Hansard -- Wednesday, April 28, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 24, No. 7 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		10575

Tributes		10575
	Jerry Deere
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Bill Gillis
	Hon. M. de Jong

Ministerial Statements		10576
	National Day of Mourning
	Hon. G. Bruce

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10577
	Health Care Services Continuation Act (Bill M201)
	J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10577
	National Day of Mourning
	J. MacPhail
	Eyesight clinic
	P. Sahota
	Prevention of violence against women
	G. Trumper

Oral Questions		10578
	Impact of government policies on health care
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Hon. G. Campbell
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Income assistance and employment transition services
	V. Anderson
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Economic growth in B.C.
	R. Sultan
	Hon. G. Collins
	Working forest initiative
	K. Krueger
	Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of the Whole House		10581
	Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act (Bill 31)
	M. Hunter
	Hon. M. Coell

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10582
	Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act (Bill 31)

Second Reading of Bills		10582
	College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 26)
	Hon. S. Bond
	Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 27)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 34)
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of Supply		10585
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations
	Hon. G. Plant
	J. Kwan
	D. MacKay
	L. Mayencourt

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10604
	Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)
	Hon. G. Bruce

Standing Order 81 Motion		10604
	Hon. G. Collins
	J. MacPhail

Standing Order 81 Motion (Speaker's Ruling)		10606

Second Reading of Bills		10606
	Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)
	Hon. G. Bruce
	J. MacPhail
	J. Kwan
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. G. Abbott
	E. Brenzinger
	Hon. C. Hansen
	B. Kerr
	B. Lekstrom
	Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of the Whole House		10646
	Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Bruce
	J. Kwan
	B. Lekstrom

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10666
	Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37)

Tabling Documents		10666
	Hon. G. Bruce

Royal Assent to Bills		10666
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004 (Bill 5) Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 6) Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 12) Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 13) Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act (Bill 14) Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16) Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 17) Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 18) Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19) Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 24) Wildfire Act (Bill 25) Coal Act (Bill 28) Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 29) Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act (Bill 31) Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 32) Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act (Bill 37) B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr401) Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr402) Pheidias Project Management (1979) Corp. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr403)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10666
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. K. Falcon

Hon. G. Campbell: It's a pleasure to introduce a group of very special British Columbians who are with us in the House today. They are in the members' gallery, and they are members of the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. These are the men and women who have taken on the onerous task of reviewing the 241 nominations that are in this year for the Order of British Columbia. It is a challenging task.

The OBC Advisory Council is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of B.C., the Hon. Lance Finch. It includes, of course, the distinguished Speaker of the House. The president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Frank Leonard, is also on the council — the president of the University of Northern British Columbia, Dr. Charles Jago; Athana Mentzelopoulos, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations; and two members of the Order, Dr. Milton Wong from Vancouver and Debra Foxcroft from Port Alberni. I hope the House will make them all welcome and wish them well in their deliberations.

J. Weisbeck: Seated on the floor of the chamber are three guests from Australia who are visiting us: Mr. John Mills, MP, Chairman of Committees, New South Wales Legislative Assembly; the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, MLC, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council; and Mr. Ian Faulks, committee manager, Parliament of New South Wales. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: Today in the members' gallery I'd like to acknowledge a special visitor from Iceland. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Gudmundur Eiriksson, the newly appointed ambassador of Iceland to Canada. This is the ambassador's first visit to British Columbia. I'm pleased he has travelled here to discover the many opportunities that this great and beautiful province has to offer. He's accompanied today by Heather Ireland, the honorary consul general of Iceland at Vancouver. Would the House please help make them welcome.

T. Bhullar: A good friend of mine David Hudak and his lovely wife, Leslie, are visiting us today. They're in the gallery. David is an expert in counterinsurgency and had the unfortunate experience of being held by the U.S. authorities for 16 months after being wrongly accused and just arrived back in Canada last Friday. Will the House please make them welcome.

G. Trumper: It's my pleasure today to ask the House to welcome Bob Kanngiesser from my riding. Bob just retired a few months ago as the secretary-treasurer of school district 70 and, actually, a few years ago was a candidate for the Liberal Party provincially. Would you please make him welcome.

V. Anderson: Today in the gallery I am very pleased to welcome 18 students from the Ideal Mini School in Vancouver and the James Lyng High School in Montreal. They are accompanied by Susan Gerofsky from the Ideal Mini School. The students from James Lyng High School in Montreal are here as part of a youth Canada exchange program funded by the federal Heritage ministry and administered by the YMCA. Would the House please help me to give them a very warm British Columbia welcome.

K. Krueger: It's my pleasure to introduce 19 grades 4 to 6 students from Pinantan Elementary School in my constituency and eight accompanying adults — all in the care of Ms. Courtney, their teacher. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Hayer: I am pleased to rise in this House today following the introduction by the member for Vancouver-Langara. Accompanying the students from James Lyng High School in Montreal is one of the teachers and my cousin, Angela Hayer. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25 public servants seated in both the east and west galleries who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop, offered by the Legislative Assembly, provides a first-hand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Some sad news today. On the weekend British Columbia lost a couple of pioneers — forest giants.

Jerry Deere had spent a lifetime in forestry, much of it with Canadian Forest Products and more recently with East Fraser Fiber, which he joined as president in 1999. He was a former chairman of the Northern Forest Products Association, a former director of the Prince George Region Development Corporation and had vast, extensive involvements with 4-H. At the time of his passing he was a board member with the Council of Forest Industries, the Mackenzie Economic Development Commission, and a director with the Prince George Airport Authority.

He had provided a lifetime of service to his community and to the industry that he loved. He passed away also doing something he loved — on a golf trip

with friends and members of the industry he had worked in. He leaves a wife, two daughters and, within the last two years, two grandchildren who were the pride of his life. That was Jerry Deere.

Hon. M. de Jong: We also sadly — and I speak on behalf now, I'm sure, of all members but most particularly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds — lost Bill Gillis. Bill Gillis had spent in excess of a half-century in forestry. When he returned to Canada after serving his country in World War II, he was a true pioneer not just in his work as the founder of Mill and Timber Products and Haida Forest Products but also in the development of certain techniques, like kiln-drying western red cedar.

Three years ago the Fraser River Discovery Centre Society recognized Bill Gillis as a pioneer for the pioneering work that he had done, and they installed him in the Fraser River Hall of Fame. As I say, he was a longtime resident of Burnaby. His son Jim is now the president of Haida Forest Products. We saw Jim just a few days ago, and even then there was hope that his dad, Bill, was going to launch another of his famous comebacks. It was not to be. His family — Jim, Dave, his daughter Diane and all of his grandchildren and extended family — grieve, and we grieve with them. But his — as was Jerry's — was a life well lived.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will convey the sentiments of this House to two forestry giants that we lost.

S. Orr: The guest has already been introduced, but I would also like to welcome one of my mayors. That's Mayor Frank Leonard, who is also the mayor for the member for Saanich South and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I just want to remind the members of this House that he taught me everything I know, so I'd like you to blame him. Would all the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: Today flags are flying half-mast on buildings across the province to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Day of Mourning for workers who have lost their lives as a result of work-related accidents or occupational diseases.

Every year on this day we renew our commitment to fight for the safety of the living as well as mourn for those workers who have died on the job. Every year we need to remind ourselves that as alarming and shocking as the statistics may be, this is not about statistics; it's actually about people — people in your community and people in my community.

As a Vancouver Island MLA, I come from an area that has seen its share of workplace tragedy this year. A year ago this month my friend Ted Towe, an IWA member from Duncan, died when he fell from the back of a semitrailer. Last May, Julia James, a family friend — and her mom and dad — and former employee of mine from Chemainus, drowned when a company vehicle went into a lake at a remote tree-planting area near Quesnel. Julia was just 20 years old.

In September, Percy Forbes from Port Alberni died after he lost control of an off-road logging truck on a steep section off a logging road in the Sarita area. In October, John Riley from Parksville was killed when a load of lumber fell on him at Interfor's field sawmill in Courtenay. In February, Roy Smith of the Malahat, Derek Myers of Victoria and Dennis Webber of Errington lost their lives when their fishing boat, the Hope Bay, capsized west of Port Hardy. All were good people just trying to do their jobs when tragedy struck, as were all the others who were so tragically taken from us.

There are positive signs, though. The injury rate in B.C. workplaces reached an all-time low in 2003 — a 42 percent decrease since 1994. Credit must go to the efforts of many workers, companies, unions, industry associations and the WCB. All of them have done a lot to make workplaces safer. Still, we saw more than 150 fatalities last year and more than 5,300 permanent injuries.

Although these deaths in the workplace occur in all sectors, there are some that require special attention. The forest industry is one such sector that has an unacceptable rate of death and serious injuries. The WCB along with the forest industry — companies, contractors, unions — and the government have established the Forest Safety Task Force. This group has worked together over the last eight months to come up with 20 recommendations that will help save lives and prevent serious injuries in the woods.

To make these recommendations a reality, though, the industry is now forming an operational team, developing an action plan with the larger forest community to work through the recommendations and implement changes to make B.C.'s forests safer places to work. The important factor here is that all the agencies are working together to make these changes, because it's cooperation that will yield the best results.

I along with you, I'm sure, look forward to the day when we won't have to add names to the list of those who have gone from us. It's a day that we all must work toward, and I would ask everyone here and those in the workplaces — employers and employees — to make that commitment to themselves, to their friends and to their colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we take a moment now to pause in a moment of silence for those that have lost their lives, in memory of them.

J. MacPhail: I, too, will be acknowledging this day in a few moments in a member's statement.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill standing in my name on the order paper, entitled Health Care Services Continuation Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

J. MacPhail: This bill proposes a 90-day moratorium on the privatization in the health care sector and puts both the Hospital Employees Union and the Health Employers Association of B.C. back to the bargaining table to hammer out an agreement that works for patients. This bill ensures that health care workers get back to work with the confidence that bargaining can continue in good faith and that patient care is not compromised.

Strikes in the health care sector hurt patients, but so do the actions of a government that chooses confrontation over negotiation. The Premier has demonstrated time and time again that when it comes to health care, he's ready for a fight. It doesn't seem to matter with whom — nurses, doctors, lab technicians and now support services staff. His approach is to bully, bad-talk and do battle.

Again today he is ready to legislate a contract for health care workers, but this bill is an alternative we put before him. The alternative I am putting forward is a win-win situation for everyone. Patients get the care they need as the employees and employers are able to sit down and resume talks without outside pressure.

Patients have already been hurt enough by the policies of this government. Wait-lists have increased by 26 percent, hospitals have closed across the province, emergency services decreased and long-term beds reduced. Patients have suffered enough because of the Premier's broken promises. It's time to honour the promises made three years ago to patients and health care providers and not legislate a contract in their name. I strongly encourage the government to adopt this bill as a government bill, and the opposition will ensure its passage today.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill M201 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.

J. MacPhail: I, too, rise today to commemorate the National Day of Mourning for injured workers. The National Day of Mourning is an occasion for British Columbians to join with Canadians from coast to coast to coast to mourn the tragic deaths and injuries that result from occupational accidents and work-related incidents.

The numbers are staggering. In Canada some 900 employees die from accidents at work each year, averaging more than two deaths every day. From 1993 to 2002 more than 8,000 people lost their lives due to workplace accidents — by any other name, a pandemic. Another 900,000 per year are injured. In 2003 more than 200 people died from work-related injury, illness or disease here in this province, four of whom were between the ages of 15 and 24, and close to 5,000 British Columbians were permanently disabled.

The National Day of Mourning held every year on April 28 was officially recognized in Canada in 1991, eight years after the day of remembrance was launched by the Canadian Labour Congress. The Day of Mourning has since spread to 80 countries around the world. It is a day to reflect on the sacrifices that working people make to build our country and our province; a day to rededicate our efforts to make workplaces in British Columbia as safe and as productive as they can be, and to take a positive approach to how we look after working people. One worker injured or killed on the job is one too many. Let us remember those who have lost their lives, and let us also remain dedicated to working for the living and to preventing further needless tragedies.

P. Sahota: A couple of weeks ago a free eye clinic was conducted by Canadian Eyesight International at the Ross Street Temple in Vancouver. This was the first time a clinic of this type was organized, and the president of Canadian Eyesight, Mr. Anup Jubbal, said that the clinic was a huge success.

A total of eight doctors, three nurses and many volunteers participated in this health awareness effort. Dr. Jay Kalra travelled all the way from Saskatoon to offer his assistance. Well-known local eye surgeons Dr. David Neima and Dr. Amrik Panesar participated in the eye clinic, and they saw a total of 307 people. Many patients also received checkups for diabetes and high blood pressure. The medicines given to the eye patients were also distributed free of charge.

I want to express my appreciation to the many doctors and volunteers who volunteered their time: Dr. Parmjit Sohal, Dr. Paramjit Bhui, RN Nalini Bhui, Dr.

Due to the success of this project, the organizers are planning a second eye clinic on July 25 at the Miri-Piri celebration at the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey. My colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers and I are very much looking forward to volunteering our efforts towards this good cause. The organizers also want to repeat these free eye clinics quarterly and would like to expand this program to eastern Canada.

I am glad that many people took the opportunity to attend the first free eye clinic. It's also extremely important that all B.C. residents visit an optometrist or ophthalmologist for regular eye health exams. While opticians have the technology to determine prescriptions for glasses and contact lenses, only licensed physicians like optometrists and ophthalmologists can properly diagnose symptoms of disease such as glaucoma, cataracts and damage caused by diabetes. I encourage all my constituents to see a medical professional on a regular basis to ensure their eyes remain healthy for many years to come.

G. Trumper: This week is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, something that should be recognized 52 weeks a year. This week is about raising awareness of the importance of eliminating violence against women once and for all. Every day you hear about crimes in the news — robbery, assault and theft. What you don't hear much about is violence against women, because more often than not, this violence occurs behind closed doors when home becomes hell.

Times are changing, and things are improving for women, but we have to do more. We have to do more for the women and their children but also for the men. Believe it or not, there are men walking this earth today that still believe it is socially acceptable to slap a woman if she gets out of line. We see it in movies. We hear it from past generations. In fact, it can be argued that the phrase "rule of thumb" comes from English common law, which deemed it a man's right to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than the diameter of his thumb. These people must be educated.

Will violence against women ever stop? I hope so. But we must not abandon the cause. On days and weeks like today we must do what we can to educate all our constituents in Canada. This government provides $33 million a year to direct services for women including prevention initiatives, transition houses, safe homes, second-stage housing and counselling. In a perfect world none of these services would exist, because women would not be subject to abuse. Unfortunately, we live in a less-than-perfect world, and we must all do our part to make sure no more women suffer abuse as a result.

J. MacPhail: Let me quote the Premier from 2001: "I don't believe in ripping up agreements. I think the question today is how you maintain the quality and talent of the people who are in the system. I am not tearing up agreements." Will the Premier stand up today and take responsibility for not telling the truth to the people of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, just before we proceed…. Your remark is very borderline on unparliamentary language. I would ask you to please rephrase the last part of your question.

J. MacPhail: The Premier said in 2001: "I don't believe in ripping up agreements. I think the question today is how you maintain the quality and talent of the people who are in the system. I am not tearing up agreements."

Will the Premier stand up today and take responsibility for completely changing his position — not once, not twice, but a half-dozen times?

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, it takes a lot to do the things that are right to make a government work for the people in the province. I think the Leader of the Opposition ought to know that, in fact, this government has worked very, very hard to establish improved relationships in this province, and we've been able to negotiate 37 public sector–negotiated settlements in this province.

I think it's also important to note that as you move ahead through that particular aspect of things, we have seen the entire economy grow as people are working together to make British Columbia a better place to live.

J. MacPhail: I'll tell you, if the B.C. health care system was any better because the Premier broke his promise, British Columbians might forgive him. But it's not. In fact, it's worse, and it's getting worse every day.

The Premier's health care policies are failing around this province. He promised to reduce wait-lists. They're up 26 percent in less than three years. He promised to reduce wait times, but in almost every category they are up substantially. He promised to respect health care workers, but every health care professional in this province — doctors, nurses, technicians, food service workers — is united in their opposition to this government.

Can the Premier explain why he is deliberately driving our health care system into the ground?

Hon. G. Campbell: When this government took office, we said we were going to focus our agenda on taking care of people in the province, taking care of patients. We said we were going to respect our health care professionals. We've done that. We have the highest-paid doctors, the highest-paid nurses, the highest-paid health care professionals in the country, because we recognize that those professionals deliver.

We said we were going to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication so we could focus resources on patients. We said we would protect health care funding. We've done that. In fact, we have added $2 billion to the health care budget to meet the needs of British Columbians. That's meant more nurses, more doctors and more care for British Columbians, which is what British Columbians deserve.

J. MacPhail: British Columbians are sick of that kind of spin. No wonder the Premier wouldn't get up and say what he meant when he said: "I'm not tearing up agreements." They're sick of being told that patient care is getting better. They're sick of being misled in advertisements that they have to pay for.

Let me quote from the former chief of medical staff at Kootenay Lake Hospital about the effect of this government's cuts on his hospital. I note that no Liberal member will ever ask this question. Here's the quote: "We've had some really close calls, but no one has died yet. But eventually, I think, someone will die." Well, someone did die. Edward Morritt waited six hours for treatment for a ruptured spleen that took his life as a result of cuts to emergency care. That's what every health care professional says.

Will the Premier stand up and repeat his promise that people will get health care where they need it and when they need it, or will he finally admit to patients in B.C. that they're suffering because he didn't tell them what he was going to do — that he misled them?

Hon. G. Campbell: Over the last three years we have managed to encourage doctors and nurses to go to rural locations and remote locations across British Columbia. We have watched as regional hospitals have been built up in Kamloops, in Prince George and in Cranbrook. We've watched as we've had an increasing number of specialists come to provide for people with needs. We've watched as this government has invested in telehealth so people get care quickly in the hospitals where they need it, as quickly as they can.

We recognize that health care is a major challenge as British Columbians age, but we also recognize that the critical component of health care is to take the resources that we ask taxpayers to give us and focus them on patients where they live, and that's exactly what this government has done.

J. Kwan: This Premier promised British Columbians that he wouldn't rip up collective agreements and that he would deliver health care when you need it and where you need it, and he's failed on both counts. When confronted with the evidence of Mr. Morritt's tragic death…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the question, hon. members.

J. Kwan: …the Health minister insisted that it was not due to cutbacks. He said that the after-hours ultrasound Mr. Morritt required was never available at the Kootenay Lake Hospital. Not true. According to nurses and doctors who work in Nelson, before this government took office, they had surgeons on call. They had radiologists on call, they had technologists on call, and they had after-hours ultrasound on call. Now they don't. Can the Premier explain why he's spending $19 million on health care advertisements when patients in Nelson can't even get an ultrasound?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think as the members know, there are two inquiries underway. The health authority has engaged in an independent review of that. I can assure the member that the review that has been done indicates that ultrasound was available, that the radiologist can be called in before the changes and could be called in now.

The only difference is that in fact the radiologist, had he been called in on that particular night, would have been paid more than he would…. He would not have been paid in the past. He in fact would have been paid for that callback. I think it's important that the opposition members allow for those investigations to proceed so that we can find out exactly what did happen in those circumstances. I think we owe that to the memory of Mr. Morritt.

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

J. Kwan: With the spin of this government, the government's credibility gap is getting bigger every day. It's just been over 1,000 days since this Premier won the election — 1,000 days of decline. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members on both sides of the House, so we may hear the question.

J. Kwan: Only this bench of government members would clap when British Columbia is faced with 1,000 days of decline for patient care.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order please. Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: No one believes this government's spin. Their excuses have run out. Three years of broken promises have worn out British Columbians' patience. When will the Premier admit that three years of privatization, three years of conflict and three years of cutbacks have not improved patient care but have put patients' lives at risk?

Hon. G. Campbell: I certainly understand what the member opposite is concerned about. We're all concerned about health care. We were concerned when the previous government cut back on the number of nurses they trained in British Columbia. We were concerned when the previous government cut back on the number of doctors. What we have done is increased the number of nurses that are being trained….

Hon. G. Campbell: We have increased the number of nurses that are trained. In fact, we've reduced the vacancy in nurses that we inherited from the previous government. We are going to almost double the number of doctors that are trained in British Columbia. For the first time in history we'll be training doctors at the University of Northern British Columbia and at the University of Victoria.

We have added substantially to the health care budget, and in adding to that health care budget, we have provided for the most important component of health care. That's the people who deliver the care: doctors, nurses, physiotherapists — people who will be assured that the 38,000 additional procedures we've added last year over the year before are going to continue to be added as we improve health care for people in every region of this province.

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. People in my community who are recognized by his ministry as having multiple barriers would like to find a way to seek employment and training for that employment. However, some of these persons find the prospect of this transition very stressful. What resources are available to help these people during this potentially stressful transition to employment and training?

Hon. S. Hagen: This government recognizes that each person on income assistance may have barriers to overcome. Some have significant barriers that seriously interfere with their ability to participate in the workplace or in their community, while others face barriers that may be readily overcome with some specialized services. That's why we tailor our services to meet the needs of each individual.

We offer a vast range of services, including basic life skills such as hygiene, nutrition and financial management, English training for people with language barriers, support for victims of abuse or former sex-trade workers, skills training, interview preparation and job placement. Our goal is to assist every client to achieve self-reliance and build a brighter future. Through our programs, they are doing just that.

R. Sultan: My question is to The Minister of Finance. Over the last 12 months, we've all heard the opposition claim that British Columbia has just about the worst-performing economy in Canada, particularly last year but continuing today. Also, today I understand Carole James chimed in with further denigration of our economic performance. Could the Minister of Finance please tell the House if the opposition's claim has any validity whatsoever?

Hon. G. Collins: He might not be surprised by my answer. The answer is no, it doesn't have any validity. As late as today Carole James was still spreading doom and gloom about British Columbia, saying that our economy is dead last. She must be thinking back to those days when her party, the NDP, was in government, and we actually were dead last. Today StatsCan came out and said that in 2003, British Columbia's economic growth rate was 2.2 percent — tied with the province of Alberta and well ahead of the national average.

But there is more good news, because Scotiabank, Toronto-Dominion Bank and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce all say that British Columbia is going to move ahead to No. 2 in growth this year. The StatsCan numbers today also show that British Columbia was No. 2 in hours of work worked last year. That makes us No. 2 in Canada. It means people are changing from part-time to full-time growth. Not only are we creating more jobs as the No. 1 job creator in Canada, but we're creating better jobs for British Columbia.

K. Krueger: …the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant joined Ken Wu of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee to protest the working forest initiative, suggesting that it would put communities in jeopardy and people out of jobs.

The NDP's version of land use management still haunts our memory. It was driven by political tides, leaving working families, communities and stakeholders without any land use certainty or opportunities for new jobs. I believe the working forest initiative will benefit working families and the communities I represent, who rely on access to our land base. I see our forest industry once again gaining strength in British Columbia. Would the minister please respond to Mr. Wu's concerns?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. We have heard a lot of nonsense and a lot of blather from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee about the working forest initiative. I know I was personally disappointed to see the NDP at their demonstration, but I guess they're not strangers to nonsense and blather as well, so it's not entirely an uncomfortable partnership between the two.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let's continue when we have order in the chamber.

Hon. G. Abbott: …make sure that working families have a place in the future on the working forest base of British Columbia. It's an initiative that takes account not only of forestry but also of mining, tourism and other enterprises that can occur on Crown lands across British Columbia.

I share the member's view here. We do need parks; we do need protected areas. But we also need to ensure that working families have a future on the land base in British Columbia as well.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

In this House, I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 31.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 31; K. Stewart in the chair.

M. Hunter: This section sets out the establishment of a water advisory committee and allows for the continuation of the current board under the Greater Nanaimo Water District Act should the city of Nanaimo not set up a committee. My understanding is that the city of Nanaimo does intend to set up a water advisory committee, and I wonder if the minister can indicate to me what criteria this legislation puts forward — or the Community Charter — with respect to the composition of that committee.

The reason I ask this is that in second reading, I made reference to my expectation that this legislation — and I believe the minister confirmed it — could actually help in terms of getting some water issues resolved in my community. Is it his expectation that this committee, which is to be set up under this section, will in fact have some criteria with respect to membership and terms of reference that will be helpful?

Hon. M. Coell: The initial committee is four members from the water district and one from the regional district.

M. Hunter: Can the minister point to where that is set out? Is that a continuation of the existing Nanaimo water district board?

Hon. M. Coell: It's a continuation of the existing board. The four are actually from Nanaimo.

M. Hunter: Should the city decide it wishes to establish a committee under section 5(1), then I am assuming that the committee to which the minister just referred is extinguished. My question is: if there is a new committee, are there requirements for residence or other criteria that will govern the selection of that committee by the city?

Hon. M. Coell: We haven't developed the regulations as yet, but we will be requiring a minimum of one from the southwest area.

M. Hunter: My question on this section actually pursues the same line of inquiry. Since under the

Community Charter the city of Nanaimo has more authority with respect to the passage of bylaws, what is the relationship between the city council and its advisory committee? Is it that the advisory committee just simply gives advice, and there is nothing more complicated than that? I've had questions about what control we have over the city of Nanaimo in terms of the setting of bylaws. I assume that's just a normal municipal process and that section 8 stands apart from section 5.

Hon. M. Coell: The advisory committee is specifically advice. The board actually makes the decisions.

Hon. M. Coell: I would move that we report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 31, Nanaimo and South West Water Supply Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

This year the British Columbia Institute of Technology celebrates its fortieth anniversary as a unique and integral part of B.C.'s post-secondary education system. It has been a truly remarkable journey for the institution, growing from a single campus in Burnaby in 1964 to a world-class polytechnic institution boasting five campuses, 12 satellite locations around British Columbia and more than 48,000 students.

This government's commitment to add 25,000 new student spaces to the system throughout the province by 2010 underscores our determination to give every post-secondary institution in British Columbia the tools they need to expand and thrive and meet the needs of our students. We have also made a commitment to clear the path of unwarranted obstructions affecting their ability to operate efficiently and deliver the very best services to our students.

I am pleased to say that so far in this government's mandate, we have worked to streamline post-secondary legislation in a number of ways. Examples of the work we have done include eliminating the outdated legislation that required institutions to submit annual budget proposals to the Minister of Advanced Education. We've also eliminated the requirement that the minister present the annual report of the British Columbia Institute of Technology to the Legislature. These are no longer needed with the advent of our three-year service plans and an accountability framework that we put in place to spell out government's expectations clearly.

We have removed the provision in the College and Institute Act that required the minister to coordinate continuing education programs, leaving it to those who know best — institutions themselves — to direct this vital part of post-secondary education. We have streamlined the process for approving new degree programs for public institutions by allowing them to gain approval via ministers' orders rather than orders-in-council, and we have removed the requirement that institutional boards and administrators obtain government approval of their bylaws.

The legislation we are discussing here today continues my ministry's work to make sure that B.C.'s public colleges, university colleges and institutes continue to do their work unencumbered by needless red tape. In B.C. currently, two acts govern the way BCIT and our colleges and institutes manage their affairs. BCIT is governed by the Institute of Technology Act, while the legislative framework for other provincial institutes, colleges and university colleges is contained in the College and Institute Act.

As part of a larger review of the public post-secondary education legislation, we consulted with BCIT about more streamlined legislation for our colleges, university colleges and institutes. We examined the small difference in governance structures and operational frameworks between BCIT and other institutions to determine if they were meaningful and whether changes in legislation might help them manage their administration activities more effectively. We learned there is overlap and inconsistency between the two acts.

For example, differences exist with respect to the level of discretion that the BCIT board and the other institutional boards may exercise when choosing between bylaws and resolutions to help them make decisions. The amendments we are putting forward today will clarify the governance powers of all boards by identifying those matters that must be governed through bylaws while providing boards the autonomy and flexibility to govern other matters through bylaws or resolutions as they deem appropriate.

The object here is to have a legislative structure in place that is enabling rather than prescriptive and limiting, and one that applies uniformly to all of our colleges, university colleges and institutes. By repealing the Institute of Technology Act and including BCIT under the College and Institute Act, these amendments will eliminate unnecessary duplication that currently

exists between the two acts and will streamline public post-secondary education legislation. While doing this, we are ensuring that BCIT retains the legislation it requires to fill its mandate as B.C.'s polytechnic institution.

During our discussions with institutions they told us they want boards of governors to have discretion to delegate authority to institutional presidents to appoint, promote or remove employees. This is something university boards have been able to do for some time, and it seemed to us a reasonable option for the rest of the post-secondary sector as well. It also enables boards to act as appeal bodies for such decisions.

Existing legislation unnecessarily restricts institutional boards in other ways. For example, the College and Institute Act requires each board to appoint a bursar to exercise powers and perform duties assigned by the board, while the Institute of Technology Act permits but does not require the BCIT board to appoint a bursar. Giving all boards the ability to appoint bursars when they deem it wise to do so gives them additional flexibility to do their jobs. It also reinforces boards' autonomy, better reflecting their role and range of responsibilities.

Naturally, boards will continue to operate within the financial and accountability frameworks established by government. I must also stress that the labour relations framework for all public colleges, university colleges and institutes will remain unchanged. The existing personnel relations provisions of the College and Institute Act will continue to be applied to public colleges, university colleges and other institutes but will not be applied to BCIT. Instead, the unique personnel relationship provisions of the Institute of Technology Act will be added to the College and Institute Act and will pertain solely to BCIT, preserving BCIT's existing personnel relations environment.

Similarly, provisions relating to representation of faculty and students on boards and education councils are not affected by these amendments. Nor will these amendments have any impact on student associations.

Throughout our review we looked very carefully at the language contained in the acts. We noted in the Institute of Technology Act that BCIT's purpose is described as providing, maintaining and operating buildings, equipment, facilities and services, and providing courses of instruction in technological and vocational matters and subjects. But this description has not kept pace with BCIT's development over the past few decades. It doesn't reflect the institution that BCIT is today.

With the amendments of Bill 26, we're formalizing recognition of BCIT's role within our post-secondary system as a polytechnic institution providing courses of instruction in technological and vocational matters and subjects, and offering baccalaureate and applied degrees.

These amendments fall within our three-year service plan to cut and eliminate red tape and to build a more efficient and integrated post-secondary system. They are consistent with our government's new-era commitments to remove unnecessary legislation and regulations that impede the efficient and effective delivery of services. They signal our confidence in the ability of institutions to make wise management decisions and to operate in a way that puts students first — a principle that is of first importance both to my ministry and to this government.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, College and Institute Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. This bill reflects government's commitments to expedite treaty settlements with first nations and to provide them with abilities and obligations similar in character to those of local governments.

The purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow first nations who are involved in treaty negotiations or who have signed treaties a direct method of applying for changes to the agricultural land reserves that are in the final treaty settlement lands. The Agricultural Land Commission Act currently requires first nations in the treaty process or those with treaty settlement land to obtain the approval of a local government before making an application to the Agricultural Land Commission.

The proposed amendments to the act would enable first nations to apply directly to the commission for approvals on ALR lands located within proposed and final treaty settlement lands. First nations will be required to provide public notice and, where required by the regulation, to hold a public hearing for proposed changes within the agricultural land reserve. These obligations are similar to those that apply to local governments and landowners currently.

These amendments do not affect the decision-making process of the commission. The commission will consider these first nation applications in the same manner as applications from local governments and landowners. A decision of the commission under the proposed amendments would not take effect until a final treaty agreement has been reached and the first nation passes a law enacting the commission's decision.

These amendments will provide treaty negotiators with the necessary tools to bring information forward about allowable uses on land of interest to the first nations. This will assist the negotiators in reaching a final treaty settlement suitable to all parties. Treaty settlements, in turn, will encourage investment within the province by providing greater land use certainty and will benefit all British Columbians.

G. Halsey-Brandt: I wish to speak briefly on this bill this afternoon. I certainly concur with one part of the bill, but I do express concern with another portion.

I assume that the first nations reserves in British Columbia are not subject to the Land Commission Act and regulations at the present time. That legislation is provincial, and the first nations reserves are federally regulated. Of course, with the treaty process that we are now engaged in with the first nations bands and as part of the treaty settlement, the bands may receive additional lands. Some of that property outside their existing reserves may be, at the present time, subject to the agricultural land reserve.

As I understand it, these lands as treaty settlement lands will be turned over to the first nations as part of the treaty, as fee simple lands rather than reserve status lands. Therefore, if they are covered by the Agricultural Land Commission regulations, then they will be subject to those uses. The bands, in order to take them out of the Agricultural Land Commission if they so wish, will have to go through the existing municipality they're in at the present time.

The part of the legislation that talks about when the treaties are finally made with our first nations bands, where they can apply directly to the Agricultural Land Commission, I think is a great step forward, and I certainly agree with that portion of the legislation. What I'm a little concerned about this afternoon — I hope the minister can perhaps expand on this during committee stage of the bill — is the part that allows first nations the ability to apply directly to the Agricultural Land Commission to remove land from the land reserve at the agreement-in-principle stage.

I say this because I think it creates two problems for the people of British Columbia. One is, of course, the tremendous expectations and pressures that we put on the commissioners of the agricultural land reserve, because whether a treaty may succeed or fail, in fact, may be based on the decision they render. I think that is really not fair.

The second part is that the treaty process, in dealing with first nations, has spanned a number of years, and all the players at certain stages are aware in terms of openness of what lands are subject to discussion for addition to reserves as treaty settlement lands. All the surrounding citizens know that.

The people know of the status of those lands at the time the negotiations take place. Therefore, to get to the agreement-in-principle stage and suddenly property changes in terms of whether it's in the ALR or not in the ALR, I think is unreasonable expectation to put on the surrounding community. They believe that they're in the agricultural land reserve. They will continue to be in the agricultural land reserve after a treaty is settled, and the first nations could certainly then apply to the Agricultural Land Commission. But everyone knew they were in the reserve leading up to it.

So I have some concerns around that part of the act, and I look forward to committee stage when we can address those and hopefully clarify that with the minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: 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.

Bill 27, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

This bill proposes a number of amendments to taxation and revenue statutes administered by the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. The measures included in this bill will help achieve our goals of fair, efficient and equitable administration of taxation and collection of outstanding moneys due to British Columbians.

The Hotel Room Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act are amended to add directors' liability provisions where due diligence has not been exercised. This is about providing protection to British Columbia taxpayers. Under these provisions, directors of a corporation who have discharged their duties without due diligence may be held responsible for the corporation's failure to collect or remit taxes or pay security if the directors have not ensured that the corporation met its obligations. The federal government and all other provinces except Newfoundland have similar due diligence provisions.

Amendments are proposed to the Corporation Capital Tax Act and Income Tax Act to allow the province to respond to tax adjustments made by other jurisdictions that have an impact on British Columbians. The amendments will allow the province to issue reassessments of taxation within one year of another province or federal government adjusting corporation taxes in that jurisdiction. This amendment protects British Columbians from the potential for double taxation and ensures that British Columbia receives all of the tax amounts due under the legislation.

Waiver provisions are proposed for the Insurance Premium Tax Act and Mineral Tax Act. These provisions allow taxpayers to request a waiver of the six-year assessment limitation period in order to refute a proposed tax assessment. Waiver provisions were introduced last year for other taxation statutes.

In addition, a number of housekeeping amendments are proposed in this bill. Amendments to the Income Tax Act will align the act with parallel provisions in the federal Income Tax Act. Similar amendments are required each year to accommodate changes in the federal legislation. Amendments to the Property Transfer Act clarify that where improvements straddle multiple land parcels, the parcels must be treated as a single parcel under the act.

Amendments to the Corporation Capital Tax Act ensure that the revenue is protected from tax planning undertaken for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. The Insurance Premium Tax Act is amended to authorize information-sharing agreements with the Financial Institutions Commission. This amendment facilitates the administration of the act.

The Mineral Land Tax Act is amended to remove an outdated statutory requirement and to allow for electronic transmission of tax notices. Amendments to the Land Tax Deferment Act and the Taxation (Rural Area)Act remove spent provisions and update terms and definitions to streamline property tax administration.

Finally, amendments are proposed to make longstanding tax applications explicit to ensure the clarity and transparency of statutes to the taxpayers of British Columbia. The Social Service Tax Act is amended to clarify tax that does not apply to lease tangible personal property acquired by a lessor solely for the purpose of releasing it to others.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to clarify that all fuel in excess of 182 litres brought into the province in the supply tank or supplemental tanks of a motor vehicle is subject to tax. The Insurance Premium Tax Act is amended to explicitly exclude commercial marine insurance contracts other than pleasure craft insurance from tax. This is consistent with the original intent of the act.

The amendments proposed in this bill are consistent with our government's commitment to ensure fair, consistent and efficient treatment of taxation and revenue collection processes. I move second reading of Bill 34.

Hon. R. Thorpe: 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.

Bill 34, Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, 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. R. Coleman: I now call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. G. Plant: By agreement, I understand we will be proceeding first with the estimates for the treaty negotiations office, one of the two ministerial responsibilities that I am privileged to have.

I am joined in the chamber by some people from the ministry who will probably need to help me from time to time deal with matters, including Lorne Brownsey, the deputy minister of the treaty negotiations office; Mike Furey, who is the assistant deputy minister of the treaty negotiations office; and Jim Crone, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for management services in both ministries, the Attorney General and treaty negotiations office as well as the Solicitor General. I'm also joined and helped by Ingrid Fee, who is the director of corporate services for the treaty negotiations office.

It is an important year in the treaty process of British Columbia — a year filled with opportunity but, as I think is no surprise to people who follow activities in this file, a year also filled with challenge. We find ourselves in this year at an unprecedented stage in the treaty process. We are now negotiating final agreements at four different tables in the treaty process across British Columbia. For the first time we are within reach of final agreements at tables in four different parts of the province.

I think it is probably high time that we reached that stage. But I am very excited about the opportunity presented by that stage of progress to actually prove to the public of British Columbia that the treaty process can produce success stories and that through the treaty process, we will achieve agreements that will build recognition, will build reconciliation and will build arrangements founded on trust and mutual respect. As we construct arrangements through treaty negotiations, we will build the certainty that is needed to make progress in developing the lands and resources of the province.

For far too long we have been held back as a province by our failure to resolve these long-outstanding issues. They are part of our history. Our failure to resolve them is part of our history. They are part of the

moral landscape of British Columbia, and our failure to resolve these issues is part of the moral landscape of British Columbia.

As we have wrestled with these challenges over decades — over, really, 133 years of our history as a province, a history more often characterized by denial than recognition — we have sometimes lost sight of the fact that in failing to resolve these long-outstanding issues, we have also held back our development as a province economically. Certainly, that has become true and more true in the years since the enactment, as part of the constitutional reforms in 1982, of section 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982 which, as members in this chamber know, is a statement of recognition and affirmation of the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada.

That recognition and affirmation, contained as it is in a constitutional document, is far more than a political statement. Over the last dozen years and more, the courts have said very clearly to governments, the private sector and first nations that the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights and title in the constitution is a statement that has legal as well as political consequences.

We know that aboriginal rights and title exist, we know they exist across the landscape of the province, and we know that their existence poses and imposes obligations on governments. But there are lots of things, too many things, we don't know about aboriginal rights and title. There is no book, like a land registry office, that you can go to and punch a button and find out with certainty exactly who has which aboriginal rights or the location in precise terms of aboriginal title and, indeed, who holds aboriginal title. We don't know exactly — in fact, we really don't even know very much yet at all — about the precise dimensions of the relationship between aboriginal rights and title, on the one hand, and Crown rights and third-party rights and title on the other.

We do know that these rights exist, and we do know that they have to exist somehow together on the same landscape. I think it was Chief Justice Lamer who said, in the famous last words of his judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Delgamuukw: "Let's face it. We're all here to stay." Those were his words. We don't know yet enough about the details of the interaction of those rights, and we certainly don't know very much about the details of the interaction of those many rights on a case-by-case basis, on a parcel-by-parcel basis, on a hectare-by-hectare basis across the landscape of British Columbia.

There are different ways to achieve the certainty that would come from resolving those questions. One path is certainly litigation. It's a path that has been followed. It's a path that continues to be followed in the courts today. The other path — and, I think, the better path — is the path of negotiation. When you negotiate, when you sit at a table voluntarily, committed to try to resolve issues, you have the ability and the opportunity to shape a future that works for you and for the others with whom you are negotiating. The treaty process is fundamentally about negotiation to achieve certainty around who has what rights; to achieve certainty about what those rights mean, who has what obligations and what processes will be followed in decision-making. Through that certainty, I am convinced that we will free up stranded assets across the province, that we will find ways to develop economic opportunities that will provide benefits for first nations and for all British Columbians, and that we will find that the province becomes a bigger, stronger, healthier, more prosperous place with treaty settlements than it has been without treaty settlements.

It's been a challenge over the last dozen years to get us to this point, and I freely acknowledge that we've spent a lot of money. A lot of tax dollars have been spent. First nations have borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars by this point — certainly in the tens of millions of dollars — across this province as they have worked to support their own efforts at treaty tables and as all three parties at each of the tables around the province have done the detailed work of trying to sort out the issues and reach agreement on the framework that is most appropriate at that table for resolving the issues. We've certainly been at it a while, and we've spent a lot of money, but now, at last, I think we are close to breakthrough successes.

Over the last year, in keeping with the direction that I was given by the Premier, by cabinet and by the government caucus, we worked hard to see if we could get to agreement-in-principle at about half a dozen tables around the province. We looked strategically for opportunities for success. I think we did that work well. As a result of that work and the commitment and effort by first nations negotiators at tables around the province, and also the commitment and effort by the government of Canada, we actually achieved agreement-in-principle at four of those tables, and we're close at a fifth table.

We achieved agreement-in-principle, and we are now negotiating final agreements at tables in the Powell River area with the Sliammon first nation, in the lower mainland with the Tsawwassen first nation, in the Prince George area with the Lheidli-T'enneh first nation and on the west coast of Vancouver Island with five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations who call themselves the Maa-nulth.

We have an initialled agreement. That is a document that has been initialled and recommended by the negotiators for the three parties at the Snuneymuxw table in Nanaimo. But if that particular table, the Snuneymuxw first nation, aren't ready yet to make the decision about whether they support that agreement-in-principle…. While I would love to take that step forward to secure their agreement, that is a decision for that community, the Snuneymuxw community. We will wait for them to make that decision and to make it in their own time.

But with that exception, we've got four tables where we are working towards final agreements. I have said over the last few weeks, when I have been

travelling around the province, that I'd like nothing better than to go and travel around the province a year from now and report that we actually achieved final agreements at some or all of those four tables.

That is a very high-level outline of the work we've been doing to try to achieve what I would describe as pretty much the central mandate of the treaty negotiations office. But we've done more than that to build certainty, to help make a difference in the lives of aboriginal people in British Columbia, to help create economic opportunities and to help build strong relationships. In particular, over the last two years, following a throne speech commitment and under the leadership of the Premier, we've worked hard to fund economic development opportunities across the province for first nations both inside and outside the treaty process. We have looked across the landscape of the province for opportunities to work with first nations where they have some idea, some vision of what they want to achieve for their own communities but are held back because — as is all too often the case — they may lack the training or they may not have within their community the resources to put together a business plan or to fund a feasibility study. They may simply need a bit of work to try to create the opportunity for a partnership with a private sector company.

There is a whole host of things we can do as a government, and have been doing as a government, to try to level the playing field, to open up opportunities for first nations. Indeed, over the last two years as a government, under the administration of this ministry, we have now funded and supported something like 145 different projects around the province, representing $26.3 million of provincial commitment, to try to make a difference in the lives of first nations, to try to give them a sense of hope and optimism about the potential that they have, and to try to see how it is possible for first nations economic development to work hand-in-hand with economic development for the rest of the province.

That is again consistent with the theme, the Premier's consistent message, that we can make a difference in aboriginal lives now. We do so not just because we want to help make a difference in aboriginal lives but because as we open up opportunities for first nations, we open up opportunities for all British Columbians.

Let me just tell a couple of stories about a couple of these initiatives that I think are important and exciting and connected with other initiatives we have undertaken as a government. Last week I had the opportunity, along with my colleague the Minister of State for Mining, to visit the small community of Yekooche. Yekooche is located about 90 kilometres down a logging road, west of the small town of Fort St. James, on the northwest arm of Stewart Lake. It's a long way away from downtown Vancouver.

It's a community of people that have been there, living on the land and trying to find a future for themselves, for a very long time. It is also a community that's been beset by trouble for a very long time. It was an amazing thing for my colleague and I to visit this community. I think we may have been the first cabinet ministers ever to visit this community. Half the town turned out. We had a wonderful lunch in the gym, we saw kids singing and dancing, and we had a great chance to tour the town.

This is a community that has a pretty troubled history. Not very long ago, in a community of 170 or 180 people, 30 of their children were kids in the care of the ministry. Not very long ago it wasn't a very safe place to walk down the main street because there really wasn't much in the way of civil order in this community. So over time — recent time — governments, including this government, have tried to help turn that around.

We put a police officer in place in the community. The presence of a police officer has helped create a sense of order and civil stability in the community. There are now social worker services available more than was the case not so very long ago in that community. Houses have been built. In the very recent past, 30 new houses have been built in that community. As I had a walk up and down the main street of the village, the woman who is a member of the band council and was escorting me pointed to a house that I would think could be accurately described as a modest house by the standards of almost any suburb in British Columbia. Yet not so very long ago it was a little house where 25 people tried to live together under one roof — not very adequate for the twenty-first century in Canada.

This is a community that has decided to seize its own agenda, to seize its own future, and they are actually making great progress. They were virtually bankrupt just a few years ago. They're now making great progress in the treaty process. Here is what is interesting, in addition to all of that, about the little village of Yekooche. In addition to all the other trouble this community has faced, it sits right in the heart of the beetle-kill problem. There has been extensive logging that has taken place over the years, and unfortunately most of the forest resources in the area they claim as their traditional territory are at risk of further damage, if not destruction, by the continued expansion of the mountain pine beetle.

Rather than sit back and await that calamity passively, this is a community that has decided to re-shift its economic focus. One of the things I was there with my colleague the Minister of State for Mining to announce was the fact that through our economic development funding, we made available $200,000 to that community to help train ten members of that community as prospectors, because they may be surrounded by a forest in trouble, but they're also surrounded by lands that have tremendous mineral potential.

