2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 2

[ Page 1949 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: Joining us today in the gallery are representatives of the B.C. branch of the Last Post Fund. The Last Post Fund is a national non-profit organization that works to ensure that all veterans in Canada receive a funeral, burial and grave marker befitting someone who has defended our shared freedoms.

In honour of the 100th anniversary of the Last Post Fund, we are proud to be proclaiming November 5 as Last Post Fund Day in British Columbia.

I hope the Legislature will join me in welcoming retired Maj.-Gen. Ed Fitch, the branch vice-president; retired Col. Sam Dunbar, the branch president; retired Col. Don McLellan, an honorary member; Mr. Ron Rowdon, the manager; Howardeena Kembel-McGrory, senior counsel; and her husband, Shawn McGrory.

Thank you for all the work you do in honouring our veterans.

L. Reid: Today in our gallery we are have representatives of Equal Voice. Today was the British Columbia launch of Equal Voice, which is a process that is all about engaging young women, young girls in the democratic process — how they might wish to become involved.

I have lots of guests here with us today, and I want to thank my colleague from North Island for assisting in the hosting of this lovely group of souls. We have Amanda Reaume, Carolyn Jack, Janet Wiegand, Jodi Robertson, Laura Mcleod, Kristine Zellweger, Catherine McGregor, Slaine Sutherland, Siobhan Powlowski, Jocelyn Jones, Annie Do, Ariana Moragh, Jordon Watson, Breanna Aslett, Bethany McElvaine, Puja Bates, Jenn Bowie, Jen Wizinksy, Corrina Shanga, Kati-Raven George-Jim, Kieran McCabe-Gregg, Katherine Charlesworth, Siobhan Mcarthur and Elizabeth Kuroyedov.

Our sponsors today: Katherine Rio from TD Canada Trust and Patrick Lauzon from Merck Frosst. Also represented are the Girl Guides of Canada, by Alex McKenzie and Daphne McGregor-Grier.

I would ask the House to join me in offering the finest welcome ever. Thanks to all the colleagues who joined with us today in the Ned DeBeck.

K. Conroy: I want to introduce a group who will actually be arriving in the Legislature later today. SOS The Americas is a campaign of over a thousand students who will relay the Torch of Life throughout 36 countries in the Americas, promoting the importance of organ and tissue donations. This is a two-year journey that started in Alaska on October 24 of this year and will end in Argentina on October 24, 2011.

The odyssey is sponsored by Step by Step, a charitable organization created by George Marcello in 1997. George, a recipient of a life-saving liver transplant himself, has spearheaded this journey in many other countries, with this being his seventh campaign.

Students from Victoria High, with George, will be arriving at the Legislature at approximately three o'clock, carrying the famous Torch of Life. Victoria is the third city of 277 cities to be visited in the two-year student torch trek.

I encourage all members of the House to join me now, and outside at three o'clock, in welcoming these young people and the torch to the Legislature today.

Hon. M. Coell: Visiting in the precinct today and seated in the gallery is Lisa Tinney, senior account manager for the main branch of the Royal Bank of Canada here in Victoria. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Mr. Normand Chevrier. He's from Eurocopter. Eurocopter manufactures about 51 percent of the helicopters sold worldwide. He's here to talk to MLAs about the use of those helicopters in British Columbia. Could the House please make Normand welcome.

[1340]

N. Letnick: It was also my pleasure to be present at lunch with the Equal Voice crowd. Just to say that in my previous life as a city councillor, the mayor was a woman, and the boss of me as a college student — my dean, Jayne Brooks — was also a woman. I've had many women in my life who have taken the lead.

With that segue, I'd like to introduce the first woman that's led me, and I'll stop right there: my mom, who's in the gallery, Marie-Claire Letnick from White Rock, and her friend Elizabeth Budge. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us in the gallery today will be five representatives of B.C.'s Young Farmers. I had a chance to meet with them this morning. It's an organization that helps promote a positive future for farming in B.C. Young Farmers organizations meet, and they network together and run education programs.

From the Fraser Valley are Ravi Cheema, Myles Andrews, Steven Redekop and David Mutz, and from Nanoose on Vancouver Island is Ross Springford. He is working to establish a Vancouver Island chapter of B.C.
[ Page 1950 ]
Young Farmers. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: It's not often I get to introduce someone from my constituency, but joining us in the gallery today is Dennis Jackson, who's a great campaigner, a great friend and a great advocate for Prince George. I'd ask the House to please make him very welcome.

I have one other brief introduction. Normand Chevrier was already introduced from Eurocopter. They also produce a variety of firefighting devices that can be utilized in initial attack crews. Certainly, we're looking forward to working with them.

