2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2001 (Bill 11). Hon. G. Plant

Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions

Settlement of nurses' and health

professionals' disputes

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Softwood lumber exports to U.S.

R. Visser

Mental Health plan

R. Stewart

Proceedings in

Section B

School (Protection of Parent

Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 8)

Second reading

Hon. C. Clark

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell

Hon. C. Clark

Health Care Services Collective

Agreements Act (Bill 15)

Second reading

Hon. G. Bruce

J. McPhail

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Bruce

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act,

2001 (Bill 2)

Second reading

Hon. G. Collins

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment

Act, 2001 (Bill 3)

Second reading

Hon. G. Collins

Balanced Budget and Ministerial

Accountability Act (Bill 4)

Second reading

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Private Members' Statements

Value-added. P. Bell

Hon. M. de Jong

The power of small hydro. B. Penner

Hon. R. Neufeld

Fall fare. G. Trumper

V. Roddick

Year of the Volunteer. K. Stewart

V. Anderson

Proceedings in

Section A

Committee of Supply

Ministry of Finance estimates. Hon. G.

Collins

Vote 28: Ministry operations

Hon. G.

Collins

I. Chong

D. Jarvis

Vote 29: Registries

Vote 48: Management of

public funds and debt

Vote 50: Contingencies (all

ministries) and new programs

Vote 55: Public Sector

Employers Council

Vote 56: Seismic mitigation

Ministry of Education estimates. Hon. C.

Clark

Vote 24: Ministry operations

Hon. C.

Clark

I. Chong

R. Masi

Lekstrom

R. Lee

Ministry of Competition, Science and

Enterprise estimates. Hon. R. Thorpe

Vote 23: Ministry operations

Hon. R.

Thorpe

I. Chong

Brenzinger

Hon. K.

Falcon

R. Lee

[ Page 305 ]

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2001

The House

met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, it is my pleasure today to introduce to the House

several members of the Sergeant-at-Arms fraternity from across the country and

the United Kingdom. They are attending the nineteenth annual Canadian

Sergeant-at-Arms Conference, and I would ask the House to please make them

welcome.

Brice: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr.

Hewitt Helmsing, a resident of Saanich South, a good friend of many in this

House and president of the Victoria Dragon Boat Festival. I ask the House to

make him welcome.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: We have a number of friends in the gallery today. The first one

is Mr. Bob Fast. I don't see him, but I'm sure he's in the House. He is from

Squamish. He's at a convention here in Victoria, and he wanted to see what I was

doing in the House. We welcome him. We also welcome Mr. and Mrs. McEwan from

West Vancouver. They're on their annual pilgrimage to Victoria and visit to the

House. I hope you can all make them feel very welcome.

[1405]

Trumper: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Dr. Diane Martin,

who is the chief of staff for West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni; her

sister Janet Martin, who is the newsroom editor for RTE Dublin; and her daughter,

Christobel O'Connor. I believe that Dr. Martin has her two daughters with her.

Please welcome them.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Many of you will know that it's not often I get to introduce a real

northerner, someone from Fort St. John. It's my pleasure to introduce the

publisher of the Alaska Highway News, Mr. Bruce Lantz, who is here to

observe question period.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. G.

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

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. G.

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

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

This bill amends a number of statutes: Child Care BC Act; Child, Youth

and Family Advocacy Act; Commercial Transport Act; Legislative Assembly

Allowances and Pension Act; Medical Practitioners Act; Motor Vehicle Act; and the

Offence Act. It also repeals the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act;

the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2001; and the Protection of Public

Participation Act.

conjunction with the legislative provisions with respect to the Human Rights

Code Amendment Act, I would like to inform the House that the government is

fulfilling another new-era commitment by appointing an independent task force to

review pay equity. Nitya Iyer, a distinguished lawyer and former member of the

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, will head the task force. Ms. Iyer is an expert in

charter and administrative law. She will look at current private sector

pay-equity legislation to determine how effective and efficient it is in

addressing sex-based wage disparities in the marketplace. Her report is due in

February 2002. I will elaborate on the nature of the amendments in Bill 11

during the second reading of this bill.

Hon.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11

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

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

Oral Questions

SETTLEMENT OF NURSES' AND

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS' DISPUTES

MacPhail: In May, when the Nurses Union urged its members to reject the

offer that's now being forced upon them, the B.C. Liberal Party said the

following: "They're justified in asking for higher wages, for better

working conditions and better educational opportunities. We've said that's what

they deserve."

Any nurse

who heard the now Premier make that statement probably would have understood him

to mean that the Liberal government would make a better offer. Well, it didn't.

It's now perfectly clear that the Liberals had a hidden agenda all along.

To the

Minister of Labour. He had an opportunity, when he met with them as recently

as 48 hours ago, to reveal his government's hidden agenda to force the agreement

upon the nurses. He didn't do that. In fact, he deliberately misled them on

that. He wouldn't be straight with them.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member.

MacPhail: Why not?

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, I must caution every member that the words

"deliberately misleading" are

[ Page 306 ]

unparliamentary. I would ask the member to withdraw.

[1410]

MacPhail: I withdraw. Let me rephrase, then. The Minister of Labour

deliberately told the nurses something else than the actions that he did take

within hours after meeting with them. Why wasn't he straight with them?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The issue before us is a very serious one. It's not one to be

trivialized or put in the field of political footballs bounced back and forth.

We've dealt with it in a manner that we think is fair and equitable. We are here

today, and shortly we will be debating this bill that will give our health care

workers the highest compensation package in Canada.

My purpose

in meeting and speaking with both of the unions during the weekend was to make

sure that I knew their last offer, where they were at. This has been a long,

protracted negotiation. I did that, and I then had to make a recommendation to

my cabinet colleagues and the government. I have done that.

MacPhail: There have been members of the government who have agreed with

health care professionals that this agreement isn't just about money. Everyone

knows that you cannot legislate morale. Health care professionals are the

backbone of our health care system. Nurses and health science professionals now

actively participate in the management of our health care system. They actively

participate in a cooperative way to retain and recruit health care

professionals. They actively participate to ensure the health and safety of the

workplace, to ensure that policies that affect patient care have the support of

front-line workers.

To the

Minister of Labour. Can the minister explain why he expects nurses and health

science professionals to continue to cooperate in the management of the health

care system when he has now rejected every single proposal that they have made

to improve patient care?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The member makes a true observation that morale is low and the

frustration is very high. It has been ten years of a very difficult time for the

health care system. The government of the NDP in the past ten years neglected

health care. We are now faced with a very large task, indeed, to rebuild that

morale.

Do I stand

here before you today and say that tomorrow the people will be cheering in the

streets, that the morale will increase overnight? No, it won't. The damage that

was done is severe. The work to make this a health care system that we can

once again be proud of and know that it's there for all British Columbians….

It is going to take a lot of hard work on behalf of all of us to get there

again.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further supplemental question.

MacPhail: Let me ask a very practical question to the Minister of Labour. It deals strictly with the actions that his government has taken. It's a

practical question and deserves a practical answer for the people out there.

Nurses in British Columbia proposed to work with their employers to reduce

overtime costs and improve patient care at the same time. That offer was thrown

out by the government in its forced settlements, just rejected out of hand.

Can the

Minister of Labour tell us why he rejected the nurses' offer and tell this

House how he now intends to address the question of overtime costs?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We've spent several years now listening to nurses on the front lines

around British Columbia. Registered nurses who are working in our facilities

have come up with some excellent, excellent ideas in terms of how we can save

costs and make the health care system work better. We've been listening to that,

and we're going to be acting on some of those initiatives.

But the

point that has been made by the Nurses Union executive is that yes, nurses are

frustrated, and their first response is: "You can't pay us enough money to

go through the frustrations that we have to go through." Then we have the

Nurses Union come back and say: "Okay, maybe you can pay us enough to

continue to be frustrated."

We don't

want nurses in this province to be frustrated. We want to work with them to

deliver on a health care system that works in this province. We offered the

Nurses Union….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1415]

Hon. C.

Hansen: We extended a hand of partnership to the Nurses Union. If the Nurses

Union themselves will not work with us in that partnership to solve these

fundamental problems, then we will gladly work with the individual front-line

workers around this province to get their input. We will start to improve health

care.

J. Kwan:

I hope this government knows that it cannot legislate cooperation. The step

this government has taken will ensure that the health care system further

deteriorates.

Since the

cooling-off period was legislated, the health care professionals have made

several attempts to reduce their demands to the government, totalling tens of

millions of dollars. The Premier has said over and over again that the health

care professionals are asking for too much. Can the Minister of Labour tell this

House and British Columbians what the monetary difference is between the nurses'

and HSA's latest offer and his forced settlement? And will the minister also

agree to table in the House his breakdown of these costs?

[ Page 307 ]

Hon. G.

Bruce: As I mentioned, negotiations have been long and protracted in trying

to come to a resolution. The fact of the matter is that the mandate was built by

the previous administration. The negotiations were not done in a businesslike

manner, which caused great difficulty for all of the parties to be able to

participate.

The simple

fact of the matter is that the bottom line between both unions and the

government, the last offer — not the last offer but the combined offer,

accumulated over three years — is $500 million apart. I think it's very

important to note that the amount of money on the table that both nurses and the

paramedicals are going to receive individually will give them the highest

compensation package in the country.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental.

J. Kwan:

My simple question was to ask the minister to table the detailed numbers for

this House. Further, the Premier said yesterday that he has a contingency plan

to deal with the fact that nurses in B.C. will start to leave in large numbers

as a result of his forced settlement action. Will the Minister of Labour assure

British Columbians that precious health care dollars dedicated for patient care

won't be used on a massive advertising campaign to recruit nurses and health

professionals from elsewhere?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I will gladly give the member the assurance that we will not be

spending taxpayers' dollars on needless advertising, like the previous

administration.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with one more

supplemental.

J. Kwan:

Will the Minister of Labour also assure this House and British Columbians

that the standard of care provided by the health care professionals will not be

eroded or diminished in any way by what this government has in its contingency

plan?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have in British Columbia some of the best health care

professionals of any jurisdiction in the world, and we have every right to be

proud. The offer that will be legislated will make them the

highest paid, in terms of wages and benefits, of any jurisdiction in Canada.

Finally, I

think something that this House should know is that since the information about

this offer has been in the public domain and circulating around North America

and around the world, the number of nurses applying to British Columbia is up

significantly over the same time last year.

[1420]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Island.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, members. Order, please. The member for North Island

has the floor.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS TO U.S.

Visser: My questions are for the Minister of Forests. Along with health care

there is one other very real and very important issue that's looming over the

future of this province, and that's the issue of whether or not the U.S.