We have helped support these people to rethink and refocus their energy into a new direction that may create all kinds of opportunity for them in the future. That's some of the work we have been able to do with the economic development funding. That's just one of the 145 projects that have been funded over the last couple of years through the treaty negotiations office.

Another example — and the only one I will trouble you with now, Mr. Chair — is a little closer to your community, but not that close yet. It's the community of Yale, a little town just a few miles up the Fraser River from Hope, which generations of British Columbia school kids have been taught was the head of navigation in the Fraser River. It's the place where gold was discovered in 1858 to launch the gold rush that was really the beginning of the political history of what became the province of British Columbia, because it was the mainland colony that was established as a result of the gold rush.

Of course, that is also the home of the Yale first nation. In fact, the place where gold was discovered in 1858 is called Hills Bar. Hills Bar lies pretty much at the heart of the asserted traditional territory of the Yale first nation. It's the area that they have identified in treaty negotiations as most important to them in land selection, but it is also an area where there are and have been mineral licences, mineral tenure, granted over time — in particular, tenure that would, if allowed to develop and mature through government processes, allow a gravel mining operation to take place.

What we have is the standard recipe for paralysis in British Columbia — the potential of a conflict between the assertion of aboriginal rights and title at the heart of a traditional territory, where no doubt there is the issue of the potential of archaeological sites and those sorts of things, with the fact that there are some private sector people who very much want the opportunity to develop some resources that they think are there on that territory.

So what we have done as a government, partly to respond to the progress that's being made at the treaty table and partly to assist in resolving in a constructive way this potential for conflict, is that we have — among other things — protected the Hills Bar land by using various statutory mechanisms to assure that the land will be there at the end of the day when we get the final agreement at the Yale first nation table. We have also, through economic development funding, helped create a situation where the first nation and the private sector mining company have begun to work in a joint venture which I hope will be perfected over time and, assuming that the environmental assessment processes can be completed satisfactorily, will in fact result in — I hope will result in — the development and exploitation of a gravel mine on Hills Bar.

Let me just say a little bit about what that means. The proven reserves of gravel in the Hills Bar deposit exceed half a billion tonnes of gravel. You don't have to pay very much attention to roadbuilding in the lower mainland of British Columbia to know that, in fact, we're starting to have a bit of a challenge in finding enough gravel and aggregate material to supply the roadbuilding needs in the lower mainland.

Hills Bar is actually on the right side of the river — that is, it's on the correct side of the river. It's on the downhill side of the river for the railway coming into town, coming from the interior into Vancouver. If we can develop the gravel resources on Hills Bar and put them on the railcars, they can be shipped into the lower mainland where we will have all the gravel we need to build roads in the future. Indeed, that gravel will be available to be shipped for a profit to California — a tremendous opportunity for the people of the Yale first nation, for jobs for that community, for jobs for the neighbouring communities in which they live and who knows what opportunity for economic development for all people who live in the lower mainland.

Now, those are a couple of stories that take a little bit longer to tell than might ordinarily be the case, but I think that as we do this work as government, the best way to measure progress is by looking at the success stories that exist and by understanding the opportunities that we are starting to create.

Are there challenges? There are indeed. There will continue to be challenges. A third of first nations in British Columbia are not in the treaty process. It continues to be a challenge to create relationships with those first nations that allow us to work together in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, but we are going to continue to try. There are some tables where although they're formally part of the treaty process, we are not making much progress in the treaty process. I acknowledge that we have challenges there. But this is a great year for treaty-making in British Columbia, a year where I think we are going to be able to show that success is possible and that we can reach final agreements. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues in this portion of the estimates debate.

The Chair: Just prior to giving the floor to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I must add that there is a lot of speculation up in Yale about the gold content in Hills Bar too, so there's another potential there. I just thought I'd add that in. [Laughter.]

J. Kwan: I would almost say that would be taking advantage of the Chair's position as the Chair to put that comment in, but anyway, we'll let it go.

I do want to put this opening statement forward, and I understand that the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine may have some questions for the minister. To facilitate the government members' opportunity to ask some questions of the minister, I will yield the floor first to him, but I want to put this on record.

When he opened, the Attorney General said that by agreement, the opposition is going to canvass the treaty negotiations office issues first with the minister. I want to put this on record: there was no contact from anybody from the government side with respect to that. The member for Chilliwack-Kent, who is the MA to the Minister of Finance, didn't contact us with respect to what issues were to be brought up. In fact, it wasn't my intention, when I came up, to begin the estimates debate with this issue.

I do want to say that things change continually, and we're always just on alert in terms of what issues and what area to begin with in our debates with the gov-

ernment side. I want to put that on record, but with that, I will certainly be asking the minister many questions in this area amongst other areas as well. But as I said, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine would like to canvass some questions with the minister, and I am first going to yield the floor to him.

D. MacKay: To the Attorney General, I'm going to deal first of all, obviously, on the treaty negotiation side of his ministry. I have several questions that have been brought to my attention by constituents, and I would like to stress the fact that the issues I'm going to bring up today are, in fact, issues that have been brought to me by constituents. Although I share some of the same sentiments my constituents do, these issues are coming from constituents.

I would just like to set the tone for my questions I'm going to be asking the minister today as we relate to the treaty negotiations side of his ministry. The first thing I'm going to do is go into his estimates manual and look at page 42, dealing with the operating expense for the treaty negotiations office. I notice that under the '04-05 estimates, we're actually seeing a decrease in the net amount of money, but I notice external recoveries at $830,000. I wonder if the minister could explain to me the recovery of $830,000. How was that achieved?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm informed that some or all of that money relates to the commitment in the Nisga'a final agreement that, in effect, the Nisga'a would be saved harmless in respect of the prospective revenue to them from tree harvesting operations on their territory over a transitional period. Because of a decline in the value of the resources, there was less call on that money — so less that we've had to pay out. That apparently translates its way, through the magic of accounting, into the presentation of that number there.

D. MacKay: If I understand, the $830,000 was related to the Nisga'a treaty. I notice from the nodding of the head that was a yes. Thank you, minister.

I 'd like to take you to page 45 now, in the same manual. I wonder if the minister could explain this to me. This is on page 45, under the "Voted Appropriations Description." It says the subvote "provides for strategic management and direction of the office, including a deputy minister's office, the province's participation in the negotiation of treaties and other arrangements with first nations and the federal government, including consultation with third parties and others…." Who is captured in the word "others"?

Hon. G. Plant: The phrase "consultation with third parties and others" is, I think, a compendious phrase intended to take into account the fact that the treaty negotiations office supports, sometimes through funding, consultation efforts with local governments, with some business and community associations. An example would be that in the case of the Lheidli-T'enneh treaty table, we have supported a treaty advisory committee in the Prince George regional district. I'm told that in '03-04 there were over 80 stakeholder meetings for provincewide and other consultations, including meetings with the UBCM executive, local chambers of commerce, the B.C. Woodlot Associations, the B.C. Utilities Advisory Council, the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Council of Forest Industries. Presumably there were others.

D. MacKay: Based on the answer, then, I'm assuming that the funds were in fact allocated for municipalities to attend negotiating tables. Is that the…?

Hon. G. Plant: These are process dollars. They're provided to support the consultation work that the ministry does with the groups that I referred to in my last answer, although we do support some initiatives at some of the lead tables to ensure that local governments and community groups can — with a minimum of their own expense — participate meaningfully in consultation with us about the issues that are important to them.

D. MacKay: Again on page 45, looking at the economic development fund at $10 million…. Is that a one-time fund that has been set aside for economic development opportunities for the natives? Is it a one-time fund?

Hon. G. Plant: It was a three-year fund, and there was, I think, $10 million in '02-03. Then the member has in front of him the $10 million figure for '03-04 and the $7 million figure for '04-05. At present it is not anticipated that the fund will continue.

D. MacKay: You may have answered my next question. The decrease from $10 million to $7 million doesn't indicate the expenditures of roughly $3 million. This is an additional $7 million that was added to the economic development fund.

Hon. G. Plant: The original intention was to create a three-year fund totalling $30 million, and we certainly were able to set aside the $10 million in the first year and the $10 million in the second year. As part of the budgeting process leading up to the budget for the year '04-05, we as government made some decisions to continue to pursue our shared collective goal of balancing the budget in '04-05. One of the decisions we made was that we would reduce the prospective amount available in this fund to $7.042 million. That's the total amount available for expenditure in this fund in the current fiscal year. I should say that I believe pretty much all of it is now committed to existing projects.

D. MacKay: Given the fact that we're into our third year then, when this $7 million has been spent, what happens when the fund goes dry? Is that it? Is there

Hon. G. Plant: Let me say that I'm going to continue to work hard to do what I can to help the government find the fiscal resources to support this kind of work, but at present there are no plans to continue this past the current fiscal year.

It may be helpful to the member in terms of understanding how this operates that I actually referred to the fund in my opening comments, when I said we had funded about 145 projects worth more than $26 million. These are all discrete projects. They're one-time projects. Some of them may be multi-year projects, but they are discrete. They are finite. They are project agreements entered into that have a beginning and an end date. They are not kind of ongoing operating funding for activities; they are much more project-based. What's happening now is that we are essentially winding up the projects that we had previously committed funding for.

D. MacKay: In those funds that are provided to the natives for their economic opportunities in the province, what accountability provisions have been built into that? Does anybody check to see if, in fact, the money has been well spent and if we're getting what we thought we would get from the money that is being provided?

Hon. G. Plant: Each of the projects is funded by means of an agreement, and some of the agreements are pretty comprehensive. They all contain time lines, they all contain expected outcomes, and they connect the expected outcomes to time lines. There is performance measurement built into the contracts. Many of the contracts are funded on a staged or phased basis, where in order to get the second or the third tranche of money, you've got to actually be able to satisfy that you have done everything you were required to do in the first stage.

We have been subject to audits, and I think there is a manager in the ministry with specific project responsibility around this initiative. We have been working hard to ensure that I can be in a position to answer questions about performance measurement and about accountability, like the kinds of questions the member just asked.

D. MacKay: Based on the last two years, then what is our success rate? Do we have a success rate and a failure rate? Do you know what those are?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't think we have yet had a comprehensive review done of the projects as a whole, but if you go back to what I was saying earlier about what we were trying to do with some of these projects, it's easy to measure some kind of success. For example, in Campbell River we funded an engineering feasibility study concerning the possibility of building a cruise ship facility in Campbell River just immediately adjacent to the Campbell River Indian reserve in downtown Campbell River. The work was done, the feasibility study was completed, and the Campbell River Indian band has done extensive work with the federal government. I'm afraid I don't know what the status of that project is at the moment, but they've certainly done a lot of work over the years to try to encourage the federal government to assist in funding the actual construction of the dock, which would be — as I recall — a $3 million project.

We've done projects where we have trained first nations in doing guide and outfitting work, and the net result of that is that we have actually provided the training of ten or 15 first nations people in one of these projects. The objective was to give young aboriginal people the training that they would need to participate in an industry.

The same thing in tourism. I participated in an announcement involving shellfish aquaculture with the Halalt first nation, who want to expand their involvement in shellfish aquaculture in the Ladysmith-Crofton area of Vancouver Island. One of the parts of that project was to introduce some young people in that community to what it means to work in shellfish aquaculture, give them instruction in things like marine first aid, how to operate boats and all that stuff.

We've done work that includes irrigation projects where people have…. Well, here's another example of a project that we funded. In Shuswap Indian band we helped fund the construction of a concrete groundwater reservoir. That was unusual in that the dollars in that project went to actually build something. I was there. It was pretty much nearly built the day I was there with the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, and I'm sure if it wasn't finished soon thereafter, it's been finished.

On a case-by-case basis we have had some of the successes that we want, for sure, and some of the projects are still underway. It will be a while yet before we know if the investment that we've made makes the difference that we were hoping it would make.

D. MacKay: Just to go back to the guide-outfitting school that the minister spoke about, I understand from speaking to people in my part of the province that that in fact was a great success story and did provide employment opportunities for a number of young native people who attended that program. Do you know what the status of the funding is for that school? Did the money come from the economic development fund, or where did it come from for that training?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm told the funding for that initiative did come from what we called the economic measures fund. We have had some discussions with the Guide Outfitters Association people who, I believe, have expressed a desire that the project or the work continue to be funded. We have told them we don't

have the money beyond where we're at now, but that we are going to continue to look and see if we can find some opportunities to continue to support that work.

D. MacKay: Well, that is encouraging, given the fact that I know this project is working. The funding was being well spent, and it was creating employment opportunities for the natives in the province, so I'm glad to hear that we're looking at finding ways to find money to continue with that program. I'm pleased to hear that. Obviously, the funding for this year has dried up, but for next year you're looking, and if we can find the money, it will be there for them.

The next thing I would like to do, Mr. Chair, is look at the budget and fiscal plan. I would like to draw your attention to page 48. I have a question there that causes me some concern. That's under "Treaty Negotiations" in the manual. It talks about: "The government is committed to negotiating affordable, workable treaties with first nations that provide certainty regarding ownership and use of provincial Crown land and resources."

It's the final line in that paragraph that causes me some concern. It says that the outcomes of negotiations could affect the economic outlook and the fiscal plan. Now, are we talking about the economic outlook and the fiscal plan for the province? If so, that leaves me with the perhaps misunderstood idea that we have actually conceded ownership of the land, if in fact that is my interpretation of that last line in that paragraph. I wonder if the minister could respond to that.

Hon. G. Plant: The section the member is referring to is, as the member says, part of the budget and fiscal plan document. It appears to be a paragraph in a fairly long section of that document called "Part One: Three-Year Fiscal Plan." What I see in these pages are some general topics that I think could fairly be described as risks to achieving our province's fiscal objectives — risks in some cases combined with opportunities. For example, the section right below "Treaty Negotiations" is "Catastrophes and Disasters." Then there is a section called "Pending Litigation." Right in that context, when I see the sentence the member refers to, I think I understand what is intended by it. The sentence reads: "Outcomes of negotiations could affect both the economic outlook and the fiscal plan."

There are a number of elements of this. In very practical terms, as we get final agreements in British Columbia, there will be an infusion of federal funds. Some of those funds may flow to the province, and some may flow to first nations, and that will have an impact on regional and provincial economies and also on government's fiscal plans. As we succeed at treaty tables, we will achieve certainty in respect of the issues of aboriginal rights and title and Crown ownership of lands that I think will lead to increased investment and jobs. That will produce downstream benefits, if you will, for the province in terms of increased revenues. That's a good sign. On the other hand, I suppose it could be said that if we don't have the success that I believe is possible, then we will continue to face the spectre of litigation challenging provincial Crown resource and management decisions.

When I was speaking at the outset of the debate, I talked about the idea of stranded assets. Clearly, when you look around the landscape of British Columbia, there are lands and resources where we've not been able to develop in the way we would like to develop those lands and resources because of court decisions and other challenges. Those challenges continue, and as they continue, then our challenge as a government in finding the revenues that we need to provide the services that people expect from government will continue.

All of this is really to say that this paragraph is about connecting the treaty process and the treaty negotiations work to the general economic outlook of the province and the specific fiscal circumstances of government.

D. MacKay: Thank you for the clarification on that issue. I'd now like to take the minister to his service plan and more particularly page 9 of the treaty negotiations portion of the manual. On page 9, I would like to read a part here where it says: "The courts have been clear that the Crown has a legal duty to consult and accommodate first nations." I can't find anything in there that says investors have a duty to consult and accommodate the natives. I just wonder if in fact the minister agrees with what's written in the service plan where it says: "The courts have been clear that the Crown…." I can't find anything in there that says that investors have a duty to consult and accommodate. I wonder if you could clarify that for me.

Hon. G. Plant: The statement on page 9 of the service plan is correct, I think. It says: "The courts have been clear that the Crown has a legal duty to consult and accommodate first nations where their aboriginal rights may be affected." The extent to which that statement represents a complete statement of the law in this area is, I suppose, to some extent up in the air. We know that the Court of Appeal of British Columbia has made some decisions recently in cases like the Haida-Weyerhaeuser decision and the Taku River–Tlingit decision, which reinforce the statement that I just quoted from. But we also know that those Court of Appeal decisions have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has before it now the opportunity to refine or change the law in this area with respect to government's obligations.

I think the member is right, though — and this may not have been his point, so I shouldn't put words in his mouth — but it's certainly appropriate to talk about third parties. In the Haida and Weyerhaeuser decision, the Court of Appeal said that not only does the Crown have obligations to consult and accommodate but, in certain circumstances, third parties also have those obligations. That issue, that finding, is also the subject

of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in those cases. I believe the party that was affected by that order directly, Weyerhaeuser, and some other representatives of business interests in British Columbia have challenged that finding in their arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada. We'll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court of Canada says.

But in outlining what we are trying to do as government through the treaty negotiations office in helping to achieve certainty through the work of negotiations, I think the intention here is to focus on what we are doing as government and what the obligations are that lie on government, which may explain why there was no express reference to any obligations that may exist for third parties.

D. MacKay: Like the minister, I look forward to the decision coming down from the Supreme Court of Canada. I suspect that it will have a big impact on the economic activity that will take place in British Columbia in the near future and in future years, depending on what the outcome of that decision is.

Just to go back to that same page, when I look at the revenue-sharing, I can't find anything that says there's got to be revenue-sharing with investors in the province of British Columbia with natives on their territorial land. I'm talking about forestry stumpage, where I have contractors who are being asked to pay additional stumpage to natives because they're on their traditional territory. It's happening in the mining sector. It's happening in the oil and gas fields up in the northeast part of this province where the natives have demanded revenue-sharing with investors. I, for the life of me, am really perplexed at where that allows the natives to hold investors at ransom as they develop the province on permits that the province has issued.

I don't know how we get around that. It starts in Alberta. It's happening in Alberta. I can remember several years ago reading magazines about the revenue-sharing that was being demanded by the natives in the province of Alberta. It's worked its way out to British Columbia.

The minister may not agree with this statement, but to me that's extortion. We as a provincial government have issued permits to people to either cut trees down or go into the mining sector or drill for oil and gas, and the natives are there asking for revenue-sharing. I really have a problem understanding that.

I wonder if the minister could explain why we allow that to happen based on the fact that we're waiting for decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm really confused about that.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, let me say a couple things that I hope will sort of get towards an answer to that important question. First, the document we are looking at doesn't purport to be a comprehensive overview of the law of aboriginal rights and title. It really is intending to describe the core business areas of the treaty negotiations office, so I think it has to be read from that perspective.

I think it's right that the member reintroduces into this subject the fact that the question of whether or not third parties may have legal obligations to consult and/or accommodate where their activities may affect aboriginal rights and title is before the Supreme Court of Canada. The general rule — and I think it applies here — is that a decision of the Court of Appeal is the law unless and until it's overturned by a higher court. So for the time being, the law in British Columbia is that there are some circumstances where third parties have obligation to consult and accommodate.

What we've done as government is try to establish some principled policy frameworks for introducing the idea of revenue-sharing into the land and resource business of government. We've done that in a way that allows revenue-sharing, in the case of some resource activities — mainly forests at this point, but also land and some others — to be a part of discussions outside the treaty process and also be the subject of negotiations in the treaty process. That, of course, relates to our obligations or the work we voluntarily undertake to do as government.

I don't condone some of what…. Let me start this way. I also spend a fair bit of time talking to the business community and encouraging them to develop constructive relationships with first nations, particularly in the areas where they are active, because I think in the long run, building constructive relationships is the best path to certainty. I think it goes back to those basic themes that I was talking about earlier. As we all start to work together more effectively, we're going to find that we'll discover opportunities we hardly even knew existed.

What I don't think the private sector has to do is make unprincipled payments as part of the licence of access to Crown land and resources. What individual businesses choose to do in their dealings with first nations are decisions more for those businesses than they are for government.

I mean, I think I share some of the member's frustration. I get a bit frustrated when I hear about some things that — at least I'm told — are happening out there. We responded at one point to some concerns we had in the oil and gas business by making a really big effort on the part of government to create memoranda of understanding with some of the Treaty 8 first nations to structure the decision-making process around tenures and permits so we could, as government, do our job in a disciplined way without having this sense that the private sector was out there just cutting deals to do whatever it took to get the right to drill a hole in the ground. I don't think that's in anybody's interests in the long term.

There is a role for the private sector here. The law says there is a role for the private sector now, but I think we do need to encourage — encourage, I guess, is the right word — business and first nations to deal with each other as potential business partners and not

in some other, unprincipled way. I'm not sure what more help I can give the member with respect to that issue.

D. MacKay: Just to follow up on the answer I got, then. Again, constituents are coming to me and saying that we've basically given the natives a veto power. I've got a couple of examples I could quote, but I'm going to refrain from quoting them.

They're actually holding up projects because the developer will not give them compensation, because they happen to be in their traditional territory. When they do interfere with the development process by way of roadblock, we as a government, who have issued the permits to allow the development, ask the developer to go to court for an injunction to stop the roadblock to allow them to develop what we have issued permits for. I'm being told by the people I represent that we've given them a veto power. I wonder why the province does not assume the legal costs of court injunctions to stop illegal activity and to stop development that's taking place in the province after we've issued permits.

Why does the province not assume the legal responsibility for those illegal actions?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't have the numbers here in front of me, but we actually do our best to monitor the extent of blockades and other forms of unlawful activity across the province. My sense is, and I think this is backed up by some numbers, that over the past three years the incidence of blockades in the province — blockades in which first nations issues are at the heart of the disobedience — has declined. That's actually one of our service plan measures. We're going to continue to make that so. So that's part of the answer.

In terms of the specific question, generally speaking, the province has never — at least as a matter of policy — funded third parties in these sorts of disputes. One policy reason for that is that the government doesn't always have the ability to control what third parties do when they're working to perfect their tenure or to exercise their rights. It's not a good policy, I think, for the government to sort of become an insurance company for the actions of private developers in circumstances where we're not necessarily in control of what the private developers are doing.

There's a way out of the frustration. I think the way out of the frustration lies in government's success in doing some of the work we've been doing in forestry, in the forestry revenue-sharing agreements. There government has stepped up and taken the leadership role and said that we will assume an obligation here, and we enter into agreements with first nations. In those agreements, in exchange for benefits in the form of dollars and sometimes fibre, the first nation provides in return assurances that give us the certainty to know that forest tenure rights will be respected, that cutting permits can be issued and acted on. That really is a good policy framework to ensure that the private sector is not subject to these sorts of off-line demands that the member's talking about, but rather that everyone's working within a disciplined framework to ensure that development can take place.

If the member has examples of particular projects where he or his constituents have concerns about the kinds of demands that have been made by first nations, I'm not sure whether our office could do much to help, but I'd sure offer to try. I mean, I'd sure offer to sit down and have a look at a particular issue. I don't think, though, that in the near future we are going to undertake to indemnify third parties against the legal costs that they incur when they choose to or, from their perspective, are forced to try to take action to remove blockades.

D. MacKay: If in fact we do sign off on memorandums of understanding to allow a developer to proceed with a project and we do have these illegal activities taking place, will the province then assume the legal responsibility if there's an MOU in place?

Hon. G. Plant: The government has not historically accepted that responsibility. Quite often what we're talking about is activity that takes place on land over which a private sector party has some rights, either a licence or a lease or maybe even ownership. As a general rule, governments encourage the owners of private property and related rights to take their own action to protect their property rights from incursion by others. If someone were to trespass on my back yard, the member could rightly argue that I own fee simple in my back yard and that nobody else has the right to trespass on my back yard, so why shouldn't the government intervene to help me get somebody out of my back yard?

The fact is that generally speaking, governments don't do that. That isn't to say we aren't willing to work hard in particular cases to try to get out of a problem. In the first year after we took office, I spent countless hours working with the Sun Peaks Resort Corp. and with some of the representatives of first nations in the Shuswap tribal council to try to resolve some issues that were arising at Sun Peaks around Sun Peaks's desire to expand their resort. I'm not sure how successful those efforts were, but the resort expansion was undertaken and was completed, and I think the resort has experienced growth. There has actually been pretty much a complete disappearance of civil disobedience, and that resulted from some pretty hard work by Sun Peaks and also by government.

I mean, I think it's possible to work on these issues, at least from time to time. As I say, if there are particular issues that arise, then I'm always willing to try and look at them and see if there is some reason for government to do something more than it might otherwise ordinarily do.

D. MacKay: I guess we could go around and around on that one for a while, but I'd like to move on with some other issues I have that I'd like clarification on. I'm looking at the service plan on page 8. I think

we've already touched on the first question I want to ask. That was about the economic development fund. It shows for '05-06 no funding and for '06-07 no funding, so I think you've already answered that one for me.

Just going down under "Resource Summary" for ministry capital expenditures under the treaty negotiations office, I notice there are some moneys being spent on buildings, tenant improvement, land and land improvements for $300,000, and vehicles, specialized equipment, office furniture and equipment. Is that ministry staff, or is that being spent on the reserves?

Hon. G. Plant: That's tenant improvements to the premises occupied by the ministry.

D. MacKay: The last question on that page has to do with the receipts and disbursements. I notice there are no receipts coming in, and there are some disbursements going out. In '04-05 we're looking at $16 million, and it drops down in '05-06 to $2 million and in '06-07 down to $1 million. Could you clarify that for me?

Hon. G. Plant: The funding for the disbursements element in the financing transactions component of that chart is for Nisga'a final agreement capital transfer payments and, apparently, forestry transition and implementation costs — which I think relate to the Nisga'a final agreement — and also for the acquisition of some lands in the treaty process where we hope to achieve final agreements in the near future. As part of that process, we have looked at the possibility of acquiring some lands on a willing seller, willing buyer basis.

D. MacKay: I'd just like to quote out of page 10 in the same manual, and I'm going to get back to this later in my questions that I have for the minister, Mr. Chair. Basically, the line says: "The government of British Columbia has a responsibility to represent and protect the interests of all British Columbians." I'm going to come back to that when I get into the questions relating to the Westbank issue.

On page 13, dealing with the core business areas, I'm a bit confused about the performance measures. It's showing a target of 105 percent of the base data for '04-05 and for '05-06, 110, and it goes up to 115. Could you explain that to me, please?

Hon. G. Plant: The goal here is increased social and economic stability and investment in the province for greater certainty over Crown lands and resources. One of the key indicators would be increased access to Crown lands and resources for economic development. So what we are trying to do is create a performance measure that will allow us to report on the extent to which we are having success in negotiating arrangements that provide certainty over the use of provincial Crown land.

The first step in this is to develop a baseline — that is, to try to develop a measure for where we are now or where we were in '03-04. The actual base for '03-04 is a figure yet to be determined. The numbers for each of the three succeeding years represent, really, a commitment to increase the percentage of Crown land covered by certainty agreements by 5 percent each year. Really, the first step is to try and figure out where we are now, and then the commitment is to increase certainty over the land base over the three years that are there in the columns of the service plan.

D. MacKay: What is the base data? I don't understand that. What's that established at, or how is it established?

Hon. G. Plant: That's what we're working on. Base data is the starting point. One of the things we're looking at is: what are we going to say amounts to a certainty? There are different ways of achieving certainty. Obviously, the final agreements in the treaty process would represent a significant degree of certainty, but we also get some certainty from other arrangements — everything from forestry revenue-sharing agreements, land protection measures, sometimes even economic development activity.

But to illustrate the point by giving a concrete number, it's usually written somewhere that the statement-of-intent area, the traditional territory claimed by the Lheidli-T'enneh in their submission to the B.C. treaty process, is a land mass of about 4.7 or 4.8 percent of the total land mass of British Columbia. We're negotiating to achieve a final agreement at that table. There are some treaty settlement lands that are part of that. Hopefully, we'll reach a point where those lands are transferred to the Lheidli-T'enneh in a final agreement.

Also, what we're going to do is achieve certainty over the total traditional territory of the Lheidli-T'enneh or at least achieve certainty in respect of their claim to it. I don't know the extent to which there may be some modest overlaps affecting that, but what we're doing now is building the model that allows us to say: "Here are the different ways in which we have certainty, the certainty that we need to make land and resource decisions, knowing that there won't be any disruption to the activities of licensees or leaseholders or tenure holders." What we're really doing here is committing to increase that land base over which we have certainty over time.

D. MacKay: I'm going to ask the minister some questions on the Westbank agreement, which I must say causes some concern to myself, as did the Nisga'a treaty when it was signed off. Before I get there, I'd just like to read an e-mail. I'll ask the minister to sit back and listen while I read an e-mail that I received from a constituent who lives in the Kispiox Valley. He says:

He goes on to describe the moose that do make it through the winter. They've got some pretty tough times ahead of them. This is the part that really got my attention. He says:

I doubt if the 1763 proclamation had anything to do with the province of British Columbia, but this is a misunderstanding on his part.

He goes on and on. I just wanted to get the point across that the views that I'm presenting here today are, in fact, the views of many of the people who live in the Bulkley Valley–Stikine area that I represent. I can recall, as I mentioned, that the Nisga'a treaty was one that I was opposed to. When I did a private citizen's referendum poll on the Nisga'a treaty, more people voted in the poll than voted in the municipal elections, which were held on the same date, and 94 percent of the people opposed the Nisga'a treaty, albeit the closure was forced on this Legislature by the NDP government. I wonder just how many people actually had a chance to read the Nisga'a treaty and understand what was in that treaty. The present minister probably read it, but most people probably didn't get a chance to read it or understand what's in the Nisga'a treaty.

When I look at the Westbank issue, which I've been contacted on by a number of people, this one is creating some concern for me as well, because it seems to be following in the footsteps of the Nisga'a treaty. It's going to be entrenched in the constitution. It started off as Bill C-57 and is now C-11, and I believe it is before the Senate. It may even have been passed today. It's unfortunate that I didn't get a chance to discuss this in further detail prior to that time.

When I read out that statement about the province of British Columbia having a legal responsibility to look after the interests of all British Columbians, I guess it's the 8,000 non-native people who live on the Westbank reserve that cause me some concern. That treaty, from my understanding, was between the federal government and the 400 Westbank natives who live on that reserve.

My question to the minister is: what, if anything, did we do as a province to intervene to make sure that the interests of people living on the Westbank Indian reserve were looked after? I understand the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35, gives the aboriginal some rights, but section 25 in the Charter basically removes any protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for anything that takes place on a reserve. I wonder if the province — if we as a government — did anything to ensure that what was being done between the federal government and the Westbank first nation people was okay with the province of British Columbia. Did we look after the interests of those 8,000 non-native people that live on the reserve?

Hon. G. Plant: Let me start by going back to the first part of the member's discussion, where he referred to some concerns and observations by a constituent from the Kispiox Valley about issues related to hunting and fishing.

I think what I heard there contained a lot of very good arguments about why we need the treaty process, and here is why I say that. It's very clear that aboriginal people in British Columbia have constitutionally protected rights to hunt and to fish for food and for social and ceremonial and sustenance purposes. We don't know exactly which first nations have exactly which rights in that respect as you move across the landscape, but the court decisions are pretty clear. With a couple of exceptions, the courts have pretty consistently insisted that governments, both federal and provincial, recognize that aboriginal people have constitutionally protected rights to hunt and fish for food and social and ceremonial purposes.

Why is that an argument that supports the treaty process? The main reason is because through the treaty process, we can negotiate agreements that will provide the certainty that doesn't exist now with respect to things like who can hunt and where, and what number of a particular species can be hunted or fished for a particular reason. Through the treaty process we can negotiate arrangements that will ensure that the provincial Wildlife officials or federal Fisheries officials continue to have the ultimate decision-making authority about things like when hunting seasons are open and closed, when fishing happens, and all that stuff.

In other words, we take this uncertain spectacle that is the status quo, where first nations are insisting upon the right to hunt and fish. They are having the courts recognize and affirm those rights as being grounded in the constitution, and we transform that

into something recognized and discussed and dealt with in detail and with care and with attention to our need to conserve these resources and manage them fairly, and with attention to our need to respect the desire of all British Columbians to hunt and fish.

We get to strike a balance in those negotiations that protects the interests of all British Columbians. In fact, we get to discharge the responsibility that the member referred to, which sits there on page 10 of the service plan, where we say we have a responsibility to represent and protect the interests of all British Columbians. That's exactly what we do in the treaty process. Through the treaty process we can achieve a whole lot of certainty where right now there's a whole lot of uncertainty.

I wish we were making good progress in the treaty process in the Kispiox Valley, but we aren't. The Gitxsan table has been a challenging table for many years, and I frankly expect it will continue to be a challenging table.

I wish I had an easy answer for the member's constituents' frustration. We are sure going to continue to try to work on these things, but I'm not as hopeful, frankly, right now about that particular part of the province and the treaty process as I would like to be.

All of that represented the framework for the member's questions about the Westbank self-government legislation. I believe I read that yesterday the House of Commons gave third reading to this bilateral agreement — "bilateral" meaning it's an agreement between the federal government and the Westbank. It's legislation that the federal government has the constitutional authority to enact because they have the exclusive lawmaking authority over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. This is an initiative that relates to the Westbank first nation and their reserve lands. I'm pretty sure I read that the House of Commons passed the Westbank legislation by a majority of 219 to 6. I believe the Senate may have given approval today — perhaps, nearly unanimously. I'm not certain about that vote.

I know that the Member of Parliament who represents the citizens of Westbank, aboriginal and non-aboriginal…. The Member of Parliament is one of the 219 Members of Parliament, I believe, who voted in favour of that agreement, and he, of course, comes from a political party that has been pretty diligent over the years in asking tough questions about federal aboriginal policy. I am not an expert on the Westbank agreement — it is a federal initiative — but I do think it's important to note that a majority of the Members of Parliament from British Columbia, representing three different political parties, apparently felt that the public interest of the people of Canada and of their constituents was fully protected in that agreement or was adequately protected.

I've actually even seen some pretty interesting pieces. I've got a piece here, a weekly commentary, "Twelve Reasons to Support the Westbank Self-Government Agreement," written by Stockwell Day, who I think is the Member of Parliament for that area. I'm not going to read all the 12 reasons, but I am going to start with the first one because it's a pretty important one.

The member, in his question — he may have done so by accident, but he did use the words, so I do think I need to kind of take them and correct them — talked about the Westbank treaty, and this is not a treaty. This is a bilateral self-government agreement. As, for example, Mr. Day has pointed out in the first of his reasons to support the self-government agreement…. Mr. Day is a federal politician. I'm not a member of his party or any other federal political party. He points out that the legislation does not become constitutionalized. It can be changed. I think that's an important point in any analysis of self-government agreements and an important point to make in the analysis of this particular initiative. If for some reason it is fundamentally flawed, then the federal government is in a position to make the amendments necessary to correct those errors. I think that is a good thing.

Let me say some other things about the Westbank self-government or about the idea of self-government negotiations with the Westbank. Again, I have to qualify all this by saying I have not studied this federal legislation. I seem to have my hands full these days dealing with provincial initiatives, and that's just the way it is.

What I do know is that what we're trying to do at treaty tables is build a model of self-government that we think has the ingredients necessary to protect the public interest of the people of British Columbia. We think self-government needs to be flexible. It needs to be innovative. It needs to be capable of evolution over time.

The people of British Columbia, in the referendum of two years ago, told us they wanted delegated self-government agreements, so we've been working at treaty tables to give effect to that principle. We've had some success. In the four final negotiations that we are now working at, we actually have agreements-in-principle where the parties recognize and accept that the nuts and bolts of self-government will be in a separate agreement that will not be constitutionally entrenched. There will be a self-government agreement. It won't be part of the section 35 treaty. That's to give effect to the strong public interest expressed to us in the referendum by the people of British Columbia that they wanted aboriginal self-government to have the characteristics of local government, to be practical, to be close to the ground and the community, to be flexible, and all of those things.

What else are we working at to help ensure that the public interest is protected? Well, we're working to negotiate self-government arrangements that will respect basic principles of democratic accountability and fiscal responsibility. I don't want to pass over those phrases too quickly, because it's not all that easy to mesh basic principles of democratic accountability with respect for the reality that first nations often have im-

portant cultural traditions which need to be given some sense of recognition in the design of their self-government institutions. But we are working hard to ensure that the citizens of British Columbia — who may be aboriginal or may be non-aboriginal, who may choose to live on treaty settlement lands and who will be affected by the decisions of first nations self-government — will have a voice in those decisions. It may be that the nature of that voice will change according to the nature of the decisions that are being made.

I don't know what the Westbank self-government agreement says, frankly, in terms of the specific opportunities that may or may not exist for non-aboriginal residents of Westbank reserve lands, but I do know that we as a government are working very hard, in the places where we have the ability to help negotiate change, to try to put in place arrangements that respect the principles that we think are important.

The member talked about the debate in Nisga'a and asked rhetorically the question whether I had spent any time reading the Nisga'a final agreement. I suspect that the member may have forgotten the extent to which I took advantage of the opportunities afforded to me as a member of this chamber to debate the content of that final agreement at some length. It was a very wonderful opportunity to have a really long discussion. The current Minister of Forests was another very active participant in that debate; in fact, he led the debate. As I look around at my caucus colleagues who are here in the chamber now, some of them were active participants in that debate.

At the end of the day, we voted against the Nisga'a final agreement. One of the reasons that we voted against the Nisga'a final agreement was because we thought there were some concerns in it about the model of self-government, and we're trying to learn and move forward from what we think are some challenges that over time are going to be real challenges for self-government in the Nisga'a.

The member finally asks what it is that we as a government have done, what action we've taken in respect of the Westbank self-government agreement. I don't know what statements my Okanagan caucus colleagues may or may not have made about the Westbank self-government agreement, but this is an occasion where I thought that the best voice for the people of British Columbia on this issue is the voice of the people elected to serve and represent them in the federal Parliament. I do note that with the exception of six individuals, most of those Members of Parliament did vote in favour of this agreement. The six who did not all had, I think, an opportunity to put their concerns on record, and I look forward to the continuation of these issues in the months ahead.

D. MacKay: Thank you, minister, for that dissertation on the legal issues that we as a government are facing.

I'd like to just refer to the Constitution Act of 1982 for a moment. I'm going to follow up with some questions on this, because under section 3 it says: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."

Now, I understand the Nisga'a treaty does not allow for that. The Westbank governance agreement does not allow for everybody to vote on that. That's part of the one that gives me concern. We have 8,000 people who have lost the right to vote, and that is one of the things contained in that agreement. That's the issue that causes me concern.

I guess I have to ask the question: where did the inherent right to self-government come from? Because it's always been the Supreme Court of Canada's…. The BNA Act gave absolute power to the federal government and delegated to the province. There's no mention in there about this inherent right to self-government for natives. I don't know how we're doing what we're doing with the self-government issue, because there are provisions in the Westbank governance agreement here that give the Westbank people absolute power. There's more power than the federal government has — much like the Nisga'a treaty does.

I don't understand how it is we're doing that. We're going to be living under a bunch of different laws. I have a problem with that — understanding how it is that the inherent right to self-government has worked its way into the system now — and it's suddenly shown up as a right to govern. The inherent right of self-government is acknowledged, but does it give them legislative authority to control the people that live on their lands? I question that. I have to question that.

I wonder if the minister could respond to how it is that the inherent right to self-government has worked its way into the constitution.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I think the member asks some pretty important and tough questions. Let me respond to a couple of things. The member refers to section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees, I think, citizens the right to vote for and elect members of the House of Commons and provincial legislatures. I suspect that the authors of that document were pretty careful in limiting that right to elections to provincial legislatures and the federal House of Commons.

The content of section 3 is something that continues to be litigated in the courts, but I would say there is at least some argument that a reading of section 3 does not extend its application to a bilateral self-government arrangement established by the federal government for an Indian band. I don't know of any case that says section 3 applies to the election of members to a band council or a municipal government, but I do acknowledge that these things are always being litigated. It does seem to me, though, that if we're going to look at section 3, we at least have to start by acknowledging that on its face, it isn't intended to have any application beyond provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament.

The member asks some questions about the non-aboriginal residents of Westbank. I'm sure he didn't

mean to put it this way when he asked, "What are we doing?" because the fact is that we in this chamber aren't doing anything. I think what he probably means is: what are we as a society doing?

I've read a little bit further into Stockwell Day's statement. Again, I don't know whether he's right or not. I certainly would expect he's had more time to study it than I have. But when he talks about the Westbank agreement, he says as one of his 12 reasons to support it: "Non-natives will be able to elect their own advisory council which will interface with, although not rule over, the chief and band council." Then in parentheses he says: "When non-natives moved on to WFN" — that would be Westbank first nation — "lands to take advantage of favourable lease deals, they did not have this, and now they will."

That reminds me of the fact that although in some and perhaps most communities in British Columbia where there is a first nations reserve within municipal boundaries, the usual practice is that the non-aboriginal residents of reserves within municipal boundaries have the right to vote for their municipal governments. But it's equally true that the municipal governments they're voting for have no ability to make decisions that affect them on their lands. So under the Indian Act of Canada as it now stands, people who move onto aboriginal reserves who are not members of first nations are effectively disenfranchising themselves. They don't have the right to vote for the Indian band council, but any right they have to vote for the city council of the city that the reserve is in is a right that has pretty limited application.

All of that is a reason to try to work in the treaty process to achieve our objective of improving the extent to which non-aboriginal residents of treaty settlement lands have a say in the decisions that will be made by the first nations governing authorities. What we have certainly insisted upon in the agreement-in-principle negotiations to date are some basic protections around the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the application of the Criminal Code of Canada, and the application of federal and provincial laws of general application. Those sorts of basic frameworks are in place, but we've actually worked to get even further down that road.

I've just had drawn to my attention the agreement-in-principle with the Lheidli-T'enneh. The Lheidli-T'enneh agreement-in-principle was signed at a marvellous signing ceremony in Prince George on July 26 of last year. It may have been the hottest day I've ever had to sit on a stage. It was quite a remarkable day. It was a good weight-losing exercise.

But Prince George put on a great show for the Premier and for the rest of us who were there.

One of the chapters in the Lheidli-T'enneh agreement-in-principle is the "Governance" chapter. On page 112 of the Lheidli-T'enneh agreement-in-principle, starting in paragraph 9, there is a series of provisions called "Lheidli-T'enneh Government." Here is section 11. It reads: "The Lheidli-T'enneh government will consist of the following elected members: (a) at least one elected representative from each of the Lheidli-T'enneh extended family groupings; and (b) at least one elected representative from non–Lheidli-T'enneh citizens resident on Lheidli-T'enneh lands."

I think that's evidence of what happens when the province is at the table working hard to give effect to the public interest of the people of British Columbia in making sure that aboriginal self-government has the power it needs but is also accountable to those who may be governed or in some respect affected by their laws.

D. MacKay: I wasn't for a moment suggesting that section 3 of the Charter gave every citizen the right to vote on a native Indian reserve. That wasn't the intent. The fact was that I wanted to get across the importance of the right to vote for people who were controlling their lives and fiscal matters in their lives. They have been basically excluded from that right under the Westbank agreement.

I should mention in passing that it took three attempts to get the local Westbank people to agree to that, so I wonder just how constitutionally correct or how honestly the agreement was finally agreed to by the Westbank first nations. It took three attempts to get that. They changed the rules a little bit each time, and it finally succeeded on the third attempt through the chamber.

The reason I mention about the vote…. I would just like to bring to the minister's attention a debate we had in the House previously, having to do with the rights of prisoners to vote when they've been incarcerated. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the right to vote is so paramount in our democratic society that it should only be removed under the most extreme circumstance. I argued, although as the minister brought to my attention, it was a waste of time to argue, because the Supreme Court of Canada had already ruled on it. But the importance of the vote under most extreme circumstances…. When somebody kills somebody and they're put in prison for a period of time, that to me is an extreme circumstance. That's when the right to vote should be removed from a person who is a resident of Canada.

Quoting from the Supreme Court: "A majority of the nine judges on the Supreme Court rejected allowing prisoners the right to vote, saying it was unconstitutional." Part of the reason for that argument was that they said the right to vote was so important that it could only be abridged for very specific reasons aimed at addressing a specific problem. You said that they disenfranchised themselves when they moved onto the reserve. Well, that might be, but at least they had the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They no longer have that, I would argue, because section 25 of the Charter…. I'm sure the minister is familiar with it. I'd like to read it into the record. It says:

"The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including…." It goes on to explain. Well, I would argue that this Westbank treaty — not the Westbank treaty, but the governance — is in fact an aboriginal right. So they no longer have the protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that they had prior to the passage of this bill.

I wonder if the minister could perhaps enlighten me on my understanding of section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it now will apply. The Westbank people can argue that what they have now is an aboriginal right and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply. It may say it does there, but if you read section 25 of the Charter, I would argue that they no longer have that protection.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm a little bit handicapped because I'm not as familiar as I obviously ought to be, I guess, with the details of the Westbank agreement. But let me start by saying something about section 25 of the Charter. I haven't gone to look at all of the case law that may exist with respect to section 25, but I think it's fair to say that section 25 is concerned to ensure that the rest of the Charter isn't used as a vehicle to attack the exercise of aboriginal rights by aboriginal people.

It is, I think, fair to say that section 25 is intended to be read more as a shield than a sword. It's not intended to be there as an opportunity for aboriginal people exercising aboriginal or treaty rights, to exercise those rights against non-aboriginal people in a way that denies non-aboriginal people their constitutional rights. I think the intention was more to create a measure of protection for aboriginal people from an attempt to argue that some federal or provincial law should be given effect against them because it represented compliance with some other constitutional obligation.

As I say, I haven't had time lately to study what academics, lawyers and judges are saying about section 25, but I think that's a fair statement about the intention. If I was right in that statement, then it may have some relevance as the Westbank self-government agreement plays itself out over time.

Let me say another thing about section 25. It's there whether you want it to be there or not — that is, it's not something that can be waived away by legislation. It may operate now in Westbank. It may operate now to protect the Westbank band council in making some of the decisions they make, if the Westbank band council were able to say those decisions were actually decisions made in the exercise of aboriginal rights. It's not as though section 25 was completely irrelevant to the lives of the Westbank first nation up until the moment where this agreement was entered into.

How will it operate once the agreement takes effect? Those are good questions for the member to pursue with his federal representatives in Ottawa, to get greater clarity from them. I must admit I don't know enough of the details of the agreement. I do think, though, from what I've read, that we will find that there will be people who will argue that the Westbank self-government agreement is not actually made in any attempt to give effect to constitutionally protected rights of self-government but rather is an exercise of delegated self-government authority. If that is so, then that may have an impact on these issues as they are played out.

