British Columbia Hansard — Monday, November 24, 2003

H1124pm-14

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, November 24, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 18, Number 14 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

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

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

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

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Monday, November 24, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 8123 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 8124 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 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 8124 Trade with Asia P. Wong B.C. export industry K. Johnston Community safety L. Mayencourt Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8126 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 .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 8128 Employment and assistance appeal tribunal, annual report, 2002-03 Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 8128 Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act (Bill Pr410) B.

Penner Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8129 Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act (Bill Pr410) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 8129 Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act (Bill Pr410) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8129 Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 93) J.

MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 8130 Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 93) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 8130 Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 93) Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 8130 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 ................................................................................................... .......................................... 8150 Significant Projects Streamlining Act (Bill 75) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. K. Falcon K. Stewart B. Penner

8123 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members J. 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 be- yond these walls. Would the House please welcome Carole James, the new NDP leader. R. 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] R. 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 represen- tatives 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 con- gratulations 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 consid- ered a different party, but there you go. Hon. L. Reid: We have some lovely souls visiting with us today. First, we have individuals who repre- sent their family interests here in Gordon Head, Victo- ria. 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 abo- riginal services for northern British Columbia, Mr. Al- len Cummings. I would ask the House to make these guests very, very welcome. K. 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. M. 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 re- covering from a rather incredible summer, but we're fortunate today to have in the gallery seven of our fin- est: two members of the forests protection branch and five of our direct front-line firefighters. I'd like to intro- duce 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 Ma- chielse, 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 an- ticipate the tabling of a piece of legislation with which they have more than a passing interest. Would the House make them all welcome. K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, we have, as you know, three very special guests from Kamloops with us to- day, 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 employ- ees 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 ser- vice.

Maureen Lawson, manager of the reference divi- sion in the library, has also made plans to retire early next year. Pamela Welch, tour coordinator, has com- pleted 25 years of public service. Three other employ- ees will have carried out plans to retire before the 2004 spring session commences: Cliff Ruttan, supply super- visor with the Sergeant-at-Arms; Maria Pivetta, a server in the legislative dining room; and Greg Whin- cup, 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 Mem- bers of the Legislative Assembly and in wishing those planning to retire many happy years ahead.

8124 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 Introduction and First Reading of Bills WILDFIRE ACT Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Wild- fire 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 intro- duce Bill 91, the Wildfire Act, to the chamber today. This legislation incorporates existing provisions of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia into a sepa- rate act to comprehensively address wildfire-related issues in B.C.

The key objective of the act is to clarify specific re- sponsibilities and obligations of not just forest licensees but all users of the forests with respect to fire use, pre- vention, control activities and rehabilitation. The bill responds to an earlier recommendation from the audi- tor general's report Managing Interface Fire Risks to es- tablish, in legislation, firefighting priorities for the pro- tection of life, property and natural resources. In light of the devastating events of the past sum- mer, 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 Tim- ber 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 clari- fies 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 roy- alty system, certain forest companies were paying sig- nificantly 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 liti- gation — that companies will not be compensated for the loss of benefits from a historical anomaly that disap- peared with the phasing-out of the royalty regime. Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on or- ders 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 Mu- nicipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 3) Amend- ment 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 Govern- ment Act, and as a result, through this legislation we are providing legal certainty for the period before the pro- cedural error was corrected. I move that the Municipalities Enabling and Vali- dating (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

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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. In 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 remark- able 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. Geo- graphically, 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 sus- tain the momentum of our economic growth and pro- vide 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 con- certed effort to further develop this important trading market. B.C. EXPORT INDUSTRY K.

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 Cana- dian Manufacturers and Exporters. The awards recog- nize the success of British Columbia's top exporting companies and their contribution to our economy. The exporting industry is responsible for more than 20 per- cent 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 Co- lumbia export sector. Most of us recognize that for- estry, 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 envi- ronment 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 prod- ucts. 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 ac- knowledge 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 L. Mayencourt: Today I want to speak about some- thing that's very near and dear to my heart — I've spo- ken 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 sen- iors, safe for every one of us. I think one of the best ways of promoting commu- nity safety is by involving my community in the discus- sion 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 cre- ate a school community safety zone around Lord Rob- erts 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 s a f e t y i n m y c o m m u n i t y a n d o t h e r s i s t o h o s t p u b l i c 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.