Department of Commerce will impose a retroactive countervail duty on Canadian

softwood lumber products. The North Island relies heavily on the forest sector,

and these tariff systems, if imposed, will have the potential to be truly

devastating. Can the minister tell operators and workers in my constituency

whether they're going to be asked to fork over money for products they've

already shipped to the U.S.?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is the critical circumstance designation that the member is

asking about, and it is the retroactive application of a duty. It is triggered

by a finding by the U.S. Department of Commerce that exports of Canadian lumber

have surpassed a 15 percent threshold over a particular period of time, and

there's a seasonal adjustment factor. Our best information today is that Canada

has not surpassed that threshold, and we are working with the Canadian

government to impress that point upon the Americans. We are going to continue to

impress that point upon the Americans. We expect a decision in a matter of days,

and we will keep this House and British Columbians informed.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Island with a supplementary question.

Visser: Under the previous softwood lumber agreement, which expired earlier

this year, an operator's ability to ship lumber to the U.S. market depended on

their having a quota. As the minister knows, this quota system created large

divisions, not only with Canada but within British Columbia, between sometimes

the interior and sometimes the coast. Will the minister please tell us whether

the government is considering going to the U.S. and negotiating another

quota-based trade agreement?

Hon. M.

de Jong: We're not in favour of a return to a quota-based managed trade

agreement. What we are in favour of is engaging the Americans in a discussion, a

dialogue, to determine whether or not they are serious about bringing an end to

a trade dispute that occurs with disturbing regularity. What we are in favour of

is an agreement that grants British Columbia and Canada free, unencumbered,

unfettered access to the American market. What we are in favour of is following

through on our new-era pledge to revitalize and reform an industry that

languished for far too long under NDP policies that brought it and the economy

in B.C. to its knees.

[ Page 308 ]

MENTAL HEALTH PLAN

Stewart: There's another side to the Health ministry as it was silently

ignored by the previous government over the past decade. To the Minister of

State for Mental Health. Clinical depression is a serious health concern that

touches the lives of many British Columbians, affecting nearly 10 percent of our

population. Fortunately, it's a treatable illness. Unfortunately, though, only

half of those suffering from clinical depression receive treatment, due to the

lack of knowledge on the part of service providers and many in the public who

neither recognize nor consider clinical depression to be an illness. Will the

minister tell us what plans he has to help these individuals who continue to

suffer in silence?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mental health is a serious issue for this government. That's why the

Premier has appointed me as the first Minister for Mental Health in this

country. Unlike the previous government, we have a true commitment in our New

Era document. We are going to be launching a depression initiative that will

focus on patients, families and health care providers. We have a commitment

to our patients.

We want to

make sure our patients are treated properly, unlike the last government. They

made an announcement for mental health three times, and there was no money

attached to that. This time we are going to be launching a new initiative, and

we'll also be implementing the mental health plan that the previous government

announced three times. The plan was never implemented. Your government was only

able to implement $10 million.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Order, please.

[1425]

Hon. G.

Cheema: We will be implementing and fully funding the $125 million plan.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be beginning with the estimates of the Ministry of Finance,

followed by the Ministry of Education. In this House I call second reading of

Bill 8.

SCHOOL

(PROTECTION OF PARENT VOLUNTEERS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon. C.

Clark: I move that Bill 8, the School (Protection of Parent Volunteers)

Amendment Act, 2001, be read a second time.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, if we could, let's let the members that are going to

Committee A depart from the chamber.

If you

could do so quickly and quietly, please.

The

Minister of Education continues.

Hon. C.

Clark: Bill 8 is about parental involvement. Parental involvement is a

critical ingredient in the education of any young person. Every study done shows

conclusively that when parents are involved in their children's schools, those

children achieve higher results. This government has promised that parents'

right to volunteer in their children's schools will be protected in legislation.

This bill fulfils that promise.

We know

that parental participation is the single most important factor affecting how

well children do in school. After years of hearing the opposite from government,

we are today telling parents that they are not just being encouraged but being

welcomed back into the public school system in British Columbia.

The

legislation guarantees that parents may participate as volunteers in their

children's education. It means that the right of a parent to participate cannot

be negotiated away at any bargaining table anywhere in our province. No

collective agreement will be able to limit the use of volunteers except where a

volunteer would replace an existing employee.

This bill

recognizes the government's belief that schools are learning places first and

working places second. The amendments made to the School Act by this bill will

provide an entitlement for parents by spelling out in the act their right to

volunteer in schools, provided that those volunteer services will not result in

the displacement of a board employee. The legislation will allow parents to

support staff and teachers and to enhance the services that they provide. It

protects those services while at the same time ensuring that parents have access

to their children's schools.

Under the

School Act, school boards have the right and the responsibility to oversee the

use of volunteers. As such, they are to determine the rules and the criteria

governing volunteers in their district according to their local needs. This

legislation does not erode the autonomy of boards to permit volunteers in their

schools and to make rules respecting volunteer services.

The

amendments made by this bill will provide protection from legal action to

volunteers. Where a volunteer is providing services at or for a school and they are

abiding by the policies and instructions of the board, this legislation provides

authority in the act for protection from legal action in the same way as is

currently provided for employees of the board and for trustees.

Hon.

Speaker, this government has put education and the needs of children at the top

of its priority list. Parents are an essential partner in helping children do

[ Page 309 ]

well as they can in our public schools. This legislation makes it clear that

parents are welcome to participate in the public education system and are

encouraged to be part of it.

[1430]

The

legislation has been embraced by the B.C. School Trustees Association. It's been

applauded by the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. This government

promised to put children first, and we promised that we would put parents back

at the centre of our education system. That is what Bill 8 does.

Hon.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 8.

J. Kwan:

I rise today to speak to the bill. I think it is important to note that in terms

of the overall thrust in principles of allowing parents into the classroom, it

has been one that has been welcomed not only by teachers and students alike but

also, of course, by CUPE. It is important to note that historically, that

practice has always been in place.

I know that

the president of CUPE, Barry O'Neill, in fact has said on several occasions that

he welcomes parents into the classrooms. Many of the CUPE members are parents

themselves, and in fact, they volunteer in their own children's places of

learning. In many respects, one actually does wonder whether or not the

legislation is indeed necessary and whether or not this is just for political

reasons.

Having said

that, I would like to quote Barry O'Neill, president of CUPE, who said in

today's National Post : "We have never had any opposition to parents

volunteering. What we've said is volunteers should not be used to replace

trained, professional staff. I am not sure what the government is trying to

achieve." So there is no dispute from anybody with respect to ensuring that

parents should have the right to come into the classroom. There is no question

about that.

The

question, of course, from the BCTF is an important one as well. They raise many

issues. They have written a letter to the minister around educational issues,

particularly as they relate to the learning environment for children. The BCTF

have said very clearly that they want to ensure that the learning environment

for students is in its best shape, and that is their utmost care and

responsibility. They also have issues around educational funding. I will be

asking some of those questions during the estimates stage with the minister.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Well, yes indeed, it is the budget that was brought forward by the previous

government, but it does not preclude questions being asked, because this is a

new budget that this government has actually reaffirmed. They have said that

they place a high priority in the area of education. I will be posing some of

those questions during the estimates stage in this House.

With

respect to the BCTF, they clearly have other issues as well, particularly as

they relate to the collective bargaining rights issue and essential services. I

have no doubt we will have opportunities to talk about that further on in our

debates in this House.

The other

points that are important relating to this legislation, which have been raised

by the B.C. School Trustees Association…. It's interesting because when I look

at the documents they sent to everybody in the House relating to this piece of

legislation.... The B.C. School Trustees Association suggests that there needs to

be careful management of volunteer resources and that boards will need to review

their rules for volunteers to ensure that they provide adequately for control of

the school environment, particularly since some of the rights the employees

have achieved through collective bargaining may be diminished by virtue of the

new

section 26.1 described below, which I will talk a little bit about after.

[1435]

They gave

an example: should board rules provide that a teacher controls who volunteers in

that teacher's classroom as well as what duties they perform? I think that's an

important question for the minister to respond to.

I think

it's also important to note that displacement has been noted in the

legislation. However, displacement is not clearly defined. It would refer to a

loss of position or a permanent reduction of hours in a position, possibly a

loss of work that would otherwise have gone to an on-call employee.

The letter

further says:

"This

provision would appear to prevent the board from, for example, terminating

the employment of employed crossing guards and replacing them with

volunteers. It is not clear whether it would also prevent the board from

using volunteers for what would otherwise be considered bargaining unit

work, thereby reducing extra hours that might have been available to casual

or part-time employees, or as overtime to full-time employees. For example,

it has not been uncommon for a non-teaching union to waive its rights to

allow for volunteers to do 'bargaining unit work' such as assisting with

meal programs or installing equipment purchased by PACs; this provision may

prevent that from happening, even with union's consent, if the result is a

'displacement.'"

So there

are questions, in fact, that this piece of legislation would further erode the

opportunity for parents to be at the workplace. These questions are important, I

think, and would need to be answered.

Although the minister confirms that the

legislation would not take away employment in the school for teachers and

bargaining unit work, I hope that the minister will ensure what exactly

displacement means in this sense and also answer the question from the B.C.

School Trustees Association, because they're unclear on that question.

The bill

also makes void any provision of a collective agreement that limits the use of

volunteers other than as provided in the new

section 26.1(2), and this

replaces all collective agreement language dealing with volunteers. It would

increase the

[ Page 310 ]

flexibility of some school boards, but it would also decrease

flexibility in others. This is also a concern that has been raised. So it

is not clear how it would affect the general contracting-out language that includes volunteers.

On the face of it, the legislation appears to make such language void, rather

than just read down to exclude volunteers. I think this is another point that

the BCTF and CUPE and others…. It would be important for them to have

clarification from the minister.

The other

concern that has been raised by the BCTF is that this legislation may also

affect whether or not teachers' professional autonomy clauses could be used to

limit the presence of volunteers in the classroom. It isn't clear to them

whether or not that would be impacted. So on the whole, there needs to be

clarification from the minister in these regards.

It is

important to note, though, that the president of CUPE has stated over and over

again that they welcome parents in the classrooms. And to ensure that the CUPE

members' work is not displaced and that they're not replaced and that skilled

professionals who are providing expertise in the classroom are also not replaced

by volunteers…. That is to make sure that we actually maintain and uphold a

standard of professionalism within the school system. To that end, I think that

if these aspects are adhered to, there is no quarrel from CUPE or, for that

matter, from anybody to ensure that there is absolutely a place for parents in

the classrooms.

So I would

look forward to committee stage to ask the minister to clarify some of these

points and to make sure that there is clear understanding in the classrooms for

the teachers as well as for the administrators who will be engaging in making

changes in relation to the bill, once it's received royal assent, and to make it

clear to CUPE so that there's no misunderstanding with respect to the intent of

the legislation and its application.

[1440]

Hon. G.

Campbell: It was interesting listening to the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant's comments. I don't know where she stands on the bill, now that she's

completed her comments, but I did notice one thing: not once in that member's

comments did she mention children. Not once in that member's comments did she

mention students. I think that's one of the things that distinguishes this side

of the House from that member opposite. We have been clear. The public education

system is there for the public, and we will always put students' needs first.