I know that the agreement does contain some language about the inherent right of self-government, and as I've already told the member in a conversation that we had about this, I have expressed to one of the Members of Parliament some concern about some ambiguity in that language and about what the federal government is trying to do there. Those issues are issues that are going to have to be played out over time. It does seem to me that people who are in a much better position than I am to pursue those issues for the most part are pretty satisfied with their answers. The Member of Parliament for the very area that includes Westbank, I believe…. Well, I see that he has publicly supported this agreement, and I assume that he went into the House and voted for the legislation, as did most of the members of his party.

Those are obviously important issues. I have pretty consistently said, and it is the position of the government of British Columbia, that there is no freestanding inherent right of self-government that incorporates unrestricted lawmaking authority for first nations recognized to date in the constitution of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has had a couple of occasions to pronounce on the issue of the inherit right of self-government and has, to date, not accepted arguments that there is a freestanding lawmaking authority recognized under section 35. But you know, I'll say this. We're going to have to find a way to do two things: (1) do the best we can to negotiate practical, affordable, responsible institutions of aboriginal self-government; and (2) we're going to have to park the ideological debate somewhere. The ideological debate that we've had in this country for 20 years has held us back, and it continues to hold us back.

I am confident that in the agreements-in-principle that we've negotiated, we've got in place tools to put self-government in the communities that need more ability to control their lives. I am convinced that as you look across the landscape of North America, aboriginal communities that have a measure of control over their lives have a much greater chance of succeeding — succeeding economically and succeeding socially — than aboriginal communities that are stuck under the yoke of a paternalistic act like the Indian Act.

We have to get past that into a world where we can — first nations, province, Canada, municipal governments, businesses — start to deal with each other as equals, to build relationships founded on trust and mutual respect, to look for opportunities instead of problems, to look for solutions instead of reasons and excuses not to move forward.

I think it's impossible to look around the landscape of this province and not see all kinds of reasons to work hard to put the failure of the past behind us and to build something new that is positive, that is constructive and that will include institutions that will respect basic principles of financial accountability and democratic accountability, financial responsibility and democratic responsibility.

We can choose to hold ourselves back. I mean, we can make that choice. The citizens could make that choice if they want. It is not the choice the citizens made. Two years ago the citizens of British Columbia endorsed the treaty process. By an overwhelming majority of voting citizens, they committed passionately to a treaty process that would build certainty, finality and equality. They committed to that process a set of eight principles that they wanted the province's negotiators to take to the treaty tables and put to work on their behalf, and that's what we've done. That's the project that I think holds out great hope.

Yes, it's filled with challenge, and yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be asked along the way. There are good questions that need to be asked about the Westbank self-government agreement. For my part, I think they're questions that should be asked in the chamber of the institution that made that agreement. We didn't make that agreement here, and we're not going to repeat that agreement in this chamber.

We are not going to take the Westbank self-government model as the model for negotiating self-government in treaty negotiations, as far as I can see so far, but there may be parts of it that we like and parts of it that we choose not to like. It may turn out to be a success, and if it is a success, then we should all stand back and applaud it. If it's not, then I hope that those who are responsible for it will work hard to ensure that it's fixed and repaired and made to work. That is, I think, part of the larger context within which this discussion about the Westbank self-government agreement also needs to take place.

D. MacKay: For the minister's information, I am getting close. I've got a couple more questions to ask, and I will be finished.

Dealing with the issue of taxation without representation, Mark Milke wrote in the Province on March 25 of this year, and I would like to read a part of his comment here about the Westbank deal to tax non-natives.

That is a comment from Mr. Milke on the Westbank issue of taxation without representation and something that we have always held near and dear to our hearts.

Just in closing, the last question. That was basically just a bit of rhetoric on my part. I wanted to read something into the record. My last question has to do with the…. The minister is not familiar with the Westbank self-government agreement. The agreement, basically under section 8 of the act, provides that the Statutory Instruments Act does not apply in respect to the Westbank law. Some of the laws that are contained in that legislation or in that proposed legislation, which would give Westbank the right to make their own laws, usurp provincial and federal lawmaking authorities. It gives them authority that the province or the federal government doesn't have, and the Statutory Instruments Act does not apply.

For the record — and I'm sure I'm not telling the minister anything that he doesn't know — the Statutory Instruments Act is designed to ensure that all laws authorized by Parliament to be passed by subordinate bodies accord with established standards. That's not required by the Westbank first nations constitution or self-government agreement. I wonder if the minister could comment on the fact — and as I said, this is my last question — about the removal of section 8 and the requirement that the Statutory Instruments Act apply when they make laws that usurp federal or provincial legislation.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the clause or the document or the federal legislation in front of me, so I am not able to provide much comment on the member's question.

D. MacKay: Okay. The minister is familiar with the Statutory Instruments Act and the purpose of the act?

Hon. G. Plant: It's been an important discussion, I'm sure. It's been an interesting discussion, but we're here to debate the estimates of the treaty negotiations office of the government of British Columbia. We're not here to interpret the Statutory Instruments Act of Canada. While I tried to provide some answers to some of the questions that the member has asked, there comes a point where I am just not really able to turn myself into an expert on federal statutory law on the floor of the provincial Legislature.

D. MacKay: To the minister: thank you for your patience as I tried to get through an area that I have great interest in and, obviously, am very passionate about. So once again, I would like to thank the minister for his patience and understanding as I waded through stuff that perhaps I am not totally familiar with, but I will continue to look into it. I would expect I will become more conversant as time goes on.

L. Mayencourt: I wonder if the Attorney General could fill us in on the Justice Review Task Force. I have had a little bit of information on that. To just get a brief

description of what's going on with the Justice Review Task Force and perhaps also speak to the street crime initiative being reviewed by the justice review subcommittee….

Hon. G. Plant: At the moment I'm supported by treaty negotiations office staff in the chamber. My hope was that we would actually spend some time debating the treaty negotiations office issues and then, in effect, put closure to that and move on to the AG stuff. For example, it wouldn't be fun without the intervention of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine in some issues around the justice system that are of concern to him, but he's stopped.

We'll get to the AG stuff, but I was hoping…. In fact, originally it was my understanding that it had been agreed that we would do the TNO stuff first. Perhaps we could continue to do that — see if we can just deal with the TNO stuff — and then we won't have to try and shuffle a whole bunch of bodies around.

J. Kwan: As I mentioned, the opposition was not advised of this plan. Nonetheless, we have reorganized our questions to put to the minister around the treaty negotiations office piece.

First off, I'd like to just canvass with the minister about the economic measures fund within the ministry in this area. There seems to be some confusion over the total amount of the fund. According to the November 21 press release from the government, the economic measures fund amounts to about $40 million. It also states that the fund provides for $10 million a year for four years. Is the fund a one-time capital allocation?

Hon. G. Plant: The fund was established a little bit more than two years ago. At the time the fund was established, the announced intention was to create a three-year fund, $10 million per year, for a total of $30 million. A year later, I think the government then made a commitment to extend the economic measures fund by a year. That would have meant a total expenditure over four years of $40 million. Late last fall, as we were doing the budget preparation and planning work, and mindful of the government's overall goal to ensure that we tabled a balanced budget for the current fiscal year, we had a look at what we were doing in assisting in economic development initiatives across the province.

By that point we had indicated publicly our intention to establish a $15 million B.C. Rail–first nations benefit trust fund. We had, I think, by that point provided or committed to provide something like $19.2 million to Treaty 8 first nations in oil and gas consultation agreements as part of our work to support the first nations participation in the 2010 Olympics bid. We had made a commitment to $3 million in the aboriginal youth sports legacy fund, and we had, of course, also doubled the First Citizens Fund.

We looked at those commitments, and we looked at the economic measures fund and made a decision that we would cap the funding commitments in the economic measures fund substantially to those projects where we had already committed to fund a project and/or were so close to that commitment that it made no practical difference. The result is that in the current fiscal year, there is a $7 million allocation for economic development funding. That will make a total of economic development funding under what was the economic measures fund of about $27 million.

Currently, the service plan for next year and the year after contains no provision for funding in this area, but as I said to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, I'm sure going to work hard to try to continue finding a way to support aboriginal economic development through whatever means are available or become available, both generally and as we eventually make our way to planning for the next fiscal year. In short, the economic measures fund is now capped at about $27 million.

J. Kwan: The amount the Attorney General stated is $27 million, which the fund is capped at. Is that the balance of the fund now, or is that the total amount to begin with? I'm confused, because the government's press release talks about a $40 million fund, and in the government's website it states that a total of $26 million has been allocated to 124 projects, which would lead one to think that if $40 million was put towards this fund, then $14 million must still remain. But now we have the $27 million figure, and I'm not quite following in terms of exactly what that means.

Hon. G. Plant: I have already explained that the $40 million number would have represented $10 million per year over four years. The economic measures fund was not a fund like the First Citizens Fund. It was really a line item in the budget that represented our opportunity to fund a series of projects over the course of the year, totalling $10 million in commitments and $10 million in expenditures in the first year, and likewise $10 million in the second year. When the decision was made to discontinue the fund, we were left with a situation where we have funded about $27 million — I think it's $26.3 million — and I could pursue the reason for the difference if the member wants.

But the $7 million commitment that is found in the budget documents for this year is money that is being spent on projects that have been entered into. I think that probably a significant number of them were multi-year projects, so the dollars for this year would have represented either the second or the third year of a multi-year project funding commitment. When those commitments have been honoured, that will bring the fund to an end.

J. Kwan: Is $27 million the total over three years? The fund ends, presumably, at the end of the fiscal year, and then whatever happens, happens after that.

Where in the budget book does it outline this fund? Under what line item does it include this fund?

Hon. G. Plant: In the estimates documents on page 45, vote 12, the treaty negotiations office has three line items. The third line item is economic development, and there you will see the $10 million for last year and the $7.042 million for the current year.

J. Kwan: The government's website, where it says "a total of about $26 million," is accurate, then? The minister said maybe $26.3 million. But anyway, about $23 million has been allocated to 124 projects to date, and that is expected to be completed through March 2005. Let me just confirm that.

Hon. G. Plant: Over the last couple of weeks I've been spending some time travelling around the province, and the last update I had was that there was a total of 145 different projects. I'm informed that we haven't updated the website, but we will have to do that.

J. Kwan: Is the treaty negotiations office responsible for administering this fund?

Hon. G. Plant: It's what's sometimes called the corporate fund. What we did was asked the negotiators in the treaty negotiations office and also asked across government generally where there are officials who have working relationships or working knowledge of issues and opportunities in aboriginal communities. We asked them all to look for opportunities that might exist to assist first nations to become more active participants in the economic mainstream. Government developed some principles and a framework around what priorities would be set. My recollection is that the main priorities for potential projects were forestry, oil and gas, aquaculture, mining and the Olympics. There was certainly an attempt to focus on those priority areas, but I know there were some projects that were not exactly within those subject areas.

Then there was a deputy ministers' committee struck, or it may have been in the general deputy ministers' committee where they developed the process for reviewing, scrutinizing applications and essentially signing off on the applications. When I say applications, the applications came from ministries, not from outside government for the most part. This was not one of those things where people could send a letter and an application form, although I'm sure there were a number of occasions where first nations, talking with treaty negotiators and other ministry officials, were actively working together to explore and develop ideas. In all cases, these ideas were scrutinized by deputy ministers. Really, it was the deputy ministers that had the sign-off on the various projects that were approved.

J. Kwan: Did I hear the minister correctly? Maybe for some reason I can't really hear the minister very well. Did I hear the minister say that the applications come from ministries?

Hon. G. Plant: The ideas were developed by ministries. Application may be the right term, but they only got up the decision-making chain after there had been consultation with first nations about whether this would be a useful project or a good idea. I say that to distinguish it from some other funds where someone could just fill out an application form and ask government for money. This was always intended by us to be an opportunity to manage some strategic opportunities for government by looking for chances to assist first nations in developing their capacity to participate in the economy. It was really an internal fund where projects were identified in consultation with first nations but were not initiated by first nations.

I should say that one of the themes of the economic measures funding is partnership. There are many of these projects where we sought and achieved federal participation and some projects where we sought and achieved local government or university or private sector involvement in helping to fund — and also first nations involvement. A number of projects that I know about were partly supported by the first nation themselves.

Hon. G. Plant: That depended on the nature of the project. For example, if the project was to conduct an engineering feasibility study, it would have been the engineer that would have received the funds.

In some cases, there were projects probably administered more directly by a first nation where the funds may have gone into the first nation. This is not directly responsive to the way the member put her question, but I think it's important to the issue. Each of these projects was funded pursuant to an agreement, and the agreement would be between a ministry of government — probably usually the treaty negotiations office — and the first nation. The agreement might provide for funding for something like a feasibility study where the actual dollars would have ended up in the hands of the consultant doing the feasibility study.

J. Kwan: So each of the applications — for all intents and purposes, I'm going to refer to them as applications — comes from agreements with whatever sponsoring ministry in conjunction with whatever first nations group. They sign some sort of agreement on whatever the proposal is to be, and then the proposal arrives at the deputy ministers' committee for evaluation and consideration. The committee makes a decision and then selects whatever project to be awarded the funds that are being requested.

Am I understanding this generally in terms of how this fund operates? No independent first nations organization or community group actually applies to the ministry. One has to have the ministry within government that would sign on to it with the first nations in order for it to be considered for funds.

Hon. G. Plant: The ideas would be developed in discussion between someone from government and a first nation. The idea would then turn itself into a proposal. The proposal would be developed by the ministry and brought to the deputy ministers for consideration, and if it was approved, then there would be a formal project agreement entered into.

J. Kwan: Is it possible for first nations community groups not involved in the treaty process to partner up with the ministry — whatever ministry — to access these funds?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes, there were economic measures fund projects that were funded for first nations that are not in the treaty process.

J. Kwan: Do you have to be a first nations community group to partner with the ministry to access these funds? Could you, for example, be a Métis organization?

Hon. G. Plant: I know of at least one project that was funded, where we worked with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services to do an aboriginal employment project that assisted in identifying potential candidates for employment in London Drugs. I think one of the agencies that was responsible for administering that project was one of the Métis organizations in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The 124, accordingly — and I think the minister said 145 applications — have now been processed. Does the minister have a list of who got what funds and with which partnering ministry for what project?

Hon. G. Plant: I think we have a list of the projects. It may not be quite as conveniently organized as it maybe could be. If the member is interested in seeing a list of the projects, I think we could probably put one together.

J. Kwan: Yes, thank you. I would be interested in that, because the information on the website seems to be not as current as what the minister is providing in the House. As I mentioned, the information that we've received is that 124 applications have gone through. Also, I should note that the first nations progress report states 113 projects that are listed in that report related to this fund. There seems to be contradicting information, and it may be simply because of timing issues that things are not most up to date accordingly. I would like to get the most up-to-date information from the minister.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not aware of any projects that were committed to, which were later cancelled. I am told that there are some projects where the implementation may have been delayed, but probably whatever the issues were, were worked out. Of course, some of these projects are still ongoing.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I think now we're at the point where the word "application" is no longer a very convenient fit. As I said, the process was really more of the development of an idea that would become a proposal, and then the proposal would be discussed by deputy ministers. If the deputy ministers thought the proposal represented something that would be an appropriate project, then there would have been instructions given to finalize the terms of an agreement to fund a project, and then we would have had the project.

I suspect that the way the process worked…. Along the way there were some sort of blue-sky ideas about things that could be looked at, and some of those probably drifted off as blue-sky ideas often do. Some of them probably crystallized into some pretty good practical projects. We were pretty clear, as a government, in the direction that we gave. We wanted to be sure that there was accountability in how the funds were spent. We were interested in whether we could get performance measures in place. There are some projects that I think probably evolved as they were thought about and talked about.

Lots of pretty good work done here. The Shuswap project I mentioned in my opening remarks is, I think, an amazing opportunity for the Invermere community. The water reservoir built on that Indian band land…. The Shuswap Indian band is going to have the opportunity to provide stable and clean water on their reserve. That's going to support some ongoing real estate development they've been doing. They've built a golf course — it's a pretty spectacular golf course, actually — and they've got some housing projects they're doing.

In addition to that, the water that will be supplied by this reservoir will actually support housing projects in the Invermere area for the whole community, perhaps as much as $150 million worth of housing development in this community. When the water supply is linked with work that will eventually be done to put in place a stable sewage system, we're also going to see that the water in the lake will become clean. That's a great example of economic measures funding making a difference in the lives of the first nation, creating economic opportunities for the first nation and improving economic opportunities and the quality of life for a community as a whole — very exciting work.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss it again, but for now I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act.

Hon. G. Bruce: It is out of concern for patients, their families and those waiting for hospital procedures that I present Bill 37, the Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act, for first reading.

The current labour dispute between the Health Employers Association of British Columbia and striking hospital union members represented by the Facilities Bargaining Association poses a very real threat to all British Columbians' access to hospital care. Since the strike began four days ago, thousands of surgeries and diagnostic procedures have been postponed or outright cancelled. Patients' concerns about going through surgery and tests have now been superseded by their concerns over delays and not knowing when these might be rescheduled.

The Health minister has urged me to intervene. As Minister of Labour, I have tried to initiate collective bargaining, and I have sent in one of the most experienced people in the labour relations field. He concluded that a negotiated settlement could not be reached.

For these reasons, government is today bringing in back-to-work legislation and providing a 15 percent reduction in wages. This represents approximately $200 million that will be redirected to patient care. The new collective agreement will be in place for the next two years.

This legislation is focused clearly on the facilities subsector and people who work in acute care facilities. This legislation ends the labour dispute and requires employees to return to work immediately.

It is the government's desire to move this bill through all three stages this day, and I defer to the Government House Leader.

Hon. G. Collins: I rise to advise the House that pursuant to standing order 81, it's the government's desire to move this bill through all three stages this day.

As you've heard from the Minister of Labour, we've reached a point in a very difficult process whereby there is no possibility of this labour dispute being resolved through the normal bargaining process, and without the assistance….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we have order in the chamber, please, and I'm sure the same courtesy will be accorded to the Leader of the Opposition when it's her turn to reply.

Hon. G. Collins: I'll start the last sentence again, if I may, just for your clarity.

As you heard from the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, we've reached the point in a very difficult process whereby there's no possibility of this labour dispute being resolved through the normal bargaining process, and without the assistance of this Legislature, the people of British Columbia will suffer direct and very real consequences.

I'm also advised by the Minister of Health, who is in regular contact with the health authorities, who in turn are in constant contact with front-line health care professionals, that the impact on patients is now at a very critical stage. The number of procedures, surgeries and diagnostic tests cancelled is now in the thousands and escalates with each hour.

We are now at the point where there are very real and immediate risks to the health and safety of critically ill patients. As well, the backlog of surgeries and procedures itself poses an ever-increased risk to urgent cases, and some of our most vulnerable patients are being hurt. For example, at B.C. Children's Hospital, 79 surgeries have been cancelled. These surgeries are only available at Children's Hospital, and families travel from across British Columbia for this very, very specialized care.

Unfortunately, we have reached a clear impasse. The health, safety and the lives of British Columbians are at an ever-greater risk. We must act today to return these services to those British Columbians who so desperately need them as soon as possible.

J. MacPhail: We haven't seen the legislation. I have no idea how to make the argument on standing order 81, so I would request — if I could, please — a recess.

Hon. G. Collins: That's perfectly in order. I would move that this House stand recessed until 6:30.

Mr. Speaker: It has been requested, and I would like all the members to agree to a recess both for the purposes of viewing the bill and for a supper break. We will recess until 6:45.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we have finished first reading of Bill 37, and we are considering an application under standing order 81.

J. MacPhail: The government, less than an hour ago, introduced legislation that they claim is about patient care. They claim that under standing order 81, this legislation is so important, dealing with such an urgent and extraordinary matter, that they have to ram the legislation through for as long as those of us opposed to it can stand on our feet and abide by the rules of the House.

Bill 37, the Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act, is not about patient care and, therefore, not a matter that deals with urgent and extraordinary circumstances — the legislation doesn't.

There are urgent and extraordinary circumstances that British Columbians are facing right now, and patient care should be restored. Surgeries should be performed. Diagnostic procedures should be performed. People who need their cancer treatments should be able to get their cancer treatments.

That's not what this legislation is about. That's not what this legislation is about at all. It's about taking $200 million out of working people's pockets and absconding with it. It is not about patient care, and therefore standing order 81 has no application to this legislation at all.

Mr. Speaker, this government had alternatives available to it. It's had alternatives available to it for months, and it's what other democratic jurisdictions do. They bargain collectively, or if they have to intervene, they at least intervene in a balanced and fair way. They don't intervene to impose a draconian wage reduction. They intervene to put people back to work, so patient care can continue on. Then they allow for a fair and balanced approach to take to settle the matters of dispute.

This government had an alternative available to them. It was a private member's bill that I introduced today — which would return people to work, would return people to the bargaining table — and it was fair and balanced. But no, the government doesn't seize that opportunity, because they're so partisan. They come in here claiming that there are other urgent and extraordinary matters that require a piece of legislation like Bill 37.

Mr. Speaker, what is urgent and extraordinary about this that will be resolved by this legislation? Nothing. Here's what I predict, and it saddens me to predict this. It saddens me greatly. This legislation may put people back to work. It will have people back to work tomorrow, but there will be harm done to patient care because of this legislation in the medium and long term. And that is wrong. It is for that very reason that this Legislature should not be contemplating this legislation. It is this legislation that makes extraordinary circumstances that harm patient care, not the reverse — not the reverse at all.

What opportunities has this government had to settle this matter so that it's not of their own making? The only way this government can justify doing this under standing order 81 is to say that there were no other available alternatives. I've already listed one: my own private member's bill. They've had plenty of opportunity to improve patient care or not harm patient care, and they've harmed patient care by increasing wait-lists, by people dying because hospitals are closed, emergency rooms are closed. They've increased the cost to seniors for drugs. They've separated seniors in nursing home care. Those were urgent and extraordinary matters, but it didn't require legislation. No, under the guise of standing order 81, this government is claiming that the need to take $200 million out of working people's pockets is the urgent and extraordinary aspect of this.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you have a tough task ahead of you, and I know that you're going to contemplate it very carefully, but here's what I would ask you to consider. Is this the only alternative available to have surgeries started again? Is this labour dispute the only aspect that has harmed patient care in this province and, therefore, needs to be treated in such a draconian fashion?

I would also ask you to consider this. If indeed the government makes the argument that this is urgent and extraordinary, what will be the consequences of this legislation on extraordinary events and patient care? Is the medicine worse? In delivering proper patient care in this province, is the medicine of Bill 37 being rammed down people's throats worse than the government seeking another viable alternative that is not confrontational, doesn't choose one side and isn't the most draconian legislation that this province has seen in a generation?

This legislation is exceptional. There is no question about that. It is unheard of in my time in this province. But are there extraordinary and urgent circumstances that require this government to set a new low? I suggest not. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will make patient care worse in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Chair has heard both sides of the argument and listened to the request for standing order 81. We will recess and come back with the ruling as quickly as we can, and we will ring the bells to call the members back to the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you will have five minutes' notice, and the House is recessed until the bells.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have before me a request by the government to advance Bill 37, intituled Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act, through all stages this day under the provisions of standing order 81.

Standing order 81 reads as follows: "Every Bill shall receive three readings, on different days, prior to being passed. After the second reading it shall be ordered for committal on a subsequent day. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advance two or more stages in one day."

The question for the Chair to determine is whether or not the present circumstances amount to an urgent or extraordinary occasion. It should be stated that the Chair is acutely aware that the decision to advance a bill through several stages in one day is not one taken lightly, and the precedents of this House and of the authorities are clear that the Chair be satisfied that the existing situation requires the normal procedural rules to be set aside.

I have listened with great care to the representations made by the government and the opposition and have concluded that the deteriorating circumstances in the health care sector require action by this House. I have concluded that the situation can only worsen if measures are not taken to restore health services. A further note is that this situation is not confined to any one locality but is provincewide.

I must, however, make further observations in relation to the nature of the bill itself. The bill does considerably more than order the return to work. It imposes a contract on health care workers and, as such, gives the Chair considerable difficulty in coming to a decision under standing order 81. The question the Chair must balance in these circumstances is whether the form of the bill removes it from the embrace of standing order 81, and as the Leader of the Opposition stated in her remarks, it gives the Chair serious difficulty.

However, it is the Chair's view that a continuation of the existing strike puts thousands of British Columbians at risk and to prolong this situation for three or more days would, in the Chair's view, be unacceptable. I have had great difficulty in coming to a decision on this application, but I must, on balance, make my decision based on the representations I have received that there is a legitimate crisis resulting from the withdrawal of the workforce, and it is paramount that the workers return to the workplace at the earliest possible moment.

While I am granting the government's application that Bill 37 may proceed through all stages this day, the Chair is of the view that a bill drafted in such a way as to cast too wide a net may not qualify under standing order 81.

The labour dispute between the Health Employers Association of British Columbia and the Health Facilities Bargaining Association led by the Hospital Employees Union has resulted in significant disruption to the provincial health care system. Many surgeries, medical procedures and diagnostic tests have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely. The impact has been felt by thousands of British Columbians and their families. Allowing this dispute to continue means that many people will continue in pain and suffering as they await treatment.

My deputy minister met separately with the union leadership and the HEABC leaders yesterday and earlier today. He's one of the most respected labour relations specialists in the province with a strong record of accomplishment in assisting parties to reach a collective agreement.

After serious discussions with both sides, he concluded that there was no likelihood of a negotiated settlement between the parties. Despite the wide difference between the positions of the employer and the unions, the government facilitated a process that resulted in a successfully negotiated agreement last spring. This was known as the tentative framework agreement, or the TFA. That agreement provided a limit on contracting out, a reduction of 13.8 percent in wages, benefits, and some changes to the contract language. Regrettably, that agreement was rejected by 57 percent of the members who voted. Other attempts to bargain a new collective agreement since the failure of the TFA have been unsuccessful, and as we know, the strike started on Sunday, April 25.

Past collective agreements gave these health facilities contracts wages that range between 20 percent and 40 percent above those of workers doing the same job in other provinces. In addition, this contract has the

richest benefit package for workers doing the same work compared to other provinces. This has the shortest workweek at 36 hours and paid vacation that ranges from four to nine weeks, depending on the length of service.

Health authorities are trying to find ways to put as much money as possible into direct patient care. They want to improve the quality and increase the availability of patient care. The employers had sought concessions totalling some $250 million in savings per year.

On Tuesday the Minister of Health Services asked me to intervene in this dispute because of his concern about continued delivery of health care to the people of B.C. I directed my deputy minister to meet with the parties to explore whether one last attempt at negotiations could prove fruitful. The ideal end to any labour dispute is a negotiated collective agreement. However, his attempt to facilitate negotiations ended without success, and patient care, as we know it, is in jeopardy throughout the province.

Unfortunately, under these circumstances, one has to act, and the time for government to act is now. Therefore, in the interests of British Columbia's patients and their families, I have introduced this legislation that will achieve a number of important objectives while preserving health care. It will end this labour dispute and restore health facilities to full operations as quickly as possible.

This legislation ends the dispute at the time of the royal assent to this bill and requires that the employees return to work as soon as they are scheduled to do so. It also imposes a contract on the parties that continues the previous collective agreement with modifications that are based on many of the terms negotiated and agreed between HEABC and the union leadership last spring.

This new collective agreement imposes an increase in the hours of work from 36 hours to 37.5 hours per week with a corresponding adjustment to hourly rates of pay, 4 percent, which is effective 90 days after passage of this legislation. The legislation provides a further 11 percent reduction in wages across the board.

However, the union has an alternative. Within 14 days the union can ask me to appoint an arbitrator who will facilitate negotiations between the Facilities Bargaining Association and the Health Employers Association on a reduction of 10 percent of total compensation — meaning the reduction can come from wages, benefits and/or vacation. This gives the union an opportunity to influence how this reduction will be achieved. If an arbitrator is requested, the arbitrator will have 60 days to assist the parties to reach a settlement, or if they're unable to do so, he will then impose the settlement.

The revised wage rates will be determined within 60 days of the bill's royal assent, and they're retroactive to April 1, 2004. The new collective agreement will expire March 31, 2006.

Even with these reductions, the people under this contract will remain among the highest paid doing the same or similar work in the different provinces across Canada. If the across-the-board reduction is implemented, as an example, the hourly rates for a cleaner would fall from $18.90 to $16.07. It would be the second-highest rate for a hospital cleaner across Canada — second only to Ontario's rate of $17.26.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this intervention is necessary. I would much prefer that a settlement be reached through effective collective bargaining. Regrettably, this is not possible. We have a very good health care system in British Columbia. It must be protected and given the opportunity to meet the ever-growing and ever-changing needs of our people.

Government is faced with tough decisions from time to time. This is one of those times. The consequences of inaction or failure to respond to this threat to our health care system would be severe. Many people and their families throughout our province would feel those consequences. We must act to bring this labour dispute to an end, and we must do so now.

This legislated solution to the health facilities labour dispute takes into account some of the terms that were agreed between HEABC and the union leadership last spring. The union membership, unfortunately, rejected that agreement, but many of its ingredients create a basis upon which to move forward. We have tried to use them accordingly.

The legislation offers the union the opportunity to influence the compensation aspects of their collective agreement. As I mentioned, the union has 14 days to ask to appoint an arbitrator who will assist the parties to negotiate how the 10 percent reduction in total compensation will be applied. If the union chooses to ignore this opportunity or decides it does not wish to use it, the reduction will be 11 percent off wages across the board.

I call on the facilities workers to return to work and to end the strike, complying with this legislation. Let us put this labour dispute behind us. These are difficult decisions for difficult times. Our work here will help in the continuous improvement of our health care system for the benefit of all people in this province.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it interesting that there's almost nothing in those second reading remarks about patient care — absolutely nothing? There's lots about how he's attacking working people through their own fiat — almost nothing about patient care. We really do have to ask ourselves why we're here today.

Well, Mr. Speaker, you know why we're here today? Because this bill green-lights massive privatization of our health care system to an unprecedented level in British Columbia. That's why we're here. That's

exactly why we're here. If this were about patient care, that's not the bill this government would be introducing. This bill is just a massive attack on working people, because this government doesn't have the guts to negotiate — doesn't have the guts. They do want to privatize health care. That's what this is about — green-lights it like we've never seen before. That's why the Minister of Labour doesn't want to talk about patient care. This bill does nothing for patient care except attack it.

This government had a perfectly fine alternative to this draconian approach of stealing $200 million out of working people's pockets — the very working people who deliver patient care day in and day out. Day in and day out, they deliver patient care — women, visible minorities, people who probably do jobs that we wouldn't even consider doing because they're so hard, so dirty and so dangerous. These people do it day in and day out. They support their families on them. This government today, at 8:30 at night, is ramming through a bill to attack them — not to support patient care. This government doesn't give a whit about patient care, and their three years of failed health care policies prove that.

Instead of ramming through back-to-work legislation and imposing a one-sided contract, this Legislature could easily order a moratorium on further privatization in health care so that hospital employees and health employers can get back to the meaningful negotiations, end the current disruption and restore patient care.

In fact, my private member's bill introduced earlier today would bring an immediate 90-day moratorium on health care privatization and ensure the resumption of collective bargaining. It'll be interesting for us to recount the number of times that Minister of Labour said a cooling-off period is what works. He'd better go search Hansard so he can be prepared to have his own words thrown right back at him. His caucus too — how good cooling-off periods are, how balanced an approach they are.

Oh no, not this government. How could they get away with their agenda of privatizing health care if they chose the alternative that I put forward? No, they'd be there. They'd have to actually justify their privatization of health care to the electorate.

Well, I'm sure that most members opposite would oppose this bill simply because it had been tabled by the opposition — my private member's bill. Their partisan ideology trumps everything else. The bill that I introduced provides a functional, gracious, non-ideological, balanced solution to the embittered impasse created by this government.

It should be up to this government to bring some much-needed calm to the situation. The 90-day cooling-off period on privatization would have brought that calm and would allow bargaining to continue in good faith. It would allow our health care system to get back to functioning at 100 percent while bargaining resumes.

Strikes in the health care sector benefit no one. In fact, they harm us all. They take our most cherished and most necessary public service and turn it into a political football. The Minister of Health Services stands up every day and attacks one side in the dispute — every day. He attacks his neighbours. He attacks his constituents on one side of this impasse.

I've never seen anything like it, Mr. Speaker — a government so ideologically driven toward privatization that they stand up and take a side in a very difficult dispute, not urging people back to the bargaining table. The Minister of Health Services directly attacks the workers that serve patients inside every day. He attacks them. Isn't that nice leadership? What a Minister of Health Services. I guess he feels good when he walks into a hospital — does he? — knowing that he has personally attacked about 50 percent of the workforce in that hospital.

What leadership. But he is joined by all of his colleagues over there. Solutions are not sought by this government, but they are actively avoided. When all of our creative resources are needed to build on a health care system recognized around the world for its effectiveness and efficiency, it is the dumb and heavy hand of legislation that is resorted to. Back-to-work legislation and imposed contracts have become, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, the last refuge of scoundrels, masquerading in this case as "a Liberal government."

This government is even judged by others who some would claim are scoundrels themselves. This morning at 8:12 a.m. on CBC radio: Dave Haggard, a newly minted federal Liberal, along with the Minister of Health Services, a federal Liberal himself; the Minister of Finance, a federal Liberal himself; and the Deputy Premier, a federal Liberal like we've never seen. Here's what Dave Haggard, the newly minted federal Liberal, has to say about this provincial government.

Let's be clear. He's going to be joining hands with the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Health Services in the next couple of weeks. Here's what Dave Haggard had to say about this provincial Liberal government at 8:12 this morning: "I've always been a strong advocate for health care and strong health care. It wasn't me. It was the provincial Liberals — and there has to be a distinction made here — that tried to destroy the workers in the health care sector. I don't agree with what the government is doing to health care in British Columbia. I think it has hurt it. I think it will take years to overcome the difficulties that have taken place in health care, and I find that offensive. But life goes on with that too."

J. MacPhail: You know, Mr. Speaker, the strange bedfellows created by this government and their federal connections…. They may want to mock the comments of Dave Haggard. They may want to mock.

Nevertheless, Dave Haggard, their new federal Liberal, attacks this provincial government for its health care policies.

J. MacPhail: But feel free. Feel free that the government can stand up and attack Dave Haggard for his comments. I can hardly wait. I can hardly wait to see them set upon each another.

J. MacPhail: I can hardly wait for the Minister of Health Services to stand up and attack Dave Haggard like he's doing right now — please. It will just go to show how morally bankrupt the Minister of Health Services is — a federal Liberal. Let's just talk about that. Or the Minister of Finance. I can hardly wait to see those federal Liberal conventions. Look at the…

Mr. Speaker: Please, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: …disgusting behaviour of this government as they take great pleasure in their despicable acts. The Minister of Health Services, who has been the most vociferous in provoking this dispute, attacks his new federal Liberal colleague because he doesn't like what his federal Liberal colleague says. They'd better get used to their bedfellows. There's Dave Haggard attacking this provincial Liberal government, and they mock him. The moral bankruptcy of this provincial government does not have a vault big enough to fit the bankruptcy inside — not a vault big enough. Its bankruptcy is deep and oozing.

J. MacPhail: What great pleasure this government takes in this legislation. What great pleasure amongst their 70-odd-person caucus. Not one of them, I bet…. Well, I shouldn't say that. I bet you the voices were muted and few inside their Liberal caucus as they decided to sink to a new low with this legislation. I expect there were some voices. I expect that there were, but under the leadership of that Premier, those voices mean nothing — absolutely nothing.

The Minister of Health Services attacks one side, denigrates workers who go into work every day to look after patients in the way they've been asked to. He denigrates them. The Liberals attack their own constituents. Somehow I think they think that the people they're attacking today aren't British Columbians — that they're not people that this government runs into every day on the streets or runs into in the hospitals. They assume somehow, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson said, that they're all just a bunch of toilet-bowl cleaners. I expect that's what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour feels about these people every day. Every day I expect they wake up and say that those people are different from the rest of us and should be treated in the most despicable way. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been taking this avenue — at all.

They had other alternatives that would have allowed our health care system to get back to functioning at 100 percent — well, 100 percent in the Liberal context — while bargaining resumes. That 100 percent is with a measly hundred more nurses working in the entire system than were working in 2000 — a measly 100 more nurses, as the pressures continue with an aging and growing population. How's that for a great record? One hundred more nurses as the population increases. Surgical wait-lists up by 26 percent. Pharmacare costs on the individual skyrocketing. Seniors being separated in nursing homes. Hospitals closing. People dying. Emergency rooms closing — emergency rooms closing.

Every time a poll is taken, the confidence that the people have in this government to manage the health care system goes down. It's at a record low — a record low — the confidence that British Columbians have in this government's ability to manage the health care system. This bill is another blow to that confidence, because people distrust this government's motives on this piece of legislation.

People understand that this piece of legislation, Bill 37, is merely their nefarious, backdoor way of green-lighting massive privatization of the health care system. This government is taking our most cherished and most necessary public service and turning it into a political football, hoping that no one will notice their real agenda of privatization. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't seek solutions; they actively avoid solutions. They deny the absolute chaos that our health care system is in.

I'm sure the Minister of Health Services will claim that after three years, nothing is their government's fault — absolutely nothing. Well, they're going to be put out of the misery of that in less than a year, when they're going to have to take full responsibility for their own failures in the health care system, because British Columbians are not going to permit them to do anything but that. When all of our creative resources are needed to build on a health care system, this government chooses confrontation, conflict and denigration of one side.

The solutions that this government is putting forward in this bill lack a very, very key ingredient, and that's good faith. There is nothing but bad faith in this legislation — nothing but bad faith.

Let me be very clear. This government is to blame entirely for this strike — entirely. Once again the Liberal government's agenda has led to conflict and confrontation, because this government is pushing its pri-

vatization agenda without consultation and without public discussion. Because they're doing that, it should come as no surprise that we have ended up with yet another unnecessary crisis. The Premier and his government have been spending a lot of money on propaganda to grease the wheels on this confrontation and to ignite the fires of public anger in the hope that they will look valiant and the workers intransigent.

The Minister of Health Services went on radio every day last week and every day this week to say how bad the workers were. The government has chosen to scapegoat the Hospital Employees Union, blaming them for our health care problems. They chose to ignore a more conciliatory route, such as a cooling-off period on privatization to allow for the resumption of collective bargaining. While they're doing that, support services workers have been portrayed by this government as overvalued and underskilled.

The government takes great relish and great joy in saying how worthless these workers are. I've never seen anything like it — an elected official taking such joy in attacking working people. These are such difficult jobs that these workers do that I don't think I could do them. I don't think I have the strength or the dedication to do the kinds of jobs that the people this government is attacking today are doing.

I know a little bit about it. I come from a family with health care workers in it. Half of my family are health care workers. I don't think I could do the job. But this government attacks them as if they're worthless. After years of working as part of a team effort with other medical staff, these workers have been told that they're worthless and easily replaceable.

Because of this government's record of interfering in collective bargaining and always on the side of the employer — isn't that interesting that it's always on the side of the employer — the Hospital Employees Union knew that they had to go all out to protect their rights as workers and their dignity as individuals. Nurses, doctors and other health care workers were given, through legislation, wage and benefit increases, but the most vulnerable workers of our health care system — the vast majority of whom are women — are being told to accept wage rollbacks and layoff notices.

What is it that this government finds so hateful, so despicable about working women? Why is it that they have to attack women the way they do? Their record of attacking services for women is exacerbated by this legislation. It is because of this government's confrontational approach that these workers have been backed against the wall and only really have one choice: to fight, but to fight within the rules of collective bargaining, for their jobs.

Thousands of necessary workers — valuable, well-trained, highly skilled workers — are going to be laid off within weeks, yet this government wants to force them to return to work today even though they can't offer them a scintilla of hope that they will have jobs a few months from now. It's even worse than that. It's even worse. This government has hit workers not once but twice in this legislation. Once isn't good enough for this government. They gotta hit 'em when they're down again.

Here's what this legislation does. They've made it retroactive to April 1. There are working people who have already received their pink slips, and they're out of a job. This government is going to go to those people who have received pink slips and say, "Hey, give us back hundreds of dollars" — by this bill. Thanks for nothin' twice.

This government is saying to those workers: "Here's your pink slip, and oh, by the way, can you figure out some other way of feeding your family, 'cause you owe us back some money? Figure out some other way that you're going to pay your mortgage after you're laid off, 'cause you can't save from this month 'cause we need the money back out of your pocket." Pink slips, then whack 'em again.

Hey, it's true what the member for Kamloops–North Thompson said. I'm sure someone will find that quote of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson when he said, "You whack 'em once, and if it doesn't work, you whack 'em again." It turns out his wish has come true. Makes you feel good, does it? Feels good in the context of you guys standing up every day supporting your government — that you finally got a piece of legislation that doesn't whack 'em once; it whacks them twice. Isn't that great? In a new low, there are pockets of low unheard of. I can hardly wait for the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to stand up and tell me where I'm wrong. Stand up. Yeah, just stand up and tell us where we're wrong in this piece of legislation. Be brave. Be courageous.

This government has its blinders on in a way that no previous government ever has. Since the day it was elected, this government has gone to war with working people, interfering in the collective bargaining process by imposing heavy-handed, one-sided legislation. The Minister of Labour likes to quote job action stats to prove how successful his government is. Well, I guess it is a little hard to exercise your rights to withdraw your labour when you're ordered back to work over and over and over again. I love it. The Minister of Labour says: "Oh, look at how low our job action stats are." Duh. That's because they impose legislation at the drop of the hat to take the right to exercise job action away from workers in an unprecedented way.

I will be going through that list. I always love it when the Minister of Labour says: "Oh, look at us. We're so good." Really? Let's just look at what that great record is. On the Day of Mourning of recognizing the value of working people, this government attacks the very working people who heal injured workers, who are injured workers themselves in huge numbers. At the very day, the Day of Mourning today, April 28, this Minister of Labour has the gall to stand up and attack those very workers, and he feels great about himself. I guess that little ministerial statement doesn't mean that much now — that little ministerial statement of insincerity that the minister made earlier today. A new low. A new low.

Once again, we're legislating workers back to work and imposing a lopsided collective agreement. This government's record on industrial relations is so bad that it has actually been censured by the International Labour Organization, a United Nations body, for its labour policy. But you know, this government just pooh-poohs that too: "Oh. There. What are they? What are they — communists? Why would we pay any attention to those organizations?" Yet in droves the Liberal MLAs attended meetings with the Dalai Lama and Bishop Desmond Tutu and Shirin Ebadi, the great Iranian Islamic scholar, and embraced those people about how wonderful the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu are — neither of whom would have international support without organizations advocating on their behalf like UNESCO, the United Nations, the International Labour Organization.

I don't even think these Liberal MLAs realize their hypocrisy. It's great to have all the photo ops and the lunches with the Desmond Tutus and the Dalai Lamas. Then when this government is censured by the very organizations who promote the human rights and back those world leaders, this government attacks those organizations, not themselves. They don't look to themselves; they attack.

This government has intervened in collective bargaining more than any government in a generation. Since their election this is the ninth time — the ninth time. That has set an unprecedented record for a government — unprecedented. The Liberal government has intervened in disputes with nurses, health care workers, teachers, doctors, transit workers. This government has rewritten reams of labour legislation, shredding the contracts of health and community social services workers. Legislation has allowed the contracting out of services at hospitals and long-term care facilities. They've brought in heavy-handed legislation to impose contracts on nurses, college instructors, teachers. They've cancelled arbitration for doctors. The government imposed a cooling-off period on B.C. Ferries in December of last year, before essential service levels could even be worked out.

What did the Minister of Labour say about a cooling-off period then? Can he remember? Can he remember how he lauded the principle of a cooling-off period? I sure hope his staff is up there researching those comments so that the minister can now repudiate those comments, because that dispute had essential services levels just the same way that this dispute did. The government ordered thousands of Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada members back on the job later that same month — thousands of IWA workers under protest, many of them.

It will be interesting to see how the Labour minister will embrace that as a solution and attack the very person that he stood beside, who now criticizes his health care policies. When you get into bed with the strange bedfellow, it really limits your opportunities of taking a principled stand.

Workers in this province are no longer getting a chance at serious fair bargaining because the government has shown an unwillingness to let the process proceed, jumping almost immediately into the fray. I love this phrase. This is a phrase that the Liberal backbenchers are ordered to use: "the government under the leadership of the Premier." Well, here's what the leadership of the Premier is doing here. They're following the direction of the B.C. Business Council. They made a number of regressive changes to the Labour Code, and it is still not good enough for this government. The government brought in regressive changes around the Labour Relations Code, including changes that make organizing more difficult and decertification easier, and this government still has to take away collective bargaining rights. Their regressive changes still aren't enough for them to get it right for their friends who want to privatize health care.

Non-union workers have had their protections of employment standards gutted. Some of the most recent changes brought in by this Minister of Labour exclude farmworkers from the rules governing hours of work, overtime and statutory holiday pay. Then, if that's not good enough for their friends in business, they deregulated child labour. How do they get up every morning and look at themselves in the mirror — how?

All employees have suffered from the cuts this government has made to the Workers Compensation Board, which have reduced injured workers' benefits, ended rehabilitation programs and closed WCB offices. Other policies that hurt workers that have been brought in by this government — this disastrous government affecting British Columbians — include the two-tiered minimum wage or training wage and the pro-smoking rules for bars and restaurants, a law in which the government actually overruled the WCB in order to accomplish this for their election donors. And the Minister of Labour has the gall to make a statement this morning in defence of worker health when he himself changed the law to impose unsafe health conditions on workers. He didn't mention that this afternoon in his ministerial statement. He didn't mention that his laws encourage illness by secondhand smoke, and death. Forgot to mention that — oops.

Here's an abridged version of this government's record on interfering and taking away worker rights and imposing on behalf of their employer friends. On June 19, 2001, at the very beginning of this disastrous mandate, they legislated health care workers back to work. A mere month after they were elected, this government's first legislative act was to legislate health care workers back to work with Bill 2, the Health Care Services Continuation Act.