Also joining Mr. Chevrier is Steve Vander Wal, who was a previous ministerial assistant for what was then the Minister of Advanced Education, if memory serves me correctly. I've noticed that Steve has lost that nasty tic that he used to have when he was around here. I'd ask the House please make Steve very welcome as well.

C. Trevena: I'd like to make two introductions. I'd like to join the member for Richmond East in welcoming Equal Voice. It's a show that we can get many more women, many more young people involved in politics. I think it would be very healthy to do so. I'm very pleased that Equal Voice came to the Legislature and that the member for Richmond East hosted the luncheon and that other members came.

I also have noticed in the gallery a person from my own constituency, Hugh Smith, who was working with Campbell River television and now works with Shaw TV. He is in the gallery today. I hope that the House will make him very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I am pleased to acknowledge today another school group from my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head that is visiting. They're in the precincts and will be joining us shortly, I'm sure, to watch question period. They are from Hillcrest Elementary School. There are 35 visitors — 27 grade 4 students and eight adults. They're led by Miss Claire Mullen. I hope the House will acknowledge them by making them very welcome as they make their appearance shortly.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

D. Routley: I rise today to speak of groundwater protection issues on the islands of the south coast. Groundwater is often the only practical, viable and economic source of water supply for community as well as individual water systems. Groundwater also augments agricultural and industrial uses.

In Canada we possess 7 percent of the world's total renewable freshwater supply. In B.C. groundwater provides 23 percent of our population with their drinking water. Groundwater provides 9 percent of the total water consumption in our province. In B.C. groundwater consumption accounts for 25 percent of the total groundwater use in Canada.

On Vancouver Island and the south Gulf Islands we are facing a groundwater crisis. Many who had water in their wells are losing it, and many who seek it can't find it. Complications include residential development expansion, climate change and habitat damage through pesticides and other pollutants.

Groundwater often maintains the base flows in streams and rivers during periods of drought and is critical to fisheries habitat and spawning areas. An ever-increasing population brings an increased demand in reliance on groundwater as well as an increased responsibility to sustainably manage and protect this critical resource.

[1345]

The biggest crowds come out to public meetings that address groundwater issues and the developments that implicate its quality and supply. All residents of B.C., particularly those on Vancouver Island and the southern Gulf Islands, recognize the need to address groundwater protection.

We have many pressures to balance. We have many rights deserving respect. We have many complications to untangle, but we have an overwhelming obligation to act to manage and protect our groundwater resource for the benefit of all future generations.

community fund for
veterans' memorials

G. Hogg: The founder of the Last Post Fund, veteran Arthur Hair, said: "To honour and protect in death seems but a small return to those who protected their country in life." In Montreal in 1909, motivated by a powerful sense of patriotism, he is reported to have moved heaven and earth to ensure that no indigent soldiers would be buried without respect and dignity.

That singular act of compassion was the launch of an incredible national organization which has lived by the same principles for the past 100 years: the principles of dignity, compassion and respect.

In cooperation with Veteran Affairs Canada, the Last Post Fund ensures that no eligible veteran is deprived of a dignified funeral, burial or headstone. Over the past century the Last Post Fund has arranged funerals for over 145,000 veterans. They honour those who have served our country, and they keep the memories of their service alive for future generations.

There are still approximately 3,000 unmarked veterans' graves in British Columbia, and each of us can assist in
[ Page 1951 ]
ensuring that those veterans' contributions are remembered with the deference and appreciation which they so richly deserve. As Arthur Hair said: "The Last Post Fund is not a charity. It is a duty."

I ask this Legislature to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Last Post Fund, to congratulate its members and to thank them for the important work that they have done and continue to do on behalf of all Canadians.

kinuko laskey

J. Kwan: On October 24, I attended the unveiling of a bronze memorial statue dedicated to peace activist and educator Kinuko Laskey at the Seaforth Peace Park. She's one of the few, if not the only, first immigrant Asian-Canadian women to be honoured in the province of B.C. in this way.

Kinuko Laskey was a survivor of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing on August 6, 1945. At the time she was a 16-year-old student nurse and was less than two kilometres away from the hypocentre. As a result, she suffered from radiation sickness, loss of sight in her right eye and underwent many plastic surgery operations.

She immigrated to Canada and settled in Vancouver with her husband, David, in 1953. Kinuko's personal experience of the horrors of nuclear warfare prompted her to actively promote peace in schools, within our communities and across the globe. She was a founding member of the Canadian Society of Atomic Bomb Survivors. She delivered a message of peace to Vancouver's Expo 86, and in 1987 she co-lit the Vancouver Centennial Peace Monument flame with former Mayor Mike Harcourt at Seaforth Peace Park, the same park where her statue now stands.