There are

lots of areas of debate within the education system. How do we give children the

opportunity to maximize their learning potential? How do we create opportunities

so that they can develop themselves completely as human beings? There is one

incontrovertible fact which is borne out by study after study after study after

study: when parents are included in children's education — any parent being

included in a child's education means that child will do better — they will

learn more, they will prosper, and they will become fuller and more complete

people. That's why this government has been clear from the outset that we will

guarantee rights of parents to be part of the public education system in every

school in British Columbia.

I want to

congratulate the minister on coming forward and delivering on the commitment

that we made to parents. This government will support parent advisory councils;

this government will support parents in schools. This government looks at

parents as essential partners in developing a public education system that is

second to none.

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't think the Premier's comments really need any addition.

Parents are at the top of this government's list. Students should be at the

centre of our education system. Everything that we do — every single change,

every single policy that we contemplate for the Ministry of Education — should

focus on those two single things. That's going to be a big change in British

Columbia.

With that,

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

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr.

Speaker: The motion is second reading of Bill 8.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

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

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion

approved.

Bill 8,

School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call second reading of Bill 15.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES COLLECTIVE

AGREEMENTS ACT

(second reading)

Hon.

G. Bruce: I would just like to outline briefly what this act is about. We've

had a long and protracted dispute in our health care field since January of this

year until today. What this bill will do is make our health care workers — being the nurses and the paramedicals…. It will give them the highest

compensation package in Canada. I want to reiterate that so everybody knows: it

will give them the highest compensation package in Canada.

[1445]

This bill

provides collective agreements to settle the disputes in the health sector

involving nurses and paramedical professionals, and it also ends the cooling-off

period. These collective agreements are comprised of three elements: the

collective agreements that

[ Page 311 ]

expired on March 31 of this year, provisions that

have been negotiated and agreed upon by HEABC and the nurses' bargaining

association and the paramedicals' bargaining association during collective bargaining; and also the provisions

of the settlement packages tabled by HEABC.

The impact

of this agreement is quite extensive. I'd just like to bring to the House's

attention what's involved in this collective agreement. Apart from the fact of

it awarding and providing for the highest compensation for our nurses and our

paramedicals in Canada, this package is a 23½ percent cumulative wage increase

for the average nurse. This is a three-year contract. The starting salary for a

registered nurse in 2002 will be $46,400 per year. The salary for a level 1

registered nurse with eight years' experience in 2002 will be $61,000 per year.

I bring that to the House's attention, not for anyone to go ah or ooh or

anything along that line, but just so the fact can be stated as to what the

compensation is. It also provides for the highest mileage rates in Canada, at 44

cents per kilometre, the highest on-call premium in Canada, maintenance of the

highest vacation entitlements in Canada and maintenance of 100 percent

employer-paid health and welfare benefits, the highest employer-paid rate in

Canada. The additional cumulative cost of the agreement over these next three

years is $634 million. I'd like to repeat that to the House. The additional —

this is additional — cumulative cost over the entire three years of this

contract, which the taxpayers of British Columbia will have to find for this

portion of the agreement, is $634 million. That is in respect to the nurses.

In regards

to the paramedicals, this three-year agreement also provides for the maintenance

of the highest wages in Canada. There are wage increases of 5½ percent for 40

percent of the employees and 14¼ percent for the majority of the employees in

the hard-to-fill positions. Again, it provides for the highest mileage rates in

Canada, the highest on-call premiums in the country, increased funding for

professional development, the highest paid leave and health and welfare benefits

in Canada, and the maintenance of the highest vacation entitlements in Canada.

That's four weeks in the first year. The additional cumulative cost of the

agreement over the next three years is $135 million. I want to reiterate that.

The additional cumulative cost of this three-year contract for the paramedicals

is $135 million. We're looking at nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars of

additional funds for the life of these two contracts to be found by the

taxpayers to pay for these contracts.

The length

of these negotiations has been protracted, as I've mentioned. The discussions

started to take place in January. There were mediators brought in to try and

resolve the disputes. There were a number of items on which there was common

agreement, and they were set aside and agreed upon, but it became apparent that

we were faced with a huge chasm in respect to the dollars between the parties.

We were left, as a new government, to deal with a situation that had been left

by the former government, the NDP, where they had expended the mandate and had

bargained in a very unprofessional manner. We were left with a situation where

we were literally millions of dollars apart. In fact, the difference between the

two parties on a combined basis would be nearly half a billion dollars. That's

half a billion dollars on top of the three quarters of a billion dollars that's

already in this contract for the two parties. The difference was extensive; the

difference was huge.

[1450]

The general

public, from one end of this province to the other, is looking for some

stability. They're looking for the health care sector to get back together and

start to rebuild and provide for a system that is good for all of the people of

the province.

It's

important that all of us now, as we get past this — and I do hope that we can

get past this in a manner that…. I understand the frustration level

that is there within those that have been in this negotiating process, but if

we can get past this and start to rebuild the health care system, it will be one

that we are all proud of here in the province of British Columbia.

This

government understands the importance of the nurses and the paramedicals and the

contribution and the dedication that they make on behalf of all the people of

the province in delivering good health care. We understand that. We understand

the hours that they put in. We understand their commitment to health care. Most

of all, we understand the frustration that they have felt during these past ten

years and particularly through this last negotiation period.

In a

broader picture, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important…. I speak now, not just

to the people in this dispute but to all of us living in this province, about

this notion of always looking at what somebody else has and whether I want that

too. It's a natural tendency on all of our parts that we would be looking to

have what the other person has. Sometimes when we do that, particularly in a

country such as Canada and a province such as British Columbia, we forget to

reflect on what it is we already have.

Several

years ago I had the good fortune to go to Thailand. I was travelling through the

country, a country that has had some very severe difficulties over these past

few years. I was coming back into Bangkok on a train early in the morning —

one of those trains where the windows are down and you're sticking your head out

the window to look at life as it starts to come to life there early in the

morning, 4 o'clock. As we came in and the train was slowing into the outskirts

of Bangkok, there were all these little shanty places — people who had lost

what they had, living in little corrugated cardboard huts. As we slowed to

one particular crossing, I could see this mother with two young children. She

was getting them up, cooking over a little stove, dressing them up, trying to

put on the spit and polish that a mother does as she sends them out to school. I

looked at that and thought, what future do they have? Yet they were going

through the motions. They were going to carry on and do what they needed to do

to live and survive in a very difficult situation.

[ Page 312 ]

And there but for the grace of God

go I. Here's a situation that is in one country half a world away, and we live

here in this beautiful province with so much.

It's fair

and understandable that when we get into a negotiation, we look for more.

I understand that. But in the broad context of what we have in this province, I

think it's time for all of us to take a step back and appreciate what it is we

have here. Rather than look for how much more we can get, let's go to the other

tack: how can we give so that we can rebuild this province to make it number one

again in this country?

As I

mentioned earlier and have continued to mention during this address, this

government understands the importance of our health care workers and the

contribution they make. We respect their dedication. This bill that we've

introduced and this legislation that we are providing reflect the fact that we

understand how important they are by virtue of giving them and making them the

highest paid with the greatest compensation package for their professions here

in Canada.

[1455]

I take no

joy in bringing in legislation that forces people back to work. It is somewhat

ironic that we're bringing in legislation that in fact does that but in the same

way makes them the highest paid in this country. Let us hope that with the actions

that have taken place today and with the job action that we've seen to some

extent through the province, cooler heads will prevail and the frustration people have will be vented. Though I understand they won't jump for joy, I hope

they will realize we are on the road to recovery, and they will be part of the

rebuilding process.

This bill

is not to be taken lightly by anybody. It's not to be taken lightly by those who

would see this as a political action. It is not. This is an action that needed

to be done on behalf of the people of British Columbia. This was clearly a

situation where the parties had come to a chasm that was too deep, too great to

be able to step over. This government has taken the steps it needs to so that we

can once again rebuild our health care system and have health care professionals

working in a system that is optimistic, where it's fun again to go to work on a

daily basis and where they can be part of the rebuilding process.

MacPhail: It is with great reluctance that I stand in the House today to

debate the piece of legislation that is before us from this government,

legislation forcing nurses and health care professionals back to work with a

settlement imposed upon them that completely erodes good-faith bargaining and

probably will throw our health care system further into chaos.

It is

interesting to note that in this chamber, there are about a dozen Liberal MLAs.

How important do they actually see this debate — that this debate is now of

almost no consequence? There's a reason for that. It's because this government

is so abusing the process of the Legislative Assembly and debate that they're

just throwing mass confusion into the system of how democracy takes place here

and how legislation is developed.

Earlier

today the Attorney General tabled a piece of legislation, an omnibus bill that

basically does away with several, if not a dozen, programs that British

Columbians rely on but that have nothing to do with health care. Once again the

public is thrown into absolute chaos by this government, trying to keep up with

the changes it's making in taking good, solid programs and protections

around the environment away from British Columbians in the continuation of their

extreme agenda.

In another

place we have the estimates of the Ministry of Finance going on, where we have a

budget that's been tabled with the second-largest deficit ever in the history of

the province. They're just going merrily along asking each other the question:

"Tell us, how optimistic is your forecast, Mr. Finance Minister?"

Meanwhile they're destroying the morale of health care professionals with this

bill.

So here we

have, out in the halls of the Legislature, a piece of legislation foisted upon

British Columbians that will throw the environmental future of this province

into chaos. It destroys child care in this province; it takes away an

independent child advocate of this province. And here we are. This government

has already moved on from its extreme agenda of imposing a settlement on nurses

and health care professionals, and they're in there merrily debating away the

second-largest deficit ever imposed on British Columbia.

Here we

are, this before us, trying to make some sense of the extreme agenda of the

Liberal government: their new era, the first 90 days of action, the fact

that they've been in government since May 16 of this year. How long have they

been preparing to impose an unfair and unbalanced settlement on health care

professionals? Has it been since May 16? Has it been since April 16, when the

election was called? Or has it been since May 28, 1996, that they've been

deciding this extreme agenda which they refuse to reveal to us? How long has it

been?

[1500]

When the

Premier was invested, along with his executive council, earlier this summer, he

said…. It was not picked up by anyone, but it was a very telling comment and

almost childish. When he was being inducted, he said: "I should have been

giving this speech — this should have happened — five years ago."

You know

what? Perhaps the extreme and hidden agenda of this Liberal government has been

in the making since that time. Somehow they can stand up today and say:

"It's all the doing of the last decade; we had nothing to do with it. And by the way, we were forced into this situation as soon as we came into

office."

Well, I say

to the Liberal government: you've been preparing to impose these extreme

measures on nurses and health care professionals for a long, long time. The only

thing you didn't do was reveal your hidden agenda during the election, when you

were asked the questions directly.