On August 9, 2001, they imposed a contract on nurses. Oh, it must have worked really well. It must have worked just fabulously well. Three years later, with an aging population, a growing population and tens of thousands of nurses in the system, this government has added a mere hundred nurses in total — a mere hundred nurses.

And the wait-lists have risen. The Minister of Health Services tries to blame the past government. Well, I guess he's got to turn to something, because the wait-lists under his government have skyrocketed. The wait times for surgery have skyrocketed. I guess he's got to look to someone. I guess he's got to look to someone because he's got no defence for his disastrous health care record.

They were gonna solve everything — health care when you need it, where you need it. Yeah, they were gonna solve everything. Promise them the moon. Promise the people the moon. And look at the absolute disaster that the health care system is now.

So on August 9, 2001, they legislated B.C. nurses and paramedics back to work. The nurses had made a new offer after a cooling-off period. The government had a choice. They could have asked the parties to bargain in good faith, they could have brought in a mediator to resolve the matter, or they could legislate. To no one's surprise, on August 7 at 6 p.m., the government introduced the Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act.

This government likes to use 6 p.m., Mr. Speaker, because they get the BCTV News Hour. Isn't that nice? They love using the opportunity of the News Hour, the drama of telling working people how low this government values them. I guess they feel all important that they get to go live like the Premier did today on the BCTV News Hour. Makes them feel all pumped up, that somehow they're important because they're on TV. That was nice of the Premier today — to go live on TV to send a message to working people that he was taking 200 million bucks out of their pockets and that, by the way, he was gonna reach back into money that they had probably already spent.

But what does it matter? What does it matter to this government? January 2002, a weekend marathon of contract-breaking bills — Bills 27, 28, 29. With those three bills, the Premier tore up thousands of contracts in health and education sectors, passing into law legislation to impose a contract on B.C. teachers, increase class sizes, privatize health and education services, lay off thousands of workers and rip up contracts — and breaking the Premier's specific promise to the Hospital Employees Union. His promise: "I'm not tearing up any agreements."

And the Premier wonders why his disapproval rating is at 61 percent. The Premier wonders why people don't trust him, an ever-increasing number of people disapprove and distrust him. In ripping up health workers contracts, the Premier not only broke an election commitment but paved the way to close hospitals with only 60 days' notice and no community consultation. He paved the way to contract out important services from physiotherapy to lab work, from laundry and food services to emergency wards. Every service that is one foot away from an acute care bed is at risk of being contracted out as a result of the government's privatization agenda.

March 27, 2003. The International Labour Organization rules that the B.C. Liberals violated the UN convention on freedom of association and should amend or repeal six of its changes to the B.C. labour laws. The International Labour Organization called on the government to repeal the law declaring K-to-12 education an essential service and amend five other statutes to ensure working conditions are negotiated rather than imposed. Despite the fact that it is considered unusual for Canada to be criticized for breaching international law, the International Labour Organization ruling marked the second time that a UN body had criticized the B.C. government. Earlier the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women singled out the B.C. government in lambasting Canada for not meeting its obligations to women under international human rights law. Can hardly wait to see what they say about this legislation that attacks a workforce made up of a majority of women.

March 2003. The University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act legislated teaching assistants at UBC back to work.

May 2003. Bill 37, the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act. Another famous Bill 37, this act legislated child labour in B.C. and in so doing introduced the lowest standards in Canada for protecting children in the workforce — the lowest standards. Other changes made by regulation in May 2003 to employment standards eliminated farmworkers from the protection of the Employment Standards Act.

May 2003. Bill 61, the Community Services Labour Relations Act. That act established that successor rights would no longer exist for community care workers. Let's not just attack them in the collective bargaining process; let's make sure that if they get a new employer, they don't have successor rights to carry on their collective agreement. The government rammed that legislation through with two days left in the session, despite the fact that government's move to community governance in the Ministry of Children and Family Development was stalled and in chaos and eventually would never be, because of the incompetence of this government.

November 2003. Bill 95, the Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Amendment Act, 2003. Again, the Minister of Labour imposes the disastrous cooling-off period for ferry workers that simply escalated the ferry dispute.

November 2003. Bill 94, Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. That act says that the private investor is to build and operate the Abbotsford hospital, that the private investor will be considered the employer and that the private investor can ignore previously negotiated collective agreements. That act allows private partners who make capital investment in a new or upgraded health facility the same rights as health authorities received under Bill 29, another draconian piece of legislation. These new private employers have the abil-

ity to contract out all non-clinical services. That piece of legislation gives to the private sector rights that we are here tonight ensuring that the public sector has. The act deprives workers of rights to union representation in situations where services are contracted out and allows private partners to subcontract out at will, thereby depriving working people of their rights to union representation.

Mr. Speaker, it's occurred to me that when I make the comments that this government has no vision and has no plan to better the lives of working people, I've got it half wrong. They do have a vision. You can see very clearly from this list of legislation that they have a vision to attack working people over and over and over again, which makes the words of the Premier to the Hospital Employees Union when he says, "I'm not ripping up contracts," all the more despicable. He must have known how his words were simply not true. He must have known that this vision of legislation after legislation attacking working people was what he was going to do.

December 2003. They ramp up the B.C. Ferries dispute. The Labour minister imposed an 80-day cooling-off period on the ferry dispute before questions about essential services levels could be worked out. The government gave clear signals that it wouldn't tolerate any length of service disruption without acting, allowing the company to drag its heels. If employers think they can just run to this Labour minister or to the Premier whenever there's a dispute, you won't have two parties sitting down and bargaining.

By the way, it would be interesting to compare the service delivery record of B.C. Ferries now compared to the essential services that operated during the strike. I'll bet you the service record is worse now than what it would have been under the essential services provision of those workers back when they were exercising their right to job action.

Oh, that would reflect on the great model of business that this government claims to have allowed B.C. Ferries to operate under, a great model of business — ships breaking down, sailings cancelled at an unprecedented rate, repairs not done, buying vessels offshore. Great record.

December 16, 2003. The government legislates IWA back to work. Legislature is called back just days after the session ended — oh, and days before the ministers start collecting taxes illegally — for a special sitting to push through legislation to end the coastal forest dispute.

April 2004. Bill 19 is introduced, quashing Justice Shaw's ruling on teachers' contracts. Bill 19 enacts the ruling of arbitrator Eric Rice, although Justice Duncan Shaw ruled earlier this year in favour of the BCTF position that Rice's ruling "must be quashed, because he made fundamental errors in law."

Very interesting debate around Bill 19. The Minister of Labour had no idea what that legislation was all about, had no idea how it was going to be implemented, had no idea how to explain such a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. I've debated this Minister of Labour a lot in this House. I must say that the reaction I got from the public on that debate was amongst the most voluminous. I must forward it to the Minister of Labour. It'll make for interesting reading. I'm sure he'll take it all as constructive criticism from the public.

That dispute affected by Bill 19 goes back to January 2002 when the provincial government brought in Bill 28, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. This government is so committed to quashing workers' rights that when they don't get it right with the first piece of draconian legislation, they have to bring in another one. That's how high their level of incompetence is, even with such a large legislative majority — not one piece of legislation to strip contracts, but two. The legislation removed provisions from collective agreements that guaranteed class size numbers and guaranteed special needs student caps and ratios for specialty teachers such as librarians, counsellors, music teachers, English-as-a-second-language instructors and resource room specialists.

That's the abridged version of the labour legislation this government has brought in to hammer workers. That's the abridged version, and the Minister of Labour has the gall to stand up and brag about his labour peace record. Labour peace? If a worker in this province exercises her rights to job action, this government brings in legislation to squish her like a bug over and over and over again.

That brings us to today, April 28, 2004. Before the 2001 election the Premier said he recognized — and I'm quoting — "the importance of HEU workers to the public health care system. They are front-line workers who are necessary. You can't talk to anyone in the health care system who doesn't recognize that, and I want HEU workers, like other workers in the public health care system or in the public service, to recognize their value, and we will value them."

I wonder how the Premier will justify that comment today. I welcome this Premier to enter into this debate on Bill 37 and explain that comment that he made when he was trolling for votes. Oh yeah, that was when he wanted their votes. How will he explain that comment to the HEU workers today when he's taking $200 million out of their families' pockets? How will he explain that comment? What happened to the Premier's promise to value our province's health care workers? It's another broken promise in a long line of broken promises. They've broken their promises to health care workers, and they've broken their promise to British Columbians who are in need of health care.

Here's another quote from the Premier. Before the 2001 election, here's what the Premier told the HEU then:

That's what this Premier said prior to the election. I am prevented by unparliamentary language from identifying exactly what the proper description of those words is, given today's legislation, when this government is introducing legislation so that they can be on the TV news hour, so that they can attack working people in a way that is unprecedented — the very working people that he wants to understand how important their service is.

What's he going to say in April of 2005? I challenge that Premier to do an interview for the Guardian magazine of the Hospital Employees Union in April 2005. I challenge him to do the same nature of interview he did in 2001. Get some guts and do an interview, I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier. I predict that he won't. I predict, actually, there won't be any Guardian magazine interview of this Premier, because maybe the first question those workers would ask is: "How could you have said those things to get our vote and then do what you are doing to us?"

What happened to the "good, strong foundation" the Premier is talking about? Those workers are on strike, and now the government is legislating them back to work. So much for the Premier's promise to the people who provide the foundation of our health care system. By breaking his promise to the HEU, the Premier is also breaking his promise to the people of British Columbia to receive health care "where they need it, when they need it."

As all British Columbians are aware, we're in a very challenging time in the delivery of health care in this province, and those challenges are growing every day. Given these challenging times, it's crucial that the government commit itself to workable solutions for all British Columbians, including health care workers. However, as opposed to seeking out workable solutions that benefit all British Columbians, the government chooses to ram through back-to-work legislation and cut working people's wages by 15 percent in order to fix a problem that's entirely symptomatic of their confrontational approach to health care.

On the very day when we have the federal Health minister backtracking on a statement yesterday that private, for-profit provision of health is acceptable under the Canada Health Act…. Yesterday the federal Minister of Health said: "Oh." He thought that private, for-profit provision of health care is acceptable under the Canada Health Act. Today that federal Minister of Health is doing backflips like you've never seen before to withdraw those comments because of the outrage expressed against them by Canadians. But not this government. They're proceeding down the path towards privatization of health care, and this is just one big step in that direction.

Bill 37 green-lights for this government the privatization of health care services. I just want to address some of that. The government says that privatizing support services saves money. Well, there is no evidence of that. Not one single employer has been able to give evidence that contracting out support services saves money. Oh yeah, it's true that private sector employers pay lower wages and very few benefits, but the reality of these experiments in privatizing health care services is much different. The costs of the management contract often are greater than the savings that could be achieved by reducing those wages and benefits. Why? Because employers get themselves embroiled in contracts that cost more and more overtime because of the inefficiencies of these contractors, because they don't train their employees, because there's high employee turnover because of the pitifully low wages.

Contractors put out low bids in order to win the contract, and then once the employer has turned over the service and equipment to the contractor, the contractor increases their price. That's already happening in our health care system under this government. Oh, the government argues that private business is more efficient. If I've heard this once from these Liberal MLAs, I've heard it a thousand times: "Private business is more efficient." Oh. Well, how are they more efficient? They reduce the front-line staff that gives direct patient care, they use inferior products and supplies, and standards of quality plummet.

There are numerous examples here and elsewhere of services that were contracted out and then brought back in-house because of the problems with the quality of services. The housekeeping at St. Paul's Hospital, the management of food services at St. Vincent's Hospital Langara, the management and housekeeping at the Toronto hospital, logistics at Burnaby Hospital and Toronto hospital, housekeeping at Glasgow — all those services were brought back in-house.

I've got all of this, which shows there isn't one scintilla of proof that privatization of health services increases patient care, enhances the delivery of services or saves any money. In fact, my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I have asked for proof of that from the Minister of Health Services over and over in estimates. He has not delivered one scintilla of evidence — never done a study. But if I am misrepresenting him, I'm sure he can feel free to go back to Hansard and search for where he has provided the evidence of the efficiencies, the cost savings and the better patient care with privatization of health care services. I'm sure he'll do that. God knows, those hundreds of public affairs bureau employees spending millions of our dollars on advertising…. I'm sure they're listening, and I'm sure they'll be able to go through the Hansard record that proves me wrong — not — because I was completely taken aback by this government not having done one study to back up their ideology that privatization of health care works.

The federal Health minister sure got the message quickly in his backflip from yesterday to today. His splitting of ideological hairs — that public administration does not mean public ownership — is indicative of

the dangerous movements we increasingly see to privatize our health system. As the Canadian Health Coalition stated, it is a massive deception on the federal government's part to passively privatize the health care system over time. Our own Premier engaged in deception when he promised not to tear up contracts and when he promised to value the work of hospital support staff.

The common movement we see both federally and provincially to privatizing health care and health care services is alarming. It will be interesting to see in those campaign schools, those federal Liberal campaign schools, what Dave Haggard says about this provincial government's move towards privatizing health care services. I can hardly wait for that.

Today we have the B.C. Liberals telling health care workers that they are too expensive for our health care system — too expensive. On a day when the member for West Vancouver–Capilano stood up and lobbed a soft one to the Minister of Finance — where they all celebrated how wonderful the economy is doing — on the very day that the government is patting themselves on the back because the economy is doing so well, they're taking $200 million out of working people's pockets. Could it be because the absolute balderdash going back and forth between the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and the Minister of Finance can't be backed up by real, substantive economic information? I expect that's the case.

Here's what they forgot to mention in their little "let me lob you an easy one so you can stand up and mislead on how well the economy's doing." Here's what both the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and the Minister of Finance forgot to mention about that Statistics Canada report, and I noticed it wasn't in the Minister of Finance's news release. Here's what he forgot to mention that StatsCan says: "Real gross domestic product slowed" — slowed — "in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia."

Now, that wasn't in the Minister of Finance's news release, and that wasn't part of the question that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano asked. I didn't hear him stand up and say: "Minister of Finance, could you please tell us why the real gross domestic product slowed in British Columbia?"

Here's another aspect of that StatsCan report that this government failed to mention and that is completely relevant to the bill we're debating today. Let me quote from it: "British Columbians drew down savings and borrowed more to finance spending, and their savings rate fell to minus 8.2 percent from minus 5.1 percent in 2002." Oh, and this government says that's a good report. In order to just stay even, British Columbians are having to draw down even faster on their savings.

How does that compare with the rest of the country? Well, in fact, the rate at which British Columbians are having to draw down on their savings is increasing at the most rapid rate in the entire country. British Columbians are having to dip into their savings at a rate greater than anywhere else in the country. Now, was that part of the question of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano? I don't recall it. Was that part of the news release from the Minister of Finance? I don't recall. No, I do recall. No, it wasn't.

Why is that significant? Because this government is attacking British Columbians — tens of thousands of workers today — and saying: "You're going to have to start drawing down even faster on your savings. You better have savings, because we're taking money out of your pocket." How do you think the people in Trail are going to feel about that — the health care workers in Trail who are already having to dip into their savings at a rate unprecedented in the country? This government's reaching in to take even more money out of their pockets. Isn't that wonderful?

How does the member for West Vancouver–Capilano feel about the question he asked of the Minister of Finance now? How does he feel — good? How does this government feel as they attack working people at the same time that working people are facing the toughest times for just staying even with anyone in the country?

Here's another thing that wasn't in the question from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. I didn't notice it in the news release either. Let me quote from the StatsCan report on productivity increases: "Prince Edward Island, Ontario and British Columbia remained almost flat." Oh. Flat. Isn't that a wonderful record to celebrate? Isn't that wonderful?

Well, lucky we're here at 20 to ten so we can set the facts straight, set the record straight about the spin and bumf that this government feeds British Columbians. I guess they're hoping no one's watching, though. I guess they timed this so that as few British Columbians as possible…. As they're trying to put their kids to bed, make the lunches for the next morning, maybe working shifts, they won't have time to notice what this government is doing to working people.

This government has taken every possible opportunity to avoid its responsibility. When it came to ensuring that drug costs were kept under control, they made Pharmacare more expensive, and they tried to undo the one program that does control costs — the reference-based pricing. None of it has worked. None of it has worked to control costs. All it's done is off-load those costs onto people where the government used to pay those costs. Why? Because the government won't do the one thing that's required to control drug costs, and that's to take on the pharmaceutical companies for their outrageous prices. No, this government won't do that. That might interfere with their big election donors. Instead, they attack the working people who look after those seniors.

Since the Liberals took power, surgery wait-lists have increased. The Minister of Health Services likes to stand up and say there are 38,000 more procedures

being done. So what? He promised there would be health care when they need it, where they need it. He didn't say, when they made the promise to reduce wait-lists: "Oh, we'll only do it if it's easy and the population doesn't age and the population doesn't grow." No. They made a commitment to reduce wait-lists. Who cares about their justification? Of course those 38,000 more surgical procedures should be done, but it doesn't deliver on their promise to reduce wait-lists.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services says: "Oh, we didn't promise to reduce wait-lists." You know, he's probably right. He takes great pride, probably. Isn't that wonderful? I can hardly wait for him to stand up and say: "Oh, you must have been wrong when we promised to reduce wait-lists." I guess those attacks day after day on the previous government for surgical wait-lists…. He was just having fun. I guess he was just having fun. I guess those days that they said how awful it was that surgical wait-lists were the length they were, he was just having fun, and nobody should have possibly thought that meant that they'd do a better job.

Well, they're not doing a better job. They're not even holding even. They're doing a worse job — 26 percent increase in the wait-lists and double-digit increase in wait times. In the four-month period from September 2003 to January 2004, the number of people on surgical wait-lists in B.C. grew by more than 3,500 people — a 5 percent increase in just four months. This government blames the cancellation of surgeries on the working people who are exercising their collective bargaining rights. Have they looked in the mirror to figure out who is really responsible for people not getting their surgeries?

The Minister of Health Services heckles to say: "Where did we promise that we'd reduce surgical wait-lists?" Well, at every single turn as they shilled for votes, this government said they'd do a better job in the health care system, not a worse job at a rate that's increasing — exploding.

Here we are, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health Services says 38,000 new procedures were done under his government last year, but here's the real truth of the statistics. Up until last September, 450 people a month were being added to surgery lists. In the last four months that number jumped to close to 900 people a month being added to surgical wait-lists — a 100 percent increase in the rate of expansion of surgical wait-lists. Every month the wait-lists grow under these B.C. Liberals. In the last four months the rate of increase has doubled. This government blames this dispute for the backlog of surgeries. Shameful.

I expect people will look to this government and say the rise in surgery wait-lists is another broken promise by this Liberal government, but I can hardly wait for those election debates where the Minister of Health Services stands up and says: "Oh, we never promised to reduce wait-lists, so don't blame us for the exploding increase of wait times of people who need surgery." The increase in wait-lists has not only grown by almost 25 percent for their term in office, but in the last four months the rate of increase has doubled.

Let's look at the amount of time British Columbians are on those wait-lists — 33 percent longer for orthopedic surgery, 38 percent longer for cardiac, 23 percent longer for gynecological surgery. Thanks to this government's mismanagement of health care, there are thousands more British Columbians languishing on the wait-lists for longer than ever before. Doesn't matter how you want to re-spin those numbers. The reality is that British Columbians are waiting longer and longer to get surgery because of this government's failed health care policies.

Here's another example of the government's misplaced priorities when it comes to health care. The Fraser health authority, whose wait-lists are growing out of control, just unveiled its new logo. It seems that these days you can't turn on your TV, open up your mailbox or read a newspaper without being inundated with an avalanche of charts and graphs designed to pick a fight with doctors, with nurses, with health care workers. Thousands of dollars are being spent on ads to polish the government image. They've got 74 MLAs, and that's not enough. Those MLAs can't go to their communities and do the work they're supposed to do, explaining their government's agenda. This government has to spend $19 million on ads.

Talk about a condemnation of those Liberal MLAs. Seventy-four — is that how many it is? It's hard to keep track. Seventy-four Liberal MLAs — the biggest majority in history — and they have to spend at an unprecedented rate to "explain" to British Columbians their health care agenda.

But the HEU's job action is just another reminder that this government's misplaced priorities are wreaking havoc on our health care system. While the government wastes millions of dollars on advertising telling British Columbians what a good job they're doing in health care, health care is in a crisis. Perhaps their government should put their minds to coming to a workable solution over the HEU's job action instead of focusing on polishing their public image.

When we look at the record of this government in health care, all we see is conflict, confrontation and reduced services. In the Nanaimo doctors' dispute, the Minister of Health put huge staffing cuts on the table, putting patients at risk and creating, in the deputy Health minister's own words, the most frightening experiences in her career. She said that at the Public Accounts Committee meeting. The most frightening experiences in her career — deputy Health minister.

In this dispute, the minister proposed big cuts to emergency care with the full knowledge that the Nanaimo emergency room was just as busy as Victoria's. Yet he continued to put patients at risk by proposing big cuts to staffing levels. Not once did this Minister of Health Services stand up and say how he was putting patient care at risk — not once.

What remains, Mr. Speaker? Contract rights have been stripped. Longtime workers will be let go to fend as best they can. They'll get whacked twice. Hospital workers with pink slips already, which they've had to take home to their families, are now going to have their wages cut by this government, by this legislation, retroactively. How's that? You get a pink slip from this government, you're out of a job, you have to explain to your family how you're going to be feeding them, and then you have to explain to them why you have to give money back to this government because of this legislation. "Whack 'em once, and if that doesn't work, whack 'em again," says the member for Vancouver–North Thompson. He finally got his way.

J. MacPhail: Kamloops–North Thompson. Whack 'em once, and if it doesn't work, whack them again. That government today is legislating that principle, enshrining that principle.

Patient care is no better. Real change in our health care system is as elusive as ever. The public is discouraged and unwilling to believe anyone in government cares enough to really fix what needs to be fixed in our health care system. And that fix will not come by paying doctors more or cooks less. It will not come by again reorganizing our health care districts or by hiring the latest management guru. It will not come by trying to make a raft out of worn rhetoric about "client-centred services" or "putting patients first," as if we are all not collectively responsible for the problems in our health care system.

We are all responsible. We are all responsible for the current state of our health care system, and it's time that we acknowledge that. But when you listen to the Minister of Labour or to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission or the member for East Kootenay, that government side is not able or willing to accept and acknowledge that simple fact. Like the unwilling drunk looking at the 12 steps, too many on the government side prefer the delusion of a nonexistent past to the sober reality of a public health care system that delivers quality health care in an environment of respect for all who deliver them.

Privatization and contracting out are not health care solutions. They are symptoms of a lazy government that revels in the heady excitement of crushing its opponents to the hard work of governing. But my colleague and I take our responsibility for the current state of our health care system seriously, and we've demonstrated that. I've called for first reading of a private member's bill that makes all of this attack on working people completely unnecessary, and I am going to move an amendment that demonstrates that. I'm moving an amendment to second reading, a reasoned amendment, seconded by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Mr. Speaker, for your edification, I have a copy.

J. MacPhail: Every single Liberal MLA who cares about their constituents, about the value that these health care workers contribute to patient care, about the principle of free collective bargaining and about the fact that people shouldn't be robbed of their wages should stand up and support this reasoned amendment. There is not one scintilla of reason for them not to be able to support this reasoned amendment.

In fact, it's a perfect opportunity for members of this Legislature to put forward their principles for taking responsibility for the state of our health care system — not by attacking one group, not by absconding with their wages, but by doing the right thing and passing legislation that puts people back to work, surgeries started up, health care services started up, bargaining continued…. It's the least these Liberal MLAs can do.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to the amendment, and I rise to speak in support of the amendment. The Health Care Services Continuation Act introduced by the Leader of the Opposition — by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings — earlier this afternoon proposes a 90-day moratorium on privatization in the health care sector and puts both the HEU and the HEABC back to the bargaining table to hammer out an agreement that works for patients. It is a viable option to this bill that we're debating in this House, Bill 37, as it ensures that health care workers get back to the table, get back to work with the confidence that bargaining can continue in good faith and that patient care is not compromised.

Strikes in the health care system hurt patients, but so do the actions of a government that chooses confrontation over negotiation. With another option already on the table before the Legislature, Bill 37 is simply unnecessary. Worse than that, it is going to further exacerbate the situation in the future. The alternative the opposition has already put forward is a win-win situation. It's a win-win for everyone. It's a win, I believe, for the government to gain some credibility back for the many, many broken promises that this Premier and this government have delivered to British Columbians. It puts patients back into the care, for them to receive

the care they need, as the employees and employers are able to sit down and resume talks without outside pressure.

It is time to honour the promises made three years ago to patients, from this government to the health care providers who care for the patients, and not legislate a contract in their name. This motion will allow the government to do exactly that. The Minister of Labour talks a lot about the value of cooling-off periods. I quote the minister when he debated the Health Care Services Continuation Act on June 19, 2001. He said:

This is what the minister said then. There is an opportunity to yield some of the benefits by actually getting people back to the bargaining table, to ensure that negotiations take place in good faith, to make sure that patient care is not jeopardized or compromised. Equally important is to ensure that the future of our health care system will not be further damaged by the actions of this government today.

The minister also said on August 7, when he dealt with the transit workers: "Mr. Speaker, imposing collective agreements is not something that my government will ever take lightly. It's only something to be contemplated after all options have been exhausted." We have an opportunity here for the minister and this government to actually do what they said and what they claim to believe in — that is, to exhaust all options available to them. We have an option right now before this House for the government to cool their jets for a moment.

Instead of being so eager to go after health care workers in our system and instead of going after working families and working individuals in our communities, the government can actually take the opportunity and cool themselves off and stand down Bill 37. The government can actually implement Bill M201, Health Care Services Continuation Act, that was introduced today by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition. It provides for a 90-day period which would allow for negotiations to take place. It would allow the employer and the employee to get back to the bargaining table without compromising health care.

The claim that the minister and this government says — that they worry about the increase in surgical wait-lists…. Well, they don't have to worry about that with Bill M201, because it would bring the workers back to work, and there would be no compromise whatsoever with respect to the wait-lists. Then the government can perhaps turn their minds to why the wait-list is increasing all on its own since this government took office. As we know, the wait-lists have increased over 26 percent under this government, which claims they can manage better on the health care side and that they can deliver health care to British Columbians when they need it and where they need it.

Lo and behold, we actually have a situation where, if you speak to British Columbians out on the streets, many of them will tell you health care is now worse than it was three years ago. With this action with Bill 37, if the government allows it to go through — and I suspect they're preparing to ram it through today…. By doing that, all they will do in the long term is hurt the health care system and hurt patient care even more than what they have done to date.

The Premier, I have to remind members of this House, told HEU workers, told the HEU Guardian reporter who interviewed him, that health care workers "don't have to worry about it" with respect to layoffs or privatization. The Premier said:

That is a direct quote from the Premier prior to the election. If the Premier wants to demonstrate that he has any shred of integrity, that his words are worth the paper they were printed on, stand down Bill 37 today. Support the private member's bill, Bill M201, that's been put forward by my colleague to allow for the two sides to get back to the bargaining table and for patient care to be delivered while negotiations are taking place in good faith. If there is any shred of integrity to the Premier's words, then the government will do exactly that — support the amendment that has been moved by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record information about contracting-out and the notion that somehow contracting-out is the panacea for the health care chal-

lenges that we face. This government believes in it when, in fact, other jurisdictions that have gone down that path have found exactly the opposite.

The cost savings in contracting-out seldom materialize. This is what other jurisdictions have found when they went down that road. The argument that private business is more efficient usually translates into reductions in front-line staff, the use of inferior products and supplies, and low quality standards. There are numerous examples where this has happened, and we stand to learn from it.

So before the government rushes out to lay off even more staff; before the government rushes out under Bill 37 to reduce the wages of health care workers significantly and to tell health care workers by that action that they, their jobs and the services they provide to our patients are not important; before the government engages in that action, step back. Step back and review the information, and learn from other jurisdictions that have gone down that path already.

The examples in other jurisdictions where contracting-out actually cost the system even more money and delivered services that were substandard in the end…. In some instances, those jurisdictions had to actually bring those services back in-house within government. As examples, the housekeeping at St. Paul's Hospital; the management of food services at St. Vincent's and Langara; the management of housekeeping at Toronto hospital; logistics at Burnaby Hospital and Toronto hospital; housekeeping at Glasgow, the largest hospital in the U.K. — they have learned from those experiences, and I will go into more details about those situations momentarily.

I also want to point out that experienced staff with an understanding of the health care environment, many years of experience and job-specific skills that cannot be easily replaced are now going to be gone with the government's notion of privatization and further eroded with Bill 37 if the government does not stand down Bill 37 and accept the amendment.

Hospital managers have less capacity to set, monitor and enforce quality standards, and make no mistake about that. Quality standards mean patient care and impact the patients and their families absolutely. Overtime contracting-out limits the flexibility in addressing skill shortages in professional occupations by transferring non-professional duties to support staff. It's another ramification of contracting-out.

The government needs to pay attention to the experiences of other jurisdictions and to learn from them. In January 2002, Sodexho, a health care subsidiary in the U.K., gained notoriety in Scotland after a joint union-management inspection team found filthy conditions at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow's largest hospital. According to reports in the Glasgow Evening Times, bloody surgical scrubs were found dumped in an elevator used to transport patients' meals. Piles of waste were stored in tunnels under the hospital, making it a fire hazard. Hospital staff and their union, Unison, attributed the problems to staff shortages brought about by the private contractor's milking of profits from an underfunded system.

Sodexho is one of the private firms that this government has gone to, to deliver health care services to British Columbians. Yet that is their track record in another jurisdiction. It was reported publicly in another jurisdiction.

In the United States, linen laundered under contract by Sodexho was reported by a nursing division of a California hospital to be contaminated with fecal smears, blood, hair, dirt and tape. Linen used by humans from the hospital was mixed by the contractor with linen used in medical research on animals.

In Hamilton, Ontario, Sodexho currently has a contract to do all housekeeping at Chedoke Hospital and at the 40 percent of the McMaster University Medical Centre used by the university. Mike Walters, president of CUPE local 4800, which represents hospital cleaners in Hamilton, says:

This is the track record of Sodexho in yet another jurisdiction reported out publicly, yet this government is eager to contract out services by health care workers who provide for a standard that meets, I think, the test that British Columbians expect — and have the right to expect — in the health care delivery arena. That's one example.

Now, from Scotland — the Daily Record, January 25, 2002. I will just quote some of the reports of privatization in the health care delivery in this jurisdiction that they have experienced.

A joint management and union inspection team found filthy conditions throughout Glasgow Royal Infirmary in areas used by patients and staff. They found that piled-up soiled bags, discarded operating theatre material and normal waste are all stacked with bundles of linen near the infirmary's ambulance bay.

Now unions at the hospital are demanding Health minister Malcolm Chisholm sack the private cleaning contractor Sodexho for failing to deliver decent services. Bloody surgical scrubs from an operating theatre are dumped in a lift used to carry patients' meals. Staff says the area is infested with cockroaches. Infected waste lies mixed with other linen because no one has time to remove it. The complaints include a cleaner in a ward hit by two superbugs being told to serve patients meals after mopping up toilets. Then inspection teams found that the bug MRSA, which resists antibiotics, had affected patients, but a cleaner was supposed to give out food after cleaning the ward and toilets.

Glasgow health bosses still see the Royal Infirmary as the mainstay of their plans for a £550 million shake-

up of hospital services, which includes moving more services to the hospital and closing other sites.

This week's findings by the inspection teams are the latest in a series of criticisms to hit the Royal. Last year we reported on consultants' fears that patients were no longer safe because there were not enough medical and cleaning staff. Patients complained about dirty wards, and we reviewed the case of Albert Hutton, whose family said he was left to rot after contracting the MRSA superbug at the Royal. Cleaners say they're so short-staffed — one person to four wards instead of two to a ward under the NHS — that they have no time to dust critical areas.

Contracting-out services and reports from other jurisdictions. This instance is from Scotland and their experience of contracting-out. There are other examples, which in this kind of situation, I think, only highlights the need for British Columbia — this government — to step back and re-examine exactly what it is that they are doing.

The privatization scheme has in other jurisdictions found appalling examples of standards delivered to patients, but they've also found that the savings they were supposed to have didn't materialize. I quote from another article: "The health authority doesn't save money, but the companies get to extract profits. That's the problem. Their only motivation is profit, so there are very few incentives to cut costs, and wrong decisions are made." This is a quote from someone from Scotland who went through this experience, who came forward and said — guess what — that the savings that the government was hoping to save actually didn't materialize.

Now, those are from afar, one might argue, Mr. Speaker, but closer to home we have situations where the contracting-out experience already has demonstrated a lowering of standards of care. This was reported out recently — March 9, 2004 — in the Abbotsford Times:

This is the situation British Columbians now are faced with. We are faced with the situation where the government says to heck with health care workers who are trained, to heck with health care workers who provide for critical services — a continuum of services — within our hospitals.

They are not, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson likes to call them, toilet-bowl cleaners. They are much, much more than that. These workers provide for the full continuum of health care services that is needed to be delivered at every stage when a patient enters into a health care arena. They should be valued.

They should be honoured in the way in which the Premier claimed that he would honour them. The Premier claimed, prior to the election, that he would not rip up collective agreements, that a 48-year-old housekeeper would have nothing to worry about in terms of the individual losing her job. It turns out all of that was completely false.

The Premier led people to believe that they had nothing to worry about, that they were valued workers within the health care system, but instead the government turned their backs on them the minute they got elected to office. The minute the Premier became the Premier in this administration, the minute this government came into office, they looked for every way to be confrontational with workers in our community. Health care workers absolutely took a huge hit by this government's false promises.

The false promises made by this government have been demonstrated time and time again, with the government legislating contracts, with the government bringing down the hammer, using their majority at every turn whenever there was a labour dispute. Virtually at every sector the government is saying to the workers that you have no rights in British Columbia as long as the Liberals remain in office and as long as the Premier holds his position. That's what this government has done.

And this government has escalated the health care dispute to date to where we are at. Make no mistake about it. The strike is taking place as a result of this government's action alone. The strike is taking place because this government has said to health care workers: "Not only do my words have no meaning when I said them to you prior to the election, but do not count on what I say to be true, for I will demonstrate to you time and time and time again that I — our government, this government — will override the Premier's own words and own promises."

In that process the government is saying to the health care workers they are not valued at all. In fact, the government's action with Bill 37 is, I believe, affirming what the member for Kamloops–North Thompson has said about health care workers in our health care system — that they are and should be treated with disdain. That's what the government is doing.

In this legislation that the government is tabling, which we are debating in this House, the government is proposing to cut 15 percent of the wages of health care workers. They are saying to them that they have to work longer hours for the same amount of money. In the process, the government is saying to health care workers that there can only be one interpretation from the government's actions, and that is that the government does not value the contributions of these health care workers. That's why it's going after them at the rate and the speed and with the kind of harshness this government has demonstrated to date.

The government will say: "Well, of course we expect the opposition to say exactly that. After all, it was the previous administration who negotiated the previous contracts that gave" — they would assert — "the health care workers the sky." Well, not so. For the record, the negotiations for the health care workers went through several administrations.

Some of the complaints that this government has made about the things that the health care workers now have and have been able to negotiate actually came from the Social Credit government. As it happens, the Minister of Labour himself was part of the Social Credit administration. In fact, if you look around the cabinet table, look around the government bench, there are a number of Socreds-turned-Liberals around the government bench. They should know the negotiations went through several administrations.

The issue here is this. If the government says, "We need to address health care costs. We need to look and see how we can address the challenges within the health care system…." I suspect that if the government was genuine in trying to find a solution to these ongoing difficulties, the government would invite all relevant people — health care workers, patients, doctors and so on — to the table and talk about how we could better deliver the health care system and how we can meet those challenges. But no, the government is bent on one ideology. The ideology is — to borrow the word from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — to whack the health care workers, not once but twice.

The papers have actually published articles about this. Here's what Barbara Yaffe had to say on April 28, 2004. It's not just the opposition who's saying the government's approach is idiotic or unworkable and, quite frankly, damaging to the health care system. Barbara Yaffe actually says:

J. Kwan: The Minister of Health Services is heckling me, going: "Oh, it was your government." Well, let's just put this on the record. Barbara Yaffe was wrong. The pension plan was not just scaled back; it no longer exists for MLAs. That was done by the Mike Harcourt government. MLAs elected in the class of 1996, and from then on, do not have pensions. I, for one, as an example — I was an MLA elected in the class of 1996 — do not have a pension. The Mike Harcourt government did the right thing and did actually scale back benefits for MLAs.

What did this government do? I will go on record momentarily to talk about the wastefulness of this government in a whole array of areas — including increasing the pay for cabinet members through a backroom, quiet deal. That's exactly what this government has done: increased cabinet's pay, quietly, while cutting low-income earners, health care workers — while gutting and firing health care workers, who are part of a critical continuum of health care services delivery.

The capital city allowance, as it is known. This government does not like to talk about…. Perhaps the public does not know what a capital city allowance is. MLAs and cabinet members…. Capital city allowance is this. Where an MLA works in Victoria, if you overnight in Victoria, you earn $150 per night. Cabinet members under the previous administration were not, when they came and did cabinet business, entitled to the so-called capital city allowance. The Liberal government quietly changed that rule so that the largest cabinet in the history of British Columbia can collect the capital city allowance without the public knowing that their wages have been increased.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, hon. members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: That's what the government has done. While they increased their own wages, they are now, under Bill 37, cutting the wages of relatively low-income earners in the health care system by 20 percent.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management goes: "Oh, 20 percent." Well, then let him take a 20 percent wage reduction. Why doesn't the minister volunteer that? Why don't all of the government MLAs and government cabinet members offer exactly that? They sit there and just sort of, kind of, scoff at the notion that, somehow, health care workers' 20 percent wage reduction is nothing. They can scoff at it as though it is nothing. Well, why don't they take a 20 percent cut? Instead, they actually increased their own wages in the quiet, secretive way by $150 a night when they come to Victoria.

This is an article printed in the Vancouver Sun, dated April 28, entitled "An Absurd Strategy for Cutting Health Costs." It's not just the opposition who's saying that the government's solution doesn't work. It's not health care workers, which this government, I know, would like to say are self-interest groups. In fact, Barbara Yaffe, from the Vancouver Sun, is saying that this government's solution is not working.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is saying: "Oh, maybe that's the voice in the wilderness." No, actually, it isn't. Here's another letter to the editor, by Erik Sorensen:

From the letter, the individual says he's always voted for the Liberal government, and yet….

J. Kwan: Oh, maybe that's funny. Maybe that's funny to the Minister of Mines. Maybe he thinks that broken promise after broken promise from this government is a laughing matter. Well, actually, maybe that explains it — that this government just takes lightly what they promise and what they said because their word doesn't really mean anything. If they break a promise, oh well, they can just laugh and let it slide off their backs, and that's exactly what this government is doing. That's what this government has demonstrated time and time and time again. It is the Premier's word that you have to hang your record on, Mr. Speaker, and that this government has to hang their record on.

You know, I come from a place and a culture where I was taught by my parents that there is one thing that you have to value more than anything else, and that is your own personal honour. When you give someone your word, keep to your word. My parents taught me that. In fact, my husband now teaches our children exactly that. My nine-year-old stepson always asks my husband…. He is a funster a lot of the times. He jokes around, and sometimes you just don't know when he is joking and when he is not. My nine-year-old stepson would say, "Will you give me your word, Dad?" when he wanted to know if his dad is joking or not and whether or not to take whatever is being discussed seriously. When his dad gives Cole, my stepson, his word, then he knows that it is of value, that it is something that you can count on.

Maybe that's a lesson this Liberal government can learn from a nine-year-old. Maybe this is what this government can demonstrate to British Columbians — that their word and their honour are worth something; that when they say something, they actually keep to what they say, instead of providing the kinds of falsehoods that this government has demonstrated to the health care workers to date.

I want to just turn for a moment to talk about the waste that this government has engaged in so far under this government's administration — what they have done with taxpayers' money. Where has it gone? If they say the government needs to save money and therefore they have to go after health care workers in the fashion they're demonstrating, maybe the government can lead by example. Maybe the government can lead by example by looking at some of their actions to date. What has the government done with respect to health care costs, and what has the government done with respect to their spending? Well, let's just see.

I have already talked about the perks that the government has given themselves, that the Premier has given to himself and to his cabinet. The forecast for the 2004 capital city allowance given to cabinet ministers just to show up in Victoria: that's a hike of $262,477 for a ten-month period in 2001-02. In 2002-03 that's $428,321. That's a total of $657,000 that this cabinet has pocketed. This Minister of Sustainable Resources Management says a 20 percent pay cut for health care workers is nothing. That's nothing, when they have pocketed some $657,000 in pay increases — quietly. Do you know what? When I was a cabinet minister in the previous administration, I never…

J. Kwan: …took home the capital city allowance pay when I was performing cabinet duties. I never did that, unlike the cabinet around this table right now. It was $657,000 that they took in the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, and that amount is still counting.

Let's see what else this government has done. They have spent $5 million — wasted $5 million — on the mean-spirited and ill-conceived disability review, bringing pain and suffering to people with disabilities on income assistance. The government launched this review based on nothing sounder than their own ideological beliefs — wrong-headed assumptions that somehow people on disability, on income assistance, were cheating the system. It turns out they wasted $5 million and found only 46 people who should not have been receiving disability assistance through income assistance.

Let's talk about the broken B.C. Rail promise — $15 million that this government has wasted on their broken promise around the B.C. Rail deal. Then in the area of health care, it's $19 million that this government has wasted on partisan health care ads. That's $19 million that could have gone right to surgeries, reducing the surgery wait-list that this government has created under their administration and increased by some 26 percent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: The 2004 PAB budget for protecting the Premier's image spent $33 million to do that. Let me just break it down a little bit. Some $600,000 for the politically friendly Pro Show, a Liberal supporter-contributor, to produce the propaganda sessions, the open cabinet meetings, they say…. Pro Show got the new contract under a skewed competition process. Let's just break it down, the $600,000. It is only $25,000 per open cabinet — image-improving, an attempt to image-improve for this Liberal government. It costs taxpayers only $25,000 per show.

How many millions of dollars is this government spending on the so-called Spirit of 2000 international ad campaigns?

J. Kwan: The 2010 international ad campaigns. This government is running around putting ads all over the place. How many thousands of taxpayers' dollars?

Then this government blew another $6 million on partisan ads for their failed Coquihalla privatization attempt; another $1.5 million in education advertising; friends and political insiders — $2.5 million; in back rent and penalties for the Liberals' fish-farming friends — $2.3 million; the Doug Walls scandal — $600,000 and counting; over $400,000 on other questionable contracts under the Ministry of Children and Family Development; then $1 million-plus for the health board directors' fees; and $18 million for the Premier's little pet project, the portal, as we call it, the web portal project.

J. Kwan: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill is saying: "Oh, on time, on budget." It just goes to show you what the member doesn't know and how little he does know. On time, on budget, my foot. They had to move the project into another minister's budget just so that the Premier can come and say that he didn't overspend his budget. That's what really happened. That's exactly what happened with this government.

How much more? Some $550,000 on a consultant for the Premier's alternative service delivery secretariat project, better known as privatization. Oh my goodness, the list just goes on and on: $12.2 million that the government quietly slipped to stockbrokers; a $12.2 million cut to a fee reduction for the B.C. Securities Commission; a $9 million waste on a shameful referendum on minority rights for the aboriginal people, the referendum on treaties; $3 million….

Hon. member, the Chair has allowed considerable latitude on second reading, but we are debating the amendment to the bill. Could we please return to the amendment.

J. Kwan: I'll link for the members of this House why these figures are relevant. We are dealing with Bill 37, where the government is talking about wage rollbacks of 20 percent for people who are making $18 an hour, as an example. We're talking about a bill, an action by this government where they are privatizing over 5,000 jobs of workers who are critical people in the health care delivery continuum. Why? Because the governments say they need to save money.

If you think that the government says they need to save money and that they may actually review their track record to date and look into themselves for how they might have been able to save some taxpayers' money…. Maybe they should begin with the cabinet right now in terms of the quiet, secretive increase to their salary of some $657,000 over two years. Maybe they should begin with that exercise.

Yes, the amendment that we have tabled, that the opposition has tabled, will say to this government and will signal to British Columbians that this government

will attempt — although it might be too late, at least they will attempt — to honour what they said they would do during the election campaign — just a tiny bit of honour. Maybe they will see fit to actually show British Columbians that they have that decency. That's the test before us with this amendment today. The amendment hurts the health care system. Make no mistake about that. It would have long-term ramifications in the health care system.

I just want to point out that the government's action in terms of their targets — let's just be clear — in terms of who they are targeting…. The Premier also said prior to the election that he supported pay equity for British Columbians and in British Columbia. Let's talk about pay equity. Let's talk about what this bill does and whom this government is trying to attack, and let's put the faces to these individuals.

Let me just put on the record that 85 percent of the workers in HEU are women. This statistic might come as a surprise to this House. But take note that 85 percent of HEU workers are women. In addition to having a very high proportion of women workers, the HEU is a union that represents a higher proportion of immigrant women, visible minority women and older women that are present in B.C.'s working population. Many are first-generation immigrants, single mothers and older women who are too young to retire early. The breakdown is as follows: visible minorities in British Columbia, 19 percent — in HEU, 27 percent; immigrants in British Columbia, 20 percent — within HEU, 31 percent; women in British Columbia, slightly over 50 percent — within HEU, 85 percent; the average age of workers, 39 years in British Columbia — within HEU, 47 years old.

These are the women most likely to face discrimination in the workforce. These are also women most likely to face barriers in overcoming this discrimination. In addition to language and culture barriers, these women face challenges accessing resources. In many cases, these women don't even know what resources are available to them or how to find them within their community.

I want to talk about the kind of work performed by front-line health care support workers. The work has historically been undervalued because of the kind of work that it is. It is women's work. A March 2003 study by SFU professor Dr. Marjorie Griffin Cohen titled Destroying Pay Equity: The Effects of Privatizing Health Care in British Columbia, examined what privatization means for the 85 percent of women working for the HEU in our hospitals. Dr. Cohen is an economist and professor of political science at Simon Fraser University. She's also the chair of the women's studies department. She's the author and editor of several books and journal articles. Dr. Cohen is a nationally recognized scholar and was recently awarded a co-recipient of a $1 million research grant through the federal Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Let me just put on the record the executive summary of this study. You know, Mr. Speaker, before I get to the executive summary, let me just say that since the privatization of this government last year, front-line workers at the Vancouver General Hospital now have the lowest pay scale in the country. In fact, the pay scale is far below anywhere else in Canada. The pay rate at the Vancouver General Hospital is 11 percent to 14 percent less than anywhere else in Canada. The actual wage is $9.50 an hour. The new wage is half of the previous rate's pay for the same work. It is far below any other province in terms of the wages paid for the same job.