Her dedication was an inspiration to many, including artist Keith Shields, who donated the beautiful sculpture of Kinuko Laskey for this memorial, and to the members of the Vancouver and District Labour Council, who are also strong supporters of social justice and the peace movement and are the sponsors of the memorial project.

Kinuko passed away on the third of November 2004, but the memory of her work continues. I would like to ask all members of the House to recognize Kinuko Laskey for her contributions and to reflect on her words and wishes that we must all be tolerant and respect each other, and we must know how important peace is to each and every one of us.

burnaby business excellence awards

H. Bloy: On Wednesday night, November 4, the Burnaby Board of Trade will present their Business Excellence Awards. Burnaby is blessed with a great variety of outstanding entrepreneurs and businesses, and every year many outstanding businesses and companies are nominated for awards. This year is no different.

[1350]

This is the tenth annual award ceremony, and 19 companies are nominated in six different categories. A few of the companies are nominated in more than one category: Soyaworld for Business of the Year and Entrepreneurial Spirit awards; Costco Wholesale Ltd. for Business of the Year and Burnaby Community Spirit awards; Centaur Products Inc. for Business of the Year and Community Spirit awards; Dimensions 3 Plastics Ltd., which is up for Small Business of the Year and Business Innovation award; and Can Am Importique, which is up for Small Business of the Year and Burnaby Community Spirit awards.

Four individuals are finalists for Business Person of the Year: Adriana Furnaro of Julian Ceramic Tile Inc., Jack Kuyer of Valley Bakery Ltd., Paul Smolen of Hart House Restaurant and John Zaplatynsky of GardenWorks.

Finally, there are four finalists for the Not-for-Profit Organization of the Year: Cameray Child and Family Services, Charlford House Society for Women, RCMP Hastings Brentwood community police office and S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Employment Services.

All of the finalists for this year's Burnaby Business Excellence Awards are very deserving, and I wish all members to congratulate them on their success and Burnaby for the place to do business.

COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES WORKERS

S. Simpson: On November 6 people across Canada will be celebrating the second annual Community Social Services Workers Appreciation Day. The purpose of this day is to recognize the invaluable job that thousands of workers in British Columbia and across the country perform on behalf of their neighbours.

This day recognizes those who work for people with developmental disabilities, for women and children who are fleeing domestic violence, as addiction counsellors or those who deliver aboriginal services and child care, to name only a few critical areas.

This recognition was initiated by the National Union of Public and General Employees, the BCGEU's national counterpart, and has grown, with many other unions joining in — like CUPE, Health Sciences Association and HEU, along with a number of national advocacy groups. It has also seen many cities across Canada, including Victoria, adopting proclamations acknowledging these workers and the valuable jobs they perform.

Thousands and thousands of British Columbians deliver these services every day. Many of them work for the provincial government, others for municipalities and towns, as well as for the non-profit sector. They make our social contract work. They do it, generally, for modest wages and benefits compared to many career areas. Almost without exception, these workers would tell you that it isn't about the money; it's about their commitment to a civil society and their belief that we
[ Page 1952 ]
have a shared obligation to each other as neighbours and citizens.

Community Social Services Workers Appreciation Day is a modest opportunity to acknowledge these true heroes in our communities, the people who step up to make our lives better, safer, healthier and richer, often with little recognition and too often too little economic security for themselves and their families.

Every member of this Legislature knows the people in their community who are these champions, and I urge you to join me in thanking those thousands who go above and beyond the call of duty every day to improve and protect the quality of life for our constituents in every corner of British Columbia.

ADOPTION AWARENESS

N. Letnick: I rise today to recognize November as Adoption Awareness Month in British Columbia. Adoption is an important way for people to build their families, and we have many children and youth still waiting for a permanent family to call their own.

There are more than 1,000 children in British Columbia alone who are in ministry care and are waiting to be adopted. Every child deserves a safe, loving home and loving parents, and Adoption Awareness Month is a time to appreciate what family truly means.

This is a time to celebrate the gift of love and commitment and nurturing that family provides to help children through life's challenges. There are approximately 1,300 children in British Columbia waiting for a permanent family, with more than 600 of these ready to be adopted today. November is a time for us to recognize adoptive parents who have grown their family because they have more love to share.

That is indeed the reason why 13 years ago our family of four decided to adopt Naomi when she was only two years of age. Naomi has become another shining light in our lives, bringing love to our family and parental pride. She may have been delivered to us through adoption, but like our two other children, she is a gift from God.