The Premier

promised a fair settlement, not a forced settlement. He promised one thing, and

now

[ Page 313 ]

he's doing something entirely different than what he promised. There's a

very striking contrast between the position taken by the Minister of Labour

during the past week and the position taken by the Premier just yesterday.

No matter

how much the Minister of Labour stands up and has to take the heat, be the

toady to the Premier's agenda and no matter how much he can couch it by saying,

"My gosh, we didn't want to force nurses and health care professionals with

this settlement…." No matter how much he tries to couch it in terms of

caring and compassion, the real agenda was revealed by the Premier in his news

conference yesterday.

The

Minister of Labour met and talked with senior officers of the B.C. Nurses Union

and the Health Sciences Association as recently as Monday of this week. Today is

Wednesday. On Monday of this week there was not a word about imposing an extreme

and unbalanced and biased settlement — not a word.

Then the

Premier got involved. He got involved by holding a news conference. That's

something that we're going to see regularly, because they have absolutely no

respect for the process of the legislative chamber — none whatsoever. They're

keeping all British Columbians so busy with the chaos of their extreme agenda

that there's absolutely no time to debate and examine carefully through real

debate in this chamber. They use their arrogance of 76 members to shout and

scream the message box of their hidden agenda, their extreme agenda. That's how

they make their way in an arrogant fashion through the debate in here.

Then they

hold news conferences out in the Speaker's corridor, where they bring in more

extreme legislation. All the Premier can do now is dominate the news coverage,

so he holds his regular news conference at 6 p.m. That's what he did yesterday.

That's when the real agenda of this government was revealed.

Suddenly it

was not just an extension of a cooling-off period. There was no more talk of

negotiations. Basically, the Premier stood up and said to nurses and health care

professionals: "It's my way or the highway." That's what the Premier

said yesterday. The Labour minister said one thing to the nurses and the health

care professionals, but clearly the Premier said something else.

[1505]

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Not only

was the Premier in striking contrast with the Minister of Labour, within hours

of them both speaking, but the Premier's position yesterday was also a striking

contrast to what he said during the election. He urged nurses to push for more

in their bargaining. On the very day that the nurses said to their members,

"We reject it. Here's the last offer of the employer, and we recommend that

you not accept it, and we'll continue negotiations" — now, mind you, we

were in the middle of an election — the Premier said: "You know what?

Nurses do deserve more. Nurses do deserve competitive wages and the best working

conditions in the country."

Just maybe

nurses thought, knowing that the Premier was responding to their rejection of

the proposal, that the Premier was agreeing with them. Maybe they just said:

"My gosh. There's the leader of the Liberal Party, knowing that we disagree

with the last offer, and he's saying that yes, we deserve more." Maybe they

just thought that once he assumed the power he'd been preparing for for five

years, he was actually going to deliver on the nuance of that commitment.

Then the

nurses — again, we were in the middle of an election — were putting

questions to Liberal candidates each and every day. I bet you every single MLA

of the 76 government members are sitting here in fear about what the nurses who

put the questions to them have in their pockets about what they said during the

election. I bet they're sitting here in fear, waiting for that to be revealed.

The nurses

then rejected the offer by 96 percent, and now the Premier of this province is

imposing the same contract on nurses and health sciences professionals that they

rejected by 96 percent. He said one thing then, and he says another thing now.

Let's just

review, for the record, what this government said when they brought in the

legislation that imposed a cooling-off period on nurses and health care

professionals. Let's just review that. There was an emergency debate on June 19.

This new government brought in their new era by having to make an emergency call

of all of us back to the Legislature — their first-ever time in this chamber.

They had to come back here and impose emergency legislation on the health care

system.

What did they say about that?

What did the members say during their June 19 debate? What did

they say to the public, and what did they hold out to the health care

professionals then? Was there any way that they revealed their hidden agenda at

that time? Well, let's see what they said.

The

Minister of Labour — these are from Hansard : "I am confident

that there will be good-faith negotiations taking place during those 60

days" — of cooling off — "and I'm also confident and hoping that

we'll have a resolution." The Minister of Labour: "There are five million

people in this province who are concerned about health care in British

Columbia." I don't know where he got the five million people, but that's

from him. "There are five million very good reasons why there's an incentive

for the employer to negotiate in good faith with the nurses and the paramedicals

and to reach a negotiated settlement" — very good reasons for the employer

to negotiate in good faith. The Minister of Labour: "I'm appealing to those

people, and I'm appealing to the employer to come back to the table and work out

a negotiated settlement for everybody."

[ Page 314 ]

Keep that in mind. The Minister of

Labour: "The whole essence of this bill is to have the parties come back

quietly, to sit down as two and three parties in a negotiated instance and work

out an agreement."

Tell me:

what would be so wrong with the two parties having to come to the table to

negotiate a settlement that we could both live with? What's wrong with that?

That's in fact what we're talking about here. That was June 19 when this

government imposed a cooling-off period on the nurses and health care

professionals who were taking legal action to enforce their right to free

collective bargaining.

[1510]

The

Minister of Labour, June 19, on cooling-off legislation: "All this

legislation does is ask once again to bring the parties back to the table, to

try and take that half-step back from where you're at and take a look at that

bigger picture and how important it is for every single individual in the

province that these two issues be resolved."

Interjection.

MacPhail: My gosh, maybe you could just listen up, Liberal MLAs, because

this is from your own side. This is from the Minister of Labour: "Not that

there be a winner or a loser but that there be peace here in British Columbia in

our health care system…. We're confident that through this process of

negotiation they will reach a negotiated settlement, and everybody will be

working very hard to achieve that."

The

Minister of Finance: "Give us a chance to sit down, to talk, to try and

find some solutions so that we can work together to make sure this system is

improved and the nurses' lifestyle is improved and the work that they do and

the conditions they work under have been improved as well."

heard from the two members tonight" — referring to the members of the

opposition, although they don't like to use that word — "that what they

wanted us to do was bring the parties back, to get back to the table and get

negotiations going. In fact, that indeed is what this bill does."

My gosh,

what a difference six weeks makes. Just like six weeks of intransigence on the

part of this government in the transit dispute made a difference, what a

difference six weeks makes. That was then and this is now.

What else

was said by the various members? The Minister of Labour: "This bill also

provides that the parties must resume collective bargaining and must make every

reasonable effort to conclude an agreement during that time, the cooling-off

period."

The

Minister of Labour acknowledges nurses, health science professionals and

employers, and said they do not want to imperil the health and safety of British

Columbians in order to reach a collective agreement, but they do want to reach a

new negotiated collective agreement. "This bill will facilitate that

objective." "We want to cool off this situation" — again, the

Minister of Labour — "so that parties can get back to the bargaining

table and successfully conclude a negotiated settlement."

The

Minister of Health Planning: "Our government values our health care

professionals. Our government has a genuine desire to work with all of our

nurses, with our paramedical professionals and with all of our health care

providers."

"We

offered them that partnership; we told them we had a genuine desire to work with

them" says the Minister of Health Planning. This is the minister that's now

reaching out with an olive branch to nurses and health sciences professionals to

resolve the health care crisis. "We want our health professionals to stay

in B.C. We want them to stay and work in B.C."

"We're

committed to providing opportunities for our health care providers to work with

us to create a health care system that they will be happy to work in again and

be a part of. We want them to be proud of this system."

My gosh,

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Liberal members of this chamber can go out today and

talk to nurses and health sciences professionals and find out how happy they are

and how much they trust this Premier about what he said he would do. Actually, I

think the Minister of Labour's been duped. He's been put out as the dupe out

front to take all of the heat, to cover for the Premier so that the Premier can

get away with his hidden agenda. He's the guy that stands up and says to people:

"Oh no. Here's what we want to do. Don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry.

Here's what we want: to negotiate a settlement. We don't want to have winners

and losers. We want everybody to sit down and negotiate." Of course, he was

dead wrong.

But perhaps

he didn't know that he was being duped. Perhaps the Premier didn't even reveal

to the Minister of Labour what the hidden agenda was. I'm sure that the Minister

of Labour, just 48 hours ago, wouldn't have said what he did say to nurses and

health sciences professionals about wanting to negotiate a fair settlement. I'm

sure that minister would not have said that if the Premier had told him about

the Premier's hidden agenda. There's a very, very striking contrast between what

the Premier said he wanted with this legislation and now what he's revealing to

be his real agenda.

[1515]

What's the

reaction of the public? What's the reaction, first of all, of people who are out

there right now? Let me tell you. Let me just read a couple of letters into the

record, Mr. Speaker. There are many more. I can guarantee there are many more of

these letters flooding in to every single government MLA's office as we speak.

Perhaps they will have the courage to stand up and actually check the mail that

they're receiving. Maybe the Minister of Labour can take a moment out of his

smiling countenance to actually go and check his office to see the letters that

he is receiving, because we're also receiving those same letters.

Let me just

read a couple, because they're indicative of where the public is at:

[ Page 315 ]

"First of all, let me say that I'm not a nurse, nor a health care worker of

any like. Neither am I an NDP supporter, nor a supporter of any political party.

But I must now speak out as a citizen of Canada and as a taxpayer of B.C.

"This latest move of the B.C. government is typical of all governments in Canada.

They've gotten on the world market–globalization bandwagon, putting Canadian

voters in the poverty lines by making them pay world market prices for

everything that they get. But now that the government must pay world market

prices for workers, they try to legislate them into submission. This, however,

will not solve the problem. Today it's nurses and health care workers; tomorrow

it will be plumbers and electricians.

"Please

forward this to the appropriate government minister and media

representatives as you see fit."

So this actually was asked to be read into the record.

An Hon.

Member: Yours truly, Garth Mullins.

MacPhail: "Yours truly, Keith Beardwood, Victoria" — represented

by a Victoria MLA. I don't know whether they're sitting in the chamber here or

not.

Here's a

letter to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who has already distinguished

himself in this Legislature:

"As

a constituent in your riding I am extremely disappointed at the action which

the Liberal government has taken this evening regarding nurses and health

care workers. During the campaign you came and spoke to the residents of our

building. From your discussion I came away feeling slightly hopeful that

perhaps a change in government might foster a change in attitude. When your

new government followed through on your campaign promises to cut personal

taxes, I felt that maybe there's hope that politicians do have a shred of

honesty and brainpower.

"However,

that has been cruelly dispelled this evening. Not only has the Liberal Party

gone back on its word to work with health professionals, it has shown

extremely poor judgment in this matter. Everything you are doing flies in

the face of common sense and logic."

This next paragraph is extremely important considering the behaviour of the

government members:

watched the performance of the Ministers of Health during the debate this

evening with some amusement. If only they could hear how silly they sound.

They say how they are keenly aware of the pressure and burnout being

experienced by nurses. So what are you going to do — make them work even

longer hours? They say that only a handful of nurses are working a lot of

overtime. His solution: make them work longer and burn them out

quicker."