The privatization of health care services in B.C. not only endangers patient care and safety standards in our hospitals, it also marks a step backwards in wage equity for women. This legislation, Bill 37, will pave the way for more privatization and allow for further erosion of pay equity. From this perspective, this legislation falls into line with other attacks this government has made on B.C. women. Along with cuts to women's centres, cuts to child care services, cuts to legal aid, cuts to social services, cuts to safe houses, this bill repeats the aggressive and confrontational stand this government has taken with the most vulnerable women in our communities.

The government likes to say that they are required to take this action, that they have no choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. The amendment before you allows for the government to actually step back and give the opportunity for negotiation to take place in this sector.

The executive summary. Let me just put some of that information on record. The paper challenges the assumption that privatizing hospital support work would save the health care system money.

Of course, I was talking earlier about the issues in terms of pay equity and how that also deals a hand that further sets back women in the workplace — further sets them back in terms of their years of struggle, years and years of struggle, to try to move ahead, to try to move beyond the situation that they are faced with, that historically they have been faced with.

The women's community, actually, in our debate with the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services, when I asked her what the government is doing and what the government has done in the area of pay equity…. There was a report that the government had actually set out and initiated under their administration to address the issue of pay equity — only to find out that nothing has been done to date. Now what we have on the issue around pay equity illustrates, I think, what this government's approach to women and issues around equity is — to further set back women in the workforce in the area of pay equity.

The stats that I've put on record with respect to health care workers, with respect to the HEU…. I don't think the government's action directed towards them is an accident. I don't believe that is an accident. I think the government, actually, knew exactly what they were doing, but they don't care much about what the ramifications are for women and their families, many of whom are immigrant women and single mothers.

I want to put on record this information. Again, a recent article in the Vancouver Sun, dated April 28, 2004, "Contracting Out an Affordable Solution," by Don Cayo:

In spite of that, the government saw fit that they should cut health care workers' pay, that they should introduce Bill 37 and try to ram it through. They saw fit that this is the only thing, the only option they have, when in fact the private members' bill tabled before you, Bill M201, is an option the government can undertake to not do that.

Here is the executive summary that I said I was going to put on record from Dr. Cohen:

That's the executive summary by Dr. Cohen. You know what? That's what this government is doing with Bill 37. The wage rollback is in addition to what has already taken place, as my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has identified. There's a provision within the legislation that talks about retroactivity that allows for a wage rollback to be retroactive to April 1. Those workers who have already been laid off — who have already been sent packing — actually would have to pay back moneys to this government, because the legislation is retroactive to April 1.

April 1, I think, has become a new record in terms of what this government has done that has impacted British Columbians negatively. One, I suppose, would have hoped that this was all meant to be an April Fool's joke — that the date April 1 was actually not real. It turns out, unfortunately for British Columbians, that that is not the case. The government, time and time and time again, has actually taken British Columbians, who believed him when he campaigned prior to the last election, for fools. That's what this government has done. This Premier and this government have demonstrated time and time and time again that their word is not worth the paper that it's written on. Breaking contracts means nothing when this Premier says it.

The business climate that this government likes to say it is bringing back to British Columbia…. They say they're restoring confidence in British Columbia in the business sector. How could it be that they can say that with a straight face when they do not honour legal contracts that have been signed, when they can rip them up, just like that, with the stroke of a pen, and then they can further erode what was legally negotiated by legislation, such as Bill 37 — what this government is doing?

It is time for the government to take stock. It is time for the Liberal MLAs to review their government's record honestly and to be true to themselves. It is time for the Liberal MLAs to stand up for the constituents in their communities. It is time for the Liberal MLAs to demonstrate courage. There is an opportunity to do that. Support the amendment that is before you. Restore, at least partially, some of the damage that this government has done with its actions to date in the health care sector. Support the amendment. Get back to the bargaining table. Protect the delivery of health care services to patients, not just for today but for the future.

I would urge the Liberal MLAs to stand up in this House to represent their constituents and vote in support of the amendment that is before you.

I would just remind all members that we are debating the amendment to the motion, not the main motion.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to make a few comments with respect to the reasoned amendment to Bill 37. I will support the amendment. I do believe that, in fact, the amendment will lead, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, to further conflict and deterioration with respect to patient care.

I received today an unsolicited letter from a constituent with respect to this issue that really states, briefly, coherently and persuasively some of the concerns that my constituents feel with respect to Bill 37 — thus the need for the amendment that is before the House. She writes:

She goes on to say that as a professional working in a leadership role within health care, she welcomed these goals. Then she goes on to say:

The Speaker: Please, hon. member, you know better than to use personal names in this House, and you cannot do by another means what you can't do by yourself.

I am thankful for this opportunity and delighted to have this opportunity to stand here today and speak for my constituents, speak to their concerns. I will indeed support this amendment, and I look forward to making comment in second reading with respect to the legislation that is before us.

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to keep my comments brief. I'm sure all members of the House are looking forward to moving on beyond this temporary ruse by the opposition with respect to this amendment. I certainly would not support this amendment. No member of the official opposition would support this amendment. It is entirely — Mr. Speaker, I think you'd acknowledge — contrary to the spirit, the letter and the intent of Bill 37. It has no relationship to it, and it is in no way an appropriate amendment to the bill. It is indeed, I think, simply a siren song to socialist irresponsibility and to NDP irresponsibility in respect of labour relations in this province.

Why are we here today? Why are we here at 11:30 at night? I think if the NDP is looking for the answer to that question, they need only look in the mirror. They have been, in their decade in power, from 1991 to 2001, completely irresponsible in the management of labour relations. Virtually every contract in the public sector is evidence of that.

In terms of the agreement and the union we're talking about tonight, one need only compare to every other jurisdiction in Canada. The shortest hours among any jurisdiction. The longest vacation entitlement — by a full three weeks and, in some cases, four weeks — of any other jurisdiction in Canada. The highest wages in every category in Canada, by some 20 to 40 percent. Every category across the board, in comparison to other provinces.

If we need to ask the question, "Why are we here?" the NDP need to address that by their own irresponsibility in labour management in this province.

This is, as I noted, not only contrary to the spirit and the letter of Bill 37; this amendment is entirely contrary to the interests of patients in this province and to their families — entirely contrary to it. Just as….

Hon. G. Abbott: The Leader of the Opposition, again spouting more irresponsibility, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. Tell us more irresponsibility.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can, I'm sure along with many other members of this House, talk about unfortunate incidents, unfortunate problems, crises that have occurred in people's lives in this province as a consequence of the labour disruption. Earlier this evening I heard about a constituent in Shuswap, my home riding. In fact, she's from my home town. She has been living with the stress of a serious kidney problem for some weeks now. She was slated to have a test for kidney cancer tomorrow. It has been cancelled. She is going to have to live with that horrible stress in her life until this dispute is resolved. We have desperation. We have anxiety. We have fear.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know the NDP is prepared to let people live on with that fear and anxiety for another 90 days, but we're not. We're not going to allow the NDP's irresponsibility as contained in their amendment to allow us to move forward in that kind of irresponsible way. We can all fall victim to disease. We should not fall victim to labour disputes when we're dealing with serious health issues.

A second case I'll just cite here briefly is a nine-year-old girl in Kelowna. She was to have heart tests in Vancouver on Monday. Again, they were cancelled, and she and her family….

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition doesn't care about the nine-year-old girl from Kelowna.

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps she doesn't care. I don't know. She doesn't seem to want to hear about that.

This is what her mom has to say: "It isn't fair to put kids and their parents through such worry." I absolutely agree with that. It's not fair to put kids and their families through such worry, and we're not going to. What would another 90 days, as suggested by the opposition, do? Would it resolve this issue? Absolutely not. There would be absolutely nothing to be gained by what the opposition leader has proposed.

I know the opposition leader doesn't want to listen to this. She never wants to listen to anyone but herself or her colleague. But Lee Doney, as the member acknowledged earlier today…. Lee Doney is a very highly respected labour practitioner in this province. He's just retiring as the Deputy Minister of Labour. He reported to us that there was absolutely no prospect of resolution of this dispute. We could take nine days; we could take 90 days; we could take 900 days. There would not be a prospect of a resolution of this dispute.

Should the government stand by and let citizens, let patients, let their families suffer by a labour dispute which, regrettably, keeps them from the medical services they deserve? The opposition's answer may be yes; the government's answer is no. We will not be supporting this amendment, and I urge you to take the amendment to question so we can move on to getting patients back to the medical services they deserve in this great province.

E. Brenzinger: I stand in the House tonight in support of the amendment. Sometimes memory eludes us and perhaps only requires refreshing in order that we remain consistent in the principles and beliefs that we have professed. I wish to provide the Premier of this province with some helpful reminders of the statements he made in an interview with the editor of the Guardian in December 2000, just before the last election.

The Premier was then a hopeful candidate for the leadership of this province and asked the people of this province to have confidence in his beliefs and principles. He will surely only need the following reminders to get him back to his own stated convictions and promises. In his interview the Premier was asked: "Put yourself in the shoes of an HEU member. What is it like on the front lines now in our health care system?" The Premier's response was:

Further, the Premier was asked, in the context of essential service provisions: "Health care workers have the right to strike. Would a Liberal government support that?" The Premier replied: "Under essential services, yes, absolutely. We are planning no change whatsoever." That is what the Premier said before he was elected.

He was also asked if he had gone on record as saying that the B.C. Liberals have always supported pay equity and if he could elaborate. Well, he replied: "The short elaboration is that as far as I'm concerned, we

always have. Clearly, I don't want people paid different amounts of money because of their gender. I think that this is not right."

The Premier cited an example during this interview that his mother and her union consistently asked for an increase in her rate of pay because of what she did. Pay equity was a principle the Premier strongly supported then — as well as stating that you have to recognize what people do, and you have to value their work. Yet most of those employees whose wages are being talked about tonight — about rolling back — are women. Yes, women — women who are mostly middle-aged and with children. This government has not been supportive of women, and the majority of the hospital workers are women.

Here's another question the Premier answered: "A 48-year-old housekeeper who has finally, after decades of struggle, come up to the average wage in B.C. — does she have anything to worry about in terms of privatization from a Gordon Campbell government?" Well, wait till you hear this answer. The Premier said: "I say no. What she's going to find is that people in British Columbia and the government are recognizing the value of the work she does. More importantly, she is going to find the quality of work she is able to do is more rewarding and fulfilling."

One of the points made by the government is that we want to look after patients — patients first. Well, heck yes. There's not a single solitary soul in the province that does not care about patients. This is everybody's wish. However, the really relevant question is this: what type of care do we want? Will inadequate, inefficient, ineffective health care suffice? I think, emphatically, not. Here are some of the arguments against contracting out our health care services.

The cost savings in contracting out support services seldom materialize. Employers argue that the contracting out of support services saves money, because the private sector employers can pay lower wages and benefits. In reality, the cost of the management contract is often greater than the savings that can be achieved by reducing wages and benefits. Employers often get themselves embroiled in contracts that cost more and more over time. This is because the contractors often put in low bids in order to win the contract, and then once the employer has turned over the service and the equipment to the contractor, the contractor increases their price.

Also, the argument that private business is more efficient usually translates into reductions in front-line staff, the use of inferior products and supplies and low quality standards. I have plenty of examples from front-line workers on these things.

Efficiency is about doing more with less. In the case of contracted-out health care services, that means fewer staff to do the same work with cheaper supplies and less stringent standards. There are numerous examples here and elsewhere of services that were contracted out and then brought back in-house because of problems with the quality of the services.

Loss of experienced staff and an understanding of the health care environment, many years of experience and job-specific skills cannot easily be replaced. A study by Simon Fraser economist Marjorie Cohen documents the considerable health-care-specific knowledge, skills and on-the-job experience in training of hospital support staff in housekeeping, trades, food services, laundry and clerical positions. Cohen argues that the distinction between caring work and the work of support staff is not as clear-cut as it is often assumed. Hospital managers have less capacity to set, monitor and enforce quality standards. When services are contracted out, managers within the health care system have less control over hiring practices, product selection, quality control and service standards.

Because private contractors have an obligation to maximize returns for their shareholders, they have an incentive to reduce costs. In many cases, they have little knowledge of the health care system. Hence, service quality suffers, and managers within the health system have very little ability to enforce these standards.

This government keeps talking about HEU members being the highest paid in Canada. Where are the graphs and statistics for the cost of living in B.C. in comparison to the rest of Canada? This government says it wants to keep skilled labour in British Columbia. Stop the exodus of skilled labour to Alberta and the United States, they say. Well, the movement of the skilled HEU members to other provinces will be a reality when families realize they cannot make ends meet on salaries of $10, $15, $16 per hour. The cost of living in B.C. is high; housing is expensive.

Does this government think that the dollars saved by reducing wages in the health care system will save this system? What this bill does is show how little this government feels about the people of this province, both workers and patients. This apathy to the questions of what kind of patient care we want is a frightening prospect.

We cannot afford to ignore that operating room cleaners need to be trained and skilled in the ability to understand bacteria and viruses so they can make sure that operating rooms are impeccable. We need quality service. We need workers to know dietary information on patients. We need them to know how to coordinate all the patients' meals so that no one gets the wrong meal. Responsibility, pride in a job well done, comes with a decently paid position. Otherwise, you will only attract transient, temporary workers, while they search for a job that has a life-sustaining wage.

Security issues have been provided to me by front-line workers, people whom the government is so distant from that they have no idea of the impact of this amendment. For example, I will share numerous examples of inefficiencies in the newly privatized, contracted services.

The front-line workers have been giving me information for many months. I'm just appalled at what's going on in our hospitals. "Staff are hired for security

work and are physically unfit to be security guards." This is coming directly from the front-line workers. "How can they protect us or the patients?"

Other issues raised in regards to security on psychiatric units. A few of these examples that were described to me were more chilling.

Well, that will retain more quality personnel and workers, as long as they have other sources of income to cover the losses they will encounter at work.

E. Brenzinger: I remind you that I'm reading this from the front-line workers. All of these issues that I am bringing up are not acceptable.

E. Brenzinger: "There's no consistency with housekeeping staff, always seeing new faces."

E. Brenzinger: "When we see them, we must watch them to see that they do…"

Deputy Speaker: Order. Leader of the Opposition, would you come to order, please.

E. Brenzinger: "…what they are supposed to do, so it takes nurses away from the bedside."

In my riding of Surrey-Whalley I recently had a 76-year-old constituent who had called from Surrey Memorial Hospital complaining that she had just finished washing the floor in her husband's room on her hands and knees because it was so dirty. Another constituent, who's 40, was in the hospital from the beginning of August to the middle of October. During his first few weeks, while vomiting and having diarrhea non-stop, he had not one test that even a layperson would know to ask for. I intervened, and we finally had someone take care of him.

Does this sound like a comedic routine? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragically painful to patients and the trained professionals trying to provide quality health care to patients.

Here are more examples from the hospital front lines. I only have two more, but I could read pages and pages. A housekeeper was actually seen using a feather

duster to clean a bed. The smell of urine and feces, which I've also experienced walking in hospitals these days, is now quite pronounced and increasing in extended care units.

Just a new standard of care, thanks to privatization of health care initiatives by this government. "It was never like this before," the nurses told me emphatically. Oh, what about techniques to prevent spread of infection, like hand-washing and sterile gowns? A new employee coming in for hands-on orientation is dressed in street clothes and shoes. The orientees asked nursing staff where they were to wash their hands. Nurses observed these individuals essentially just rinsing their hands under the tap. Is this the new standard we can expect for patient care? Is this the new washing technique to prevent the spread of infection we have instituted? Thanks for caring about patient care. Again, what kind of patient care?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, we'll continue second reading debate in just a few moments.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill 37. I want to begin by looking at the context in which this bill was introduced. When this government took power, they made a number of specific promises. I had already touched earlier on the Premier's record of broken promises and what he said to health care workers prior to the election. Now I want to talk about what he promised British Columbians in terms of health care delivery.

When this government took power, they made a number of specific promises. They said they were going to bring forward shorter wait-lists. They said there would be 5,000 more long-term care beds in British Columbia. They said they would provide solutions for rural health care. They promised British Columbians that health care would be delivered to them where and when they need it.

The Premier and his MLAs have said over and over and over again that improving patient care was their top priority. "Putting patients first" was the slogan that I remember coming from the New Era document and the mouth of the Premier. Now, more than three years later, let's check the record. Wait-lists are up — not just up slightly but up by 26 percent — under this government. And it's not just wait-lists. Wait times are up in almost every category. Hospitals have closed across British Columbia. Reduction in emergency room services has taken place under the management of this Liberal government. Patients' families are paying higher MSP premiums under this government. Drug costs are costing seniors more under this government. Instead of more long-term care beds, we actually have cuts to long-term care beds. The list goes on.

If you evaluate just on the issues that I've brought to this House, just on those issues, and measure that against what the government's promise was — that is, putting patients first, delivering health care to British Columbians when and where they need it — the government has failed on those promises. The Liberal health care agenda has been a dismal record on health care needs compared to the needs of British Columbians. They have tried to manage the system by picking fights with doctors, by picking fights with nurses, by picking fights with lab technicians, by picking fights with hospital support staff.

The result has been a continual decline in the quality and accessibility of B.C.'s health care system. Worst of all, patients have suffered under this government's administration. They have suffered in communities like Nelson, where there are now two investigations underway into the death of a man who didn't receive proper emergency care because of this government's cuts to the Kootenay Lake Hospital. Patients have suffered in long-term care homes, where married couples that have been together for generations have been split up and forced into separate homes.

Patients have suffered quietly in homes across the province where seniors have had to count pennies to afford their necessary medication, in some cases having to choose between paying the rent or buying medica-

tion for the month, having to choose between buying food or buying the medication they need. Patients have suffered because they have spent longer and longer on growing wait-lists — wait-lists for surgeries, for access to long-term care beds and simply the time it takes to see a doctor in an emergency room.

Not only have they suffered, but they have been insulted by this government's false promises, insulted by one of the most expensive advertising campaigns in history, which this government has brought to British Columbia — by telling the public that health care in B.C. is getting better, when in fact health care in B.C. under this administration is getting worse and worse.

This government has spent $19 million in advertising, a number that has been confirmed and provided by the Minister of Health Services himself. The amount of taxpayer dollars spent on advertising: why is this government spending $19 million on that? Because they are trying to convince British Columbians that things are better.

J. Kwan: And the Minister of Labour says they are. Well, if you ask British Columbians out there if they think the health care system is better, I say the majority of British Columbians will say: "Absolutely not. Absolutely not." Only this government, this cabinet, this government bench of MLAs, who are blinded by their ideology, who can't see reality for what it is, would say that things are better. Only this Minister of Labour would say that health care delivery is better, when wait-lists are up by 26 percent.

Only this government and this Minister of Labour will say that health care is being delivered when and where you need it, when you have situations like Mr. Morritt in Nelson, who could not access emergency care services and, as a result, died. Only this government will say in situations like that: "Health care services are better."

British Columbians are not fooled by this government's actions, by their falsehoods, by their misleading and by the misinformation they provide. No matter what the advertising campaigns and how much money they put out to try to sell their spin, British Columbians are not fooled by what this government is doing and what they are doing to our health care system.

The government has the audacity, after three years of failure in the health care system, to blame the lowest-paid workers for everything that they have done wrong. They have the audacity to attack these workers, many of whom, as I mentioned earlier, are women who are raising their families, who are just trying to get by, who are visible minorities, who have put in years of work and dedication in their profession to provide for a delivery of health care services to meet the needs of British Columbians. This government has the audacity to attack these workers.

This legislation takes some $200 million out of the pockets of working people. This legislation is saying to health care workers: "Take this pay cut." Then they can still have sleepless nights over whether they have a job in the morning. Workers will still have sleepless nights, even though after this legislation, with the pay cut reduction…. They will still have sleepless nights over whether or not they will still have a job in the morning.

The 15 percent pay cut means longer days for less pay. The 15 percent pay cut means more time away from your own family, from your own children, for less pay. In some cases….

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General and the minister of state…. Actually, the minister speaks so infrequently in this House that I can't even remember who this minister of state actually is who just heckled me. It's actually not funny, I suppose, in some ways. They are members, I must admit, in this House. In spite of that, three and a half years later I look across the way, and I sit here and wonder who these people are, for they do not ever get up to speak on behalf of their constituents. They do not actually take a principled stand on any issue other than just to do the government's bidding.

The Minister of State for Forestry Operations is who he is. He just heckled me. He said: "Well, it's only a little over an hour a week that they are taken away from their families." It is outrageous that this government bench and the ministers, who sit in their little cluster over there having idle talk as debate is going on about this very important rule….

Deputy Speaker: Member, that is not appropriate — to reflect on the conduct of another member in this House. You know better than that, so proceed with second reading debate on Bill 37.

J. Kwan: The Minister of State for Forestry Operations just heckled me that Bill 37 only takes away a little over an hour from workers, from their families, from their children, with no compensation — as though somehow that little over an hour is nothing; as though somehow, for these workers who get paid $18 an hour right now, their wage rollback, in addition to having to actually work more hours with less pay and taking time away from their families, is inconsequential; as though these individuals' families don't count.

It is absolutely outrageous and shameful the way in which these ministers, this government bench, are conducting themselves. I have only seen such a display of unbelievably despicable attitudes towards workers in this Legislature under this administration.

J. Kwan: No, actually, I have not exaggerated on this issue. The member for Nanaimo is heckling me and saying that I'm exaggerating. The bills that we have seen to date under this government's administra-

tion are the worst and the most draconian in the country. Not only has it been identified as such by the opposition, but guess who else has highlighted the shameful actions of this government and noted them. It happens, as it turns out, to be the ILO. They have noted the unbelievable actions of this government, since they took office, in the area of labour relations.

The impacts of this are significant. They are significant. These families count — no matter what the Minister of State for Forestry Operations would like to think. Taking away family time with no compensation for these workers does not mean nothing for these individuals. Their families are as equally important as any other families in British Columbia — just as important as the family of the Minister of State for Forestry Operations himself. One cannot belittle these workers' families as though somehow they are inconsequential. They are individuals, they deserve the respect of this government, and they deserve to be treated better than what this government is doing to these workers.

Let me just outline the ramifications in terms of the impact of the contracting out and the ILO ruling. As a poll of HEU staff last December indicates, morale is at a dangerously low level. Three out of four members polled said that morale on health care's front lines deteriorated over the previous year, and more than half are often or almost always physically or mentally stressed at the end of the workday. More than three out of four members polled feared losing their jobs in the current climate of cuts, closures and privatization. Perhaps most worrisome is that nine out of ten employees polled agreed that the way things are going in British Columbia's health care system, mistakes will be made that will harm or hurt patients or even kill patients. Also, 87 percent of those surveyed said that the current climate of service cuts, closures and privatization is affecting the quality of care they can provide to patients.

It should come as no surprise that scientific studies have shown that constant fear of losing one's job has many ill effects, medically and socially, on individuals, including depression, sickness, decreased trust, heightened anger and frustration, and aggressive behaviour. Of further concern are the health threats faced by workers retained once privatization takes its full force. Already thousands of workers have received their pink slips.

On the Day of Mourning, Mr. Speaker, when we're remembering injured workers, workers who have lost their lives in the workplace, the government brings forward this draconian legislation in honour of the workers who have lost their lives and who have been injured at work. There is no shame. There is no shame from this government.

The Compass Group, which consists of Morrison Healthcare Food Services and Crothall Environmental Services, was contracted to provide service to Children's and Women's Health Centre as of September 2003. Do you know what? They were found to be in violation of the Workers Compensation Act. The Compass Group, which consists of this consortium of companies.… A WCB inspection report notes that a number of orders were issued to the Compass Group for violation of the Workers Compensation Act and the WCB OH and S regulation.

The Compass Group workers are carrying out work at the Children's and Women's Health Centre, and as indicated in the inspection text of the report, evidence indicates that the health and safety of these workers is not being assured. For example, there was no evidence to indicate that systems and processes have been put in place to ensure the health and safety of these workers. There was no evidence of a joint health and safety committee, workplace inspections being conducted on a regular basis and adequate accident incident investigations being conducted which adequately identify unsafe acts and conditions.

That's what this government has put in place through its privatization scheme. Inspection reports have shown that there have been health and safety issues at the workplace. WCB reports have been issued. Health care workers and their safety are being jeopardized; patient care is being jeopardized. That's what's happening at the Children's and Women's Health Centre.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this isn't just about maintaining a healthy working environment for British Columbians. These are legal rights that we are considering trampling on. In fact, after extensive investigation, the UN body charged with upholding labour standards concluded that the actions of this government violated international covenants of which we are a signatory. The Geneva-based International Labour Organization — the ILO — ruled that this government repeatedly violated the rights of workers.

The ILO recommended that the government make amendments to bring its legislation in line with international covenants, but since that time the government has done just the opposite, imposing yet another contract on workers. This is the second one in this session of the House sitting — this despite the fact that most governments that are found guilty of violating basic ILO conventions and refusing to comply with rulings of the ILO governing body are usually from countries that have fragile democracies and poor records on human rights. Is this the image of British Columbia that we want to show off to the world in 2010?

Perhaps government members would better understand the seriousness of this matter if they had read the ILO report. Let me just put some of the ILO conclusions and recommendations on the record. The committee's conclusion:

Now, of course, before us is Bill 37. Bill 37 is worse than what was ruled and decided upon by the committee at the time. The government is now bringing in legislation not only to end a strike and to curtail the opportunity for negotiation in good faith but also to impose terms of a collective agreement by rolling back wages, by increasing work hours without compensation and by bringing forth such provisions retroactive to April 1 of this year.

The committee goes on to firmly request that the government avoid in future having recourse to such a legislated settlement and strongly hopes that the next round of negotiations will be held in accordance with the principles that had been mentioned. Yet here we are — the next round of negotiations cut short by the government with Bill 37, violating, once again, the principles of this UN convention that was signed on to by Canadians.

The committee goes on to say that it considers it essential that "the introduction of draft legislation affecting collective bargaining or conditions of employment should be preceded by full and detailed consultations with the appropriate organizations of workers and employers."

The committee recommends that such full and detailed consultations be held with representative organizations in the health and social sectors. To be meaningful, these consultations should be held under the auspices of a neutral and independent facilitator.

Did the government do that with Bill 37? Absolutely not. There was no such facilitation. There was no such courtesy given to the workers in the health care sector — not at all. The government only thought about what they think is in their own best political interests and took action to that effect. They brought in a bill at quarter to six just so that they could make the 6 o'clock news. That's what drove the government's agenda. If the government had the best interests of patient care at heart and the best interests of workers at heart, they would have negotiated in good faith. They would have committed to ensuring that their promises were not broken and met with the workers in such a way that would allow for negotiations to continue without bringing forward Bill 37.

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise today to support Bill 37. I found it interesting listening to the debate on second reading over the course of the evening. As I've listened to the two NDP members, who have spoken now for a considerable amount of time during the course of the evening, I've been listening for them to talk about patients. I have found it surprisingly missing from all of the speeches that they have given over….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order. Will the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant please come to order.

Hon. C. Hansen: I've made a point of listening for that over the course of the evening. What I found quite surprising is that I have received a lot of phone calls over the last couple of days. I've received a lot of e-mails over the last couple of days.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If members cannot come to order — and this is on both sides of the House — then please absent yourself from the chamber while the debate continues.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I was saying, I have certainly had lots of phone calls to my office. I've had lots of e-mails. In talking to other members of the chamber, I know that they also have been in receipt of a lot of

phone calls and letters and e-mails. The theme throughout all of those, or the majority of those, is coming from patients and from family members who have actually been so profoundly impacted by this strike that has been occurring over the last number of days. I've heard from patients who have had surgeries cancelled, and what that means for them is that they are going to have to endure more pain because of their surgery being cancelled.

I've heard from patients who are facing the fear of waiting for a diagnostic test for a cancer diagnosis, for example — or, hopefully, lack of cancer. That is the kind of anxiety that works on people. To know that they were scheduled to actually get a procedure done and then to have that denied to them is clearly not fair. I've also heard some of the anger — the anger that people are faced with situations where either they themselves or one of their loved ones cannot get access to the care they were counting on.

I have witnessed the tears of patients who have been denied access to care as a result of this strike. That is what should be at the top of our priority list as we look at this legislation that is before us today and consider why that legislation has to be passed and has to be brought into force as quickly as possible. I don't believe that any of us in this chamber, in good conscience, can allow this kind of pain to continue for patients and families around British Columbia.

Yesterday I asked my colleague the Minister of Labour to explore all measures to protect patient care by ending the labour dispute, which has been impacting our hospitals, by requiring employees to immediately return to work. Government has an obligation to act in the best interest of patients throughout the province. Government must intervene to end this dispute for the sake of patients and so that surgery backlogs don't continue to grow. This bill is a result of the request that I made of the Minister of Labour, and I urge everybody to vote for it and support it.

This has been a very difficult week for many people in the province, and I want to acknowledge the strain that it's put on families. I want to acknowledge the strain that it's put on patients, and I want to acknowledge the strain that it has put on workers in the province. As I've gone around British Columbia and I have talked to front-line workers, I know the dilemmas that they've been faced with in terms of trying to make sure that we have a sustainable health care system that actually delivers better health care, that we get the best value for money and that we make sure that we compensate employees and staff in the health care system fairly. But we also have to make sure that we do it in a cost-effective way that still allows us to maximize patient care, because that, at the end of the day, is what it is all about.

I hope this legislation will make it possible for us to move into a recovery period, that we can get past this and start getting these surgeries booked again and start ensuring that those individuals get access to the care they had been counting on during this period while the strike was underway. We need to get patient care fully restored as quickly as possible so that we can get back to providing British Columbians with the best possible, best quality patient care.

I mentioned on Sunday in a couple of the discussions I had that I felt one of the most difficult jobs that any health care worker had faced in the province over the last little problem….

Hon. C. Hansen: The most difficult job was for the individuals in our health care system who had to phone patients around the province and advise them that their surgery had been cancelled. I can't imagine…

Hon. C. Hansen: …that there would be too many more thankless jobs in the health care system, especially…

I would say to all members in the House that it's late. It's an emotional issue, and emotions are running high, and tempers get strained. If you cannot restrain yourself during the debate, then please absent yourself from the chamber.

Hon. C. Hansen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the only thing that would be more difficult than having to place those phone calls and advise patients of the cancellation of their surgery would be to be on the receiving end of those phone calls — to be the patient told that you were going to have surgery cancelled or diagnostic procedures cancelled.

There was a lady that we heard talking on one of the radio programs today that had waited for five months to have knee surgery, only to have it cancelled. I heard from the mother of a 16-year-old boy who was waiting to have surgery so he could get back to being mobile again, so he could be back participating with his friends in the sports that he enjoyed so much. That surgery was cancelled because of this strike.

My heart goes out to the patients who have suffered that disappointment and the cancellation of the surgery that they had been waiting for. I heard today about two seniors. I heard from the son of two seniors in the interior who yesterday went to visit a dying friend at one of the interior hospitals and were denied

access. They were denied access to the hospital to go in and visit a dying friend.

Hon. C. Hansen: Essential services have been in place, and many people have been working heroically to ensure that emergency procedures have not suffered while job action has been ongoing. I also know that even the provision of those emergency services in the hospital under the essential services designation has been extremely strained and very difficult. I know that those workers who are in that situation trying to provide that care are stretched beyond what is reasonable.

Job action such as this has a profound impact on patients. I'm grateful that we can now see an end to it and get back to that first priority. We have had almost 2,400 surgeries cancelled in the last three days, and that doesn't even begin to touch the thousands of diagnostic procedures that have been cancelled.

Every day without full restoration of patient care can add months to waiting times for patients. It's not just about moving the schedule ahead a few days. Now we need to rebook those patients. We have to work with the physicians. We've got to schedule the operating rooms. Often that can result in delays of not just a few days in a rebooking schedule but sometimes weeks and months. It is the patients who pay the price for that.

Let me give you some idea as to what we're looking at in terms of the numbers of cancellations that have taken place around the province, because I think this highlights why we need to move on this now rather than wait any longer. In the Fraser health authority they've had to cancel almost 2,200 diagnostic procedures since April 25. That includes ultrasounds, MRIs, CT scans — the things that patients need in order to determine exactly what kind of care and treatment they're going to need in order to get better.

What it doesn't include are lab services, which need to be scheduled as close to surgery as possible. On two days alone, April 26 and 27, the Fraser health authority was forced to cancel more than 20,000 of those lab services.

In the interior, they had to cancel more than 1,300 procedures on Monday and Tuesday, including MRIs, CT scans and even X-rays and ultrasounds. They've had to cancel more than 600 lab appointments.

Vancouver coastal cancelled more than 850 diagnostic procedures today alone. On Tuesday…

Hon. C. Hansen: …they cancelled more than 900 ambulatory care services — services like occupational therapy, specialized wound care, physiotherapy. That didn't include more than 130 psychiatric outpatient assessments that had to be cancelled.

If we look to the northern health authority, the list of cancellations in that region is quite lengthy. Services like adult day programs, rehabilitation services, diabetic clinics, environmental health services, well women clinics, the foot care clinics and the in-patient physiotherapy — all of these were cancelled.

As I talk about these statistics…. They're obviously troublesome, but behind every one of those statistics is an individual who was seeking health care from our health care system, but they were…

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition please withdraw that remark and please try to get herself under control. Withdraw the word "hypocrite" immediately.

Mr. Speaker: Now please do not interfere in the debate. You've had two hours in which you spoke in this debate, Leader of the Opposition. Now it's the Minister of Health's turn.

Hon. C. Hansen: The one health authority that I've not talked about yet is the provincial health services authority. The provincial health services authority, among its many, many responsibilities, has the responsibility for Children's and Women's hospital in Vancouver. Children's and Women's hospital has had to cancel 79 pediatric surgeries between Monday and today. Many of those families have had to travel across the province, because that is our provincial facility for tertiary children's care in this province. Those families that have had to travel are already under great stress because of a sick child, only to have that stress magnified when their child's surgery was cancelled. Now they have to wait for that surgery to be rescheduled, and in many cases, they have to plan yet another trip with their child to Vancouver in order to get that surgery. The provincial health services authority has also had to cancel between 450 and 650 mammograms each day since this job action began.

Obviously, the impact has been enormous, and we need to move this legislation ahead so we can ensure that these patients can get the care they need and the care they were counting on. I know that the health authorities have been working hard to keep the public informed, and they're going to be entering into another phase now as they try to minimize the patient impact.

We're now going to have to do everything we can to make up for the surgeries and procedures that have

had to be cancelled, but we realize this is not going to happen overnight. It's my hope, and I'm sure it's the hope of everybody here, that we have a smooth transition and will get everybody back to work as quickly as possible. I know we're all on the side of patients, and I think that will make the transition back to normal work routines much easier for everybody.

I do also want to touch on the question of the money — the money that I think some of the opposition members were referring to, the $200 million. I think we have to ask ourselves: where did that $200 million come from in the first place? If the total budget item to pay for support services in the health care system is so much higher than any other province in Canada, how did we get there? To get the answer to that question, you have to go back to the 1990s. You have to go back to a time when the NDP government was in power in this province.

Hon. C. Hansen: …when the HEU executive had a key to the back door of the Premier's office. I know collective bargaining did not take place during those years. I know the frustration of some of the not-for-profit employers in this province who were running small long-term care facilities. They felt absolutely powerless during that period of time, because they did have an association that was supposed to be bargaining for them, and instead, what they saw was the end run that was done around the employer bargaining agent to the Premier's office. We saw the Hospital Employees Union getting huge increases during that period of time.

How did this province pay for those increases? It was by diverting money away from patient care in order to fund those very expensive contracts that gave us a wage-and-benefit structure for health support workers that was so far out of line with other provinces in this country.

We want to make sure that we compensate our workers in the health care system fairly. Today in health care we have fees and salaries and other remuneration for doctors that are among the highest in Canada. As a result of that, we are actually able to attract more doctors to this province than ever before. We pay our nurses in British Columbia among the highest rates of any province in Canada. As a result of that, we are starting to see more nurses working in this province. We are starting to see nurses graduating from colleges and universities choosing to stay in British Columbia at rates that were unprecedented.

The Leader of the Opposition, earlier in her comments, referred to the fact that there are more nurses working in British Columbia today than there were two years ago. That is good news. That's something I think we can all be proud of. But something that she should not be proud of is that when she was Health minister in this province, the number of nurses working in British Columbia went down every single year. That trend has only been reversed since this government came to power, almost three years ago.

The other thing that happened during the 1990s is we saw the number of education spaces in British Columbia for nurses going down. We saw fewer opportunities for young British Columbians to go into nursing, because the spaces weren't there in our colleges and universities. Thanks to the work of the Minister of Advanced Education, that has been reversed. We now see today almost 2,000 additional nurses in education programs in our colleges and universities. That is going to start to meet the needs of the future in this province in health care.

If you look at the salaries and benefits that we pay our paramedicals in this province, they are among the highest in all of Canada. As a result, we have better retention rates for those professionals in this province today.

What we are proposing today in this legislation is consistent with what I have said in terms of those other professions. We are prepared to pay our health care workers among the highest wages and benefits of any province in Canada. What is before us today in terms of this legislation? Once it is passed and once it is implemented, those workers will continue to have among the highest wages and benefit packages of any province — in British Columbia.

If you start looking at the effects of this legislation…. If those workers were to choose to take it totally as an impact on the wage side of the equation, they would wind up with only Ontario being slightly higher in the wage component. If you look at the wages and benefits together, that will still be ahead of Ontario. This legislation is set up in such a way that the workers have some choices to make. They don't have to take it all as wage. They can protect their take-home pay by starting to look at how the benefits could be applied.

I think most HEU workers in British Columbia recognize that they have the most expensive benefit package of any group of support workers in this country today. They have some choices in terms of how they can make this legislation work in the balance between taking it as wages or as benefits. That is an opportunity. They can sit down and work with the employer and arbitrator to make that happen.

This is a package that still allows for British Columbia to be a leader and among the highest when it comes to paying our support workers. I know that as a result of this legislation, it will wind up with more stability for those workers going forward, not less. It will allow for more opportunities. It will allow for a fair wage and a generous benefit package that will ensure that those workers are among the highest paid in Canada.

What's more important about this legislation…. First of all, it treats those employees fairly, compared to other jurisdictions. This allows for us to get back to

delivering patient care. It allows for everybody in this House — all 79 members of this House — to demonstrate that they have heard the phone calls that have come to their constituency offices, that they have read the e-mails that have come from patients around this province. All 79 members can demonstrate that they are prepared to put the interests of patients first. They can do that by voting in favour of this legislation.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to speak in second reading to Bill 37. My perspective is somewhat different than the Minister of Health Services.

I would like to begin, as well, by quoting a few lines from Barbara Yaffe's column in today's Vancouver Sun. I know the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made a reference earlier in her comments in this debate — made some comment on Barbara Yaffe's column, rather. In any event, I think I have a few additional comments that she's made in her column that are of interest to us today.

The column describes the government strategy for containing health care costs. It's intituled "An Absurd Strategy for Cutting Health Care Costs." She goes on to say:

Well, things could and should have been different for a government that's spent a considerable number of years in opposition prior to assuming the reins of power. I sat down this morning and thought I'd put together a few thoughts with respect to my experience. I can attest to this, having spent some five years in opposition, along with some of my former colleagues, assessing and reassessing where we should go with respect to health care reform.

In fact, the former Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, had at one point placed me on an internal health care committee dealing with some of these very same issues. I think it made sense, given my involvement early on in opposition working together with rural doctors in the northern and central interior of the province as they reluctantly withdrew services in protest against the previous government's health care delivery in rural British Columbia.

In fact, on January 31, 1998, doctors in Vanderhoof, Fort St. James, Burns Lake and Mackenzie were the first to resign hospital privileges — most of those communities, of course, being in my riding of Prince George–Omineca. This protest lasted some months — June 12, 1998. It culminated in a huge rally in Vanderhoof — again, a community that's in the heart of my constituency — at which the Premier, the then opposition leader, myself, doctors and community leaders addressed a rather large, angry crowd regarding criticism of the previous government and their failure to adequately and fairly provide health care delivery for rural British Columbia. I certainly will always remember that rally.

In addition to that dispute, in terms of it being a health care dispute, in the summer of 2000, in fact, specialists in Prince George Regional Hospital withdrew services over a dispute on issues related to on-call payment. Again, there was a rather large — a very large indeed — health care rally in Prince George involving thousands of citizens who were frustrated and fed up with health care delivery and had decided to do something about it. Indeed, they were successful in that it pushed the government of the day to concede to the demands of the specialists in what was dubbed the Prince George deal. I believe it's still referred to as the Prince George deal.

This rally stands out in my mind. I was on a fishing trip with my father for a few days in a remote northern location near the Yukon border at the time, just prior to this rally being called, when I was contacted in the Kinaskan Lake Provincial Park by the authorities and requested to return to Prince George, which I did, in time for that rally.

I also recall roundtable discussions involving health care providers on the question of health care delivery that our illustrious leader conducted throughout the province. I attended, in fact, one of these discussions in Prince George, prior to the last provincial election. Providers poured out their hearts to our leader, who in turn reassured the participants of his personal commitment in addressing their concerns.

As I recall, a discussion paper was released sometime later, assuring British Columbians of the competent and caring approach that the B.C. Liberals would adopt if and when they were elected. Again, our leader insisted on personally leading the provincewide discussions on health care delivery in preparation for the provincial election of 2001. This was seen as a way of putting money where his mouth was. We now know today that as Premier he spoke out of both sides of his mouth and that the money went the same way as the promise to not dismantle B.C. health care but strengthen it.

In my experience as a member of caucus for some five years as well as a member of an internal health

committee and my involvement in contesting the former administration with respect to health care concerns in northern and central British Columbia, nothing I had seen or heard prepared me — or many of my colleagues, for that matter — after the election of 2001 for the shock of my own government's health care strategy as it evolved. There had been no hint of the Premier's real agenda as we moved through a series of situations in opposition that we felt demonstrated conclusively our commitment to work together and not against health care professionals. I remember those commitments, Mr. Speaker.

Following the election, I watched in disbelief as we rejected the McEachern arbitration award for doctors, or Bill 9, in the spring of 2001. This was followed by the Health Professions Amendment Act, the lab reform issue, Bill 92 and, more recently, the John Hunt conciliators report, which the minister has indicated he will reject if it adds cost to his health care budget. Nurses, doctors, HEU members and others soon learned that they could not rely on the Premier, or their MLAs, for that matter, to keep their word and treat them with respect and dignity in addressing health care concerns.

Regarding some of these draconian measures and broken promises by this government, I would like to quote the following statement sent to me by Robert Hewlick, who I was able to contact today, from the B.C. Medical Association.

P. Nettleton: …though the Legislature but did not proclaim it, causing considerable public outcry. They wasted millions on attack advertising against all health professions."

P. Nettleton: I would like to be afforded the same courtesy, Mr. Speaker, that I have afforded other speakers.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Please come to order. The member for Prince George–Omineca has the floor.

P. Nettleton: "They are unwilling to include physicians and other health professionals in many aspects of system reform."

As a member of the B.C. Liberal caucus I found myself in misplaced loyalty, supporting the Premier's agenda with a growing sense of discomfort but nonetheless holding to the party line when called upon to vote in the Legislature. I remember on one occasion the caucus had been informed that we were to support government legislation within the hour in the Legislature. I asked to see the legislation prior to supporting it. In fact, I was singled out and told in front of caucus that I would have to rely on the direction of the executive and vote in unity with all government members.

I also remember that while in opposition it was standard practice to be faced with government legislation without warning, having in turn to rely upon the critic and the Government House Leader for direction routinely in what was essentially blind trust. I was foolish enough to believe at that time that things would change when we were in power; that as government members we would be afforded, at the very least, a glimpse of legislation prior to our being faced with voting in the Legislature; and that we would be given an opportunity to make informed choices on behalf of our constituents in accordance with the commitments many of us had made while in opposition and all of us had made as part of the new-era commitments in the election of 2001.

E. Brenzinger: I would like to speak to second reading of Bill 37. I want to bring faces to this bill.

This government campaigned on a promise not to tear up collective agreements. This government campaigned on a promise not to privatize health care, and yet that is what this government has done. It is acting as if it is dealing with abstract concepts in this House tonight. The government is ignoring the fact that we are dealing with real people who live real lives and who spend their working lives delivering quality health care to British Columbians every single day.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some of those real people — the people who dedicated their lives to patient care, who are second to none and who this government is ignoring. Health care workers affected by this legislation have given me information, and I'd like to share it for the record.

Laura Ferguson is a pre-admissions clerk at the Victoria General Hospital. She started working at the Royal Jubilee Hospital but later moved to the VGH. She has been working as a health care worker for a total of 17 years. She has specific skills, knowledge and expertise which are crucial to her work as a clerk. Guess what. She has pride in her job. You don't hear that in the news reports. She even wrote three letters to the editor, only to not have her story published.

Laura is scared that she is on the next list to receive a pink slip. She told us that the hospital has been the first job where she has not experienced discrimination. Laura is part–first nations. Laura is also a single mom

with two children. Faced with higher tuition costs, she is struggling to afford a college education for her daughter. Her son has ADHD and oppositional defiance disorder and requires special care. Both live at home. Laura is a single, working mom trying to support both kids. This is a single-income family trying to make ends meet.

Faced with what this government is trying to do, Laura tried to come down to the Legislature to simply hear this debate. She was not even carrying a picket, yet she was told she could not come in to watch debate over a bill that is to have dire implications for her life. She was told the building was not open to the public. She is now at home watching this debate on TV. She was not even allowed as a taxpaying citizen to be privy to this government at work.

Beni Lopez is a building service attendant. He has been working at the VGH here in Victoria for 17 years. He is 48 years old, which means he has been working as a front-line health care worker since he was 31 — 17 years of hard work in a B.C. hospital. Beni is from the Philippines. He came to Canada 23 years ago, and like the experiences of many other immigrants, his previous credentials were not recognized. Like so many others, he had to start from scratch.