Naomi loves to play piano, guitar, organized sports, achieving outstanding school grades and asking a million questions. She says she would like to become a doctor, which her mother and I fully support. I look forward to seeing a lifetime of opportunities and being proud of Naomi's accomplishments.

[1355]

She has sung her way into our hearts, and I ask every family large or small to consider sharing their love with someone new, someone in need of a family, someone with much love and joy to give.

I encourage anyone who is interested in adopting a waiting child to call 1-877-ADOPT-07 or visit the Ministry of Children and Family Development website during this Adoption Awareness Month.

Oral Questions

LEGAL AID SERVICES

L. Krog: Today we've learned that Legal Services' budget is going to be cut by $2 million. That will have an impact all across this province. Offices are closing in Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George, Surrey and Victoria.

At a time when B.C. families struggle and require legal services more than ever, how can the Attorney General possibly justify these cuts now?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, he's incorrect about the funding description. Funding has actually gone up significantly this year, by almost $2 million.

But he is correct about this. The Legal Services Society faces some real pressures, largely as a result of the fact that other sources of funding — the Law Foundation, the Notary Foundation — which make contributions based on interest rates, aren't able to make the same level of contribution.

What the society is doing is exactly what we would hope they'd do, and that is to reduce administrative costs and channel as much money, as much resources, as possible to front-line services to ensure that people facing criminal charges or involved in family relations disputes have the legal support that they require.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: What incredible hypocrisy. In 2001-2002 the legal aid budget was $96 million. It's $74 million this year. If that isn't a cut, I don't know what is.

Just yesterday, not 50 feet from this chamber, we honoured his predecessor, Wally Oppal, for, amongst other things, opening the Justice Access Centre in Nanaimo. The first anniversary of that centre is November 6, three days from now. It's going to be closed as a result of these cuts. The access to civil law across this province is essentially gone.

I want to hear from this Attorney General again. What is he going to do to help all those working families in British Columbia who rely on legal aid?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the member is wrong again. The centre is not closing. What the society is doing is recognizing something that I think the hon. member actually knows, which is that a service delivery model built around agents, as opposed to regional offices that have very high overhead costs, will actually accomplish just that — providing legal services, actual lawyer assistance, to the people that need it most.

Difficult decisions — to the people affected, I think in excess of 50, obviously very difficult. But the principle, and the priority, is to provide legal assistance to the people that need it most.
[ Page 1953 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: The government has directed that the Legal Services Society can't access their accumulated surplus in order to meet the genuine and real needs today of people who require legal services in British Columbia. So I'd like for the Attorney General to explain to this House why denying them the ability to access a surplus, to continue to deliver much-needed services to families in British Columbia, is good government policy.

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, the member is wrong again. Look, these are difficult decisions that the Legal Services Society is taking, brought on by the reality of reduced resources from a number of sources — not government.

[1400]

But there are pressures, and what the society is doing, in my view, is absolutely the right thing — looking at its administrative costs, reducing them where it is at all possible and channelling those resources into front-line services to ensure that people have the legal assistance they require.

S. Simpson: The reality is a $22 million budget cut since '01-02 in terms of the legal aid services; five offices will close in this province; a number of critical services that are provided for community advocates and others will be shut down — all of these things that affect our most vulnerable citizens, those ones who cannot afford to go out and pay a lawyer. How on earth is this fairness and equity from this government when those are the services that this minister allows to be cut?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, here's what the Legal Services Society says in the material they released today. "The changes" — and they are changes — "are part of a long-term strategy to reduce our administrative costs and focus spending on the services we provide to low-income people."

That is exactly what they should be doing. At a time when all of us are challenged with finite resources, they are opting for a model of service delivery that is 30 to 50 percent more efficient. That means more people, not less, will have the legal assistance they require — difficult, but precisely the right thing to do at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Unbelievable is the only word to describe this minister's comments. Tell that to the people in Kelowna, in Kamloops, in Prince George, in Surrey or in Victoria, where those offices are closed and they can't be accessed by those people anymore. Explain to people how 22 million less dollars for services for legal aid since this government came to power is good for those vulnerable people. It is unbelievable.

Will this Attorney General stand up and for once say: "Vulnerable people, poor people matter, and we will restore that funding"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, therein probably lies the difference. I actually have never met a single mother in need of legal assistance who has said to me: "Boy, I wish you had a couple of extra offices." You know what they say to me? They say: "I need legal help. I need a lawyer to help me."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may prioritize a building ahead of the people that deliver the services. We do not. More importantly in this case, the Legal Services Society does not. They are opting for a more efficient front-line service delivery model. I think it's the right thing to do. At the same time, I recognize that for about 50 people involved, it is a difficult decision. But for the people who require legal aid in this province, it is the right decision.