If there's

one overriding theme as well as showing an absolute distrust of the Premier,

it's a reiteration of the arrogance of this government. How arrogant they are as

they sit with their 76 members in this chamber and perform in a way that is

lacking in trust, that reveals a hidden agenda that they refused to reveal

during the election and that shows how they are going to use the power of their

numbers in an arrogant way to impose a settlement on nurses and health care

professionals first.

[1520]

Maybe, Mr.

Speaker, the real agenda was made available to British Columbians at the

beginning of June. Maybe it was, and maybe we just thought it was so extreme

that it just couldn't be. So maybe that's what British Columbians believed.

That was

when the real bonding of a relationship between Premier Ralph Klein and the

Premier of B.C. came to light. Maybe that's when we all should have sat up and

taken notice. Maybe that's when British Columbians should have said: "Oh my

God, if the relationship between the Alberta government and the new British

Columbia government is that close, maybe we should do something about trying to

stop the extreme agenda of the Liberal government."

An Hon.

Member: You were going to say your own government.

MacPhail: I was going to use the name of the Premier, and I apologize for

that, Mr. Speaker.

One of

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's former key advisers says that Premier-elect Gordon

Campbell has a mandate to crush labour like a bug, if it tries to get in his

way. Last month he was in B.C. advising Campbell on how to change the

Legislature.

Hon. G.

Collins: I just want to caution the member that even if she's quoting, she's

not permitted to use the names of members in the House. I know that we've asked

her a couple of times in the past not to do that, and I just wanted to call her

attention to the fact that she's doing it again. If she could perhaps refer to

the Premier as the Premier, which is the way this House has worked for over 100

years.

MacPhail: I can certainly understand why the Minister of Finance would want

that to be the case. I can certainly understand that.

"Rod

Love was at Klein's side for most of the major changes he instituted in

Alberta." Oh sorry, I read that part. "If labour is smart — a

stretch, I know — they would accept the fact that their time is over for the

foreseeable future," he said. "Rather than take to the streets for

some tiresome 1960s protest that never worked, they should cut a deal with

Campbell to hold on to what they've got and get out of the way of changes needed

to the Labour Code. If not, the Premier has a mandate from the people of British

Columbia to crush them like a bug." The same advice goes for the

environmentalist, aboriginal, poverty activist groups, etc.

Now, maybe

we all should have just sat up and taken notice of this advice that was being

given to the Premier of British Columbia. Maybe we should have said: "Oh my

gosh, there's the real agenda of the Premier. First he's going to crush working

people like a bug. First he's going to crush transit workers and then nurses and

health science professionals."

[ Page 316 ]

And then,

next, British Columbians should say: "What about environmentalists? Are

they next? What about aboriginal people? Are they next? What about poverty activist groups? Are they next?" Will the Premier now deliver on

the advice he got from his mentor, Ralph Klein, and his advisers to crush them

like a bug today?

Well,

actually, we will see that. While all of us are terribly worried about the

health care situation in this province, the government is introducing

legislation, as we speak, to crush environmentalists like a bug. That's exactly

what they're doing, as we speak.

[1525]

The Premier

is clearly making his choices known. He has a choice. He's chosen his wealthy

friends and his corporate backers ahead of nurses and health science

professionals. Let's just show how he's done that. Since the election, what have

we seen in their 90-day agenda? What have we seen? Massive increases to deputies

and senior officials.

Today we

see legislation where they're going to meet amongst themselves and pay

themselves even more money. They're going to have their little government caucus

meetings, call it a committee and give themselves a big, giant salary increase.

That's what we see today.

Then we see

massive tax breaks for the richest British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, that

actually weren't promised during the election. If one earns over $250,000 in

this province — the group of people who earn $250,000 or more a year —

they're getting a tax break worth $208 million. That's $208 million of massive

tax breaks to the wealthy earning more than $250,000 a year.

When my

colleague merely asks a very straightforward question of the Minister of Labour

today, to table the facts about the difference between the employer's last offer

and the nurses' last offer, because the nurses actually took the Minister of

Labour at his word, and they continued to negotiate in good faith…. In fact,

they made two substantial changes to their proposal since he imposed the

cooling-off period. The employer, zero moves…. When my colleague from

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asked a very straightforward question, to table the

numbers, he refused to do so.

Then we

might have had an opportunity, if he had done that, if he had just done what it

is his

job to do.... He's throwing the health care system into chaos by

saying that there's a massive difference between the two proposals of the health

care workers and the employer. If he had tabled those numbers, maybe we then

could have compared them to areas in the most recent budget that the Liberal

government maybe could take back because they hadn't

promised British Columbians that, like the tax break for the wealthiest in

this province.

I challenge

the Minister of Labour once again to put those numbers on the table. Even if his

inflated number of what he describes as almost a quarter of a billion dollars

stands up, that's equal to the tax cut he gave to the wealthiest people in this

province. That's the part of the hidden agenda that the Premier of this province

delivered.

Maybe there

would be time now, as a face-saver, for the Premier to stand up and say:

"Well, you know what? You're right: the voters didn't vote for that tax cut

for the wealthiest of 200 million bucks, and there is a way to stand back and

not choose a winner or a loser. There is a way to stand back and solve this

problem. You're right: we don't need to make that tax cut right now. We'll see

whether our trickle-down theory of economic recovery works. In the meantime, we

can resolve the health care crisis that, frankly, is of this government's own

making."

But the

Minister of Labour refused to do that. He refuses to reveal the numbers. That's

so that British Columbians, once again, must be beholden to the hidden agenda of

the Premier of this province. They can't have the facts before them. They can't

compare the massive tax cuts for the wealthiest versus what it would cost to

resolve the nursing and health care professionals' dispute in this province.

[1530]

What else

did they do? What was their next action? They gave massive tax breaks to the

corporate and business sector — again a hidden agenda — worth, to use the

phrase of the Minister of Labour, a quarter of a billion dollars. That's the

phrase: a quarter of a billion dollars. That's exactly the continuation of a

massive giveaway to their corporate backers that was announced a week ago Monday

in the budget.

Did they

keep another promise, which they reiterated year after year after year to

British Columbians, that they'd balance the budget? No. Actually, it turns out

that their massive corporate giveaway has the second-largest deficit ever

experienced in British Columbia. Actually, some of the members were members of

the Social Credit government of 1991 that brought in the

biggest deficit in British Columbia's history. Now those same members are back

doing the second-largest deficit. So some members — they now call themselves

Liberal — now have the dubious recognition of being in government for the two

largest deficits ever experienced in this province.

Apparently

it's okay to spend billions to attract deputy ministers and pay B.C. Liberal

Party presidents the biggest salaries ever and to reward corporate high-rollers,

but there's no money to recruit and retrain nurses and health science

professionals. Once again, the message to the health care givers of this

province from the Premier is: "It's my way or the highway." Today he

said to them: "I guess it's the highway. Take a hike."

What does

the Premier really think about the future of the health care system in this

province? What system has he set up to make our health care system better —

which is, of course, what he promised during the election? What system has he

put in place? Is it the Progress Board that the Premier's blue ribbon corporate

CEOs so proudly work upon now? Do they have any mandate to look at progress

within the health care system or in social programs at all?

[ Page 317 ]

Do they have any

mandate to look at the outcome of the legislation that's being forced upon

health care professionals today? Well, I guess actually it turns out that they don't. The blue-ribbon Progress

Board of corporate CEOs, the board packed with business people, doesn't have a

mandate to look at our health care system.

So where is

the progress board for health care? Where is it? I guess maybe people who need

health care in this province and have to rely on the health care professionals

to deliver that health care see the progress right in this piece of legislation.

That's the only place they have to turn to. What it says is: "We didn't

intend to do anything else but impose the employer's last offer on nurses and

health care professionals. We treated the last 60-day cooling-off period as a

joke, and we had no intention," says this government, "of doing anything except

waiting it out and then forcing a settlement on nurses and health science

professionals."

[1535]

This

legislation is unfair, it's biased, and it's extreme. Even the Premier of

Ontario, Mr. Mike Harris, requires binding arbitration in his latest

back-to-work…. But this bill simply ignores the ability to have third-party

intervention. There wasn't one piece of legislation, until yesterday, in the

history of British Columbia that imposed an employer offer, that forced an

employer offer or a union offer, for that matter, on the parties — not one

piece of legislation. No matter how much this government wants to say that all

of this is just a repetition of the past, they are simply dead wrong. This piece

of legislation is unique and has never, ever been done before in British

Columbia, to take one side and impose it on the other — not one piece of

legislation.

It is

unprecedented in its extreme nature. I wonder why this government chose to

ignore the third-party help that it's actually been given. There's a special

mediator in the Health Sciences Association collective bargaining, and there's a

special mediator — an industrial inquiry commissioner — in the bargaining

affecting nurses. Once again this government has taken the most extreme approach

and has said: "Sorry, special mediators. Thanks but no thanks. We're going

to take a side here. We're going to pick a winner, and we're going to force a

loser." The losers are the health care professionals that do the work each

and every day, and the winner is the employer. That's what the government is

doing with this legislation.

Good health

care requires cooperation. Patient care requires the most complex of services.

It requires integration of services. Good patient care requires long-term

planning. A social worker has to work with the nurse who has to work with the

doctor, all for the benefit…. That cooperation leads to good patient care.

I would

suggest today that it's a very, very sad day for the families that need health

care services for their children or their parents, because the fact that this

government has legislated cooperation away means that patient care will now

suffer. It will suffer in the short term, and it will very, very much suffer in

the long term.

Good

patient care requires problem-solving. The health care professionals have to

work together. They actually have to work together to solve problems. They have

to work with the management team to do that. Good patient care requires

cooperation based on mutual respect, not forcing one side of the health care

team to do things that aren't good for the patient. It requires that the

employer not get their way on everything. That's what good patient care requires

in cooperation. Does this bill do anything to promote that kind of cooperation?

I know they tried to legislate cooperation, but what this bill does is so

unfairly put into imbalance the patient care delivery model that it may break

down. It may break down in a way that will take so long to recover that the

system will require an unprecedented amount of resources just to make up for the

damage that's done by this piece of legislation.

[1540]

In question

period today I actually put some very practical questions to the Minister of

Labour about the formal cooperation that exists in the health care system now.

Once again he refused to answer. He went to rhetoric. He went to blaming

everything that happened in the past, even though the questions I was putting to

him were about models that are in place now and couldn't possibly be blamed on

the past. But he went into his full flight of rhetoric about how they're not

responsible for anything, even though the question was directly about how he was

going to manage the ill effects of this legislation in the current system today.

He refused to answer.

Let me just

outline some of the risks to our health care delivery that this government is

imposing as of today. There's a joint committee on recruitment and retention.

What a joint committee is, for the public that's on the receiving end of the delivery of

health care, is a committee made up of employers, Health Sciences Association

professionals, B.C. Nurses Union professionals, Hospital Employees Union

professionals, workers and others. I expect that there are physicians on that as

well. They work together to figure out how to retain and recruit health care

professionals.