8126 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL J. MacPhail: On Friday the Minister of Transporta- tion 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 sup- plementary question. J.

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 pos- sible 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 informa- tion is so that one can act on it. There is a lot of process that has gone on in listening to communities, in listen- ing to shippers, to make sure that those communities are well served. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J.

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. J. 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 com- munities, 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 competi- tion and gives CN excessive power in the marketplace. That means less service… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. 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 legisla- tion 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 con- cerns 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 Co- lumbians 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 pro- tection 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.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 pro- ceeding 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 under- stand 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 even- tually make with B.C. Rail, that will have to be dealt with in that agreement. That was the purpose of get- ting 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 get- ting 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 bro- ken 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 part- ner that will invest in British Columbia, and that will be good news. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. B.C. RAIL PRIVATIZATION BID PROCESS P.

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 re- p o r t e d t o b e i n b e d w i t h g o v e r n m e n t i n a s w e e t h e a r t 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 deci- sion by the fairness consultant.

Omnitrax, the sole re- maining 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. My question, then, is to the Minister of Transporta- tion. 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 Brit- ish Columbia? I would remind the minister, in consider- ing 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.

8128 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 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 R.

Visser: My question is a public written ques- tion 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 con- tract 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 divi- dend 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 B. Locke: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f A d - vanced Education. For the last 13 years Maclean's magazine has rated universities across the country, with the most recent review indicating that British Co- lumbia 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 Minis- ter of Advanced Education tell this House what is be- ing 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 prov- ince who do an outstanding job.

Three of the universi- ties 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 Brit- ish 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 insti- tutes.

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 prov- ince. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. M. Coell: I rise to present the 2002-03 annual report for the employment and assistance appeal tribu- nal 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 B. Penner: I move that the bill be now read a sec- ond 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 Pentecos- tal 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. B. 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.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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. B. Penner: I move that the committee rise and re- port 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? B. 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. J. 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 legisla- tion 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. On

section 12. 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. On

section 37. 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. On

section 41. 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

8130 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 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 pa- tients 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 legisla- tion was to give health employers the flexibility they needed to ensure the most efficient use of public dol- lars in the delivery of non-clinical services.

By achiev- ing greater efficiency in non-clinical services, we are a b l e t o f r e e u p m o r e d o l l a r s t o i m p r o v e p a t i e n t c a r e and to make sure people get the health care they need when they need it. We are continuing towards our goal to putting pa- tients first. What Bill 94, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, does is create opportunities for gov- ernment and health authorities to partner with the pri- vate 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 em- ployers. 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

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8131 authorities have in place now and continues this gov- ernment'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, emer- gency and non-emergency surgery and medical imag- ing, 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 employ- ees 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 cre- ate new facilities for patients.

Public-private partner- ships 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 un- derway, and numerous road and rail investment pro- jects. 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 part- nerships. Key findings that have been incorporated into B.C.'s hospital project include ensuring that clini- cal leaders such as doctors, nurses and health care pro- fessionals 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 con- tract, there are provisions for the public sector to step in and take over a service, such as laundry, if the part- ner or its subcontractors are not performing to the re- quired 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 au- thority stepping in will be deducted from the partner's service payment.

The contract also provides for incen- tives for the public-private partner to exceed the al- ready very high levels of service quality required in the agreement. The public-private partner also faces penal- ties 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 fa- cilities 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 com- plex, 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 rea- sons, such as unforeseen scope changes, unanticipated equipment requirements or inadequate costing during the planning stages. Under a public-private partner- ship, 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 opera- tional 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

8132 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 created a British Columbia public-private partnership process that will succeed. In the coming months we expect to select the pri- vate 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 Co- lumbia.

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. J. MacPhail: I wonder how many government cau- cus 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 abso- lutely 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 m i n i s t e r j u s t s t o o d u p a n d s a i d : " O h , i t w o u l d b e t h e 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 peo- ple.

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 govern- ment 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 scur- rying 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 La- bour in the history of British Columbia who has broken more collective agreements than in all of North Amer- ica. 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 agree- ments but takes away the basic labour rights of work- ing 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 gov- ernment are an oxymoron. This bill stands as a testa- ment to this government's willingness to sacrifice fair- ness, 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 in- competent 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 clean- ing up legislation held over from the spring — great parliamentary reform brought in by this government. They were not going to ram legislation through the w a y t h e p r e v i o u s g o v e r n m e n t d i d . I f I h e a r t h a t o n e 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 ram- ming it through in days, in a fall session, at a time when nobody has had a chance to examine this legisla- tion?