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
IN SMITHERS AREA

D. Donaldson: In the middle of the H1N1 outbreak we have learned that next week public health nurses who would be administering the vaccine in Smithers will be laid off. Why does the Minister of Health support cutting the jobs of the very people who are working on the front line to fight H1N1?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, medical professionals from one end of the province to the other are doing an exceptional job of delivering the H1N1 program. They're doing an exceptional job under the exceptional leadership of our chief provincial health officer.

[1405]

When we see challenges right across the country, in British Columbia I think what we see is professionals at work. We are listening to those professionals as they administer a staged program to ensure that those with high-risk needs are dealt with first as we move towards the general population.

That does not mean, Member, that there will never be any other change in the health system. It is a very large health system. But I'll tell you this. There is lots of demand for nurses in every single part of our health
[ Page 1954 ]
system, and if any become available, the health system will certainly take advantage of that.

D. Donaldson: Well, there's mounting concern in places like Smithers and around the province about the delays in receiving the H1N1 vaccine. Cutting the people who actually administer flu vaccinations adds to people's anxiety. In fact, public health nurses are a cornerstone of rural health care in all aspects, and they are stretched to the limit. Again, does the minister think laying off public health nurses is a good way to address health care issues facing our communities?

Hon. K. Falcon: If I understand correctly the issue that the member's talking about, what the health authority is doing is actually saying that the vaccinations that the member's talking about for people that are travelling overseas or going on vacation are less of a priority right now. The big priority is….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute. I'm not finished. The members might want to hear the answer.

The priority right now is to make sure we deal with the H1N1 pandemic vaccinations and deal with vaccinations for children for polio and other vaccinations that are important. That's the decision they're making. The member may disagree with that decision. I support the medical practitioners in decisions they're making.

A. Dix: To the Minister of Health: why does the minister support laying off public health nurses in Smithers?

Hon. K. Falcon: Remember, we've had this discussion before, so the member should know that there may be some displacement in Smithers, but there are also new hires in other parts of the Northern Health Authority. What they are doing is quite appropriate. They are making sure that the service levels they're providing are equivalent in all parts of the Northern Health Authority.

They are also saying that the vaccinations for people travelling overseas are not as important right now as the ones that are taking place for children that need vaccinations to deal with H1N1 or to deal with vaccinations having to do with the multiplicity of potential disease out there.

A. Dix: Is the minister saying that he doesn't believe there's need for public health nurses in Smithers? Can the minister simply answer the question? We asked a specific question to him, a question that he seemed not to take on notice, so he claims to know the answer.

Let me ask the question again. What is the possible justification — especially at this time, when we have this issue around H1N1, which is testing the entire health system…? What possible justification is there for laying off public health nurses in Smithers?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thought I just answered that. What they are trying to do is make sure that there is equality of service right across the north.

You know, the member talks about yesterday.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, I know we had a member from the north coast ask a question about an audiologist.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer was that that individual had retired from service, and they're trying to recruit a new individual.

To the NDP, this is the end of the world as we know it, but the member should know this, because I know they always try to fit in this idea of cuts in health care, even though the budget's going way up. The public health funding component of the Northern Health Authority — the member can go into the service plan and look — is going up 20 percent over the next three years.

[1410]

H1N1 INFLUENZA
VACCINATION PROGRAM

J. Brar: Now in the second week this government response to H1N1 continues to generate confusion and frustration. Reports are coming that the Interior Health Authority is not strictly giving the H1N1 vaccine to the priority groups established by the provincial health officer.

My question again is to the minister. Can the minister explain why, at this stage of the vaccine rollout, the health authorities are not consistently following the protocols laid out by the provincial health officer?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I take offence at the question. I take offence at the question because what it is trying to do is attack some of the best medical professionals we have in the country right here in British Columbia.

I would encourage the member to read some of the national newspapers today, which are talking about how British Columbia has it right.

You know, this is a challenging time. We are undertaking the most massive vaccination program in the history of the province of British Columbia, and we are doing it under the direction and leadership of our chief provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall. He and his staff and
[ Page 1955 ]
medical health officers across the province are doing an exceptional job.

Now, there is strong public demand. There is concern out there, and it's understandable, but we are asking the public to be patient as they stage the delivery of the vaccinations to the at-risk populations first, while we get to the broader public population once the vaccination supplies allow.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Actually, the minister proves my point. He seems to be very frustrated, too, with this process.

The Interior Health Authority is taking an approach that can allow individuals not deemed high-risk to access the vaccine, whereas other health authorities are asking British Columbians to be patient and wait for their turn to receive the vaccine to allow the most vulnerable people to be protected first.