Well, that

system is based on a cooperative model. As of tomorrow, I wonder how much the

health care professionals who have had this settlement forced down their throats

are going to want to give their time in a cooperative way. I wonder. In their

bargaining, the nurses put forward a proposal to work in a joint fashion —

employer and front-line workers working together — to reduce overtime and to

put that money back into patient care. This government, by choosing a winner, the employer, and by forcing a loser, the nurses, said: "No, we don't

want your cooperation. We don't want your cooperation in reducing

overtime."

How is that

better for the health care system? How is that better for managing a health care

system that this government says it's not going to put any more money into but

it's going to manage better? Let the government members stand up and tell us

— tell the public, tell patients, tell health care professionals — how their

outright rejection of proposals that would

[ Page 318 ]

assist the employer in better health

care outcomes will help the management of this system. Let the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health Planning and the Minister of Health

Services answer a very direct, practical question about the consequences of

their actions.

There's a

joint committee of professional front-line workers and the employer that

examines every method of delivery of patient care in a way that works for

front-line staff. It says: "Here's the method by which we're going to

deliver patient care. Let's work together to see how it's best implemented

by the front-line workers."

So first

and foremost, patient care is the top priority. That is exactly the way it

should be. Then there was a joint committee to put that priority into place, but

it's a committee based on cooperation in the best interest of the patient. I'd

like the government members to stand up and tell British Columbians how their

actions — their extreme actions of forcing a settlement that was rejected by

96 percent of health care workers — are going to continue that cooperation.

They don't

have an answer, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour refused to answer it

earlier. The Minister of Health Services tried to blame it on the past. It's not

likely that he's going to get away with that when it's their government's

actions that will provoke a breakdown in that cooperation.

[1545]

What else

does this legislation do that demonstrates how biased and unfair the Liberal

government is? Well, the cooling-off period, we were all told, was meant to

bring about negotiations. Everybody was supposed to get back to that table and

negotiate. That's what the Minister of Labour said; that's what the Minister

of Finance said. On June 19 when asked, "What is your real agenda?

What's your hidden agenda, government?" they said: "We have no hidden

agenda. We want the parties to get back to the table and negotiate, and we

expect both parties to do that."

Well, like

the caring, concerned professionals that they are, both the health sciences

professionals and the nurses went back to the bargaining table. But they

bargained with themselves. It turns out only one party showed up at the table.

In fact, to give one example, the nurses made substantial change to their

proposal — substantial change. They made two substantial movements.

Again,

that's why my colleague and I were trying to seek information from the Minister

of Labour about what the real costs are in reaching a settlement — not a

forced settlement but a negotiated settlement. We couldn't get that information,

but the nurses gave us the information. The nurses reduced their proposal, just

this Monday, by $137 million. And they'd already made

substantial movement in other areas for the benefit of patients.

With health

sciences professionals it is the same situation. They gave that information to

the government on Monday. Today is August 8. On August 6 they gave that

information to the government. They said: "We took you at your word. We

think you do want free collective bargaining, even though we don't have the

right to withdraw our labour. So here's our second major move."

And what

did the Minister of Labour say? Well, he certainly didn't tell them the

Premier's agenda. He certainly didn't reveal the hidden agenda of the Liberal

government that merely one day later — just a little more than 24 hours later

— was going to bring down the hammer on nurses and health care professionals

and say: "Sorry, we didn't mean it when we said we wanted bargaining to

take place. We didn't mean anything other than we actually just wanted to take

the employers' proposal and impose it on you."

What else

has the government got planned for others in society? What else has this

government got for others whom they meet face to face with and say: "Thank

you very much for your input. We care about your input"? What can other

British Columbians expect from this government in their extreme hidden agenda? I

think we'll see it as the days unfold. I think we'll see it, the nature of how

so many British Columbians will be affected so negatively by this government's

hidden agenda.

[1550]

Today we

debate only one of the ill effects of that agenda. There was no compromise. I

expect, if we go through Hansard , we'll see that the government, under

their cooling-off legislation, wanted compromise, wanted the parties to come

together. So they said. But there was no compromise. It's all one-sided. Why

didn't they just say so? Why didn't this government just come clean and say that

they were going to take a side? Why did they, for 50 days, mislead everybody in

British Columbia that they were not going to be biased and unfair? Just come

clean. What kind of leadership is that, where they won't come clean with their

hidden agenda? I expect British Columbians will be asking that question

themselves today.

If the

government really cares about patients, it has to respect and work with nurses

and health science professionals. This government is playing such a game of

chicken with our health care system. The risk they're playing with in that game of

chicken is the risk of patient care. They're talking about calling people's

bluffs. They're delivering ultimatums. When they call people's bluffs, who's

really at risk? It's the patients of our province.

They're not

willing to take one risk of waiting to deliver on their promises for their

corporate backers. They can't get there fast enough to deliver on their extreme

tax cut agenda for their corporate backers. Day one, they stood up and pounded

their chests to say they're delivering a tax cut way beyond what any British

Columbian had thought they would do for the wealthiest.

Their

budget which, for sure, drew a line in the sand of the choices…. This

government had a chance to allocate moneys in whatever way they wanted, and they

made their choice very clearly. They drew the line in the sand. They were for

corporate and the wealthiest getting tax cuts, and they were against health care

funding. That's the line in the sand that they drew.

[ Page 319 ]

Today we

see the consequences of that agenda. We see them because they've drained the

coffers of the public purse. We see what they're willing to risk. We see them

playing chicken with the health care system in this province. They can't afford

to deliver the promise that they gave to nurses and health care professionals of

paying them a fair and decent wage. They can't deliver on that promise

because they've given it all away to their corporate backers. So now they're

saying: "We don't think health care professionals are going to do anything

other than carry on. We're going to take the risk. We're going to play chicken

with the health care system." And it's patient care that is fully at risk

here.

I wonder

how they're going to play chicken in their various communities. I wonder how

they're going to deal with the risks that they've placed on the health care

system. Clearly, every single government member has said: "You're not

serious about your resignations, nurses. And health care professionals, where

are you going to go anyway?" As recently as earlier this afternoon,

government members stood up and said: "They're not going to leave the

province. They're not going to leave the profession." Just a couple of

hours ago the government continued to play chicken with health care

professionals, continued to challenge them.

[1555]

Well, I

surely hope that nurses in this province don't resign, don't carry through on

their threat of resignation. I fully understand that anybody has a right to work

where they want to. I fully understand that anybody has a right to leave their

profession. I fully understand that no one can be forced to work anywhere under

any circumstances, but I wonder what the government's going to do if indeed the

resignations come to fruition.

Here are

what the consequences are, community by community. Just as recently as this

morning, in the West Kootenays 43 percent of nurses said they wanted to resign

if the government imposed the last offer on them. In the Vancouver metro area

23 percent of nurses said they want to resign if the government forces a

settlement of the last offer on them. In the Okanagan-Similkameen area 30

percent of nurses said they would resign if the government forced a settlement

on them. In the northwest — some members' own areas here, sitting and

cat-calling in this chamber, showing an arrogance — 28 percent of the nurses

have said that they would resign if the government forces a settlement on them.

The

statistics and facts about nurses' individual despair concerning this

government's actions are extremely concerning, Mr. Speaker. When we ask what the

contingency plans are of the government in case nurses are so frustrated and in

such despair that they actually do resign, we have the Minister of Health

Services standing up and saying: "There are more nurses than ever wanting

to come to this province." Well, I hope he's right, because the consequences

of this government playing chicken and trying to say to our health care

professionals that it's just a bluff are huge.

I've just

outlined what the consequences may be for the government members and the health

government members' communities, the health care system can't survive. Yet this

government is on its extreme agenda. They don't show one iota of understanding,

compassion, compromise or fairness. I truly hope that the nurses don't follow

through, because the consequences will be dire.

Today let's

look at the first days of office of this government. Let's just look at what the

new era means for British Columbians in our health care system. A couple of

weeks ago the health science professionals took illegal job action,

self-acknowledged. In the first 50 or 60 days of this government's — actually,

it's closer to the full 90 days…. They started the clock much later, but it's

almost 90 days of this government being in office. The health science

professionals — dedicated, hard-working, committed professionals — took two

days of illegal job action. You know what? They had a total of five days of job

action in their previous 30 years. In their previous 30 years they'd only been

off the job for five days, and within only the first months of this government

they've had two days of illegal job action.

[1600]

Let's look

at the nurses; let's look at what's happening today. Let's just look at this

government's record. This government can't blame anyone else for what happened

today. What happened to patient care in Fernie? Well, nurses didn't go to work.

Community nurses supported their fellow nurses in the hospital. What happened in

Victoria? Victoria General Hospital nurses were out. Elkford, Eagle Ridge,

Langley, Children's and Women's, Prince George, the West Kootenays.... All the

long term care, all the community hospitals, all the small hospitals in Grand

Forks, Rossland, Nelson and Arrow Lakes were all feeling the effects of

nurse frustration today. In Chilliwack, Kitimat, Terrace, Prince Rupert and

Fraser Canyon, patient care today was thrown into chaos as a direct result of

this government's actions.

You can't

turn to anyone else; you've got to look yourselves in the mirror and face it.

The Liberal action's extreme agenda caused a deterioration in patient care in

each and every one of those communities today.

So that's

what the new Liberal era means. That's a lot different than what the government,

the Premier, promised and reiterated over and over again in the election. Here's

what they promised: "A B.C. Liberal government will work with front-line

health care professionals to act on their ideas for maximizing the value to

patients of every health dollar spent."

Let's have

the government MLAs stand up and say how they're delivering on that Liberal

new-era promise today. Stand up, get on your feet, and tell us how you're

"working with front-line health care professionals to act on their ideas

for maximizing the value to patients of every health dollar spent." Get up,

stand up, and tell us how you're doing that in Fernie, in Sparwood, in Hope, in

Langley, in Vancouver and in

[ Page 320 ]

Victoria. Stand up, rise up on your feet, and tell us how you're delivering

on your new-era promise. I bet you not one will stand up and address that issue

specifically, because they can't. Their new-era promise is not being delivered

upon.

I'm shocked

when the government members have to stand up in question period and say,

"Oh, Minister of Education, is it true you're going to deliver on your

new-era promise on X, Y and Z?" — somehow indicating that they think their

own members may be lying. They stand up and say: "Please tell us it's true

that you're going to deliver on your promise."

I am always

kind of a little bit surprised. I don't know about my colleague from

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but I'm thinking: "Why, did you doubt? Did you

think you weren't going to deliver on it? Was there some doubt?"

But let's

get the government MLAs to stand up in question period and ask a question to the

Minister of Health Services. Maybe the members representing Sparwood or the

community of Langley or Trail or Rossland could stand up and ask this question:

"Tell me, Minister of Health Services, how this forced settlement that

nurses rejected by 96 percent is delivering on the B.C. Liberal promise to work

with front-line health care professionals to act on their ideas for maximizing

the value to patients of every health dollar spent?"