Today, despite this government's promise to do exactly the opposite — to not do this — we are debat- ing fundamental new laws that forever shift the bal- ance of rights between working people and their em- ployers. There's nothing clarifying about this legisla- tion. 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 elec- tion commitment to respect negotiated agreements.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8133 They're not trying to find ways to exempt corpora- tions involved. Well, actually, this legislation does ex- empt corporations involved in private-public partner- ships 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, be- cause 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 juris- prudence.

It's an affront to the basic democratic princi- ples embedded in a free collective bargaining system, and it's an affront to the principles of fairness and bal- ance that are central to good government. But this government doesn't believe in good gov- ernment. 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 La- bour 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 Nel- son or Kimberley or Port Alberni or New Westminster would not for a moment believe this government puts patients first. Neither would the residents of Lady- smith. I wonder how well that message box flies with Ladysmith residents, for this minister — his own con- stituency. I wonder if they can keep their lunch down when they hear the Minister of Labour saying he's put- ting 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 pri- vately run." Duh. Of course everybody knows that. These are the very homes this government is shutting down right now. Those privately managed and pri- vately 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, ex- plaining 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 pa- tients 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 em- ployees can resolve their differences through an impar- tial 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 la- bour relations throughout the country. [1520] This bill tosses all of that aside. An employee work- ing for a company that signs a contract to provide ser- vices 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 em- ployee has no say. The employee has no resource by legislation, and with no notice, the employee's funda- mental 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 im- proved 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 Agree- ment 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.

Lib- eral 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 abso- lutely 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 So- dexho. Now, with this legislation, he wants to take the contract-breaking provisions of Bill 29 that it rammed

8134 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 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 subcon- tractors. Even sub-subcontractors now can ignore col- lective agreements. In fact, this government is allow- ing, by law, contract-breaking provisions to any com- pany taken on by a health authority as a private part- ner. 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 legisla- tion 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 ex- tremely 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 landscap- ing." If I hear about one more landscaping service be- ing privatized — as if people believe that's all this gov- ernment 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 ser- vices and private employer services from our emer- gency room or physio — nothing. [1525] Mental health clinical services — they're covered by this legislation too. I see the Minister of State for Men- tal Health there laughing.

He probably doesn't even k n o w w h a t ' s i n t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n . H e c a n ' t p o s s i b l y , b e - cause 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 con- tract 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 privatiza- tion of the Abbotsford hospital. We know that this government is so desperate to give away to its biggest political donor, the Independent Contractors and Busi- nesses Association, the single largest donor ever — ever — to the Liberals…. Interjection. J. MacPhail: You have one. It's the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. Interjections. J. 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. J. MacPhail: The single largest donor ever to the Liberal government is the Independent Contractors and Builders Association. There are dozens of corpora- tions who have given hundreds of thousands of dol- lars. CN gave $107,000 to the government, but the sin- gle largest donor to this government is the Independ- ent Contractors and Businesses Association — abso- lutely the biggest. Now they're getting their reward. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order. J.

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 Busi- nesses 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. J. 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. J. 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. Lib- erals. We do know that the corporations love this gov- ernment — absolutely love it — because they get an immediate payoff. CN donates $107,000 to this gov- ernment; they get a profitable rail line. It's wonderful.

The independent contractors donate as much as any- one 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. J. MacPhail: As always, the sterling decorum of the Minister of Labour rises to the top — rises to the top.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 8135 I'm sure the Independent Contractors and Busi- nesses Association are gleeful with this legislation — absolutely gleeful. [1530] Let's start with the Abbotsford hospital and cancer c e n t r e a n d s e e w h a t B i l l 9 4 d o e s t h e r e . L e t ' s b e c l e a r , Mr. Speaker. This government that was going to re- store 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 Hos- pital. 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. J. 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 Van- couver 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 pa- tient 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.

J. 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 hospi- tal 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 pre- pared 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 glori- ous day for the rich in this province — the biggest tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy. Unfortu- nately, 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 ques- tion: 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 com- munity 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 re- cover 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 Pre- mier said: "They won't be needed, private health clin- ics, 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 govern- ment?