Another example. Despite being separated by Boundary Road, Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health are still not coordinating together to deliver the vaccine in a coherent manner to the people of the Lower Mainland. The absence of such an approach creates delay and more questions about how prepared British Columbia is to fight H1N1.

Again, to the minister: why is the government still not rolling out a consistent and cohesive vaccination plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, you know, I'm not even sure why we have a chief provincial health officer. Apparently, the member here for Surrey-Fleetwood has all the answers. I don't know why we wouldn't just turn over the entire program to the NDP. They apparently know a lot more than the medical experts right across the province. Rather remarkable. Rather remarkable, but as much as I respect the opinion of the member, I actually respect the opinion of medical health officers across the province a heck of a lot more than I do that member.

I know this. I know it is always tempting for members, based on little information and what they read in the paper, to take potshots at the medical health professionals in this province, but I can tell you this. They are doing an exceptional job for British Columbians. I support them 100 percent.

GOVERNMENT DISTRIBUTION
OF OLYMPIC GAMES TICKETS

J. Kwan: On October 28, 2009, the Minister of Small Business said: "The distribution of whatever Olympic tickets are touched by government will be fully accounted for." Will the Minister Responsible for the Olympics confirm that she will release the plan for the distribution of the tickets immediately, and will she make public the full list of the people selected to attend the Olympics on the taxpayers' dime?

Hon. M. McNeil: You know, magic happened here this weekend on Vancouver Island, when the….

Interjections.

Hon. M. McNeil: And that magic was the landing….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: The Olympic Torch Relay started here on Friday in Victoria, and it's gone to Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Tofino, Courtenay, Duncan and all over this Island. That's just a taste of what's going to happen in this province come February. This province — which, I will remind you, is the host province for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games — is going to take every advantage of the greatest opportunity it has ever had for economic development and, therefore, create jobs.

That's the plan. That's what we're going to be doing.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Is the minister, then, saying that what the Minister of Small Business said doesn't count? Her "Just be happy and trust us" message doesn't cut it with British Columbians when they want accountability.

If the minister responsible for the Olympics cannot answer the question, will the Premier stand up and tell British Columbians that he will be accountable, that they will immediately release the plan for the distribution of the Olympic tickets and that he will ensure that the full list of everyone who gets a free ticket from the government is accounted for and made public?

Hon. M. McNeil: There will be a full accounting of all of these tickets when we're ready to receive it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Well, my question is also for the Premier, because there seems to be some confusion between the Minister of Small Business and the Minister Responsible for the Olympics. I think it's up to the Premier to clarify just which of his ministers is correct.

The Minister of Small Business stood in this House and said there would be a full accounting of who got
[ Page 1956 ]
those tickets. So the question is really clear, Premier. On the host program regarding the tickets, will the Premier stand up and commit to this House that every single one of those tickets will be accounted for, that every one of those tickets will be accounted for in the way that we know who used the tickets and who were the guests that were taken by the MLAs and cabinet ministers during the host program? Will the Premier commit to doing do that?

Hon. M. McNeil: As I have said in this House and as my colleague has said in this House, there will be a full accounting of each and every ticket used.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This is like pulling teeth. My question to the minister is really quite simple. Will she stand in this House and commit that she will table an accounting of who used every single ticket, whether it is a minister or a cabinet minister, and which guests accompanied those ministers and cabinet ministers in the use of those tickets, and will she commit to tabling it — a date to tabling it in this House?

Hon. M. McNeil: To avoid sounding repetitive, there will be a full accounting of each and every ticket used at the Olympic Games.

[1420]

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

R. Austin: This government has had another 24 hours to address the crisis in Kitimat. Yesterday the minister hinted that Kitimat would not qualify for the $2 million that was given to both Mackenzie and Fort St. James just prior to the last election.

Can the Minister of Community Development tell this House what the criteria is for this $2 million? Is it ensuring that ministers are re-elected, or is it taking care of citizens who find themselves out of work for no reason of their own?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'll tell you one thing I'm not going to do. I'm not going to make light of a very difficult situation in the member's riding, where 535 workers and their families have been notified that as of January 31, they won't be working at that mill. I actually don't think that's something that we should politicize. I think it's something that we should work together on. I invite the member to work with myself and with the Rural Secretariat on a plan for Kitimat for transition.

I should say to the member that the workers are there until January 31. I hope he's not throwing in the towel, because we think there is some chance…. We're certainly not going to give up on the possibility that this mill can remain open. I know the Minister of Forests wants that to happen. We'll do our best to try for that. In the meantime, I have staff from the Rural Secretariat in Kitimat, and just recently the mayor said she was very pleased to have them there.