[1605]

I hope

tomorrow in question period…. Somehow you get a sense that the

government caucus members are worried about them delivering on their promises. I can understand why. This is the first of many examples of where

this government will break a promise. The people who are affected by their

broken promises, their hidden agenda, their extreme agenda, are the people of

B.C. No one else, Mr. Speaker.

Once again

we have a situation where the government has completely ignored what they said

in the past and are saying: "We're willing to risk the health care system

so we can deliver for our corporate friends; we're willing to risk pretty much

everything in order to deliver for our corporate friends."

On the

thirtieth day of November 1998 an MLA stood up in this Legislature and asked

the then Minister of Health a question. The question was this: "When is

this government going to stop attacking the caregivers of British Columbia and

start listening to their concerns?" I guess when that MLA, the now Premier

of British Columbia, stood up and asked that question, he was just playing

politics. I guess he was desperate for power so that he could impose his

extreme agenda on this province, so that he could deliver for the corporate

agenda, his corporate backers, the corporate CEOs and the wealthiest in this

province.

I guess he

was actually revealing his true agenda — his agenda of crass opportunism. He

was willing to pay politics with the health care system. We see that today

because he didn't really care a whit about the substance of that question. He

knew full well that his agenda was to attack health care givers. He knew full

well that he wasn't going to be listening to the concerns of nurses and health

sciences professionals. He knew full well back then that he had an agenda. He

was going to keep the agenda hidden right up until now.

It's

finally been revealed. We finally know the real agenda of the Premier of this

province. We know to what extremes he is willing to go to deliver the tax cuts

that have been demanded by his corporate backers. We know the extremes to which

he's willing to go. He's willing to play chicken with our health care system.

He's willing to wreak havoc upon it, and he can't look to anyone else but

himself to take full responsibility for that extreme agenda.

J. Kwan:

It is actually with sadness that I rise today on second reading of this bill. I

have to think first and foremost about the impacts of this government's action

on the future of patients and their families, and the discord that I think would

be caused by this government with their extreme actions by forcing a collective

agreement, the first ever in the history of British Columbia, on the nurses and

the health care professionals.

[1610]

I've spoken

with health care professionals and nurses, front-line workers, on this issue.

What they told me was that during the election, there were candidates for the

Liberal Party who went and met with them. They heard on the news, on the media

and on the radio what this Liberal government, if they formed government, would

do. You know, what they thought they would do versus what they are doing now is

completely different. They were provided different information at that time, or

at least hidden information at that time.

Hon. S.

Santori: Give me an example.

J. Kwan: I

have an example and will actually provide some quotes. We have a situation where

the current Premier said…. It wasn't that long ago; it was actually May 9,

2001. This was during the election campaign. The then opposition leader had said

that he wasn't going to prejudge what individual nurses were going to do when they

voted on the agreement put forward. He said: "I think it's important to let

them decide. I believe that they do have a reason, and they are justified in

asking for higher wages, for better working conditions and better educational

opportunities. We've said that's what they deserve." This is what the then

Leader of the Opposition, the current Premier, said to nurses and health care

professionals.

After the

election the first thing that he did in the first session that was called back to

this Legislature was impose a cooling-off period on health care

professionals and nurses. During the election, even the Minister of Health Services and the

Minister of State for Women's Equality had signed pledges,

had signed petitions agreeing with health care professionals and nurses

that they would not impose a settlement, that they would not take away

concessions that are being bargained right now. But

[ Page 321 ]

after the election all of those words were forgotten. They vanished. They

weren't part of the promise that they had made not only to health care

professionals and nurses that they have spoken with but to the broad public

as well. All of those words have now disappeared and have been forgotten.

Then, during

the first emergency session that was brought back to this House, the Minister of

Labour said that he would want to negotiate in good faith with health care

professionals and nurses, and that's what the legislation was meant to do.

Well, we have seen, since that time, the intent of this government. The intent

of this government is such that they had no intention whatsoever to negotiate in

good faith. They have made no substantive changes to the offers at the

bargaining table, to both the nurses and the health care professionals. Instead,

they have chosen to use a format that would provoke further discord in the

areas of cooperation and patient care by simply legislating the first-ever

collective agreement in British Columbia. He had said that he would want to sit

down and talk and bring people back to the table. Instead, they've acted the

opposite.

At the time

the Minister of Labour had the intention to carry through with that, perhaps he

didn't know that the Premier had a different agenda, a hidden agenda that maybe

he didn't share with his ministers until yesterday. Perhaps the minister had no

idea that he was, in fact, providing false information and false hope to health care professionals and

nurses. Perhaps he had no idea that his words

were simply hollow and that they had no depth to them and that, in fact, the

agenda the Premier has in store was already planned out — perhaps not just

recently, perhaps as far back as five years ago.

[1615]

You know,

when the Minister of Energy and Mines was heckling in the House earlier, he

actually admitted for a moment: "Well, yes, that was the agenda five years

ago." The only difference is that the government members in the House never

let that on and told any British Columbians during the last election. Even as

recently as Monday, when the Minister of Labour met with the nurses and health care professionals, he didn't let on to the health care professionals and

the nurses that they have a different agenda altogether. The nurses and health care professionals were led to believe that they would meet again —

in fact, today — to further discuss the cooling-off period and the next steps.

They were assured that they would not have to go to the extreme stage that they

have now adopted, which is to impose a collective agreement. They were told they

would not have to take that extreme step until it was the last resort.

The folks

who met with the staff and ministers were led to believe that they were going to

engage in further discussions. The nurses had believed the genuineness of the

offer to negotiate, and they actually want back to the table before this day

with a couple of offers, lowering their demands, in the interests of patient

care, by $137 million. That was out-of-hand rejected by the government. I'm not

even sure, given this action today, that it was even considered. The health care

professionals had done similarly by engaging with government, by wanting to

negotiate and talk with them to clarify assumptions to make sure that the

numbers on the table, on both sides, were correct and understood.

Instead of

that meeting, we have this situation today. I have a statement here from the

nurses who have advised that they met with the Minister of Health Services and

the Minister of Health Planning on Thursday, August 2, and were told that they

had a new offer which reduced the gap between the offer and HEABC's by more than

two-thirds. He contacted the Minister of Labour, who asked the nurses to give

the details of the new offer to Vince Ready the next morning, August 3, which

the nurses did. They met with the Minister of Labour at his request on Monday,

August 6, to explain it to him. The minister discussed the offer with them, said

nothing about legislation and then said he was going to contact HEABC.

Here's the

offer that was described to Vince Ready and the Minister of Labour: three years'

agreement with HEABC proposed in three years which matches B.C. wages to Alberta

in years 1 and 2, personal vehicle compensation, no increase in increment

steps, no further changes to casual call-ins, move the super-shift premium offer

by HEABC to night-shift premiums, and minus savings from designated days off as

per the PSAC fact sheet which was presented to them on June 30, 2001 — which

is similar to the transit gain-sharing of efficiencies. In this last offer the

reduction in cost to government amounts to $137 million.

That was

the discussion that took place with the nurses on Monday and the events

preceding it. I know that the Health Sciences Association were anticipating

further discussions with the Minister of Labour and his staff as recently as

yesterday. Instead of receiving a call to

schedule a time to make sure they had

the right people at the table so that all of the information was understood,

they heard nothing. Then, on the 6 o'clock news they heard that the government

was going to impose a legislated settlement.

[1620]

Hon.

Speaker, this is a government that says it values nurses and health care and

health sciences professionals, but this is how they treat them. They don't

provide forthright information. The only two reasons I can think as to why this

would happen would be that it's deliberate — that the minister never had the

intention to provide the information and to negotiate in good faith, as he

himself had put the legislation forward and committed that he would do.

Alternatively,

this minister had the rug pulled over him by the Premier. The Premier had an

agenda all along. He knew exactly what he wanted to do. He had zero intention

whatsoever to negotiate in good faith and had, in fact, planned this forced

settlement all along. Is this the way to treat our health care professionals who

provide care to patients and to families when they're in need? Is this the way to

treat the nurses who take care of our family members and our friends

[ Page 322 ]

when they're sick? Is this the way they would describe respect and dignity?

Is this the kind of treatment they engage in with our health care professionals

and nurses? I would say that is the furthest away from the definition of

respect, from the definition of treating health care professionals and nurses

with dignity.

I think

it's a shame that this government has forced it to this stage. I think it's a

shame that this Liberal government has politicized the health care issue.

Instead of sitting down and engaging in fair collective bargaining, they have in

fact gone the other way. You know what, hon. Speaker? The impact will be felt

not just for today but for a long, long time to come.

What

worries me the most is that we do have a shortage of health care professionals

and nurses throughout the province. Not only do we need to engage in a

constructive manner to bring the workers back to work to ensure that patient

care is provided, but we also need to recruit other members from elsewhere. We need to

encourage young people to get into the education system and become health care

workers and encourage those that are in the system now to stay in British

Columbia once they graduate. Given the tactics to date, I have zero confidence

that we will be able to recruit and retain the nurses and health care

professionals that are critical to a health care system.

The members

talk about the numbers that have been offered and the differences. I heard,

actually, in one news report from the Premier that in fact the differences are

over $200 million apart. However, the information I've received from the nurses

and health care professionals, the Health Sciences Association, is that

those numbers are incorrect. So today in question period I rose and asked the

Minister of Labour to present the numbers in detail so that we would know what

the facts are, so that we would know the information that's presented before us

— so that all British Columbians could know what the facts are.

Instead of

coming forward with that information, the minister refused to provide it. So I

asked the minister what he has to hide. What is he hiding? Is it another

hidden agenda we don't know about? Is it information that on the one hand he'll

share with British Columbians, but it's only partial information or

misinformation, but on another day it's something completely different? Why

doesn't the minister simply present the facts as they are so that British

Columbians will know the facts?

[1625]

I challenge

the minister to rise and present in detail the differences between the latest

offer from the nurses and the health sciences professionals versus this forced

settlement. Don't hide behind this veil or the Premier's wall of misinformation,

perhaps, or hidden agenda. Simply come clean and give that information to

British Columbians.

I wonder

how the member for Vancouver-Burrard is feeling. I would hope that the member

for Vancouver-Burrard would respond to his constituent who wrote to him and

asked for this letter — which they have also provided my colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings and myself with — to be cc'd and forwarded to his

colleagues in cabinet.

I take a

paragraph from this letter. It says:

"As

a constituent in your riding, I'm extremely disappointed at the action which

the Liberal government has taken this evening regarding nurses and health

care workers. You talk about attracting nurses to B.C. to overcome the

crisis. What nurse in their right mind would come and work in an environment

where their rights and welfare don't count for squat? You're not going to

attract new nurses — quite the opposite. A number of nurses will see this

for what it is: a confirmation that this government sees health care workers

as indentured servants or slaves, to do with what they will."