There are over two dozen private health clinics flourishing in this province since this government took

8136 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 over. Let's see. That would be a 600 percent increase in the number of private health clinics since this govern- ment 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 ac- cording to this government's own policies the only s e r v i c e s t h a t m u s t b e m a n a g e d b y t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h 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 sys- tem. 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 corpora- tions 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 sys- tem according to this government: you better be in an a c u t e c a r e b e d , o r e l s e y o u ' r e n o t p a r t o f t h e p u b l i c 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 hospi- tal 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 em- ployees 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 pri- vatized. 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 defini- tion 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, psychi- atric services, counselling services and out-patient can- cer 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 con- tractor and subcontractor, right down the chain.

Given how dismal the economic record of this gov- ernment is — or this government delivering on any- thing 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 m a k e a l o t o f m o n e y . T h e y j u s t h a v e t o k e e p g i v i n g 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 employ- ers 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 govern- ment 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 pre- vious contract-breaking legislation for health sector workers.

As if Bill 29 wasn't enough in terms of break- ing contracts, this legislation — Bill 94, the Health Sec- tor Partnerships Agreement Act —, even amends that contract-breaking legislation to give more away to pri- vate employers. Well, we've actually been down this promise- breaking, contracting-out road before. It's a disgrace- fully 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 Pre- mier's key election promises: the promise that he wouldn't break contracts or tear up contracts. In De- cember of 2000 the Premier, then the Leader of the Op- position, 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 his- tory 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

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 legisla- tion 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 Co- lumbia, has treated this Legislature — and the prom- ises 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 overwhelm- ing 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. ex- tremely 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 constitu- ent who is not represented by the NDP gets a fair hear- ing inside this Legislature. The Minister of Labour didn't meet with health care workers on this matter.

They met with the private con- tractors 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 w i t h h e a l t h c a r e w o r k e r s . I n f a c t , h e r e f u s e s t o m e e t 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. J. MacPhail: O h , i s t h a t s o m e f l o p p i n g I h e a r t h e Minister of Labour doing? Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order, mem- bers. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. J. MacPhail: I hear the minister flopping around over there, Mr. Speaker — flopping around in a brag- gadocio 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 nego- tiate 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 s t y l e .

T he y 're g o i ng t o g o o u t wi t h a b an g i n t hi s s e s - sion, ramming draconian, controversial legislation through. They're going to just go out with a bang in November 2003. We now know that abusing its legisla- tive 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, say- ing: "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 legisla- tion 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 gov- ernment 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. De- mocracy — 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

8138 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 Labour says they're putting patients first? Surgical wait-lists are up, absolutely, in the Fraser health au- thority. 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 gov- ernment 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 facili- ties. 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 incom- petence 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 explana- tory 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 explana- tory note of this bill says. It says: "This Bill will facili- tate development and implementation of public- private partnerships in the health sector, enabling im- proved 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 us- ing 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 peo- ple on legislation.

Bill 94 does not only affect the public-private inter- face, 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 con- tract-breaking provisions practically ad infinitum, this B.C.

Liberal government is attempting to deprive workers of their right to union representation in situa- tions where health authorities contract out services. In giving private partners carte blanche to subcon- tract services at will, they are trying to prevent unions from improving wages and working conditions for workers across this province. Despite what this Minis- ter 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 Hospi- tal 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 union- ized, 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 govern- ment, which campaigned on openness and not break- ing 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-

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 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 pri- vate 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 cau- cus members sit back and let this happen. Here's something that it doesn't say in the explana- tory 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 pub- licly 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 Co- lumbia. This government legislates the definition of an em- ployer 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 govern- ment didn't even read

chapter 11 of the North Ameri- can 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 to

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 govern- ments 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 Agree- ment, 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 allow- ing the North American Free Trade Agreement to ap- ply 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 k n o w w h a t i t ' s d o i n g . G e e , t h a t w o u l d b e a s u r p r i s e , 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. S o I a m m o v i n g a n a m e n d m e n t , i f I m a y , t o t h e 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. J.

MacPhail: I am moving that we hoist this legisla- tion, 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 an- other 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 commu- nity support, said on the private building of MSA Hos-

8140 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 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 Ab- botsford 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 amend- ment 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 opportu- nity 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 tha

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1124pm-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1124pm 14
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cad519cb1ed53690f7538329cc8cb8b37269a025

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