Luckily, he was able to get a job in the hospital. With this job, he was able to raise four children. Now, faced with a pink slip and rising costs of living, he is facing a crisis. His wife, who used to work at Broadmead Lodge, has already been laid off. Now, faced with a pink slip saying he is no longer employed as of September 17, he is left with the cost of raising four children.

Here's the kicker: Beni even admits that he voted Liberal in the last election. He believed what the Liberals were promising back then. One of those promises was to honour signed contracts. When Beni heard that his job was going to be chopped and privatized, he even went to talk to his local MLA. He lives in the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and he went and spoke to his MLA in her office. I wonder if he was even heard. I don't see her standing up defending him and his family with this legislation.

Marianna Juras is another housekeeper here in a Victoria hospital. She, like many others, received a pink slip saying that her job is gone after September 17. Marianna is an immigrant from Croatia who came here nine years ago. She has been working as a health care worker for nine years. Faced with a mortgage and the cost of raising a child, she is wondering what to do next.

Her son, in grade 12, has been accepted to become a respiratory therapist, and we all know how much of a shortage there is for skilled health care technicians, such as respiratory therapists. Now she is not sure he is going to be able to afford the education he needs. This is one sad example of this government's dismal plan to address the skilled labour shortage in this province.

Belinda Faulkner is a 47-year-old housekeeper. She currently works 15 hours a day, five days a week as a housekeeper at both UBC hospital and Mount St. Joseph Hospital. She is expecting to be laid off any day now. She says: "It's hard to get by with a family. You want to give a good education to your kids, so you have to work your butt off."

Belinda arrived in Vancouver from the Philippines in 1971 and went to high school at night while she worked as a housekeeper at a family friend's home. She's married with four children, aged 18 to 26. She works both jobs to maintain a decent quality of life and help pay for her children's education. Belinda doesn't even believe there is a chance a new contractor will employ former Hospital Employees Union housekeeping staff.

Requita Cavanagh is another health care worker. She has been a housekeeper for 14 years at the Vancouver General Hospital. She is also a single mother with a mortgage. She doesn't know what's going to happen to her, and too young to retire early and old enough, to find new work presents a greater challenge.

Debbie Boyd is another front-line hospital worker affected by privatization. She has been a housekeeper for 23 years. She raised a family of three children with her job and is now left wondering what she will do.

These are only a few of the people affected by this legislation. I'd like to hear what the minister and the MLAs have to say to them. These people have no other choice but to walk the picket line. It's the only option they have these days. They are not being heard by their MLAs, and they are certainly not being heard by the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour.

B. Kerr: This is very difficult. I'm not having fun. I must admit it's a difficult choice that has been put here. It's difficult because, unlike the member for Prince George–Omineca, every one of us is making an individual decision because we are given free votes in the House. We are not told to act. When we vote, we are voting on our own, according to our own conscience. I think that's one of the critical things that was given to us and one of the reasons why I ran for the Liberal Party.

The feeling I have right now is the feeling I used to get when I was in business and I'd have to fire somebody or lay people off. It's not a good feeling, but you would have to do it, whether you wanted to or not, because you had to look at the greater good of the company to help the company survive. Again, I ran to restore sound fiscal management, and this is one of the tools that we have to use. It's a difficult choice; it's not fun, but it's something we have to do to make sure health care remains sustainable.

The other thing the Minister of Health mentioned is that the greater good is the patients. It's patient care. There's no question in my mind whatsoever that we have to get these people back to work as soon as possible, because patients are suffering, and this just can't carry on.

I've looked at this bill; I've read it over. I've asked a number of questions on it already so I can understand

it. I'm concerned about one thing, I'll say, and that's about combining the back-to-work and also legislating the contract. Again, I've looked at that, and I see what's happening, and I've talked to people involved. There's no meeting of the minds here. There doesn't seem to be a negotiation. You've got one monopoly working against people that are, again, trying to restore sound fiscal management.

If we let people back to work and didn't legislate the contract in there and took a 60-day waiting period or whatever, it would be just like pulling a band-aid off slowly. We might as well get it done. We might as well pull the band-aid off and get people back to work, so they know exactly what's expected of them and exactly what their contract will be. That will alleviate some of the problems that the members of the opposition have spoken about where they say there's a lot of uncertainty with the workers. There will then be certainty with the workers. They'll know what wage they're going to get, and they'll know what's expected of them.

I've looked at the contract. Although we've been hearing for the past four hours how draconian this is, it's really not that draconian. I mean, what we're asking of them is a concession. It's not a 15 percent rollback in wages; it's 15 percent in concessions that they can make up through other means. For instance, one of the parts of the concessions is that instead of working from 8 to 3:30, they'll be asked to work from 8 to 4. That's not a long time.

In fact, in the private sector, which I came from, I don't know anybody that worked from 8 to 4. People work much longer hours than that, so I really don't think that's a huge concession. When we do ask for these concessions…. Even at the end of the day with these concessions, they'll still be the highest-paid employees in Canada. I look at that, and I look at the concept that we have to get to the patients, and I say I'm going to be voting for this bill.

One of the concerns I have, though, is that we seem to be running into this situation where there's a loggerhead, where we can't seem to get a contract. I'm just wondering whether the method that's always been done in the past is a method that can be done in the future. I can tell you that when I was in business and we were in small partnerships and small businesses, we had what's called a shotgun clause. At any time, if you reached loggerheads, one party or the other could call the shotgun.

I think under negotiations — I'm not a labour negotiator — it's called the final offer. I'm just wondering if we should start bringing that into our labour negotiations right now where we have a final offer system where one offer or the other has to be accepted so that when the unions put their offer forward and management puts their offer forward, they have to balance that with the fact that it may or may not be accepted, but one party's or the other party's will be accepted. That should curtail the length of time they're in negotiations and the uncertainty, and it may get people to work a lot faster.

Mr. Speaker, I very seldom speak on second reading, but this has been a very emotional time for me. I'm going to be voting for this bill, because I think it's absolutely critical to get people back to work. I don't think the legislation is draconian. I wanted to bring up the fact that we are all voting as individuals here because we've been given the right to vote freely in this House, unlike what the member has told the public. I thought it was important I stand up and say that.

B. Lekstrom: It's with some reluctance that I stand here today — or early this morning now, at 20 after one — to speak to Bill 37. It's not a bill that I jump up and down with excitement about. It's a bill that concerns me. I'm sure it's not an easy issue that any member in this House has to deal with, opposition or members of the government.

It's a bill that lays out, I think, one of the most fundamental things we have to do, and that's get our patients back receiving the care they need, when they need it. It's taking some tremendous steps, and steps that I have concerns with, and we can address that in committee stage.

We've reached a point in British Columbia…. I'm going to touch on the free collective bargaining issue that, from my view, isn't there anymore, to be quite honest. We have serious problems in the public sector. Not with everybody, but I think, overall, it's fair to say — whether it's this year, last year, five years ago or ten years ago — that when you negotiate public sector contracts, you're dealing with a different animal than you are with the private sector contracts. The issue that we're dealing with here, the way it's operating, isn't working, in my eyes.

When we go into collective bargaining, both sides expect to sit there and negotiate to the best of their ability and try and reach an agreement. When those discussions reach an impasse, there are different options. There's mediation; there's binding arbitration — issues like that. What we've reached is an issue where we bring in legislation, and it's a challenge.

I understand in some cases legislation is needed. Sometimes it is, and sometimes, in the case of Bill 37, my first priority is the patients and the people that haven't been able to get the services they need. I don't believe anybody wants this labour dispute to go on. I don't believe the members that are out on strike want to be out there; I don't believe the government wants to have to be here legislating a settlement in this case. I know for a fact the patients don't want us having to deal with this issue. They would have preferred to have been able to go to their appointments, get the surgeries they wanted.

Today there is a reality that we're making a very difficult decision. We're dealing with what's called concession bargaining, and that's taking stuff away. What happens in a case like this is you have two sides that over the years have negotiated agreements, whether we like it or not, and they've reached those agreements. Whether we agree with them or not is an-

other point, but two sides, at one point, signed on the dotted line with that collective agreement.

We're here today under Bill 37, taking a hard line. We're not talking about a collective agreement that has not expired. This one has expired. We're negotiating, and we're playing hardball at the bargaining table. We're not playing hardball because we're going to take the money and use it somewhere else. This is money that is going to be utilized for the patient. I want to make sure that's very clear to everybody that's listening, because we're all going to hear about this. We're going to hear from people that are, I think, excited that we've made the tough decision to put people back to work and try and bring a resolution. We're going to hear from the other side that thinks we're the worst people in the world, I'm sure, for bringing down the hand of legislation to solve this issue.

From what I understand of this dispute, I don't believe there is a way that we're going to reach a negotiated settlement in this case. I think both sides have reached a point where government had to step in, and that's what we're doing here today.

I'm going to support this legislation. I can tell you it isn't with the greatest joy that I say that, but I can tell you I'm not a person that will stand down from something and hide in the background and not stand up and give my reasons why I'm going to support it or why I'm not going to support it. I'll support Bill 37 for the fact that it's going to put people back to work whether, you know, they think it's the right way to do it or not. Most importantly, I'm going to focus on the patient.

In most disputes — and I'll go to the private sector — a labour dispute harms the company to a degree. It holds them at ransom, per se, and I'll choose my words carefully here. There's a difference. The labour dispute we're dealing with here today doesn't put the government out, per se. I mean, politically, it may. People are going to make their decisions based on what we've done here. It doesn't put the HEU out, other than to say that they're holding strong to their values and what they think is right. Who it puts out is the patient. I can't imagine a worse pawn in a game of chess than to be using patients as the pawn. That's what we face here today.

This legislation…. We've had to deal with some tough choices. It's interesting when I hear people talk about: "You're taking the money. You're doing this." I want to go back to the point: there's no money to be taken. The money that's being reallocated — and that's how I'm looking at this — is going to the patient. It's not going to wages to continue…. Again, I'm not going to stand and justify. We can talk about the high wages across Canada and how these people are paid amongst the highest for the work they do in Canada. Again, I'll go back: they bargained that. One way or another, they reached that agreement. Whether I agree with that agreement or not is another point.

You can look at the numbers, and you can look at the options available in this legislation. Although I have concerns with it, I think it lays out some options. You can look at a straight wage issue and find the money that way. You can go into the options of the benefit package as laid out in this piece of legislation. I know that'll be discussed through the committee stage. It allows options to try and find that money.

As important as this bill is to the people in this Legislature, to the HEU, to the general public out there and the patients, I think it's time that we as a society, not just in British Columbia, took a strong, hard look at our health care system. It's not working in its present form. I don't run into anybody who says that what our health care system is doing today is great and that it's sustainable. We've made some significant strides to try and make that health care system sustainable, but we're not there yet. We have a long way to go.

Governments aren't going to do it themselves. Health workers and health professionals and doctors are not going to do it themselves. The public won't do it. It is going to take a concerted effort from all of us. It's going to take a concerted effort from the federal government, from the provincial governments and from the general public.

It's going to be hard to do, because issues like this will carry hard feelings for a long time with many people. We can't change yesterday, so there's no sense in trying, but I can tell you: if we don't look to the future to try and change the way we deliver health care, not only in British Columbia but across our country, what we have today is not going to be there in a few short years. That's my view of where we're headed.

Having said that about health care and, hopefully, allowing people to look inside themselves and have some frank discussions with themselves and their families and their neighbours and the politicians that they elect about what we can do to change this, we're not going ahead…. It's time that we had that frank discussion and asked the tough questions.

Having said that, I want to go to the issue of free collective bargaining. I think it's time we asked some very difficult questions about that issue, as well, in the public sector. Right now it's difficult for me to stand here and say that we have free collective bargaining.

That's not just a government issue, because I'll tell you what: it takes two sides. It takes the HEU on one side, in this case, and the government on the other to reach the impasse that we have. It was roughly a year ago that there was a proposal put forward that was turned down by a vote. I'm not sure what the expectations were at that time, but here we are roughly a year later dealing with an even harsher reality — a reality that has to be faced together. This isn't about trying to take away from minorities or take away from women in the workforce. This is about trying to find a balance.

Do I believe that these people think it's difficult to accept this when they've seen nurses and doctors get a large increase? You bet I think that's what they think. Heck, that's what I think. I can understand how they're feeling, but I also have to understand how the patients are feeling. If we all had that magic wand and were all strategists in our own way, I'm sure we would each deal with things a little differently. As a government,

you come together, and at the end of the day, it's a democratic vote. Once that vote is taken, you go out and make that work on that issue.

I could talk at some length, but again, I know we're going to carry on. It's now 1:30 in the morning. We haven't yet got to committee stage, at which point we get to go through the bill section by section, clause by clause and ask questions on that. I'm sure there will be many, but I don't want to leave the issue without….

I hear people talking about health care every day. I know we all do. I hear some people talking about how this government has cut health care. We've injected $2 billion into health care. I heard speakers earlier talk about how health care today, in many people's eyes, is no better than it was two or three years ago. What that tells me is that all the money in the world isn't going to fix our problem with health care. Mr. Speaker, $2 billion is a lot of money that we've put in. If it's the feeling of people that health care isn't any better today than it was two or three years ago, should we be putting more money into the program, or should we be looking at a fundamental restructuring of health care?

We won't do it in British Columbia alone, because this is not an issue we face alone. I think all you have to do…. I read an interesting article not long ago that Ontario is worried about losing health care workers to British Columbia because of the huge benefit-and-wage package we have in British Columbia. That's somewhat of a unique situation to read that, when you listen to a lot of what goes on in British Columbia and a lot of the rhetoric, to be quite honest.

Every health care person that's out there — the people on the picket lines today, the people working in our hospitals and our care facilities — is there because they made a choice in life that that's the job they wanted to do. They wanted to help people.

I understand right now that the people out on the line…. I'm quite confident that I can probably imagine how they're feeling. It's money out of their pockets. They don't have a wage coming in right now. They've got families, in many cases, to raise. They're standing up for what they think is right. We're standing up in here for what we think is right, because we've reached an impasse.

At the end of the day, legislation will rule. That's the reality of the democratic system we work in. I'm going to support this legislation, as I said earlier, but not without some reservations and not without some hopes that somehow government and public sector unions come together to find a way that we can negotiate collective agreements. If we reach an impasse, there has to be a better way than job action.

I was part of the labour movement, and I understand what job action is all about. It's your tool on labour's side to try and prove your point and a point that people believe in. They wouldn't be out on the street if they didn't believe what they were doing was in their best interest. People don't make those decisions lightly. We wouldn't be in here this morning at 1:30 — 25 to two — if we didn't think we were doing what was in the best interest of British Columbians.

Again, I talk about that impasse, but resolving it time after time after time through legislation just doesn't seem like the answer to me. There has to be a better way, and I'm sure at one point in the future the sides will be able to come together. It may take some healing time — there's no doubt about that — but the last thing I want to see and I'm sure the last thing labour wants to see and I know the last thing the public wants to see is another event like this.

You know what? It's very difficult for the public to say: "You know, government, you're right for doing this, and HEU, you're wrong," or "HEU, you're right for doing this." We put the public in a position where all they want is health care. They pay their taxes. They know what they need — whether it's themselves or their children. To have surgeries cancelled — X-rays and the whole gamut of what they're facing…. You know what? They don't need people pointing the finger. They just want it fixed. Do you know whose job it is to fix that, Mr. Speaker? It's ours, as legislators, and it's the leaders in the labour movement to come to the table and put innovative ideas….

We've looked at collective bargaining for the last hundred years, and it seems that we haven't come a long way in finding innovative ways to deal with public sector problems particularly. I find a great difference between public sector bargaining and private sector bargaining. There's no comparison in my mind anyway.

This is a very serious piece of legislation — one that I know, as some of the speakers before me have discussed, they have concerns with. Others have expressed their support for it, as I have — some reserved support. I'm not going to stand here and say I think it's the greatest piece of legislation I've read or stood before this House and spoken to, and I will speak to sections of it in committee stage, but at the end of the day, it's my way to be able to cast a vote to get the workers back to work and to get the patients back to get the health care they need and the help they need through what we have to do.

I encourage everybody, through this debate in this Legislature, the people watching — and I can't imagine there'd be too many at this hour of the morning, but I'm sure it'll be rerun — to put some strong thought into our health care system, into our labour environment. I think people truly are tired of an adversarial approach every time we look at British Columbia and the labour environment. We've come a long way in many cases, but in many cases we haven't. At the end of the day, it isn't you or me, Mr. Speaker, who suffers, and in all honesty it isn't the HEU worker out walking the line right now — as hard as that can be on them — who suffers. In this case it's the patient.

I'm here to work for that patient. I'm here to work for the HEU member who is a constituent of mine — as it is to each and every other member. But we have to make some tough decisions, and tonight and through

this night into the morning we're going to debate some very tough issues and make some very tough choices. It's one I will support, but again, somewhat reserved. My hope is that we'll reach into our minds and find better ways to deal with issues like this in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we are at second reading of Bill 37. The Minister of Labour closes debate.

Hon. G. Bruce: This would be, in my estimation, the toughest day of my life in this job. This was a day that I actually hoped would not occur. We worked, a year ago, very, very hard to try and find a way that these parties would be able to reach an agreement so that we wouldn't have to find ourselves in the House here or, even prior to that, in a labour dispute in which there were people out on the picket line.

However, we've spoken a lot tonight about patient care, patients. We've spoken a lot about a number of other issues. This isn't just about a contract. It's not just about a union or a health authority. This is about real, live people that were out on the picket line, that work in our health care facilities and provide a meaningful and worthwhile job and effort in our society.

This is the type of thing, when you kind of take a look at it and your day in life in politics…. It isn't a fun day. We're all in this House here today faced with having to make a really difficult choice. In that particular instance, you come down and you try and work your way through all the opportunities or avenues that people could have to try and resolve their differences. Particularly when it comes to the aspect of a labour dispute, you're trying to find ways to allow people to get their way home without losing face or to end up with a settlement that they may not like but they can all live with.

You get to a point sometimes when that's just not possible. We're faced here today with this legislation as a result of a number of endeavours and initiatives by people and groups on both sides — in the labour movement, within the ministry, within the health authorities. It just was not possible to find a way to get that negotiated settlement.

Albeit there's been lots of discussion and things in the news relative to the labour situation in the province, I would like us to remember that we still have been able to negotiate 37 public sector agreements in this province, of which this particular grouping, or parts of this grouping, have been part. The HEU is the largest group in this negotiating body on the employee side and were actually part of the CSSEA group in community health. The CSSEA group, I believe, saw a reduction, a concessionary agreement, of some 6 percent. I believe community health was in the neighbourhood of 10 percent and a 14 percent reduction. So it is possible, even in that instance where you're looking for concessions, to be able to get negotiated settlements.

Unfortunately, in this particular situation tonight, which we've been faced with during the course of the last four or five days, that negotiated settlement was not able to be achieved. I don't stand here proudly. I know a lot of the folks that live and work within my community and are members of the HEU. I know that they're going to be pretty upset, and I know many of those folks that have actually lost their jobs because of contracting-out. That would go for each and every one of you sitting in the House here today.

But we made a commitment as government, when we took over, that we would do the things that were right, not popular. We made a commitment that we would fix the health care system, albeit it would be one of the most difficult things we would be faced with during our term in office. As we make those steps and make sure that the resources first go to patients, the difficult decisions are made. That is what Bill 37 is about: a very difficult decision — a right decision, not a popular decision.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move the bill be referred to committee for consideration forthwith.

Bill 37, Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 37; K. Stewart in the chair.

J. MacPhail: What consultation was done on this bill? The minister assigned Mr. Lee Doney to perform some sort of task over the last 24 hours. What occurred during those 24 hours? And then, what occurred subsequent to Mr. Doney's report back?

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Doney met with the parties Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning.

Mr. Chair, I just want to say something. It's not of anybody's making except this government's that we're here at this hour. If the minister's not going to give fulsome answers, then we're going to be here a hell of a lot longer.

I asked what happened during that 24-hour period. What happened during the 24-hour period?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm actually trying to explain it, and I'll try again. Mr. Doney met with the parties. He met with them on Tuesday evening, and he met with them Wednesday morning. I believe that I announced at about 1 o'clock, I think it was, on Tuesday that I had asked Mr. Doney to go back to the parties to see whether there was any ability to get a negotiated settlement. I expect that he needed to get on an airplane and fly over to Vancouver and catch a cab and go downtown or wherever they were to meet, make those arrangements, then have those discussions and then find a place to stay. After that, he would have got up in the morning to meet with the other group and catch a cab, I think, to get back on an airplane to fly back to Victoria to come into cabinet to report to me and to cabinet what he thought relative to the experience he had had in that 24-hour period.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the minister finds himself amusing, but no one else does. Government is stealing 200 million bucks out of working people's pockets.

The Chair: Member, can you please keep it to section 1 of this act. Go ahead, please.

J. MacPhail: What happened during the 24 hours, in terms of the positions of the party, that led to the imposition of this legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm trying to be fair. The first time I answered your question, I was giving you what I thought you wanted, and then the second time or third time I'm giving you your answer and then giving it in more detail…

Hon. G. Bruce: …and then you claim it's humorous. You asked me to give it as full as I possibly could, so I did. Okay? That's fine. I'll go with you wherever you want to go.

J. MacPhail: Through the Chair. How much experience have you had in this chamber?

The Chair: Member, can we just let the minister try and answer the question that you asked him.

Hon. G. Bruce: At any rate, Mr. Doney met with the parties, as I had mentioned. He had found in his discussions that there was very little opportunity in the discussions of any move and that we wouldn't be able to get, in his best assessment, a negotiated settlement. He reported that back to me and to cabinet. That would

be yesterday, Wednesday, in the morning when he came back from Vancouver. I think he got to cabinet around quarter after 11.

J. MacPhail: What were the reports that led him to that conclusion? What were the discussions that led him to that conclusion — from both parties?

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Doney asked both parties whether they would be able to move from their respective positions and whether that move would, in each party, be enough to be able to get the groups to the point that they could get a negotiated settlement. In his assessment, that was not to be.

J. MacPhail: Was it just one party or two parties that were contributing to the lack of ability to get a settlement?

Hon. G. Bruce: As the member opposite knows from the experience that she's had in the past in these particular situations, both parties. There was conversation with both parties. Both parties moved a bit. But you take a look at the assessment, and of course, the view of Mr. Doney was that even with the moves they were talking about, there wasn't a way that they would be able to move enough to get to the point that they would be able to have a negotiated settlement.

J. MacPhail: So why did the government decide to sledgehammer one side and completely support the other side, given that assessment?

Hon. G. Bruce: We weren't looking to sledgehammer any side. What we were looking to do was try and bring about a settlement in a very difficult situation. What we were working from was the temporary framework agreement that had been put together. We were trying to use that as a basis, which the parties had agreed to but, unfortunately, not ratified, and that happens. That was a basis of what we were trying to work through. It wasn't a question of trying to sledgehammer anybody.

J. MacPhail: The minister said in his closing remarks that this is the most difficult day of his life. This is the ninth piece of legislation that the minister has brought in to sledgehammer worker rights out of existence — the ninth. What makes this bill the most difficult of his career?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it stems from the optimism, I guess, that I thought was there a year ago, when the parties in very difficult circumstances had stretched so far and had been able to reach an agreement. Then it was unable to be ratified. The difficulty through that, of course, is knowing that you will still have to be faced with another time of trying to negotiate an agreement, because that was in mid-term — knowing that date's coming, the parties trying to find a way and not being able to find a way, and then having to come in and resolve a dispute in this manner.

J. MacPhail: That's what the minister has done nine times, including this time, so that doesn't explain why that's the most difficult day of his life. The minister has done that nine times. He's talked about optimism, and then he's come in with a sledgehammer to break off worker rights, order people back, strip collective agreements. There's nothing new in what he said there. He's got a record of doing that nine times.

What makes this so difficult that he said it was the most difficult day of his life? Could it be that he's taking 200 million bucks out of workers' pockets for the first time? Maybe the minister could just tell me for historical reasons when that's ever been done in British Columbia before — where not only has a contract been stripped, a contract imposed, people ordered back to work, but a government takes 15 percent of a worker's wages and benefits. Could the minister tell me — can he cast his mind back in his career, or historically — when that's been done before?

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, the Leader of the Opposition references the other times we've had to be in the House. I didn't like getting in the middle of the nurses' dispute, which was a hangover from the former administration. What we actually ended up doing was legislating a contract, and they got a 24 percent increase.

I didn't actually like getting in the middle of the dispute with the transit authority, which was a hangover left over by the former administration. But we actually worked out a pretty good deal for everybody.

Hon. G. Bruce: …which was a leftover hangover from the former administration because they had been so ineffective. I didn't like getting in the middle of that, but at least we actually ended up at that point….

Leader of the Opposition, we'll give you plenty of opportunity to talk at your turn. Could you please allow the minister the consideration to answer your question.

In the other sense, in respect to the B.C. Ferry situation, I didn't like getting in the middle of that one. But you knew full well that if you didn't get in the middle of that one, you'd shut down the entire economy on the coast and on Vancouver Island.

Then I take a look at the situation with the IWA and the forest investment, the forest industry. I took a look at that way back when, in September, knowing that these parties were at the table having to negotiate a contract in the midst of substantial restructuring of the forest industry. Putting that all together, it was pretty evident that they were going to have to really stretch a long way to try and make a deal come together, and the likelihood of them being able to do that was pretty slim.

Maybe you wouldn't have got in the middle of it, but I live in a forest community where small business, moms and dads, and communities…. Twenty-five percent of the economy in this province is based on that. Maybe in the days of administration in the NDP, the Leader of the Opposition may have sat on her hands and just said, "To heck with those families," but this government is not going to do that.

Guess what we actually did. We brought the parties together and, with them, worked out a process where at the end of the day they were asking the government to come forward with the final piece of legislation. In fact, both the industry and the union stood on the podium with the Premier of the province….

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, you will have lots of opportunity over the course of the evening to ask new questions. At this point in time I'd just like to remind the members that we'd like to give quite a bit of latitude under the first section to lay out the basis for the debate. If we can have some latitude there, to be used appropriately, we'll certainly allow that. But we do not want this debate to get off track from the bill before us.

Minister, if you have more to say with regard to that answer — or are you completed? Okay.

The Chair: Members, can we allow the courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell us, from a historical review, where a collective agreement has been legislated — even with his unbelievable record of nine such pieces of legislation — where there's been a wage cut of 15 percent imposed?

The Chair: Members, if you'd like to have a private conversation, can we have it outside of the House. We're doing Bill 37.

Hon. G. Bruce: Historically, I don't think there has been. That's why this is the most difficult day of my life in this particular role. Granted, on the other side of it, we have seen negotiated settlements. We saw the community health sector negotiate an agreement. I believe it was a 10 percent negative concession and a 14 percent concession. The CSSEA group, I think, was a concessionary agreement around 6 percent.

I'm not trying to suggest that this is something that has had all sorts of historical precedents. You'd asked me why this was one of the more difficult days of my life — as I said, the most difficult day of my life — in this ministry, in this portfolio, and that's why.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it interesting? It takes a bit to get that out of the minister, though. Crocodile tears. He didn't admit to that at first. Oh no, it had to be dragged out of him. He had to be forced to admit that it's unprecedented that this kind of legislation has never, ever been introduced in the history of British Columbia. A 15 percent theft of wages, from this government, by fiat should make everybody feel happy here — everybody.

This government has achieved a first. They've used their legislative majority, their fiat, for the first time ever, to take 200 million bucks permanently, every year, out of the pockets of working people in this province because they don't like the fact that women, in the majority in this bargaining unit, got paid a decent wage.

I'm really quite surprised at the female members of the Liberal caucus, quite frankly — how they stand up and vote for this theft from women. This government has done nothing about pay equity. They've had a pay equity report on their desk for how long — two years? — and nothing. Their contribution to pay equity is to roll the clock back by almost a decade, and the women in this caucus go: "Aye, aye." Isn't that great?

When people talk about this bargaining unit being amongst the highest paid, it's because the government of the 1990s recognized the value of work for women in this sector and paid them accordingly, and this government hates that. It hates that and is now taking 200 million bucks out of the pockets of those working women for the first time in the history of British Columbia.

There has been a lot of controversial legislation in this province over the course of the century, and this government set a first. This government has used its legislative majority to set a first to steal 200 million bucks out of the pockets of mostly women, those women who finally got acknowledged that their work was as valuable as men's in the workforce — and that bugs this government. That bugs these Liberal MLAs. That bugs these women MLAs in the Liberal caucus. It is unbelievable. Not once does this government acknowledge that that's why those workers are paid what they are. Oh no, they just like to steal the money back.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it would be interesting to note that under the temporary framework agreement that had been negotiated, actually, the union had given

up the pay equity portion and had cashed that out. In this particular bill, we're protecting the pay equity portion. As the Leader of the Opposition….

Hon. G. Bruce: If you would like to go through section by section, I'd be more than happy to point out the specific section that applies to.

J. MacPhail: How can this minister stand up and say that? How can he stand up and say that nonsense? First of all, here's what he says: "We're just doing what the union conceded to in the last round. Mind you, the union members turned that down, but we didn't like the fact of that democratic process." I know that this government doesn't like democratic processes. They like to ram things through. They don't even tell their own caucus what's in legislation. They don't even like to tell their own caucus what it is they're voting on.

How ridiculous for this minister to somehow say, with a 15 percent wage cut, that they've protected the pay equity portion. How absolutely ridiculous for this government to say, "We're just legislating the transition framework agreement," which was negotiated with a gun to their heads, where they were about to lose 15,000 jobs — that bargaining unit — and then blame those workers that they "gave up their pay equity portion."

They gave up their next wage increase, which was the pay equity portion. That's what they did. Somehow, the minister tries to turn that into them saying: "Let's get rid of pay equity." It is shameful how he twists and turns things and denigrates those workers as he does it.

Hon. G. Bruce: I just want to be clear. The pay equity portion…. The parties negotiated that. It's not a question of blame. It's a situation where the union, through the negotiations, was prepared to give up that pay equity portion. But in this bill, as the Leader of the Opposition will find as we go to it, the pay equity portion of it is protected.

J. MacPhail: It makes a mockery that this minister defines that he's protecting pay equity when he's rolling women's wages back 15 percent. It's ridiculous that he would even put that on the record. Well, actually, I'm pleased that he is. It shows how completely, spectacularly out of touch this government is. They're rolling back wages of women workers by a total of 15 percent, and the minister says: "Oh, but we protected the pay equity portion." Then he says: "The union wanted to give that up anyway."

Here's what the union negotiated. It was to eliminate the April 1, 2003, COLA and eliminated the April 1, 2003, pay equity adjustment, which were the most recent pay increases. That's what they suggested that they could forgo — not the concept of pay equity, not paying women for the value of their work. The minister then says: "We're the good guys here."

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, you're trying to have it all which way around the pay equity issue. There was actually one more that was also on the table that would have been taken.

We are actually talking about pay equity, and we are specifically saying that pay equity will not be touched in this bill. We're specifically saying that. As you move through the bill — when you wish to, and I'm here for…. I was going to say for your pleasure, but that's probably not the thing you're supposed to say in the House. At any rate, when we come through it, you'll see that it's there in act.

J. MacPhail: Don't even embarrass this Legislature by making that argument again.

It's clear the minister doesn't even understand the concept of pay equity. He thinks because his government protected one pay raise at the same time as eliminating 15 percent of women's wages, that he's protecting pay equity. No wonder this government hasn't done anything about pay equity, because it's people like that minister who are in charge of this government and don't understand what the principle is. It's shocking that there isn't one MLA that will stand up and tell him how ridiculous it is.

Hon. G. Bruce: I just want to be specific about this. The pay equity provisions within the collective agreement are remaining in place with this legislation. Those provisions were going to be given up under the TFA, the temporary framework agreement. I think when you're talking the principles of it, the philosophy of it and all of the rest of it, clearly….

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, you can call it gobbledegook. I would call it the principles.

Hon. G. Bruce: I certainly wouldn't call it gobbledegook or fluff. I think it's an important principle and philosophical statement. What we have is protected in this legislation. I want to be clear on that. It's there.

J. Kwan: It is absolute nonsense that is coming out of this minister's mouth on the issue around pay equity. This government is privatizing some 85 percent of the workforce within HEU, who are women and many of whom are visible minorities. They're privatiz-

In fact, one such contract was actually raided by another union. Their wages have been reduced from $18 to $9.50, setting back pay equity to the 1950s, and it was done by this government's action. This minister condoned it. This government and all the government bench MLAs voted for it.

For this minister to sit there and say that Bill 37 does not impact pay equity…. Who is he kidding? Who does he take members of this Legislature for? Who does he take British Columbians for — just a bunch of fools? How dare he. How dare he make such an assertion. My God, it is absolutely outrageous.

Then on top of that, this minister and this government are going to roll back wages across the board for all of the workers by 15 percent, in addition to the privatization. The privatization of workers has not been completed in this process under this government's administration. For this minister to sit here and spout out the nonsense that he just did, either it shows that this minister has no concept of what pay equity is whatsoever or, alternatively, the government and this minister are taking British Columbians for fools.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think this debate in here would have been completely different if that pay equity provision in the contract had been removed. I think the problem is that the members opposite….

Hon. G. Bruce: In fact, it's in the bill. Like I say, had it been removed, then certainly the members opposite would have really been excited about that. But that is not the case. It is here.

Now, in regard to what happens when one union works against or takes another group and certifies it, that's all part of the collective agreement….

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't know what goes on at that particular table with that.

Hon. G. Bruce: But the fact is that there's that freedom of association and that particular organization, that grouping of people, certified under the IWA. They made their own contractual arrangements with the company.

J. MacPhail: Let's ask the minister this. Tell us what the pay equity provision is and its effect on women's wages under this bill.

Hon. G. Bruce: Article 49 in the contract is the article that refers to pay equity. There are no changes with any of this. That article, 49, is protected within this legislation.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister read article 49 into the record and tell us what bearing it has on the wages now? What part of article 49 caused the 15 percent rollback?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think what's important to know is that this is an across-the-board rollback. Regardless….

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, it's across the board. It's not gender-focused. Again on that, if you look at the provision when you move through the legislation, you'll find there's specific reference to the pay equity provisions of the collective agreement and that that must be protected.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm so happy we asked that question, actually. We can use this in an election campaign now. We'll use it in the women's ridings in this Liberal caucus. We'll use that quote in the women's ridings to show just how out of touch this government is about pay equity and how those women MLAs didn't stand up for one second for the women in this sector. It just goes to show how silly this government is to say that it's protected pay equity when it's rolling back wages.

Now, it is an equal rollback of 15 percent in a workforce that's 85 percent women. They say that it's not gender-focused, and that's why pay equity applies. Phew. I feel a campaign poster coming on. I feel a really strong message about how out of touch this government is, as if we didn't already know how out of touch this government is with women and as if women didn't already know how out of touch this government is.

Hon. G. Bruce: This issue was discussed with caucus. That was this afternoon.

The Chair: Member, before we continue, I'd just like to note that I've seen quite a bit of jumping around to other sections — section 5, with regards to pay equity, and section 3. Could we try and constrain our questions to the definitions, and then I'm sure we can move on to those other topics that we've been touching on already.

J. MacPhail: Yes, we're going to leave pay equity for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree.

When did the bill go to caucus? The reason I'm asking this is because we have information — and I'm just trying to check whether it's accurate or not — about when this bill went to caucus.

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, Mr. Chairman, I've actually answered that. I don't know if she heard it. I'm not going to go into all of the specifics of detail and everything else. How we do and flow our information through our cabinet and our caucus is our business. I did already answer that question.

J. MacPhail: The minister said the issue went to caucus. I asked when the bill went to caucus. Did this bill go to the Liberal caucus? Did this bill get discussed in detail by the Liberal caucus before its introduction?

J. MacPhail: No, he didn't, Mr. Chair. I know the reason why he didn't answer it. He said the issue went to caucus. The bill never went to caucus. These Liberal MLAs are sticking their hands up, saying, "Aye, aye, captain," and they'd never seen the bill or had a chance to discuss the bill — never. That's why the minister refuses to answer this question. That's why. He tries to hide behind their old ruse of secrecy. These Liberal MLAs are sticking their hands up, and they'll be voting on it section by section. They never saw the bill before my colleague and I did — ever.

In fact, these Liberal MLAs were asking questions during second reading about what the bill meant. They had no idea — none. That's how inclusive this government is. They leave their own caucus in the dark, and yet that doesn't affect this caucus's commitment to this government's ideological agenda. Oh no. They don't see a bill, they don't discuss it, they don't understand it, but they vote with their government. Isn't that great? Isn't that fabulous?

Why did the government legislate a 20 percent reduction in the transition framework agreement? Why did they legislate a 20 percent reduction over and above that?

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, it would certainly help if the Leader of the Opposition would reference something specific within this bill that we could have a meaningful discussion about.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister going to refuse to answer questions at 2:30 in the morning, when it was his government that used their majority to ram this bill straight through without the opportunity for us to be able to talk to anyone about this? I don't think so.

Why did the government legislate a 20 percent reduction over and above the reduction in the transition framework agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm quite happy to answer. I've got to have some semblance of where the opposition are asking their questions from so I can give an answer. I have no idea what you're talking about, quite frankly. There's section 1. We can go through the whole part of this. I'm not trying to obfuscate. I don't understand your question.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, could he possibly follow parliamentary rules and go through the Chair, as I am?

The transition framework agreement reduced wages and benefits for a total of 12.7 percent. This government is reducing the take-home pay of a bunch of women by 15 percent. That's a 20 percent increase in the reduction.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think the Leader of the Opposition, then, would be referencing section 3(1)(e): "the provisions that are necessary to reflect the 11% wage reduction set out in section 4 (1) or the 10% reduction in compensation determined by the arbitrator under section 5 (4)."

I believe that's what you are referencing. In this contract there's an 11 percent wage rollback right across the board, unless the union was to ask for an arbitrator. The 11 percent is focused specifically on wages and not the vacation time or other benefits. It's right at 11 percent, and that's what this act…. This is where those reductions will be made, unless the union asks that I appoint an arbitrator. If that arbitrator is appointed, then it would be a 10 percent reduction, and that could be spread over both the wages and the benefits. I think that's what you were referencing.

The Chair: Members, before we continue, I'd just like to add that we are asking questions on section 3 and section 4, so if we have no further questions on definitions, I would suggest we move on. I will give an opportunity for questions on definitions on section 1.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually not referencing…. I'm not to section 3 yet. I do appreciate your direction.

The minister said in his second reading statements, and he just recently referenced the fact, that under a previous round of negotiations…. I'm calling it the transition framework agreement. That may be wrong; there may be another name for it. Maybe the minister could tell me what the name for it is.

Hon. G. Bruce: No, that didn't confuse me. I'm sorry, I mix the words transition and tentative. It is a tentative framework agreement, but I understood that part. I'm having a hard time trying to hear what your

question is. What this bill says is, as I was trying to explain, the 10 percent and 11 percent…. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from, what you're asking.

J. MacPhail: I'll call it the tentative framework agreement. This is the agreement that the employer refers to as being turned down by the 57 percent of the workers. He referenced it earlier. I will get to the calculation, Mr. Chair, of the 11 percent, the 10 percent, but this is a general question.

The tentative framework agreement was a 12.7 percent reduction in costs and, therefore, 12.7 percent less going into the workers' pockets. This is 15 percent, and 15 percent is a 20 percent increase in the reduction. Why?

Hon. G. Bruce: The TFA was 13.8 percent, not 12 percent. When you factor in the pay equity, which had been costed at 1.8 percent…. What you would do in that instance in giving up on the pay equity under the TFA…. If you took the 13.8 percent and added the 1.8 percent, that would give you a 15.6 percent reduction. I think that's what you were looking for.

J. MacPhail: I have the sheet from the negotiations. Perhaps the minister would like to go through it, on the tentative framework agreement — their costing. I have the sheet from those negotiations. It's 12.77 percent. I'd be happy for the minister to correct me. Could he go through, line by line…? There's the COLA, the pay equity, and then we'll be talking apples and apples.

Hon. G. Bruce: We're just double-checking to make sure we get these numbers correct too. The 12.7 number that I believe you're working from does not include the two reductions of the forgone pay equity increases, which rough and ready would represent about 1 percent each.

J. MacPhail: Here's the sheet I have from the bargaining table: eliminate April 1, 2003, COLA, 3.2 percent; eliminate April 1, 2003, pay equity adjustment, 1.2 percent; implement $1 an hour wage reduction for support services, 1.25 percent; implement the 35 cents per hour wage reduction for all other job classifications, 1.2 percent; wage reduction, increased work week from 36 to 37.5 hours, 4 percent; reduce vacation by five days, 1.55 percent; eliminate injury, on-duty leave and replace with nurses agreement, 0.26 percent; reduce superstat premium to same as regular stat premium, 0.11 percent.

These were agreed upon at the bargaining table. That's 12.77 percent. Those are the changes to the tentative framework agreement. Is there something I'm missing?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yeah. There were two more pay equity adjustments: April 1, 2004, and April 1, 2005. They would calculate about 1 percent each.

Hon. G. Bruce: The pay equity provisions went beyond the contract, and the TFA rolled the contract. So those were two other provisions that were there, and they were given up. That's the 1 percent in each year, in '04 and '05. But that's the TFA; that's not what's in this contract here. That's not what's in this legislation; that's the TFA.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to compare the TFA to this wage rollback. So the minister is saying that the parties agree that part of the wage reduction agreed to under the TFA calculated those two pay equity adjustments beyond the term of the collective agreement, and the parties agreed to that. That was part of the ratification package?

J. MacPhail: Yes. Well, I received different information from the bargaining table, from the chart that the employer and the union had agreed upon on the calculation of the wage reduction. So it will be interesting to see what the Hospital Employees Union says to that.

Hon. G. Bruce: By our calculations it would be less — the reduction of Bill 37 to the TFA. That comes on the basis of the 15 percent that we've said all in, minus the 1.8 percent of pay equity — the worst case of 15 percent, but then make it 13.2 percent. If it was obviously the 14 percent, then it would be 12.2 percent.

J. MacPhail: I know it's late. I didn't understand that at all. Let's just start, then. The numbers that I gave, the minister read out. Were those numbers accurate for the TFA?

Hon. G. Bruce: No, they weren't, but I'm not sure how long the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about the TFA. This is not the TFA. This is Bill 37. We have said there are some provisions from the TFA that work to establish the basis of this, but this is not the TFA. I'm acknowledging that this is not the TFA.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not here for the benefit of my health, so I'll go on as long as I want on certain matters.

Could the minister correct my figures on the TFA? This is very important. What did I miss, and what figures did I get wrong? There must be a chart somewhere that the minister can just read into the record or give to me.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll be clear with you again. I said it at the beginning, and I'll say it again now. It's the two years of the pay equity adjustments, the one and the one — April 1, '04, and April 1, '05. Those are the figures you're missing, so I'm giving them to you. I've told that to you before. I'm giving them to you again. Those are the two figures you're asking for.

J. MacPhail: Again, the figures I read into the record — are they accurate minus the two pay equity…?

Hon. G. Bruce: The Leader of the Opposition is pretty much correct, minus the pay equity figures. If she adds those in, then she would be on the mark.

J. MacPhail: The pay equity increase on April 1, 2004, is 1 percent and then another 1 percent on April 1, 2005. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Well, then that's 14.77 percent, which is less than 15 percent.

Hon. G. Bruce: There's the 14.7 percent, and then there is the 15 percent. The 15 percent pays the pay equity, and the 14 percent doesn't. To make them match, you would take the 15 percent and reduce it by 1.8 percent. That's the difference.

J. MacPhail: I'll save my comments for that under another section, Mr. Chair. It's great — the calculations.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain this section? We note that there are no explanatory notes except this: "This Bill ends the strike of health sector employees in the facilities subsector and provides for the constitution of a collective agreement between the employers and the trade unions representing employees in that subsector." That's the sum total of explanatory notes.

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, I guess we need some clarity on that. The minister is asking to…. Section 2, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 2(1) states that this legislation supersedes the Labour Relations Code if there is a conflict between the two pieces of legislation. This piece of legislation takes precedence over the code. This section is boilerplate language found in legislation dealing with labour relations, which might overlap with the Labour Relations Code.

This section coordinates the operation of this bill with the Labour Relations Code. In particular, section 6 provides for the appointment of an arbitrator. The Labour Relations Code contains provisions dealing with arbitrations. As a result, to avoid any confusion, this bill makes clear that its provisions are to apply regardless of the code.

Section 2(2) provides the Labour Relations Board with the jurisdiction to resolve issues arising out of the interpretation of this legislation. This provision is necessary to provide the parties with a clear process to resolve any issues arising out of the legislation. This provision also ensures that the administrative body with the most expertise in this area, the Labour Relations Board, will resolve any issues arising out of this legislation. The jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board includes the jurisdiction to resolve any question raised about a potential conflict between this bill and the Labour Relations Code.

J. MacPhail: Can the arbitrator's decision be appealed to the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're trying to work with the Leader of the Opposition here in this respect.

I think that comes down to section 5(8). The answer is no, they can't. The application would be a judicial review.

J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to discuss this under some other section. All I'm looking for is whether there's some appeal mechanism to the arbitrator's decision.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister point to where that is under the legislation? We'll discuss it then.

Hon. G. Bruce: The closest you would get would be 5(8), which you could refer to at that point, but there is no specific mention of that. It would come under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

J. MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out how big a sledgehammer this legislation is. The minister imposes a collective agreement that has a wage reduction of 15 percent in it — a pay packet reduction of 15 percent. People are ordered back to work. Government says this is all about patient care, but it isn't. We know it isn't. Not one single thing about this has to do with patient care. There were lots of better ways to deal with this. Now the arbitration is final and binding with no review that's listed here.

What would be the rights conferred on parties in the Labour Relations Code about reviewing arbitration decisions?

Hon. G. Bruce: I respect the Leader of the Opposition's question, and I appreciate that we're trying to

weave our way through all this. It would more aptly apply under section 5(7): "Sections 89 to 92 of the Labour Relations Code apply in respect of arbitration under this section." We can go to section 5 and go through section 5, which would probably help to make the picture clearer for everybody, if you would like to do it that way.