This is

directly from a letter that's been addressed to the member for

Vancouver-Burrard. I hope that he will respond to his constituent. I hope he

will be forthright and say that the Liberal government, during the election, had

said: "Yes, we value nurses. Yes, they deserve a higher wage and a better work environment." In fact, ministers in our cabinet have signed

petitions to say that they'll take away concessions, that they will not force a

settlement. Well, just kidding. That was during the election, but this is now.

Perhaps the member will be forthright and give that information to his

constituent, because that's what's happened today.

When I

think about the detriments to the health care system of this action by this government

and what it could do to it and how it would impact it, it worries me

greatly. It worries me greatly because not only would it cause, I think,

long-term damage, but it would poison the work environment in the health care

system for nurses and health sciences professionals. It would also prevent us

from recruiting new nurses and recruiting and retaining nurses and health care

professionals.

When I

think about the number of possibilities that could happen…. We have heard that

potentially over 5,000 nurses, in fact, have indicated that they may resign if a

forced settlement is passed in this House. Let's just think about what the

impacts may be. In central Vancouver 9 percent of the nurses may resign. In the

region of coastal mountains it's 12 percent; in the northwest it's 28 percent;

in the

Okanagan area it's 30 percent; in the Shaughnessy area it's 18 percent; in Simon

Fraser it's 23 percent; in South Fraser Valley it's 20 percent; in West Kootenay

it's 43 percent.

[1630]

These are

dramatic numbers. Even if the nurses do not resign — and I know that my

colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and myself sincerely hope that the nurses do

not resign — it would damage and destroy our health care system to the point

where I know patient care would be so dramatically impacted that its recovery

would take a long, long time.

I know that

the nurses don't want to take these steps. I know that they care about their

careers — but not just their careers. They chose that career because they care

about people. That's why they chose to be in the caring profession, in the

helping profession within our community. Even if they didn't resign — and I

urge them not to — think about the poisonous

[ Page 323 ]

environment in which they would be forced to work afterwards. Think about the

idea of cooperation. How does one work and cooperate with an employer who is not

forthright with them, who says they will have further discussions with them and

who later turns around to completely dismiss that and then takes completely

different actions than they've been led to believe this government would

take? Not only that, but to take the action that this government has taken by

not informing them personally…. None of the ministers — there are four

health-related ministers — took the trouble to talk to the nurses or the

health sciences professionals.

Do you know

how they learned about this piece of legislation? They learned about it on the 6

o'clock news. That's how they learned about it. There was no courtesy whatsoever

from the ministers, from the Premier, who says he values our health care system.

He says he values the health care professionals and the nurses. He didn't even

bother to pick up the phone and say: "This is our action. You may not like

it, but we're moving ahead with it anyway." Instead, they learned of it on

the 6 o'clock news.

This is

what the new era of this government is going to be. It's going to be one that

says: "I value you. I value you as a worker, but on the other hand I will

completely treat you with disrespect — completely. Zero courtesy whatsoever,

zero consideration. When we decide to take extreme action against you, you learn

about it on the 6 o'clock news." That's communication, the open government,

the Liberal government in this new era: the news on BCTV at 6 o'clock. That's

how you can learn what changes are being proposed in this Legislature. That's

how you can learn how your lives are going to be impacted. That's when you're

going to learn how our health care system will be impacted. Do you know what? I

fear that's how British Columbians will be treated overall by this government

not just on this issue but on every single issue that impacts people's lives.

I think

about the numbers in terms of the signals that the nurses have sent with their

discontent and disappointment with this government by even offering over 5,000

resignations to be considered or to be held by their representatives at this

time. Even the existence of this number, this magnitude of nurses who are this

unhappy and discontented in their workplace…. What would it mean when it's

compounded by vacancies, already vacant positions in the different regions?

[1635]

In the

Fraser Valley region we have some 57 positions that are vacant in the nursing

and health care professional area. In Vancouver General Hospital we have a total

of some 172 permanent positions that are vacant, including medicine, ER,

transplant, cardiac, ICU, day clinics, etc. That number rises to 235 positions.

When I look at the Children's and Women's hospital, 80 positions are vacant. The

Simon Fraser health region has 27 positions, Royal Columbian Hospital has 101

positions, and Vancouver Island has 108 positions. The Lions Gate Hospital,

where the doctors went out, has 45 positions.

When you

compound all of the tensions and needs in a health care system together, think

about the impacts this action would have in the short term and also in the long

term. When I think about the treatment of nurses and health care professionals,

I sit there and think: for the Lions Gate Hospital, when the doctors had a

dispute with this government, this government did not rush in to bring in

legislated settlement of the doctors. They wrote them a nice little letter that

said: "You make sure you get to work. Don't jeopardize health care and

patient care." And when the dispute was not resolved, they went to binding

arbitration. They invited a third party to come in — who was completely

unbiased on either side — and look at all the issues fairly, to make an

assessment and then to move forward.

But for the nurses and

health care

professionals, the health sciences professionals, they didn't get the same

treatment. Instead, this government rushed in, came in with an emergency debate

that supposedly legislated a cooling-off period that obligated both sides to get

back to the bargaining table to negotiate fairly — which this Liberal

government has not honoured, has made no substantive offer to the table and just

simply refused to even entertain it when the nurses tabled substantive changes on

several occasions at the bargaining table with a reduced offer on demands — no

attention paid to these offers.

Instead we

arrived here yesterday, and on the 6 o'clock news this government's intention

was made clear and the hidden agenda was then exposed to say this is what their

intentions are. That is, we will legislate a collective agreement, legislate a

settlement — no third-party arbitration, no mediator discussions and no

third-party unbiased person to review the case. We are just going to impose.

There was no fairness in the process, no equal treatment for the doctors, the nurses and the health care professionals.

What makes

it even sadder is that when I look at the New Era from the Liberal

government on their first two commitments that they followed through with, one

was on the tax-cut agenda. But that, too, was delivered in a secretive way.

During the election the Liberal government had promised the lowest brackets tax

reductions — campaigning at the time. Instead, they

brought in the highest tax reductions for the wealthiest and, on the corporate

agenda, further reductions for their corporate backers. If they had only paused

for one moment to think that a fraction of the cost in the taxes that they have

given away to their corporate backers could be provided to health care

professionals and nurses, then we would not be here today. Health care

services for British Columbia would not be further jeopardized.

[1640]

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading, Bill 15, Health Care Services Collective Agreements

Act. The minister closes debate.

Hon. G.

Bruce: You know, it would be nice to think that with the passage of this

particular bill — that the

[ Page 324 ]

damage that has been done over ten years — this would be the final piece

that we would have to deal with. But you know, when I….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, when I look at what this past NDP government has done…. For

ten years it's been brutal in this province. You've affected so many people's

lives. You had a complete boondoggle with the ferries — $465 million of

taxpayers' money that you just blew. You chased the mining industry away from

this province, totally destroyed the mining industry. We're faced with huge problems in the forestry sector because of the NDP

government's policies — absolutely kneecapped that industry.

Then we

have the health care system, where you've put people into a situation that was

untenable. Your policies have put the nurses, health care workers and paramedicals into this situation for six or seven months now. Then you have the

audacity to talk about the concern of Small Town, British Columbia. You have the

audacity to rise in this House and be concerned about the implications of what

may happen or what could happen relative to health care, when you've destroyed

the backbone of our province in the small towns from one end of this province to

the other.

You know, I

look at my own particular community. We have four small communities: Lake

Cowichan, Duncan, Chemainus and Ladysmith. When I look at that downtown core

area — I was born and raised there — never, ever have I seen it in that type

of economic despair. I'd never seen it like that before, except now, as you

finished up your government. You destroyed Small Town, British Columbia. So for

you to rise in the House and talk to us about the concern of what's going to

happen in Small Town, British Columbia, is really, really tough to take.

MacPhail: Patient care — your words.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Patient care, winners and losers…. The patient care, you betcha.

This government's prime duty is to make sure that the people of British Columbia

have the health care they deserve where they need it and when they need it, and

we've done that today. What we've done is taken a dispute that had no way of

being negotiated, had no way of being put together, and we brought it to a

conclusion after seven months of futile negotiation, because of the manner in

which the NDP government brought the whole negotiating process through and then

dumped the mandate off the back end of the truck during the campaign. You have

the audacity to rise in this House and talk to me about politics, about the

politics of what we're doing here. The politics of this whole labour dispute got

caught up in the government of the NDP trying to stay alive, trying to save its

bacon in respect to that last election — politics to the very end.

[1645]

Tax breaks.

I have a hard time understanding your math, but then, obviously, so did the

majority of British Columbians. So what we're supposed to do here, if I

understand that, is cut the tax breaks. That's what we're supposed to do. In

this bill we're already giving to the nurses and the paramedicals a compensation

package making them the highest paid in Canada. We've combined with that for

them, as well as for other British Columbians, a tax cut that will be very

substantial. That very group of people in the province will enjoy a large return

of that tax cut. Yet I hear the opposition saying: "Take that away."

We're supposed to take that away.

It's really

hard to understand where the opposition comes from. It's clearly understandable

why the population in the province said: "Enough is enough is

enough." That's why there are 77 members of the B.C. Liberal Party in this

House. That's why there was a 58 percent majority given to this government: so

that we would come in and clean up the disaster that the NDP laid into this

province over the last ten years.

But I

digress. It's difficult not to come back to the mess and the hurt that you

have placed on the people and the province. But we need to move ahead. Let us be

clear. There's not one member of government, not one member of the B.C. Liberal

Party sitting in this House today, that enjoys the thought of bringing in

legislation that legislates settlements. I can tell you that to a man or to a

woman that sits here in this House. However, faced with the possibility or faced

with the probability of never being able to bring a negotiated settlement,

because of the manner in which you would set the whole negotiations up when the

NDP was government, we're prepared to do the job that needs to be done.

I want to

say that this bill, as difficult as it is, is what the people need so that we

will protect the patient care from one end of this province to the other for the

people of this province when they need it and where they need it.

I move that

the bill now be read a second time.

[1650]

Second

reading of Bill 15 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 75

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van

Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Anderson

Jarvis

Penner

Chong

Weisbeck

Coleman

Neufeld

Abbott

Stephens

Nebbeling

de Jong

Bond

Clark

Collins

Campbell

Murray

Hagen

Thorpe

Orr

Nuraney

Brenzinger

R. Stewart

Bell

Chutter

Long

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

Belsey

Hayer

Christensen

[ Page 325 ]

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Hunter

Manhas

Kerr

Hawes

Sahota

Hamilton

Sultan

Brice

Suffredine

Bloy

K. Stewart

Cobb

MacKay

Lekstrom

Visser

Wong

Bhullar

Nijjar

Locke

Les

Harris

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 15,

Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'll just advise the House that Committee A will be resuming

momentarily. As well, I'd like to call second reading of Bill 2, Taxation

Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

[1655]

MacPhail: Just for the information and consideration of the House Leader,

the opposition will be addressing Bills 4 and 5. Take that into consideration in

ter