass these questions more in depth when we get to committee stage — as an

investor who is providing renovations to a facility. It could be something as

simple as slapping a layer of paint on the walls. The bill, in its broad

language, could allow that kind of simple investment in the area of

[ Page 8144 ]

renovations, for that capital investment to be included in this bill as the

designated health care facility or the employer under this act.

The act

applies to all non-clinical services under

section 6(1) of Bill 29, the Health

and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. What does "non-clinical

services" mean? It essentially means, as it was debated and defined under

Bill 29, anything that is not attached to a hospital bed. Not just laundry

services, as the minister might like to imply, although those services —

laundry services, cooking services, security services — have ramifications for

patient care as well. Those things are intrinsically linked. They're not

separate and apart, standing in isolation from the other. They're intrinsically

linked; that impacts patient care.

The

non-clinical services could include things like counselling services,

out-patient care, even emergency care, physiotherapy. All of those things could

be contracted out under this legislation, under Bill 29. It allows not only

for…. If a private partner provides capital for a building or renovations, if

a partner provides equipment to support services delivered in the health care

facility, that would render that private partner to be included under this Bill

What does

it mean when we say for them to be included? What is the significance of that

— for these so-called private partners to be included under Bill 94? Well, the

significance of that is that it gives them the authority — the power, if you

will — to be deemed as the true employer for that health care facility. Then

when you're deemed to be the true employer of that health care facility, the

powers that are allowed to you would be (

a) to exclude successorship rights and

(

b) to override collective agreement rights. Essentially, what it does is allow

the investor, the private partner, to completely override collective agreement

rights in the health care sector. That's what it means, and that's the

significance of it.

[1655]

The

government further extends those rights not only directly to the private partner

who directly invests in capital or the purchase of equipment and renovations and

the like, but the grasp of this bill extends the authority to subcontractors,

sub-subcontractors and sub-sub-subcontractors. The effect of that, I predict, is

that it would drive the work environment in these health care facilities to the

bottom. It is a race to the bottom, because the government would allow for

subcontractors to bid, of course, against each other because they could be

designated as the employer under this piece of legislation.

The

ramifications are enormous — absolutely enormous. It's not just the workers

who would be hurt. The patients would be hurt as well, because the quality of

service is no longer protected. The thing that drives the quality of service

under this piece of legislation, which this government is going to allow for, is

the bottom line. That is the thing that will drive the quality of health care

service in British Columbia under this bill.

The bill

furthers an approach to override decisions that have been made through the

Labour Relations Board — in a very sneaky way, I might add — because the

legislation, under

section 11, allows for the employer to argue that if it is

not the intention of the employer for "the employee to be fully integrated

with the operations of the health care sector employer and working under its

direct supervision and control," then the employer could bypass a Labour

Relations Board decision to say: "We're not contravening any collective

agreement rights or labour principles. It wasn't my intention to do so.

Therefore, we have not violated any collective agreement rights." That

section of the bill is a very sneaky way for this government to extend its

authority to employers to break collective agreement rights and collective

agreement principles.

[1700]

Now, you

might think: what is the big deal? So what? The minister says this is good for

British Columbians and it's good for the patients. Why are we making a big deal

out of this? Perhaps the Liberal government might care about…. If they care

about nothing else, you'd think they might care about this. It is a judgment on

their word, whether or not their word means anything.

You will

recall that during the election, the Premier said — and he was in opposition

then…. When he was campaigning, he said — and he gave his word to British

Columbians, to the health care workers and to patients — that he would not

break collective agreements. Now the proof is in the pudding. Not only did the

Premier show and prove that his word is not worth the paper that the new-era

commitment document was written on, but that it has no honour to it. It doesn't

mean anything, because he will give you his word, and then tomorrow he can wake

up and break his word.

That's what

every single one of the Liberal MLAs sitting in this chamber is doing when they

rise in this House to support the passage of this bill. It is showing that every

single Liberal MLA has no honour, that their word means nothing and is not even

worth that of a child making a promise — a five-year-old making a promise, a

three-year-old making a promise — because the government will break it just

like that.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

The people,

in their trust of politicians, thought the government was going to go through

with this. When they gave them their word, they thought it would be honoured. By

this government's actions, this Premier, this Minister of Labour and every

single Liberal MLA in this House have just furthered the notion and the concept

that politicians cannot be trusted, that there is no honour in their word.

Broken promise after broken promise — when and where will it stop? When will

it end — when the government stops betraying British Columbians with their

broken promises?

I challenge

the backbench MLAs if they have principles amongst them to rise up in this House

to say: "I will hold true to my word when I campaigned on not breaking

collective agreements and contracting out services. I will hold true to that

promise." I wonder if

[ Page 8145 ]

there's any soul in this House who will rise to that challenge, who will say:

"I have honour, and I will keep true and stay true to my word." The

broader community…. Why I raise this is because people actually believed the

Premier, the Liberal back bench and the Minister of Labour when they said they

would not break collective agreements. They actually believed that.

[1705]

Let me put

on record an

article from the Courier . "Does a 48-year-old hospital

housekeeper have anything to worry about in terms of privatization from"

— it says the Premier's name, and I'll just substitute — "a Liberal

government?" says Stephen Howard, editor of the Guardian , newspaper

of the Hospital Employees Union, in an interview published in December 2000. A

quote from the Premier in his own words, and I'm not paraphrasing: "I say

no. What she's going to find is that people in British Columbia and the

government are recognizin