You were looking to the Chair, I thought, for a little guidance on where this would be better put, and that's where it would be better put. Then you can start at the top and work through it all, and I think it starts to have some clarity in that respect. That would be section 5 of Bill 37.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm talking about the application of the Labour Relations Code. I'm not challenging what the minister just said. This section, section 2, is about the application of the Labour Relations Code. There are sections in the Labour Relations Code that address appeals of arbitrations. Am I correct? This is the Minister of Labour. That's his legislation, for which he is responsible.

Hon. G. Bruce: There are, and I believe that would be appropriately found under section 99 of the code, but that's not what we're talking about in this instance.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I assumed by the minister's previous answers that section 99 doesn't apply — is legislated out of existence by this legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm trying to work with the Leader of the Opposition on this, because I appreciate what she's attempting to determine. The issue is more applicable under section 5. Again, I'm going to state on those issues that section 99 of the code…. But it doesn't apply in this regard. Perhaps we're better to finish up with section 2 and then move on through to section 5.

J. MacPhail: Sections 89 to 92 of the Labour Relations Code describe how an arbitration takes place. The section of the Labour Relations Code that talks about appealing arbitration decisions to the Labour Relations Board is section 99. I take it — by the minister's answer quite a while ago that the arbitration under section 5 is not appealable to the LRB — that this legislation, Bill 37, outlaws section 99 of the Labour Relations Code applying to the arbitration procedure listed in section 5. Why did the minister decide to do that?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, I believe we're at section 5(8). Regardless, the parties have the ability to apply to the B.C. Supreme Court for a judicial review of the decision. Other than this procedure, the decision is final and binding on the parties. We were looking for finality, to have this thing fixed and be done with. It allows for the arbitrator to work through this process — if we went back to section 3, I believe, or section 5, as well, as to what the arbitrator can deal with.

J. MacPhail: I don't know why the minister is making the point that it's under section 5(8). I understand 5(8) says the arbitration is final and binding. What I'm trying to figure out is why the minister reached that conclusion. Maybe my Socratic method is a little too slow. Let me speed it up.

Section 2 says when the Labour Relations Code applies and when the act applies. When I asked the minister for the description, he said it was boilerplate legislation to distinguish about what prevails and what act applies when. This boilerplate legislation says that the government is imposing a very narrowly based arbitration procedure, which we'll get to in a moment, where the government gets to unilaterally decide the arbitrator. The arbitrator's terms are very narrow and all to do with reductions. We'll get to that in a moment. Why is it that again, on top of that, the minister still wants to preclude these workers from having the right to appeal that within the bounds of the Labour Relations Code?

The appeal process is very narrow under section 99, but it is an appeal process. It's what every other person who has to go to arbitration has a right of access to. Why did this government decide that they had to make their sledgehammer so big as to preclude an appeal to the Labour Relations Board under section 99?

Hon. G. Bruce: There is an appeal. It's a judicial review. The process is final and binding. When you wish to appeal, you can go to the courts. It's final.

J. MacPhail: No. Under this jurisdiction, this province, there's still a Labour Relations Code. The reason there's a Labour Relations Code is so that people aren't forced into court on the narrow grounds of judicial review, which can only involve an error in law. In fact, this legislation doesn't even talk about judicial review. It doesn't even talk about it.

Once again the minister stands up and says that if people want to appeal, they go to court. No, not in the labour relations field. What's the minister so gosh darn scared of that he has to take away even the right of appeal in labour relations from these workers? Or is this not a matter of labour relations? Is this a commercial transaction where this government is taking away by fiat 200 million bucks?

Hon. G. Bruce: No. This is the process that's been put in place — the terms of the arbitrator, which the union gets to ask for in this respect. It is very tight, as the member opposite has referred to. The manner of appeal is a judicial review.

J. MacPhail: So the sledgehammer is big — bigger than any of these MLAs knew. They didn't even see the legislation, but these Liberal MLAs are going to vote for taking away even the narrow right of appeal on arbitration.

We know this government doesn't like to bargain collectively. We know they don't like mediation. We

know they don't like arbitration, unless it's their way or the highway. They legislated doctors' arbitration out of existence, and then these poor workers who are losing 15 percent of their pay can't even appeal under the legislation that applies to every other arbitration. Shame on this government. The Liberal MLAs didn't even know about it.

Mr. Chair, it's 20 after three. There are sections that my colleague and I must actually put on record by division. We vehemently oppose the denial of the right to appeal pursuant to section 99 of the Labour Relations Code. We vehemently oppose the fact that workers will be forced to go for judicial review to a court proceeding that allows for appeal on a very narrow ground of error in law. But why would this government care? It's only 200 million bucks out of working families' pockets. Why would they care?

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be voting against this section on those grounds on division.

J. MacPhail: What's the cost of the benefit package to this bargaining unit?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're just digging that number out. We'll get right back to you.

J. MacPhail: Under section 3 the government claims that it's given working people two choices. Section 3(e) says — this is what's included in a collective agreement: "(e) the provisions that are necessary to reflect the 11% wage reduction set out in section 4 (1) or the 10% reduction in compensation determined by the arbitrator under section 5 (4)."

Now, just bear with me. One is a wage-reduction calculation, and the other is a reduction in compensation. If you go to section 5(1)…. I'm just going there for the definition of "compensation." The definition of compensation is "all remuneration, whether in the form of wages or other benefits, referred to in or derived from the following provisions of the former collective agreement."

The minister says those benefits are 33 percent. I'm back to 3(e) now. If wages are 100 percent — to make that calculation even on the 11 percent and the wage portion of the 10 percent reduction — and benefits are 33 percent, then compensation is really 133 percent. So a 10 percent reduction in compensation would be 13.3 percent. How's that a choice?

Hon. G. Bruce: Through the calculations, the 11 percent on wages would represent 10.34 percent of total compensation. That 10.34 percent of total compensation would be the apple to the apple of the 10 percent that's referenced in the legislation.

I'm not trying to prejudge where you're going or thinking in this respect, but perhaps a little clarity from my standpoint, then. The legislation calls for an 11 percent rollback against wages. It's not a choice here; that's what the legislation calls for. It does allow the union to request the minister to appoint an arbitrator to deal with other than just the wages, the other aspects of benefits as listed here, which would represent the 10.34. If the union chose to do that — and the arbitrator appointed — then the rollback that would be looked for in that instance would be 10 percent. So the difference is 10.34 percent to 10 percent.

J. MacPhail: I don't want to spend a lot of time arguing this, so I'm going to try and figure out what it was that the minister just said, because his legislation sure ain't clear. That's why I asked the minister what the benefit package was.

The benefit package, I assume, that the minister calculates as 33 percent is the benefits listed in 5(1)(b) through (h).

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, honestly, I don't have the energy to wait. That's not a criticism. It's not. I'm going to try and figure out what the minister said. We don't need to argue about this if I can figure out exactly how to explain on the record what I think he just committed to.

The minister said the benefit package was 33 percent. I'm assuming that if we refer to 5(1) — (a) refers to wages, so separate and apart from wages — the benefits and remuneration listed (b) through (h) are what the minister is referring to as the 33 percent package.

If you then go back to 3(e), it can be interpreted that the union members have to decide to take a 10 percent reduction in compensation and that that 10 percent reduction in compensation could be as high as 13.3 percent, if you were just saying it has to be a full 10 percent on the whole package.

Is the minister saying something different — that within that package, which I would say is 133 percent of just the wage and benefits bill, a net compensation cut of 10 percent is required? This is very important. I read that as that the 10 percent reduction in compensation is a bigger cut than the 11 percent in wages, because if you take the definition of compensation, which includes wages and benefits, that's 133 percent of wages — wages plus benefits.

If you're required to take a 10 percent reduction in compensation, a 10 percent reduction in the compensation package is really a 13.3 percent reduction. If the minister is saying that within that scope one has to figure out a 10 percent cut equivalent to a 10 percent wage cut, then that's a different matter, but that's not clear from this legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think the Leader of the Opposition was very close. I just want to be clear, just like you do on this, so that everybody understands.

There's not a choice here. I'll just mention that again. There's an 11 percent wage reduction that is in the legislation, and that will occur unless the union asks for an arbitrator to be appointed. Then, if the arbitrator was appointed, we would be talking about a 10 percent reduction on both wages and benefits across the board. The 11 percent figure, when you're talking about an 11 percent wage reduction…. If you were to look for the same figure that would be the apple-to-apple for the benefits and the wages, it would be 10.34 percent.

Let me put it this way, if I can, in a general way. If there was an option for a decision — and it was, "Do you want to have the reduction just based on your wages, or do you want to have the reduction based on your wages and your benefits?" — then to be fair, if it was just wages it would be 11 percent. To effect the same reduction, it would be 10.34 percent on the total compensation. I'll just try and go over that again. I just want to be clear.

What we have said in this is: "Okay, we're going to change that a little bit." If it's just on wages, it's 11 percent; if it's on wages and benefits, it's 10 percent.

J. MacPhail: Well, we need to put some numbers to this, because I don't understand how a wage package plus a 33 percent benefit package added together — and you take 10 percent across that — is equivalent to a 10.34 percent wage reduction just on the wage bill, not the wages and benefits bill. Could the minister put some numbers to that, please?

Hon. G. Bruce: I appreciate that it is somewhat complicated, because you have wage-sensitive benefits that also fit in this. What we are saying in this is that there is less of a reduction if one was to go to the 10 percent and have that against the wages and the benefits.

I believe your concern in this is that when you do your other math on face value, you're having problems linking the two and getting that to be the case. What we're trying to do is be very clear. I'm reading into the record, if you like, that the 10 percent reduction is less takeback over the wages and the benefits than what an 11 percent reduction would be directly against the wages.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that's cold comfort. We hate both. I'm sure it's cold comfort to the union members who have absolutely no opportunity to challenge the arbitrator who will be relying on this legislation — absolutely no right of appeal whatsoever. Judicial review won't deal with that issue at all. I can't understand it, Mr. Chair.

I know these matters are very complex. Here's how I read this. If wages are $100, then a wage reduction of 11 percent is $11. If benefits are 33 percent of wages, then wages and benefits are $133. A 10 percent cut across the board of that is $13.30. That's my math. That's how I read the legislation. That's how people who are asking us questions about this legislation read it.

I can't, for the life of me, reach the mathematical conclusion that the minister just told us. Working people, who are going to have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars out of their pockets by the Minister of Health Services' own admission, are going to be pretty darn interested in this question. What will it matter? If the arbitrator has his own view on it…. Nobody gets to appeal his view anyway.

Hon. G. Bruce: To build it the other way so that we know, the total compensation is based on 100 percent. Employee wages are 61 percent. The total wage-sensitive benefits are 33 percent. The total non-wage-sensitive benefits are 6 percent. Add it all together, and that gives you the 100 percent — okay?

Hon. G. Bruce: Wages are 61 percent. The wage-sensitive benefits are 33 percent — vacation and things of that nature where it applies to what you're making, as percentages. That gives you — the 61 and 33 — 94 percent. The non-wage-sensitive benefits are 6 percent, so that gives you the 100 percent. Working off the 100 and then applying the 11…. Or then applying the 10 percent is how you come up with the figures for what that reduction is. You would either have an 11 percent reduction of 61 percent….

Okay, I'll tell you: this is clear as mud. I think it's reprehensible that nobody gets to challenge the arbitrator's application of this — absolutely reprehensible when this is money out of workers' pockets. Government didn't do any consultation on this. Parties don't

The minister is taking 100 percent as total compensation. The 11 percent reduction will apply on the 61 percent wage…. No. No, on the 94 percent. But how does that work? So the 11 percent reduction applies on the 94 percent wages plus benefits, but in the act, that doesn't jibe with the definition of compensation versus wages. It doesn't make sense. Let me walk through my understanding of this as the minister just explained it.

In section 3(e), there are two ways of calculating the reduction. One is an 11 percent wage reduction — a wage reduction — so it's 11 percent on 61 percent. It should say 61 percent, because it's wages. The act says compensation is defined as all remuneration, so wages must mean just wages. But that's not what the minister has said in his calculation. He's saying the 11 percent is on wages plus wage-sensitive benefits. Sorry, benefits are only included under the definition of compensation.

Hon. G. Bruce: What we want to be clear on is that the 11 percent applies to both the employee wage hours worked and the total wage-sensitive benefits, so that's 94 percent. The 10 percent applies to the 100 percent compensation. What gets into play here is this. If you look at "Wage reduction," section 4, it talks about hourly wages payable to the employees. You're also talking about wage sensitivity in regard to vacation pay. When you're getting your vacation pay, it's a benefit. That's the wage-sensitive part of it.

The non-sensitive benefits are like MSP, where whatever the premium is, the premium is. You have to pay it, whatever that dollar is. But the other ones, the wage-sensitive benefits, fluctuate up and down according to the wage rate you're making.

J. MacPhail: I can't believe this government caucus is going to vote for this based on that explanation. This is the one shot that workers get to get this right, because this is completely unappealable. The judicial review is meaningless.

There is one definition in this legislation relating to this section, and that's compensation. Compensation is listed as "all remuneration, whether in the form of wages or other benefits." That's where the benefit calculation is.

Under section 3(1)(e), you can take a reduction either in compensation, which by definition includes benefits, or in a wage reduction, which doesn't include benefits. There's nothing in this legislation that says that wages include wages and wage-sensitive benefits — nothing. And 4(1) doesn't help at all. It talks about hourly wage rates being reduced by 11 percent. It doesn't help at all. We have a monumental error in this legislation.

J. MacPhail: Okay. We have a wage reduction that's not defined. We have compensation that is defined, which includes wages and benefits. By the way we interpret legislation, wages must mean that it doesn't include benefits. So how the heck does 4(1) straighten that out?

Here's what 4(1) says: "Unless an arbitrator is appointed under section 5, in addition to any reduction that is achieved as a result of the change to the collective agreement that is referred to in section 3 (1) (b)" — and 3(1)(b) means the change in the hours of work; it has nothing to do with wages — "hourly wage rates payable to the employees must be reduced by 11%."

That's a wage reduction of 11 percent, not a wage and benefit reduction. Benefits are listed as compensation, and the reduction in compensation is 10 percent. You've got a big problem here, Mr. Chair.

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 4(1) speaks about the hourly wage rates. If your hourly wage rates go down — or if they go up, depending on which way you're talking about; in this instance they're going down — those benefits that are tied to that also adjust accordingly. So this speaks specifically to the issue that you're talking about.

J. MacPhail: Does everybody agree on what those wage-sensitive benefits are? Does the world agree on that? Because nobody gets to challenge arbitrator's decision. Those wage-sensitive benefits aren't listed here anywhere. I guess we have to take — what? — the employer's word on that?

Hon. G. Bruce: If it's wage-sensitive, it's wage-sensitive. If your benefit is tied to ten bucks an hour or 15 bucks an hour and it's as a percentage, it's going to go up and down accordingly. Those things would be CPP, EI, WCB, group life, vacation, LTD, pension, and accidental death and dismemberment. Whatever is in there that's tied as a percentage, that's wage-sensitive…. Whatever is in there, in your contract, that's wage-sensitive is affected by this. That's what we're saying.

J. MacPhail: Are these agreed upon by the two parties — the definition of what wage-sensitive benefits are?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's not something that needs to be agreed upon. It's either wage-sensitive or it's not.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's a percentage, and you're working through your percentage.

J. MacPhail: CPP is wage-sensitive until it's paid, and then it's no longer wage-sensitive. My hourly rate is higher after I've paid off my CPP.

Hon. G. Bruce: Where there are those items that are wage-sensitive, and where there are items that are wage-sensitive and have caps — you've mentioned CPP; there's EI, WCB, those ones — as long as those issues…. If the reduction takes you below the cap, then it's wage-sensitive and it's affected. If it's not and it's capped, then it obviously is not wage-sensitive.

Hon. G. Bruce: The wage-sensitive benefits are in the collective agreement, and they have to be wage-sensitive because they are affected by that hourly wage — that connection.

J. MacPhail: Well, the benefits are listed in the collective agreement, I assume. Do the parties agree that the benefits listed in the collective agreement, and as read out by the minister a little while ago, are wage-sensitive benefits? Did anyone discuss this with either of the parties? I guess that's what happens when you ram legislation through without consulting with anyone. You get in trouble.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's not something that needs to consulted. Either it is affected by your wage, as a percentage, or it's not. Those are the benefits. Those benefits that are wage-sensitive, meaning they're affected by how much you are getting paid, are wage-sensitive by definition.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister listed an insurance benefit there, I think. Did he? What's the insurance benefit that's wage-sensitive?

Hon. G. Bruce: Group Life and ADD are insurance, and they are wage-sensitive.

Hon. G. Bruce: These are both by definition wage-sensitive. I think we've canvassed this — the two insurances. We don't need to go into each and every of what they are or they aren't. The wage sensitivity — I think we've explained that time and again, trying to come back to you in dealing with this particular issue.

They're wage-sensitive insurance premiums that are paid, ADD and Group Life, as a percentage. We don't need to go into all of the policy of Group Life and ADD.

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe the minister would just like to calm down a bit as he's stealing money out of workers' pockets — okay? Maybe he'd like to explain how he's taking the money out of workers' pockets. Maybe he could show that little bit of respect to these workers.

Hon. G. Bruce: If the benefit is affected by the wage, it's wage-sensitive — okay?

J. MacPhail: No, it isn't okay. If my hourly rate is $16, what do I pay for my ADD?

Hon. G. Bruce: I've stated that the ADD is wage-sensitive and by that definition is included. I think that we've been very clear on what the wage sensitivity is. It is, as a percentage, affected by your hourly wage. That benefit is affected by your hourly wage, so the ADD is affected by your hourly wage. It would be wage-sensitive — okay? That benefit is affected by your hourly wage, so it would be wage-sensitive.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sure the workers feel much better by that explanation. Those thousands of workers that this government's taking $200 million out of the pockets of — they feel much more comfortable about that.

The minister can't even explain how it's wage-sensitive, and he's not allowing these matters to be appealed when the arbitrator decides it. There are all sorts of ways that ADD can be paid. Cents per hundred dollars of value — that's not wage-sensitive. It can be capped. It can be according to the benefit given, not hourly. There are three different ways I've explained how ADD can be paid for, and they're not wage-sensitive. This minister won't even explain what that means for this collective agreement, and we're just going to sit here and let this go through.

What does it mean to working people? Why would we care? A single mom supporting some kids — why would we care if we take an extra ten bucks a week out of her pay packet? "So what?" say these Liberal MLAs, "So what?" It is reprehensible that this government can't even explain what it is that they're doing to working people as they take dollars out of their pockets and do so retroactively.

Hon. G. Bruce: Subsection 3(5) is to clarify that the parties are not able to vary the collective agreement in a way that creates an obligation for the province unless the Minister of Finance approves of the variation. This

subsection is consistent with the framework already in place for collective bargaining in the public sector.

J. MacPhail: Well, actually, it's not consistent. Arbitration creates obligations for governments. What this minister is doing by this provision is saying the arbitrator has a range that's about a skinny inch wide. It's all about concessions. But if the arbitrator slips up and doesn't impose a big enough concession according to what the government wants, nobody can appeal that decision of the arbitrator. It's the final fiat of government that the Minister of Finance gets to say: "Don't care what the arbitrator says. Don't care what the legislation says. I don't care how it affects families. The Minister of Finance can say no." That's what that section says.

This minister can't even explain this clause — can't even explain it, can't even tell how much money he's taking out of working people's pockets. Now, if the arbitrator is a penny off per person per hour because this government can't explain what the heck it is they're doing, the Minister of Finance can come and say: "Oh, arbitrator, you got it wrong. You didn't understand what we were doing here, and I'm not going to allow it." And nobody can appeal.

This whole section is shameful in the lack of understanding of what this government is doing, from top to bottom. Yet the consequences are so severe for working people, and this government is ramming the legislation through — ramming it through. This has nothing to do with patient care — absolutely nothing to do with patient care. The government doesn't even know what they're doing, and they're ramming it through. Shame on them.

B. Lekstrom: I guess just for clarification, without getting into the numbers, the intent…. If I look at 3(e) in comparison to section 5 — 11 percent based on wage, 10 percent based on compensation — would it be fair…? It's my understanding that the 10 percent on compensation would be more beneficial to the employee, if that were the route that was taken, versus the 11 percent. Is that a fair understanding of it? If we lay that out or at least gain an understanding here in the Legislature, I think the accountants can deal with the rest. If that's the intent, that would certainly help me for clarification.

J. MacPhail: So is the arbitrator supposed to refer to the debate in the Legislature? The last time I made that point, this minister said the debate in the Legislature doesn't guide legislation interpretation. Now has the minister changed his story again from what he said under Bill 19?

The minister said under the Bill 19 debate…. When I said that the interpretation of the legislation would be guided by this debate, he said: "No, it won't. It has nothing to do with the bill interpretation." Has he changed his story? If he hasn't, then the comment the minister just made means diddly, means nothing. You cannot take that interpretation from this legislation at all. Which is it — what he said under Bill 19 or what he's saying now?

Hon. G. Bruce: I've been clear on this bill; I've been clear on this section through it all. We believe it is clear that the issue, as just asked and answered by the member, explains it in the words that are here within the legislation.

J. Kwan: No, the government has not been clear, and the minister has not been clear. The fact of the matter is this. Government bench MLAs don't even understand what the government is saying with respect to the calculation on the 11 percent and the 10 percent. They themselves have been trying to figure it out and have not been able to do so. Now what the government bench MLAs are going to say is: "Okay, but if the Minister of Labour tells us, 'Trust us. This is how it's going to be, and this is what I say it's going to be. Don't worry,' we'll take your word for it."

It may be, perhaps, that when this section of the bill is going to be called to a vote, the Liberal MLAs will happily go and vote for it, with the exception of this problem. This government has demonstrated that its word is worth zero. It's not worth the paper it's printed on anywhere. The government has already demonstrated that. When they said they would not rip up collective agreements, they ripped up collective agreements. When they said they value pay equity, in fact, they would actually put forward privatization schemes. They would actually do wage rollbacks that impact a workforce that has 85 percent women in it — many of whom are visible minorities and many of whom actually face many disadvantages and historical disadvantages in terms of pay equity against women.

Now we're going to resort to the government and the Minister of Labour saying: "Don't worry; trust me. This is how I, the Minister of Labour, define this legislation." The Minister of Labour himself could not even explain to the members of this House, accountants included, what they actually mean by "legislation."

The arbitrator. If this section is invoked by the arbitrator, called into play, the only mechanism — which people will have to live with — is the arbitrator's interpretation. Then, when we get to the section about the arbitrator, we will also find out that this government will appoint the arbitrator. They've already decided it will not be a mutually agreed-to arbitrator by both sides. The government gets to pick who the arbitrator is.

The interpretation by the arbitrator of this legislation is what goes, and then there is no appeal mechanism, with the exception of the courts. It would not allow for clarification of these issues. This is where we've reduced the matters to Liberal MLAs who will simply say: "Oh, I'll be happy with that if you just say, 'Don't worry; trust us.'" So far the government's word

J. MacPhail: How can something be in force and retroactive at the same time on different days?

Hon. G. Bruce: This act comes into force…. It's retroactive to the contract that expired on March 30. Then, of course, coming into force today is one thing. If the selection to utilize an arbitrator is taken, then that also applies to the retroactivity.

J. MacPhail: Section 4 talks about wages being reduced, 4(1), and says: "The reduction…is effective 14 days after the date on which this Act comes into force." Let's predict it might be this week it comes into force, yet it's also retroactive to April 1, 2004. Those are contradictory statements.

Hon. G. Bruce: The retroactivity applies to the fact that it deals to April 1. The contract ended at the end of March. It allows for the 14 days, which speaks to the ability or gives the time frame so that if the union wishes to, they can elect to request the minister to appoint an arbitrator.

J. MacPhail: I'd like to table an amendment to section 4. I believe the Table has the amendment. It's my first amendment to section 4(2). I'll give a copy to the employer.

The Chair: The Chair rules that the proposed amendment appears to be in order.

J. MacPhail: This amendment to section 4 extends the time before the wage rollback comes into effect. It allows workers 180 days before facing crushing rollbacks instead of this government's mean-spirited 14 days. This government can't even explain what the rollbacks are, yet they want — 14 days from now — to impose it on workers. I bet you, Mr. Chair, this government can't even figure out what the rollback is in the next 14 days.

My amendment also removes the retroactive nature of the bill that would see those who have already received pink slips be forced to pay back their wages. Imagine that. You have a pink slip. You're out the door, and you still have to pay money back out of your pocket. I thought this government said that this was about making the system more affordable, and that's why they had to privatize jobs and reduce wages to ten bucks an hour of the privatized jobs.

Oh no, this government wants it both ways. They want to kick those people out of work, privatize those jobs and demand money from the worker as she's being kicked out the door. That's what section 4(2) says, and my amendment changes that.

Why this amendment? Employees have made plans for their futures based on their current wage rates. I'd like to see how any of us would cope two weeks from now with a 15 percent pay cut. I'd like to see what that meant to our families and our mortgage payments and paying for tuition for our kids going to school, to university. People purchased homes based on those wages. They made arrangements for their children's education and tuition based on those wages. Surely, this government is not so cold-hearted as to deny those hard-working British Columbians six months to adjust to their new reality.

It's a reality that's being forced on them by this mean-spirited government at 4:30 in the morning as they ram through this legislation. There will be thousands of workers that will wake up tomorrow morning, if this government doesn't support my amendment, and be in an absolute state of panic, because 14 days from now they're going to take a gigantic pay cut and they're going to have to pay back hundreds of dollars retroactive to April 1. How is anyone supposed to raise a family with a gun to their head like that?

J. MacPhail: I have another amendment to section 4. The Table has a copy of that. I'm moving, in my name and my colleague's, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant:

J. MacPhail: Government said that they needed to save money and that they could either do that through contracting out or reducing wages. They're now doing both, Mr. Chair. This amendment just holds them true to their word — that if they're going to reduce wages, they shouldn't be allowed to contract out these jobs.

The Chair: After reviewing the document, the Chair rules the amendment out of order because it's beyond the scope of the bill.

J. MacPhail: This is an interesting section, Mr. Chair. I can hardly wait to find out the minister's explanation of how this works. This section sets up a different retroactivity, I would assume.

Here's what section 5(5) says: "The reduction required by subsection (4)" — and subsection (4) is the arbitrator's decision — "is effective 75 days after the date on which this Act comes into force or a later date as determined by the minister, and is retroactive to April 1, 2004."

Again, we have a situation where this government is going to go into the pockets of working people and tell them they have to pay the government back money that they've already earned. Over what period of time is that going to be? It's 75 days or even longer — two and a half months of wages. I guess parents will just stop buying their kids shoes, stop feeding their kids, stop paying their mortgage, so they can save up the money so that they can cut a cheque to the Minister of Finance, even as they continue to work hard for patients.

Let's be clear. Section 3 had nothing to do with patient care, section 4 had nothing to do with patient care, and section 5 had nothing to do with patient care. Not one single extra surgery will be performed because of sections 3, 4 or 5 — not one.

The government will get a couple of hundred million bucks out of working people's pockets — literally. Tens of thousands of workers are going to have to cut a cheque to this government after they've worked a full day, after they've worked a full week, after they've worked a full month, after they've worked 75 days.

Not one single wait-list or wait time, will be reduced. You know, the Minister of Health taunted me in the debate. He said: "Show me where we promised to reduce wait-lists. Show me." Here's where it is, Mr. Chair. Here's the New Era document. I understand a lot of them have stopped using this document, and I can understand why. Clearly, the Minister of Health has stopped using it.

He said: "Show me where we promised to reduce wait-lists." Oh. A New Era for British Columbia headline: "NDP Cuts to Health Care Have Created a Crisis." "Wait-lists have grown. Patients who need surgery are angry and frustrated that the treatment they paid for isn't there for them when they need it. The chart on the left shows how surgical waiting times have grown under the NDP. General surgery waits are up by 26.9 per-

cent since 1995." Over six years there's a 26.9 percent increase. "That's just not good enough. All British Columbians deserve better from our public health services."

I know why the minister is trying to say that that's not a promise, because then he'd have to explain why, in just under three years — less than three years; in two and a half years — surgical wait-lists have increased by the same 26 percent that he's again accusing of being a crisis under the NDP government. It's half the time, same increase, broken promise. "That's just not good enough," when the NDP did it.

"All British Columbians deserve better from our public health services." I think some British Columbians may have taken that as a promise that it was going to get better. Their slippery language, which the minister now claims wasn't a promise, didn't wash with British Columbians. They thought that was a promise, and nothing in this bill is going to reduce wait times for surgery. It ain't going to put one more person on the surgical operating table — not one aspect of this bill, sections 3 or 4 or 5. Not one.

No wonder this is the most difficult day of his life for the Minister of Labour, because he's the first government to steal that much money — steal money, actually…. He's the first government to make workers cut a cheque to send back to their employer. He's the first one ever to do that, and his false claim of doing it in the interests of patient care is exposed for the misleading that it is — a new-era promise broken again, broken several times, fractured beyond belief.

Let's just see how this government is pummelling workers. How's that retroactivity going to be accomplished?

Hon. G. Bruce: I assume the member is under 5(5), so I'm going to go from there.

The arbitrator has 75 days after the date on which this act comes into force to work with the parties and to determine, given that the request is made, how they want to work it through relative to the compensation adjustments of the benefits. Once that's agreed, it's applied back to…. The retroactivity goes back to April 1, 2004.

J. MacPhail: That didn't answer my question. I said: "How is that retroactivity going to be achieved?" The arbitrator rules on the reduction. The retroactivity is kicked in. Two and a half months have passed. If the reduction in wages or compensation is 10 percent, that's a week of wages. Is the employer going to force workers to work for free for a week?

Hon. G. Bruce: If you go to section 5(9), the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to phase in implementation of the retroactivity.

J. MacPhail: That's what I'm asking. What does the minister think the options are for the arbitrator? It's a week's wages. How is the arbitrator going to phase that in? There are some options. They can make the workers work for free for a week. That'd be nice. I think that's called slavery; I'm not sure. It would be legislated slavery, but it would still be slavery.

What happens if an employee has her job contracted out in that period? Does she lose her job and have to cut a cheque? What are the options? Just give me a hint as to what the arbitrator could do.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not going to start to presuppose what the arbitrator may rule or what the parties may agree together or what the parties may agree to with the arbitrator in how they go about this process. That will be up to them.

J. MacPhail: No, I'm sure the minister doesn't want to speculate. He wouldn't want to be on record on just how draconian this retroactivity is. He wouldn't want to have to say that a person may have to work for free for a week because of this government's stealing of wages by this legislation. He wouldn't want to have to admit that a worker getting her pink slip and losing her job will also have to pay back money, and the arbitrator will have to say how that's done.

Oh, and what if it's about benefits too? Under this section the reduction can be in benefits. Here's an interesting example of just how ridiculous and mean-spirited this legislation is. What if there is a clawback on the benefits listed under section 5(1)? Let's say the arbitrator eliminates Victoria Day as a statutory holiday for pay. How will that be recovered? This clawback, this payback, this retroactivity demand: the legislated stealing is going to create an administrative nightmare — an absolute administrative nightmare.

Who do the employees have to cut their cheque to? Whose name will be on the cheque? Can the minister tell us that?

Hon. G. Bruce: Should the arbitrator agree that there needs to be a cheque cut, then it would go back to the employer.

J. MacPhail: How the heck else can the retroactivity be paid, other than cutting a cheque or working for free? Oh, yeah, you're right. Actually, the minister is right. Slavery could be an alternative. That's correct.

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, in one aspect they may decide that it's five-weeks' holiday rather than six. That could be one thing that they might work through.

Hon. G. Bruce: No, that's not. You're just not getting that holiday anymore. It's a benefit reduction.

With respect to the other question…. What was the other part you had of that? Sorry; it just slipped my mind.

J. MacPhail: This is going to be an absolute administrative nightmare as they roll back benefits, as they demand workers to pay cheques back. How does it affect income tax filing?

Hon. G. Bruce: The employer, through the employer's accountant or whatever, will have to make the necessary adjustments for income tax purposes.

J. MacPhail: What about pension benefits? Who's doing all of that work? How much does that cost? How much does that cost in administration?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, the employer has an accountant. They would have to work that process through.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister must know how much for this draconian legislation. How much are the administrative costs to invoke this bill, to implement this wage rollback? How much?

Hon. G. Bruce: I would think it would be no different than if it were implementing a pay increase.

J. MacPhail: Oh, isn't that nice? There's a retroactive nature to this in terms of pension benefits that will be reduced retroactively. That's different than moving forward and adding to the pension. God forbid that the minister had actually thought any of these administrative costs through.

Will the employees be forced to take out a loan if they're unable to pay back the wages? Will the minister be pursuing them in court?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is all about utilizing the assistance of an arbitrator and the process that they wish to invoke. They'll have to work these things out together to make it come together. There's a variety of decisions and choices they can make. The arbitrator's there to help them make that.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's be clear. The arbitrator isn't there to help anyone except the employer, and we'll get to that in a moment. This is all about doing the dirty work of the employer. There's nothing balanced about this legislation at all.

If the employee can't afford the takeback by this government of a week's wages…. Most of these employees live paycheque to paycheque. I'd expect about 90 percent of them are women. Will they be forced to take out a loan? Will the arbitrator be able to order that they have to take out a loan or face court proceedings?

Hon. G. Bruce: The arbitrator is going to be mindful of all of that. They've elected to utilize the abilities of an arbitrator. The arbitrator himself or herself will work with the parties to accomplish where it is they've decided to make those adjustments and then how they're going to go about making sure that that's repaid.

J. MacPhail: Article 5(3) says: "If the association of unions makes a request in accordance with subsection (2) for the appointment of an arbitrator, the minister must appoint an arbitrator" — unilaterally. We have draconian legislation, hundreds of millions of dollars of wage and benefit rollbacks, and no ability to appeal the arbitrator's decision — none. Workers are going to have to pay retroactively out of their own pockets even if they're laid off, even if they're losing their jobs. And this minister says, "Oh, trust us, the arbitrator will be a good guy or gal" — even though it's only the minister who gets to appoint the arbitrator.

This is how draconian this legislation is. Arbitrator: an arbitrator that's appointed by the government who is taking away all of this stuff from the workers; an arbitrator appointed by a government who can't even explain its legislation; an arbitrator appointed by a government whose Liberal caucus hasn't even seen this legislation before it was introduced here, and who have just as many questions and no answers, as I do, for the minister, who has no answers. This is supposed to instil confidence.

I've got a way out of that. If this minister is true to his word that the arbitrator will help us through all of this…. I'd like to move an amendment to section 5.

J. MacPhail: Ooh, that's revolutionary. That's the way it's done in every other labour relations practice. What's so wrong with that? This arbitrator is going to be deciding whether workers have to work for free, whether moms have to take out a loan to pay back the money being taken out of their pockets. This arbitrator is going to have to invoke a formula that the government can't even explain and that the parties probably don't agree with. Why not at least have a person that the parties mutually agree to?

The Chair: Members, by agreement, will waive the time, so we'll have that division called immediately.

Section 6 is about resumption of service. Section 6(f) says: "an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer must not (i) refuse to permit any person to whom paragraphs (a) to (c) apply" — I'm sorry, Mr. Chair; I'm reading that wrong, then — "to resume the duties…." They're not applying to resume. If (a) to (c) apply, they can resume. Am I reading that correctly?

J. MacPhail: In other words, there's no barrier to someone resuming work if they were an employee before.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment. The Table has a copy of that amendment to section 6 standing in my name. I move:

J. MacPhail: As we've previously stated, the minister repeatedly pointed to the supposedly high support staff wages as the justification for the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. You've got to cast your mind, Mr. Speaker, but that's what he said he needed the act for — to deal with those high wages, and particularly the provisions in the act allowing for contracting out despite freely negotiated collective agreement provisions preventing such contracting out.

Well, with this act the minister is getting rid of those awful high wages. He's solved his problem by taking back 200 million bucks out of working people's pockets every year. He's doing it by fiat. So if employees are now going to have their wages reduced by government fiat, they should at least be able to keep their jobs. It shouldn't be a double whammy, because the government said it didn't need to be a double whammy. That should be the quid pro quo for any reduction in wages — you get to keep your job. This amendment would at least give this minimal degree of balance to this draconian act.

The Chair: Member, this amendment is beyond the scope of this section, so it is not acceptable.

Hon. G. Bruce: The resumption of service? Or are you…? What were you referring to specifically — if you would, please?

J. MacPhail: The resumption of service — what's the plan to get people back to work?

Hon. G. Bruce: Once this bill is passed, we're expecting that people will, according to as their schedules are posted, go back to work. I think it's relatively straightforward.

J. MacPhail: I don't know whether the minister knows that hospitals set up war rooms to deal with this — put in place an emergency services plan similar to the provincial emergency program. He says they just come back to work. Really? That's the plan this government has. That's how thoughtful they've been about this legislation. Is that right?

Hon. G. Bruce: No, I think you missed one of the words that I said. As the schedules are noted…. The health authorities and the people managing the facilities as they are would have schedules that bring people into work and not. As those schedules are put up, you're shifting around. They're the ones that will lay out how they're looking to ramp back up to full operation, but as quickly as they can.

J. MacPhail: How's notification taking place? Are people supposed to assume the world is watching us?

Hon. G. Bruce: That would be up to individual employers, employees — to phone to make sure if they're on shift, they're meant to go back to work by legislation. The strike is over, and the employers will have to get their schedules up however they go about it in their own way of notifying their staff — giving them notification in the normal sense of the normal workplace. They'll implement the same type of startup or ramping back.

J. MacPhail: How many employees out of the entire workforce are actually off the job?

J. MacPhail: How the heck does the government blame all of these workers, who don't know whether they're on the job or off the job, for patient care being at risk? Patient care is at risk because of this government's health care policies.

Hon. G. Bruce: We're quite happy to give you a copy of the essential service orders. It varies according to facility and wherever you're at. If the member would like a copy of that, staff will try and dig one up. You can have that.

J. MacPhail: The average level of essential services is 80 percent of the people working. Here's this government after three days…. Oh yes, patient care should be paramount. That's absolutely true. We actually put a bill forward that said patient care was paramount. It didn't do the other draconian theft of wages — sorry, Mr. Chair — or takeback of wages that this government does — unprecedented in the history of British Columbia.

The minister can't even tell me how many people are off the job, because it would be embarrassing for him to have to admit that 80 percent of the workers are still at work delivering, like they do every single day, care for their patients. Nobody bothered to even acknowledge that.

As this government is attacking those workers with a sledgehammer, they didn't even bother to acknowledge or admit just how many workers are there. What do they get from this government? A big sledgehammer — that's what they got.

J. MacPhail: In this section bumping is identified. It provides no detail at all as to the nature of the regulations that are contemplated for bumping. Bumping is the colloquial term that the industry uses for determining, in a layoff situation, how seniority applies and who gets to keep their job and who gets the pink slip. This government is saying that will be done by regulation. Isn't that nice and secure for workers. "Trust us." No nature of the regulations at all, just that they may be "respecting bumping options for employees."

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to table, for information purposes, the bumping regulations — the draft.

I'd like to offer some comment, if I could. These bumping regulations mirror what had been agreed to in the temporary framework agreement. They are more generous bumping provisions than what was currently available, that contracts were faced with. It had been worked out through the temporary framework agreement through the negotiations that took place, so we've used them as the basis for new bumping regulations going forward.

J. MacPhail: I'm not going to read it into the record, but I'll refer to the documents tabled by the minister. How do these differ from the bumping rights that were negotiated under the TFA, the tentative framework agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: These are the same as the regulations that were negotiated under the TFA.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 37, Health Sector (Facilities Subsector) Collective Agreement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time on division and passed.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table these draft regulations that have been referred to during committee.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we anticipate that the Lieutenant-Governor will be here in about 40 minutes, so the House will recess at the call of the Chair, and we will ring the bells to call the members back.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the minister gave information about meetings and contact between Mr. Chris Trumpy and the RCMP in relation to the B.C. Rail deal. The minister said that Mr. Trumpy's first meeting was on March 1. Then there were telephone calls, and then a second meeting occurred on March 8. The minister said earlier that he had a meeting with Mr. Trumpy on March 4, where Mr. Trumpy said…. I'm paraphrasing, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to have the Hansard record read in, but I wrote down that the minister said Mr. Trumpy told him there could be a problem.

Why did the RCMP meet with Mr. Trumpy on March 8? There was no new warrant information made available during that period of time.

Hon. K. Falcon: On March 1, as we indicated in the past when we went over this, Mr. Trumpy held a meet-

ing with the RCMP. In that meeting Mr. Trumpy arrived at the conclusion that there may — and I underscore "may" — be a problem associated with the Roberts Bank spur line deal. He had a subsequent meeting — and there were intervening calls, as we've already mentioned — on March 8 with the RCMP and at that time received sufficient information to lead him to conclude that he would speak to the evaluation committee to make a recommendation with respect to the port sub.

J. MacPhail: When did the meeting between…? The minister also said he met with Mr. Trumpy on March 8 as well. Am I recalling that correctly?

Here's why I'm asking, Mr. Chair. I don't have a position yet, but I'm examining the minister's comments in question period of March 8 in light of the information that he's giving me today.

Hon. K. Falcon: I had a brief meeting with Mr. Trumpy subsequent to question period. We had a brief conference call late that afternoon and also first thing the following morning.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the minister needs to distinguish between when the meeting occurred after question period. Did he learn something new from Mr. Trumpy? Did he learn something new in the March 8 meeting that he had with Mr. Trumpy that he previously didn't know? If so, what was that?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll read out, for the sake of the member, a portion of my statement. I'll read it into the record for the benefit of the member.

On March 4, Mr. Trumpy and I had a meeting to further discuss the situation. At the conclusion of that meeting, I instructed Mr. Trumpy to: (1) go back to the RCMP to determine the extent and severity of the situation; (2) meet with the evaluation committee to review options available with regards to the port subdivision evaluation process; (3) confirm if the province's financial and negotiating position had been compromised; (4) report back to me, providing an appropriate course of action to ensure the public interest is protected and the integrity of the port subdivision process is maintained.

On March 8, Mr. Trumpy and I met again. On behalf of the evaluation committee, he confirmed that one or more of the advisers to the proponents involved in the port subdivision process had come into possession of confidential information. I do not know which advisers received the information, nor do I know the means by which they received it.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I have that statement in front of me. The minister also said yesterday that it was on March 8 that Mr. Trumpy met with the RCMP. Was that at Mr. Trumpy's behest?

J. MacPhail: I'm examining the time line of this. I have not reached any conclusions, but I must say that the more information I get on this from the minister, the more confusing and, I'll say, disturbing it becomes.

On March 4, Mr. Trumpy met…. According to the minister's own statement, Mr. Trumpy had a meeting with the minister, and the minister sent Mr. Trumpy back to do certain things. On March 8, four days later but with the weekend in place — I fully understand it, but this is a pretty serious matter — Mr. Trumpy initiates contact with the RCMP. The RCMP do not initiate contact with Mr. Trumpy. It's not as if the RCMP are bringing new information to the table that they thought the government should have. We have March 4, then the 5th, 6th, 7th, and on the fourth day Mr. Trumpy contacts the RCMP. In the meantime, the government does absolutely nothing.

That's why I'm curious as to what new information was received during that period of time. According to the minister's own statement on March 10 — and I'll read it into the record, if I may — he said: "Specifically, the RCMP interviewed Mr. Trumpy on March 1, 2004, and presented him with documentation and information that caused him to believe that one or more of the advisers to the program may have come into possession of confidential information prepared as part of the port subdivision request for proposal." That information was available to the minister on March 1. I asked the minister: at any period of time in this process, did the minister take any action to change anything inside his ministry or with regard to this proposal? The minister said no; no change has taken place, during or subsequent.

There were four days there where the minister had information about leaks, about confidential information, and he took no action. The RCMP didn't intervene in that period. So what did happen during that period of time to secure information, to let the bidders know, to start an investigation, if any, about the source of the problem?

Hon. K. Falcon: I refer the member…. Again, we've gone over this territory many times. On March 4, she'll know exactly what happened in my meeting with Mr. Trumpy. Between the period of March 4 and March 8, Mr. Trumpy and the folks he was dealing with took the time they required to get what information they needed to get to each other. That's all I'm going to say about that. That information was brought to my attention, as indicated there, on March 8. As to what we did, well, once we were aware of the facts around this situation, we obviously moved to cancel the port subdivision process.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister conducting any internal ministry investigation or government investigation surrounding the leak of the confidential information?

Hon. K. Falcon: This member may wish to engage in speculation and assumptions. That's something I'm certainly not going to engage in at all. I'll put her on notice about that right now. There is an ongoing investigation. Upon the completion of that investigation, when we actually have some tangible facts on the table and can know what actually took place, then I will make appropriate decisions if appropriate decisions are required.

J. MacPhail: I'm not speculating about anything. I'm asking the government to ensure that it learns from a very terrible, costly mistake. Clearly, the government thought it was serious enough that they had to go back to the RCMP a second time. It took them seven days to do so, but they were the ones that thought it important enough to go back and seek extra information from the RCMP. Then it took them another two days to act on that information. And the minister's saying that he's not doing anything internally and that I'm the one speculating?

The minister is clearly admitting, then, that he takes no action, so it must have something to do with outside his own ministry. I think it's wrong for him to just take such a laissez-faire approach to it — absolutely wrong. It has been the nature of this government to take a laissez-faire approach to this whole deal, until they're caught.

Between March 1 and March 10, what expenses were incurred to carry this deal forward?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's impossible to know that figure. It would be very minimal, but I don't have any idea to even pretend to guess what that may be.

One thing I would remind the member…. She seems to feel that a gap between March 4 and March 8 somehow suggests something problematic. I would remind the member that the instructions I gave to Mr. Trumpy on March 4 were to determine the extent and severity of the situation — he needs to determine that; to meet with the evaluation committee and review the options available; to confirm whether the province's financial and negotiating position had been compromised; and then to report back to me, providing an appropriate course of action to ensure that the public interest is protected. So he had some significant road to travel.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting how the minister stands up and says: "I can tell the member that the expenses are minimal, but I have no idea about those expenses." It's ridiculous for him to make statements like that. He has no idea whether they're minimal because he has no idea about the expenses. There were legal costs being incurred during that time. There were investment banker costs being incurred during that time. What notification did anyone in government make to those people to down tools or slow down from March 1 onward?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, we have canvassed this situation very extensively, and I am comfortable that I've released sufficient information with respect to this situation. I've impressed upon the member that there is an ongoing investigation, and I will not be saying anything further with respect to this.