R. Austin: I'm not by any means making light of this. I just want to make sure that the citizens of Kitimat and the northwest get the same treatment as other communities. That's all we want. The crisis in Kitimat affects directly 535 workers, but we all know that there will be many more who are dependent on the Eurocan pulp mill.

This minister has never answered the previous questions around transition funds for workers. Will he tell this House today if the B.C. Liberals are going to put aside moneys for worker transition?

Hon. B. Bennett: I can tell the member that we have a number of initiatives already underway. In fact, the Rural Secretariat was in Kitimat in late September. They were already, even before the announcement, working on an economic diversification plan for Kitimat.

The member has both today and previously suggested that there is a fair comparison between Mackenzie and Kitimat. Although it is a difficult, even tragic, situation to have 535 workers notified they're going to be laid off, Mackenzie has about a 70 percent reliance on the forest industry compared to Kitimat, which gets about 14 percent of its income from the forest industry. So they are different situations. I can tell the member that members of my Rural Secretariat team are there.

You know, the member doesn't seem to have confidence in his own community. I mean, there are lots of communities in this province that just wished that they had the opportunities that Kitimat has.

FUNDING FOR FPINNOVATIONS

D. Routley: To the Forests Minister. FPInnovations is a company with a 30-year track record of providing new products, new processes and new markets to help diversify our forest industry. Despite this minister's claims to want to revitalize the industry, his government cut half a million dollars funding to that company, which was matched by a half-million-dollar federal cut.

So now we're seeing a company that has proven its value, has never laid off an employee in its 30-year history, facing the layoff of almost a third of its staff. How does this cut make sense when the forestry industry has been put into a crisis by this government's policies? Will the minister restore that funding immediately?

Hon. P. Bell: FPInnovations actually works out of the University of British Columbia, and I met very recently with senior officials at FPInnovations. While we are
[ Page 1957 ]
refocusing some of their efforts to products that are more aligned with what we believe the future of the forest industry is, they are one of the most advanced institutions in moving forward on things like bioenergy.

[1425]

We're continuing to fund FPInnovations. They receive funding from many different sources — the Canadian government and institutions — and we'll continue to support them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: I'll give you just one example of the type of innovation that's being stymied by this government's cuts. There was a company that made a $2,000 investment in FPInnovations services. They went in and gave advice. They got an 18 percent increase in productivity and a 27 percent reduction in energy costs out of that $2,000 investment.

That's the kind of innovation that will revitalize our forest industry. That's the kind of innovation every British Columbian wants for our industry, not this minister's empty rhetoric. Again to the Minister of Forests: will he restore that funding to FPInnovations so that their great work in helping to diversify our forest industry can continue?

Hon. P. Bell: It's interesting listening to the member opposite. I think I almost heard a policy articulated from the other side. That's exceptional.

This government has been very supportive of the research-and-development initiatives that go on at the University of British Columbia. We've substantially added to the research activities that have been going on across this province through research chairs, through increased funding. We're going to continue to work with FPInnovations. They're one of the organizations that we're very supportive of.

[End of question period.]

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

M. Sather: I present to the House a petition opposing the implementation of the HST, from people in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows — in total, 1,875 individuals.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to present a petition as well.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

M. Karagianis: I have here 214 people in my community opposing the implementation of the HST in British Columbia.

A. Dix: I wish to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

A. Dix: It's signed by hundreds of people in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway in opposition to the HST.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development; in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — AMBULANCE SERVICES
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

(continued)

D. Routley: It's a bit of a case of: where was I? You know, we started out this debate lamenting the fact that the government would reduce itself and British Columbians to seeing our highly respected ambulance paramedics legislated back to work in this brutal way.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The connection has been drawn by several speakers between this step by the government at this late hour, this unprecedented step to interfere and interrupt the free collective bargaining process four days from the vote count being taken in the contract vote, this contract being voted on as we speak by ambulance paramedics. This is a mail-in ballot, so most of the ballots have already been cast.

Why would the government choose this moment to introduce this legislation, considering that it is the first time in Canada that a government has acted to intervene in the collective bargaining process while a vote is being taken?

[1430]

Well, I could give you the local example that I've already cited, where our communities of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Crofton, Chemainus, all the way south to Duncan — between Nanaimo and Duncan — were served by three ambulances on Halloween night, while three ambulances were forced by the LRB decision to be stationed at an Olympic venue to do practice runs with crews staffed at premium rates. So the connection is being drawn here.

VANOC has called out across the country for volunteer paramedics who would come and help during the Olympics. Many of those paramedics are refusing to
[ Page 1958 ]
respond out of fear that they would be crossing a picket line.