J. MacPhail: What is the incurring of expenses that were completely wasted…? What does that have to do with the investigation? Or does it? The more this minister denies or obfuscates, the more he puts into question exactly what did happen. The incurring of expenses in the deal — how could that have anything to do with a leak of information? Or does it? Perhaps it does.

Let me ask this. Did Mr. Trumpy receive new information from the RCMP at his meeting of March 8 — new information that he didn't have previous to March 8?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, there is an ongoing investigation. I'm not going to talk about the nature of information that Mr. Trumpy received at any of his meetings.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Is this an ongoing investigation into the cancellation of this deal? Just to be clear, there is an ongoing RCMP investigation that involves the cancellation of the Roberts Bank spur deal.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member will know, if she reviews the statement and the letters that were released publicly, that there was a comment that the RCMP's investigation remains ongoing. There would be no way in which I would know whether it would continue to be ongoing or not. I will always operate from the assumption that it is, and I will not be saying anything that could in any way jeopardize an ongoing investigation. And we've covered this territory, by the way, the other day.

J. MacPhail: It's not going to be helpful at all on a day where tensions are running very high for the minister to try to avoid answering questions — just to put him on notice of that. It hasn't been working for him, and it won't be helpful at all. Today tensions are running pretty high with this government's heavy-handed nature on absolutely everything — absolutely everything.

Well, Mr. Chair, we actually haven't explored that. The minister brushed over the period between March 4 and March 8. Will the minister, in his accounting of the $900,000 — I expect plus — wasted on this deal…? Will he be accounting for those expenses, on when the expenses occurred? I'm requesting for him to do that.

Hon. K. Falcon: The costs associated with cancelling the transaction agreement, as I've indicated to the

member, once fully compiled, will be fully released, and I'll take the member's concern under advisement.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm asking. I'm asking now for the information on…. Let's do it on a daily basis. But if the minister can't provide that, let's just have the costs on a weekly basis. From March 1 to March 10 this government did nothing — according to the minister's own words — internally to deal with the fallout of the cancellation of this deal — absolutely nothing. Or if they did, I'd like to see it.

And we'll have the demonstration of that according to how the expenses were incurred. I expect that the law firms and the investment banking firms bill on a daily basis. We know law firms billed on a 15-minute basis. That information should be very readily available. I don't care what they billed for. I'm not asking for that — just the chronology of their billings.

I must say that this lack of information and the ongoing uncertainty of this government's ability to conduct business in this province because of criminal investigations are extremely disturbing — extremely disturbing. We have a minimum $60 million privatization sale cancelled because of police raids, police investigations.

This minister can't even perform his duties properly, as a minister being held accountable for his responsibilities, because he can't answer questions because there's a police investigation. I'd like to see where that's ever happened before in a government in British Columbia — ever. Certainly not in the last 15 years has it occurred. Oh, I'm sorry. Not in the last 13 years has it occurred, ever, where a minister has been unable to answer questions because he may interfere with a police investigation into his duties.

I'm going to go back and examine the minister's comments, his information or his lack of information, with respect to other statements he has made in the Legislature. I want to go back to the main line sale of B.C. Rail and examine the $25 million transaction costs. We have $14 million of transaction costs to complete a sale that the government said they were never going to sell — B.C. Rail. The $11 million is for the continuation of what part of the companies of B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: The balance outside of the transaction costs, which the member correctly identified, refers to the cash requirements for the British Columbia Railway Company, which will continue, as the member knows, as a Crown corporation managing its non-rail subsidiary companies and holding title to all of the railway operating lines.

J. MacPhail: So how will that show in the summary accounts? How do the summary accounts change to reflect the work of B.C. Rail and this B.C. Rail company continuing — the summary accounts in the future?

Hon. K. Falcon: It will still be a Crown corporation, and it will be consolidated on a modified equity basis in the summary accounts.

Hon. K. Falcon: The B.C. Railway Company has some requirements for cash proceeds in order to ensure the internal restructuring is completed in time to accommodate the investment partnership and some ongoing requirements related to the residual entity. I should point out for the member's benefit that there is a difference between the use of proceeds and the accounting for the proceeds of the transaction.

J. MacPhail: What is the difference? I asked for the explanation of where the $1 billion was going to go, and the minister said the $1 billion was going to go for $25 million of transaction costs. I'm not quite sure why the minister's making the distinction.

If this isn't a sale and B.C. Rail Company Ltd. has not been changed by this operating transaction — what is it the minister calls it, an operating partnership? — then why is there any change to B.C. Railway Company Ltd. at all, including the accounting for it?

Hon. K. Falcon: B.C. Railway Company will no longer, of course, be responsible for the operation of the railway but maintains ownership of the railbed and right-of-way. There is no change in how B.C. Railway Company is accounted for. It will continue to be consolidated on a modified equity basis.

J. MacPhail: Would the minister like to rephrase about the transaction costs? Is he still saying, though, that $11 million to keep B.C. Railway Company going is a legitimate cost in the public's mind against the B.C. Rail deal of $1 billion?

If B.C. Railway Company continues as it did before but with different functions, but its entity hasn't changed, and if the government insists that they haven't sold B.C. Rail, why is it not just that B.C. Railway Company's expenses or accounting charges remain as is, minus the business that has been sold? I don't understand.

My next question is going to be walking through this book to show me where the revenue sources and expenditures are for B.C. Rail — where they've been assigned in the '04-05 budget. I've tried to do the work myself, and I'm having difficulty.

Hon. K. Falcon: For the benefit of the member, it might be more helpful if I direct her to page 60 of the three-year fiscal plan, which has two tables there. One portrays the disposition of cash proceeds, and the other is the impact on the operating statement. It shows the accounting treatment and the disposition of cash proceeds.

J. MacPhail: Yes, the minister gave me that information yesterday. Is that somehow an answer to my

question about why B.C. Railway Company, which theoretically was unaffected in its existence, except by a change in the duties and the money that flows to it for that…? Somehow $11 million of this sale gets booked against it. I'm not sure. Was that the explanation? If that is the minister's explanation, I'll try and struggle through it.

Madam Chair, maybe I can do this more in layperson's fashion. First of all, am I to understand that not one single dollar of the $1 billion of this sale has yet been booked in the '04-05 books? Am I correct in saying that?

J. MacPhail: Okay. Perhaps the minister could then walk me through, when the sale is completed, where the various allocations of moneys will be booked. Show me how this book, the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2004/05-2006/07, will change. That will help me.

Hon. K. Falcon: For the benefit of the member, there's a heading on page 61 entitled "Impact of a Delay in Concluding the Investment Partnership." For the sake of brevity, I'll just read sort of halfway down through it, where it begins, "…the provincial commitments to reinvest," to the completion of the investment partnership.

J. MacPhail: All right. Well, then, I'm going to have to do this the hard way.

Could the minister return to the estimates book, pages 204 and 205? It said, "Estimated Revenue by Source, B.C. Rail, $211 million," under "Contribution from Government Enterprises." What's that for and how, if at all, will that change? How will that change, if at all, in the public accounts if the sale goes through in '04-05? Let's take those in two parts. What does that mean — the $211 million booked as a revenue source from B.C. Rail in '04-05?

The Chair: I would just remind everybody that we're not in recess. I did call us back to order. Thank you.

Hon. K. Falcon: Sorry for the delay there, member. The one individual, apparently, that could absolutely answer this question is away having a baby. That's a positive thing, I think, for that individual. With the member's forbearance, if she wouldn't mind, we've got someone checking that out for her. As soon as we get that information, we'll get back to the member.

J. MacPhail: Can anyone help me, then, in terms of what it means…? The minister told me yesterday that the deal, the $1 billion…. Madam Chair, $261 million was going to go to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

In schedule N of the estimates book for the year ending March 31, 2005, it has, under "Estimated Expense by Function"…. Actually, let me go to schedule M first. For the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority it has, under "Taxation," $425 million for estimated revenue by source. That's gas tax. Then it has, under "Miscellaneous," $176 million. On the next page, "Estimated Expense by Function," in schedule N it has the BCTFA spending $520 million.

How will those two numbers change in public accounts for '04-05 when this deal goes through?

Hon. K. Falcon: Of the $261 million, $200 million is earmarked for the B.C. Transportation Financing account. It will be recorded as revenue in '04-05, which will be used for transportation projects that are already planned.

J. MacPhail: So the schedule M…. I'm actually trying to deal with it in terms of books. I hope the minister doesn't mind. The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority line under schedule M will have $261 million added to it under "Miscellaneous." Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: Okay. Where does the other $61 million go then? The minister told me yesterday that $261 million will go to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, that's true, member, but if you'll refer to page 60 of the three-year fiscal plan…. In the attempt to try and simplify things for everybody, you'll see on page 261 that there's a description of the $261 million being the "BCTFA multi-year capital program and cash available to reduce provincial debt."

Hon. K. Falcon: That's okay. Sorry. It's on page 60 at the bottom right — see the shaded area in the middle?

J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm asking: what does that mean? I see that. So $200 million is going into the BCTFA. What does that mean — "and cash available to reduce provincial debt"? What does that mean? Why is that getting booked against the B.C. Rail deal?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, on the top of page 60, in "Disposition of Cash Proceeds," it shows the billion-dollar proceeds; the $25 million transaction costs, etc., which we've discussed; the debt paydown, which we've discussed. Then it shows the $261 million, of which the $200 million would be for the Transportation Financing account, and the $61 million would be available for debt reduction. Then, of course, the balance of the $182 million is the northern development initiative and those other initiatives we discussed.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, maybe I can explain why I'm asking these questions. I'm trying to figure out what the benefit is to northern communities, or B.C. Rail communities. What's the net benefit of this sale? I'm just trying to figure out where the money is going.

I mean, as far as I can tell, it says reinvestment in northern and first nations communities is a total of 182 million bucks. That's 18.2 percent of the overall sale. Why is it that $61 million of this sale isn't going into the reinvestment in northern and first nations communities but is going to reduce provincial debt? That doesn't have anything to do with B.C. Rail debt. That was non-taxpayer-supported debt. Why is the minister booking costs like that against this deal?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first of all, all taxpayers benefit from reduced debt, not only current taxpayers but our children and grandchildren. The member asks for the benefits. There are enormous benefits with the elimination of the $532 million in B.C. Rail debt. That represents a significant savings of approximately $38 million a year in interest costs. They're certainly happy to talk about the benefits to northern communities, particularly with things like the $4 million airport expansion in Prince George, the $135 million northern development initiative controlled by northerners for the benefit of northerners, the $15 million first nations benefit trust and, of course, the almost $800 million in new taxes for communities up and down the line.

The member already knows the huge benefits associated with the increased efficiencies of having CN operate things: 25 percent faster travel times to North Vancouver, a two-day Chicago express to the most important hub in North America, access to the entire eastern corridor. Those are the kinds of benefits we're referring to.

J. MacPhail: What has that got to do with my question? Absolutely nothing. I'm trying to figure out why the government is making all these charges against this $1 billion sale that the B.C. Liberal MLAs claim is such good news for the northern communities and the B.C. Rail communities.

The minister says there'll be a $38 million benefit because there won't be any debt-servicing costs on the $532 million of B.C. Rail debt. Balderdash. The shippers were paying those debt-servicing costs in their fees, and they will continue to pay the debt-servicing costs for that amount of debt to CN. CN will continue to charge them through their shipping rates for that debt-servicing cost. It means nothing to British Columbians; it means nothing to the shippers. They're not getting a break on their shipping rates. Oh, I'm sorry. They're getting 2.3 percent for we don't know what on their interline agreements, on their shipping costs for…. We don't know whether it's a day or a year or five years. That is just a completely false argument that the minister makes.

Why did the government choose to allocate $61 million of the sale of B.C. Rail to reducing provincial debt rather than reinvesting it in the northern and first nations communities?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I indicated earlier…. Perhaps it's a distinction between the two of us, but we in our government just fundamentally and philosophically believe that debt reduction is good for our children and our grandchildren. One of the things that always was a concern to us was the doubling of the provincial debt over the last decade. That's why we've introduced a balanced budget this year, through the leadership of the Finance minister. Any attempts we can make to reduce that debt, we think, are positive for all British Columbians.

J. MacPhail: It's been this government that's increased the rate of debt growth faster than any other previous government. That's number one. In fact, the increased debt is because of operating deficit. They're not building hospitals or schools or anything, like the previous government did. Yeah, people actually got something for their debt. They got hospitals, and they got schools, and they got nursing homes, and they got highways. Their taxes weren't increased. Their gas taxes weren't increased. Isn't that great?

This government has increased the debt because of operating deficit. They've not built one single thing — and this minister takes pride in that? Then it turns out that you're right. They're using $61 million of this sale to pay down provincial debt that's about — what? — 1 percent of the amount of debt that they've actually added to the books in operating deficit. They're taking it out of the sale, and they're paying down debt. That's great. You sell your house, you pay off your mortgage, and you claim to be further ahead. That's the kind of business acumen of this government. You're left with nothing, absolutely nothing, and this minister says: "Oh, we know business better than anyone else."

So $61 million gets taken away from the communities along the B.C. Rail line and gets paid into provincial debt. What's the $200 million going toward? It says BCTFA multi-year projects, multi-year capital pro-

Hon. K. Falcon: Let me just first of all preface my remarks by pointing out to the member that when she says there's nothing in it for British Columbians, especially northerners, I would hasten to add that almost $400 million worth of benefits is a pretty substantial amount. It's the $182 million, of course, in the northern development initiative and the other first nations initiatives, etc. It's the $200 million, as we've indicated, which is part of a massive roadbuilding and rehabilitation program we have underway in this province. It's part of the $1.3 billion that we'll be investing over three years, 85 percent of which will find its way into the heartlands of this great province — not to mention, of course, my comment that every British Columbian benefits whenever we remove debt from the books. Removing $532 million of debt from the summary accounts is always a positive thing.

J. MacPhail: What's the $200 million going to be spent on? What are the multi-year projects?

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize, member, because you're quite right. You did ask that specific question. The challenge is that there are so many of them that it would be difficult for me to say. What I will do for the benefit of the member is that we have a transportation brochure called Opening Up B.C. which outlines all of the projects across the province. I'll make sure I get a copy to the member as soon as I'm finished here.

J. MacPhail: Is this $200 million part of the $809 million expenditure that the Ministry of Transportation is making for '04-05, as listed in schedule N?

J. MacPhail: How are they multi-year then? Why can't the minister tell me, then, if it's not part of the $809 million package? Why can't he tell me what projects he's got planned for that? He clearly knows that they're not part of that expenditure. That narrows down the list quite substantially, so what are they?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, that $200 million, of course, is part of the money coming into the BCTFA, which is then reinvested in communities right across the province. As I indicated, in a way, I'm not really apologetic just because there are so many different projects. I'm not being disingenuous. It's just that that's the reality. But I will get the absolute breakdown of all of those projects right across the province for that member's perusal.

J. MacPhail: I'm not interested in that. I want to know what this $200 million is being spent on. There's a lot more spin in these documents than in previous governments, but I assume those words actually have meaning: "In addition to funding these initiatives, $200 million will be provided to the British Columbia Transportation Financing Authority (BCTFA) for the multi-year capital program." I asked the minister whether those projects were part of the $809 million spent by the Ministry of Transportation, which includes the BCTFA expenditures for that year.

J. MacPhail: Oh. No, it doesn't. All right. Does it include…? I guess I'll just ask every single question.

Let's go the expenditure, then, for BCTFA under schedule N. It says that they'll be expending $520 million on transportation. Does that include the $200 million from the B.C. Rail deal transfer?

Hon. K. Falcon: The B.C. Transportation Financing account has both operating and capital expenditures. On page 205 of the blue book the member will be able to see the operating expenditures. If she's looking for details of those expenditures, she can find them in our service plan. The capital spending portion is on page 40 of the budget with, again, more details in our service plan.

Okay. I got all that information. What's the $200 million being spent on, of those projects listed?

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess two thoughts. One is that the important thing to recognize is that $200 million comes into the BCTFA, which is part of the total dollars we can then use. That's $200 million more than we had before and part of the total dollars we can use to pay out for projects underway. I've made a note to bring the member a detailed breakdown of those projects in the heartlands, which I think is what this member's referring to.

I can think of two that immediately come to mind. One was the four-laning of Highway 97 in Fort St. John, which is a major project that is just getting underway. The other was a new bridge just outside of Prince George. These are two that immediately come to mind, but I'll get the member a detailed breakdown.

J. MacPhail: I know why the minister's reluctant to give me this information. It's because once again they're selling off B.C. Rail, which was a wonderful asset, a major contributor to the economy. They're paying off the debt; we're left with no asset. You've got no house to live in, and the minister's absconding with the money — away from the people, the communities, who did benefit from having B.C. Rail in their community.

Here's what I learned from the service plan. A total over three years of $225 million is going to be invested in all the heartland roads — a total over three years. The projects that the minister mentioned don't even come close to a quarter of that $200 million this gov-

Let's be clear. The B.C. Rail sale is getting this government out of a hole that it put itself in financially. It's using the funds to pay for things that it should be paying for if it were a responsible economic manager. What a joke — the Minister of Finance taking that softball question about how well the economy's doing here in British Columbia. What does that mean for British Columbians in terms of taxpayers? Nothing. Their taxes are going up, and they're getting less for them. This is one example.

Where's the lease payment being booked? Let me read what it says in this hotbox. No, sorry. That's a hockey term. What are these called? Some kind of boxes — I forget what the…. The lease payment for….

Madam Chair, I just found it. If I could just take a pause for one second, please, and quote exactly what I'm…. I'm reading at the bottom of page 59: "The investment partnership will mean CN will prepay rent for the long-term lease of the railway right-of-way. The investment partnership is expected to conclude by March 31, 2004." Well, we know that's not true.

What does that sentence mean? "The investment partnership will mean CN will prepay" — prepay — "rent for the long-term lease of the railway right-of-way"? Where's that…? Well, how much is that, and where is it booked in the allocation of funds that the minister has just outlined?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, that prepayment is part of the $1 billion. In reference to the comment the member made earlier there, in terms of the road amounts she was commenting on, I just want to point out to the member that that number she referred to just refers to the side roads system provincewide. Then there are also the main capital projects, like the Fort St. John four-laning that I was talking about. Then, of course, there are all the other benefits, like the port of Prince Rupert investment of $17.2 million from the province and, of course, the $15 million from the railway, which is probably why the council in Prince Rupert have passed a unanimous resolution continuing to back and support the B.C. Rail–CN investment partnership just the other night.

J. MacPhail: When's that port of Prince Rupert project going to start, even, let alone be finished?

Hon. K. Falcon: We actually asked and answered those questions yesterday, member.

J. MacPhail: I've never asked when the port of Prince Rupert project would start or finish — never — because it just occurred to me now. I've never asked that question. I've questioned the funding of it, but I've never asked that question.

Hon. K. Falcon: All the parties…. Certainly, the province has made our commitment very clear. CN has made their commitment clear. I believe the port of Prince Rupert is working on and in the process of securing the federal participation.

J. MacPhail: When is the project going to start? Is it contingent upon federal funding?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, of course, the port authority is taking the lead on putting that together. I would suggest the member direct her question to them. I know they're working very hard at this — very excited about it, as we are in the province. That's why we're supporting them so strongly in their efforts.

J. MacPhail: How would I ask the port authority any question? This is a provincial jurisdiction, and I'm a provincial MLA. What a ridiculous referral. It's this government that's touting the great benefits for Prince Rupert. In fact, it was the minister that provoked this question in me. He was the one saying: "Oh, the port of Prince Rupert is a great benefit to the people of Prince Rupert, and that's why they've endorsed the sale 100 percent." The minute I start questioning him on it, he starts skating. He starts ducking and weaving and telling me maybe I should go find out that information from somewhere else, because of course, he knows full well there's no federal funding secured for it yet, and the project can't start without that funding.

We do know that this government's trying to rob the federal infrastructure program that provides rural federal infrastructure to pay for the RAV line in downtown Vancouver. We do know that. We also know that there has been not one cent of federal funding committed for the port of Prince Rupert, and nothing can happen until that federal funding is committed. The minister immediately starts saying that maybe I should get my information from some other source about the great project. The reason for that is because there's nothing great about the project. It's a hollow promise to the people of Prince Rupert until the federal funding is secured — completely hollow. I've been to the port of Prince Rupert, and it requires the full $54 million of investment and then the $15 million of investment from CN on upgrading the rail line.

The money that the provincial government has committed does nothing to upgrade the port of Prince Rupert without the federal funding. That's why the minister won't answer the question.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could answer the question. He just referred me to the port authority. Now he wants to answer a question. How about answering a question about the lease payment — how much is it? — like I asked the minister? Where does it get booked?

Hon. K. Falcon: I already told the member that was part of the $1 billion in proceeds. One thing I do want to make clear to the member — or a few things that she has just commented on…. The first is that the member knows the port authority is a federal agency, but I must say that even with my somewhat limited years in government, I am shocked to hear the member crush the dreams of those folks in Prince Rupert and northwestern B.C. who have struggled so hard after a decade of some of the most difficult government they could possibly imagine. The dream those folks have — and it's a realistic dream, a dream of containerization of the port of Prince Rupert…. That member says: "There's nothing great about the project." Well, I'll tell you, those are going to be words that will come back and haunt that member, because there is a lot great about that project.

I gather that the member is of the opinion that we should not be contributing as a province to that project because apparently there's nothing great about that project. Well, I want that member to know that there's everything great about that project. What is great about the folks in northwestern B.C. is that in spite of the difficult times they've had, they recognize that there's an opportunity for the first time to have a government that shares their dreams for revitalization; shares their dreams that they, too, can have a first-rate port in Prince Rupert; shares their dream for the benefits that will be derived from offshore oil and gas; and shares their hope that once again the folks in northwestern B.C. can dream again.

Frankly, I'm disappointed. I am personally disappointed because I've gone up and I've actually looked those folks in the eye, and I know how tough it's been for them for the last ten years. I have to tell that member that I am disappointed to hear her say there's nothing great about that project.

J. MacPhail: When's the project starting? If it's not false hope this government's giving Prince Rupert, when's the project starting? Answer the question.

Hon. K. Falcon: The reason I referred that member to…. Actually, it would good for that member to take the time and contact the head of the Prince Rupert Port Authority, because they have been working day and night…

Hon. K. Falcon: …to put together all the partners. This province has made a commitment, and I assume that because the member believes there's nothing great about the project, the province should withdraw its commitment. Well, I'll tell you, we won't be doing that. We will not be withdrawing it. That's why we're fighting for the B.C. Rail–CN investment partnership. It's exactly projects like this that will benefit from the proceeds of that investment partnership.

I can't wait until those folks who have worked so hard in Prince Rupert putting this together…. They will bring all the parties together, and we are working with them to make sure they have every success in bringing the federal government fully to the table as a full and equal participant in this great endeavour.

J. MacPhail: The bluster and bravado of that minister is only emphasized by his refusal to answer the key question, which is: when does the project start? He can't answer it, because there's no federal funding for it.

By the way, I'd be happy, during April 2005, to have a debate with this minister in Prince Rupert on my words and his words — the real words spoken. I'd be happy, and I challenge him to it today. April 2005 — we'll have a debate on my words versus his words in Prince Rupert. I welcome it; I look forward to it. We'll see whether there's one single step forward on the false hope that his government has given to Prince Rupert.

What's the price of the lease that CN is paying, and where is it in the allocation of the funds that the minister outlined for me?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is, I think, confusing allocation of proceeds with accounting treatment. I think I'm gathering what the member is trying to drive at. I'm advised that a prepaid lease is treated as deferred revenues for accounting purposes. If the member goes to table 1 on page 60, it has a value for deferred revenue. The accountants are still working on what the exact allocation will be.

J. MacPhail: The former Minister of Transportation told me that the cost of the prepaid lease, for the entire lease, was $150 million. Was she wrong?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I'm sorry. Nobody is able to recollect that comment. Could you point out to me where it is? Perhaps I can follow that up for her.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I just don't have that in front of me. I can't comment on a comment of the previous minister without confirming that that's the case. Nobody here can recollect the minister making that comment, but I will try and follow that up for the member's benefit.

J. MacPhail: If my staff is listening, would you get it for this big government? I know we're like equals here. I know the opposition resources match the government resources, so we'll be able to find it.

Is the minister saying that under table 1…? It was the minister who said the cost of the lease is booked against the $1 billion. Here we are. Could the minister explain what the line "Net book value of disposed as-

Hon. K. Falcon: That would be the estimate of the value of the prepaid lease and the assets that CN is requiring.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think I mentioned to the member…. I'm quite certain I mentioned that the accountants are working on that allocation as we speak.

J. MacPhail: Well, thank you. I'm so happy that the opposition can find this stuff and the government can't, because God knows that we have about the same workloads.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, could you be good enough to read me your question to the minister so I can be clear as to what she's answering?

J. MacPhail: We're discussing: "Well, then how much are they paying for lease costs?"

J. MacPhail: "J. MacPhail: Well, then how much are they paying for lease costs?" "That's included as an upfront lease payment," says the minister. Then we have a little bit of discussion, and then the minister answers the $150 million. I'm glad to help the minister out.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think one of the things I keyed into when the member was kind enough to read out the answer from the previous minister was that she underscored the fact that accountants were continuing to work on that issue, along with, obviously, review by the comptroller general and the auditor general. As I've indicated to the member, the accountants are working on it as we speak to determine the appropriate allocation. Once that allocation is concluded, that member will have access to all that information.

J. MacPhail: How did the minister calculate the net book value of disposed assets and deferred revenue as $770 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Minister of Finance, in consultation with the comptroller general, ultimately makes that allocation.

J. MacPhail: So I can't get any explanation. Is that what the minister is saying?

Let me ask this question, then. It's surprising how little information this minister is willing to give on what seem to be some pretty straightforward questions. What does this number mean? If the minister won't confirm that the prepaid lease is $150 million, can he answer this question? How much of the prepaid lease gets booked annually as a source of revenue after the transaction agreement has gone through?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've indicated before, the accountants are still working on all those questions.

J. MacPhail: Who is actually working on it, then? I'll call them. I'll call them for an update, because those public servants will actually answer my question. Who's working on it specifically, and what stage is it at?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would suggest that the member can contact the Finance minister.

J. MacPhail: Well, this gets increasingly embarrassing for this minister, I'll tell you. I don't know why he's…. I love it when he pops up and says what a great deal this is and mentions the port of Prince Rupert. Then the minute he's asked some questions about what the numbers really mean, ooh, he's delegating it to someone else. I asked him at the very beginning of these estimates who was responsible for this deal, and he said: "I am." It turns out he isn't.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not at all being disrespectful, member, but I think I have indicated on numerous, numerous occasions that that's part of the accounting treatment work that's underway right now.

J. MacPhail: Net book value of disposed assets is an accounting mechanism? No, it isn't.

J. MacPhail: Okay, what are the disposed assets? Let's start there. What are the disposed assets? Can the minister list them?

Hon. K. Falcon: Generally speaking, that would include things like the rolling stock — the freight cars, locomotives, etc.

J. MacPhail: The minister is suggesting that CN signed on to a deal where there was no value agreed upon for the disposed assets. Is that what I am to understand?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, CN agreed to pay a price, and we still have to do work to allocate that price.

J. MacPhail: You know, Madam Chair, I don't believe the minister is being forthcoming here. I have to tell you, he knows full well the answers to these questions, and he is refusing to answer them. It is ridiculous for him to somehow suggest that his government doesn't know the net book value of the disposed assets.

How the heck do they possibly know whether they've got a good deal or not, then? Did CN perhaps get a billion-plus worth of assets? I certainly hope not, but that's certainly open to possibility now. It's certainly possible for us to speculate that CN took British Columbia to the cleaners, because this government doesn't know the net book value of the disposed assets — or else the minister isn't being forthcoming. I'm not allowed to use any other, more unparliamentary, language.

We're supposed to believe that these guys are good negotiators? This government good negotiators? No. I think we know exactly that the minister has the information about the net value of disposed assets. And with the previous minister actually being far more forthcoming than this minister about the value of the prepaid lease, those two numbers may lead to some more embarrassing questions that the minister doesn't have the ability to skate around. His skates are laced up, but he can't stand up on the ice. He's incapable of delivering, because he knows how damaging the truth may be in this circumstance.

Will the accounting difficulties, challenges, of this prepaid lease be worked out by the time CN assumes ownership of the rolling stock?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member well knows, as a previous Finance minister, the proceeds will be booked in the '04-05 fiscal. The auditor general will examine the accounting treatment as part of the finalization of the public accounts.

J. MacPhail: What is the government going to tell the auditor general to examine? What are the numbers the government is going to give to the auditor general? That's the basis upon which he does his work. Is the minister suggesting that the previous Minister of Transportation was wrong when she said the prepaid lease would be $150 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: Presumably, the numbers will be the allocations that the accountants who are working on them will have agreed to. I do remind the member that we are now spending a fair bit of time talking about accounting policy rather than the estimates of the Minister of Transportation.

J. MacPhail: I started the estimates by asking who was responsible for this deal. This minister took ownership of it. I'm not talking accounting principles. I'm asking for numbers — numbers that I've already got from his government. He refuses to confirm it. He's squirming. He's misinforming because he's embarrassed. That's why — absolutely embarrassed.

Okay, let's keep going down the numbers, then. We know the transaction…. Oh, let's go to this. The amount of cash required to pay off the debt is $532 million. The book value of the debt that will be paid off is $479 million. Is that yet to be booked under the estimates? Will it be part of the restated estimates — that figure? What will the exact figure be — $479 million or $532 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: That $479 million would represent the book value as of March 31, 2004. The differences between the two are the defeasance costs associated with that. In terms of the impact, that would reflect what I'd read out earlier into the statement: "While the provincial debt as of March 31, 2004, would be higher than currently forecast, debt would return to forecast levels upon completion of the partnership transaction."

J. MacPhail: What, if any, effect does a delay in the completion of the transaction have on those numbers?

Hon. K. Falcon: There would be some modest difference, depending on the amount of principal payments and interest payments that have been made and, of course, interest rates. But, again, the key thing is that the debt would return to forecast levels upon completion of the partnership transaction.

J. MacPhail: I don't know what that means. I have no idea what the minister meant. What does that mean? What would the forecast level be?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I said earlier, it's…. Well, actually, it's virtually impossible to give the member an exact number, because it depends on so many variations, including the amount of interest paid, and that depends, of course, on when the transaction does conclude, how much principal is paid, what the interest rates are at the time, etc.

What I was reading to the member was actually on page 61, which is headlined "Impact of a Delay." What I was trying to get across to the member, perhaps inarticulately, was this point — the final few sentences that just say: "However, if the investment partnership does not conclude until fiscal 2004-05, the planned debt reduction would be delayed. While provincial debt as of March 31, 2004, would be higher than currently forecast, debt would return to forecast levels upon completion of the partnership transaction."

J. MacPhail: Oh, I see what the minister is saying — fine — but I'm asking what that forecast level is. Really what we're doing here is…. There is $479 million book value of debt being paid off in this sale.

On page 42, the "Provincial Debt Summary," table 1.18 of the Budget and Fiscal Plan, the total provincial debt, "Budget Estimate 2004-05," is estimated at $39.452 billion. I wonder what it was when they took over. I wonder what the debt was. Hmm — a lot lower than that.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, and hospitals and schools and highways and universities were built.

The Chair: Excuse me. Order, order. I remind members to go through the Chair. Thank you.

J. MacPhail: Oh, this deal could be your fast ferries. There's no question about it.

What does that number change to, and by how much, given what's in this book — the $479 million? Is that number reduced by $479 million or $532 million?

Maybe I can make my question simpler. On page 4.1…. What I'm trying to drive at here is that the government claims they're paying $532 million in debt. I'm suggesting otherwise. I'm suggesting that the real debt they're paying off is $479 million for B.C. Rail, because that is the deficit of B.C. Rail. Actually, $478 million is the debt of B.C. Rail as of December 31, 2003, according to table 4.14.

Because this government is selling this, they have to incur costs to get out of that debt of $53 million. Their broken promise is costing $53 million of wasted money — for breaking their promise of not selling B.C. Rail. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I've already explained that to you. Again, I refer the member to page 60, where it very clearly shows the book value of the debt that will be paid off being $479 million, and it also shows the defeasance costs of $53 million.

J. MacPhail: So it's not $532 million of debt this government is paying off. It isn't at all. Because they're selling B.C. Rail — a company that was managing its debt-servicing costs quite nicely and had a debt-to-equity ratio that was excellent across this country…. The shippers' rates paid fully for that debt servicing. The shippers' rates were completely competitive. The ideological sale of this government is costing $53 million of wasted money, because this government broke its promise and is now selling B.C. Rail and is having to pay those costs for breaking the promise — selling B.C. Rail, paying those defeasance costs.

It's just wasted money — absolutely wasted money. They're breaking their deal, and it's costing British Columbians $53 million to get out of their obligations that were working just fine from a commercial and competitive point of view — $53 million.

Let's tally up how much wasted money is on this so far. We've got $53 million wasted because they're having to pay that because the debt hasn't matured — a debt that was fully serviceable and competitively serviceable. They're paying $15 million to lawyers, accountants and real estate advisers to sell B.C. Rail. The only people getting rich on that are lawyers and real estate advisers. Let's see. So it's $53 million plus $15 million — $68 million so far of just wasted, non-productive spending to fulfil a sale that they said they were never going to do. Isn't that wonderful. Why does the minister say that they're getting rid of $532 million of debt?

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess this is where, again, we have a fundamental difference with that member and her party. We actually think there is a real value to the province being debt-free. We actually think there's a value to paying off your debt. This member may be unlike many folks, but there are a lot of folks out there who, if they have the opportunity to pay off their mortgage — even with some penalties — would do that if they were able to.

J. MacPhail: But they've got their house left. You sold the house. We've got nothing.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, this member, as I say, apparently finds it difficult to understand that. I guess I can appreciate that. As my colleague here pointed out, the debt doubled under her ten years in power, so I suppose that's not altogether surprising.

The member should know, of course, that one of the beauties of this CN–B.C. Rail investment partnership is not just that we maintain public ownership of the railbed and rights-of-way but that through the partnership arrangement, we will see the private sector investment — this is the wonderful part — with no taxpayer exposure to any of the debt that may be accumulated by that private sector partner in terms of the improvements.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's right. The member from Peace River North points out the new cars that would be invested in, the increased transportation time, the transit time, and all the great benefits that that will provide for shippers, for communities. Think about this. This is one of the things that I always come back to, because we know how important it is to revitalize the north. I know the members here will share this enthusiasm with me. One of the ways you revitalize the north is you ensure that they are able to get their goods to market as quickly as they can, because the faster goods get to market, the more they are productive and the more they are competitive with other competitors around the world.

Increasing transit times by up to 25 percent in North Vancouver is an enormous benefit. Being able to see goods get through the Chicago express two days earlier to that whole northeastern portion in the United States is an enormous benefit. I guess it's just a difference of recognizing how those kinds of benefits can play such an integral role in revitalizing northern communities that that member doesn't agree with.

J. MacPhail: I always love it when the minister goes to his ideological zeal and rhetoric when he's too embarrassed to answer a question.

Here's this deal so far. Just looking at page 60, let's go through the numbers on this great "$1 billion deal" — $15 million going to lawyers and accountants that nobody has anything to show for; $53 million….

J. MacPhail: Oh, the minister says a billion dollars. We're going to get to that.

J. MacPhail: Let's just get to that. So $53 million that this government had to pay because they were in such a haste to get rid of a fabulous asset — completely wasted. That's the debt defeasance cost that doesn't go anywhere — except to the banks to pay them off, with no productivity attached to it.

The minister has no idea how much he got for the net book value of disposed assets — none. He has no idea what those disposed assets were worth or what he got paid for them, according to him. He has no idea what the prepaid lease costs are. We'll get into that in a few moments. He's quite sure what a lease is. He's very sure what a lease is, and he keeps hectoring and lecturing everyone else that he knows what a lease is, but today he has no idea what the cost of that prepaid lease is. Hmm, isn't that interesting?

Mr. Chair, $200 million is going to pay for road and bridge projects that this government should be funding out of its 3½-cent gas hike anyway. He can't tell whether those projects are for the communities along the B.C. Rail line or not.

We do know that they absconded with $61 million to pay off provincial debt that has nothing to do with anything other than an increase in debt brought on by this government with their operating cost deficits — the most unproductive way of spending government money that anyone could possibly imagine. This government set a new record for wasting money on debt related to operating deficit. Even the Social Credit government, when they were spending at 12 percent per annum, didn't incur the operating deficits of this government. Even they didn't do that, and they set a record back in their day. It was unmatched until this government came in.

What have we got left out of $53 million plus $15 million completely wasted? That's $68 million of wasted money. We've got $261 million being allocated to projects that have absolutely nothing to do with B.C. Rail's sale or the communities. Out of that there's 182 million bucks left and no B.C. Rail to show for it. What was the profit for B.C. Rail? What was the excess revenue over costs of B.C. Rail for the year ending 2003?

J. MacPhail: And the year before, it was about the same, and the year before, I think it was about the same as that. Or maybe I'm wrong. I don't want to misinterpret or misrepresent. Over the last three years, for instance, what was the net income in total?

Hon. K. Falcon: The net income for the periods. In 2002 it was a loss of $84.198 million; in 2001, a loss of $106.907 million; in 2000, a loss of $6.721 million; and in 1999, a loss of $582.059 million.

J. MacPhail: Oh, really — because of the write-downs. Yeah, right. The write-downs as a result of the failed Tumbler Ridge. You know, honestly, this minister knows that the net income over operating costs has exceeded $60 million for the last three years. He deliberately misleads the House — deliberately. Unbelievable.

Hon. K. Falcon: Excuse me. Mr. Chair. Perhaps you weren't paying attention — and if you weren't, I can understand — but the member just accused me of deliberately misleading the House. The member asked for the net income figures for B.C. Rail, which I just gave the member. Apparently, the member is upset because it includes write-downs. Well, there's a surprise for the member. Actually, there are costs associated with write-downs. Clearly, that member doesn't figure that kind of thing out.

You know, she goes through this deal, and she tries through every possible way to find all the negatives associated with this deal. Apparently, this member's upset there's a $1 billion transaction that took place

here. Apparently, that member's upset that almost $400 million is going to benefit folks right across this province and, in particular, in northern B.C. But no. No, that member just has difficulty dealing with the facts, and apparently, in her world, write-downs don't exist. That's understandable given that they wrote off billions and billions of dollars, as we discovered once we came in and started having a look at the books.

The Chair: Member, if you used unparliamentary language, I would ask that you withdraw the remark.

What billions and billions of dollars — through you, Mr. Chair? Tell me: what billions and billions? Just go ahead.

He's absolutely, completely misleading the House, and he knows it. Billions and billions, eh?

The write-down that this government immediately came in to change the books on B.C. Rail was a result of the Tumbler Ridge write-down brought in by the Social Credit government. The Minister of Energy was part of that party for — I don't know what — two, three weeks before he changed to another party, then another party, then another party. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Okay, let's have an explanation of this, then. Let's just go to the facts that are existing in this book. Table 1.4, "Revenue by Source". Surely the big B.C. Rail corporation has managed to make up for a woman who's away on pregnancy leave and has an answer to this question now. Surely a corporation doesn't rely on one single person for information.

Let's look at table 1.4. B.C. Rail updated forecast for '03-04 is $98 million. I assume that's different from the figure that the minister gave because of the different fiscal year-ends. What does the $211 million mean in that line and the $51 million for '05-06 and the $17 million for '06-07? By their own numbers, excluding the $211 million, those figures almost equal — well, I won't exaggerate; they equal — about $130 million, fully two-thirds of the total gain that this government gets from B.C. Rail. And no B.C. Rail left — the house sold, the roof gone.

The Chair: Could I remind all members that they may disagree in debate but please be respectful of each other.

Then $89 million plus $51 million plus $17 million, which are the government's own documents for net income, excluding the $200 million that they booked for this year, totals $157 million for the next…. That excludes the $211 million that people don't have an explanation for yet. They're getting a net of $182 million, and everything's gone.

Hon. K. Falcon: I have now got an explanation for the member on the $211 million. I'll quote directly. First we show the B.C. Rail 2004 calendar year revenue of $211 million, which includes the then-expected gain of $182 million. Further down, the $182 million is removed as an accounting adjustment. Again, the same adjustment of $190 million overall is shown before you get to the revenue by source.

J. MacPhail: And the revenue by source to '06-07 is how much for B.C. Rail, excluding that accounting?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member can just add in the numbers there for '05-06 and '06-07.

J. MacPhail: Right. That's what I did, and that totals $157 million for this fiscal plan — $89 million plus $51 million plus $17 million. This government's getting $182 million, and they've sold everything, lock, stock and barrel — rolling stock, that would be. Isn't that great? Wow — good business people.

I guess this government takes pride in the fact that it had to write off…. My government had to write down over $600 million from the Social Credit government, and they take pride in the fact that they can poke that Social Credit government in the eye and say how bad that was. They use that as a basis to undermine B.C. Rail, all of the changes that were made to B.C. Rail through the 1990s — all of them subsequent to the failed Social Credit initiative.

Mr. Chair, I have to tell you: I'm not even going to criticize the Social Credit government for doing that investment. At least they had to guts to invest — not divest, the way this government does. At least they had the guts to go to Tumbler Ridge and say, "Maybe that's worth an investment," rather than selling off the assets and divesting British Columbians of their assets.

J. MacPhail: Excuse me? Oh, it's always so helpful to have comments from the peanut gallery. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour or whatever….

J. MacPhail: Yeah, well, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said that was federal money. Really? Maybe you'd actually like to ask the members of your government who were Social Credit members, part of that great government. Just ask them. Have a caucus meeting. I'm sure there won't be any disagreement from the Minister of Human Resources or the Minister of Energy or the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast — all Social Credit members. The Minister of Skills Development and Labour was a member of that government. I'm sure they'll all be able to explain that.

J. MacPhail: You know, there's one person here who's working their butt off for people in British Co-

lumbia to try to find the answers, and it's me. The rest of the government sits there and mocks that. It turns out that the government can't answer the questions.

The Chair: Member, would you direct all your comments through the Chair, please. Thank you. And again, could we be relevant, or go back to the debate?

J. MacPhail: Okay. Maybe the minister can now stand up and say what billions and billions of dollars were written off and when.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll say to the member again that I'm fascinated by her monologues, which have absolutely nothing to do with my estimates. We'll get back to my estimates debate, please.

J. MacPhail: Was the minister misleading the House? Could he just…? Actually, if he wasn't…. I withdrew my comment about that. Maybe he could say the billions and billions of dollars that were written off by the previous government.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I'd be happy not to talk about the ferries. I'd be happy not to talk about Skeena Cellulose. I'd be happy not to talk about any of those if we can get back to my estimates, please.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister would stop, then, with his ridiculous comments.

J. MacPhail: Oh, if I sit down, then, will the minister answer my questions?

Okay, let me ask another question. I know the minister likes relevant questions. Has he got the information yet about what the net book value is of the disposed assets? Maybe he'd like relevant questions.

The Chair: Members, I would like to draw the members' attention to the clock, and I would like to ask that we adjourn.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


Lekstrom		Nettleton

	NAYS — 33

Coell	Chong	Brice
Hansen	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Bray	Wilson
Lee	Cheema	Murray
Plant	Collins	Harris
Cobb	Jarvis	Nuraney
R. Stewart	Hunter	Trumper
Johnston	Krueger	Hayer
Stephens	Locke	Wong
K. Stewart	Bloy	Sultan
Hamilton	Hawes	Kerr

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


	YEAS — 4

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger
	Nettleton

	NAYS — 50

Falcon	Chong	Brice
Hansen	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Bray	Roddick
Wilson	Lee	Cheema
Thorpe	Murray	Plant
Campbell	Collins	Bond
Harris	Christensen	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Cobb
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Hogg	Nuraney	Nebbeling
Hunter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Krueger	J. Reid
Hayer	Stephens	Locke
Wong	Lekstrom	MacKay
Halsey-Brandt	K. Stewart	Bloy
Whittred	Sultan	Hawes
Kerr		Manhas


	YEAS — 40

Falcon	Chong	Brice
Hansen	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Bray	Wilson
Lee	Cheema	Murray
Plant	Collins	Bond
Harris	Christensen	Coleman
Cobb	Jarvis	Orr
Hogg	Nuraney	R. Stewart
Hunter	Trumper	Johnston
Krueger	J. Reid	Hayer
Stephens	Locke	Wong
Lekstrom	K. Stewart	Bloy
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
	Kerr

	NAYS — 4

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger
	Nettleton


	YEAS — 31

Coell	Chong	Brice
Hansen	Bruce	van Dongen
Bray	Wilson	Lee
Cheema	Murray	Plant
Collins	Bond	Cobb
Jarvis	Nuraney	R. Stewart
Hunter	Trumper	Johnston
Krueger	Hayer	Stephens
Locke	Lekstrom	Bloy
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
	Kerr

	NAYS — 4

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger
	Nettleton


	YEAS — 32

Coell	Chong	Brice
Hansen	Bruce	van Dongen
Bray	Wilson	Lee
Cheema	Murray	Plant
Collins	Harris	Cobb
Jarvis	Nuraney	R. Stewart
Hunter	Trumper	Johnston
Krueger	Hayer	Stephens
Locke	Lekstrom	Bloy
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
Wong		Kerr

	NAYS — 4

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger
	Nettleton


	YEAS — 34

Coell	Chong	Brice
Hansen	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Bray	Wilson
Lee	Cheema	Murray
Plant	Collins	Harris
Cobb	Jarvis	Nuraney
R. Stewart	Hunter	Trumper
Johnston	Krueger	Hayer
Stephens	Locke	Wong
Lekstrom	K. Stewart	Bloy
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
	Kerr

	NAYS — 4

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger
	Nettleton