Well, I'd like to read to you from a memo. This memo was sent from Dr. Mike Wilkinson, the director of medical services for VANOC, to Stephen Brown, Lee Doney and other government officials involved in this paramedics dispute. An excerpt from that memo says:

"VANOC Medical Services, and thus the IOC, requires definitive confirmation by October 1, 2009, that all required ambulance services will be provided as planned. These services include the ability to engage the VPCs and BCAS members in full venue-planning as soon as possible. This confirmation must also include a guarantee that no services during the games will be disrupted or reduced from what has been planned.

"If we are unable to obtain that guarantee through either settlement of the strike or legislated détente for the games, then VANOC will be required to initiate alternative contingency plans to avoid cancellation of the games."

Many of us have stood and extolled the virtues of our ambulance paramedics. I said earlier in my speech that all of us have heard people say: "Oh my god, I wouldn't want to be an ambulance driver — the pressure, the stress of what they do." We all have an undying, unwavering respect for the sacrifice and commitment of ambulance paramedics. We all do in British Columbia, but that respect is not being mirrored or matched by our government. This B.C. Liberal government dragged its feet for months without addressing the issues of the ambulance paramedics.

On average, an ambulance paramedic takes five years to become full-time. During that time they work part-time, and they pay out of their own pockets for their training. Unfortunately, many of them leave the profession.

The minister has cited a difficulty in recruitment and retention. Well, hardly a surprise when those part-time ambulance paramedics are being paid as low as $2 an hour on call, when they're at an instant called out to the most horrific scenes.

They're called out to accident scenes. They're called out to address the needs of children in crisis, injured and dying people. They are the ones who witness the last glint in the eye of so many British Columbians. That incredible stress so often results in the very difficult condition known as post-traumatic stress disorder, not to mention the other perils of the job in terms of injury and illness — the high accident rate, the high injury rate due to the demands of lifting and moving people in very difficult circumstances. Can it be any wonder that so many would leave the profession?

When the government pointed to the fact that the sheriffs in this province were experiencing a recruitment and retention problem, what did they do? In mid-contract they opened the collective agreement and applied a 10 percent increase in order to provide more incentive.

What did this government do when it came to our ambulance paramedics? They dragged their feet. They refused to appoint an arbitrator. They refused to address the needs, and now they throw a gauntlet down to the entire public service, telling the public service that this is what they can all expect come negotiation time.

It's a terrible failure to acknowledge the respect and the station that British Columbians consider for their ambulance paramedics. We all expect our government to address their needs. If there's a recruitment and retention problem, address that recruitment and retention problem, not through this kind of brutal legislation that interferes and interrupts with their collective bargaining in a way that's unprecedented. Actually address the conditions on the job that force people out of that profession.

[1435]

It's very sad that we could end up in this situation, but then I think it's only reasonable that the cynical view that this is being driven by VANOC and this government's fear of being embarrassed during the Olympic Games, which finally drove them to action…. And a brutal action it is.

It's sad that the people who probably hold one of the highest places of respect with British Columbians should be treated this way. Since the strike began, our service has been protected through essential service rulings from the LRB. The ruling found that only 16 of their some 3,500 members are non-essential. In fact, the essential service ruling meant that most ambulance paramedics had to work more overtime hours to meet that requirement, indicating that perhaps this government wasn't even meeting essential service levels before the ruling.

The minister has pointed to a number of other issues to obfuscate the real reason. The real reason, in my view and the view of several other members who have spoken, is the pressure being put on the government by VANOC.

They've also mentioned H1N1 — that we're in the middle of a crisis. Well, that crisis was predicted for months and months — in fact, before the dispute even began. The government ignored that haste. They did not pay attention to that impending pressure on the system. If it were true that they are moving to legislate the ambulance paramedics back to work only now and that that is based in part on the H1N1 outbreak, then why are ambulance paramedics not part of the first wave of priority vaccinations?

In fact, up in the Courtenay-Comox area the ambulance paramedics have tried to get vaccinations but have been told, I am told, that they are not part of the first priority. How can the H1N1 outbreak be sufficient grounds to take an unprecedented legislative action in intervening and interrupting the free collective bargaining process but not enough of an imperative to advance those very same people to the highest-priority level for vaccination?

The government's reasoning doesn't hold water. Again the government is found being less than truthful. The government is telling British Columbians something
[ Page 1959 ]
that isn't true, and the government is hiding its real motivations. Its real motivations are tied up in VANOC and the impending Olympic Games, which they've hung their credibility on — their wavering and sinking credibility — and the fact that the public service is about to enter into collective bargaining. So they're throwing the gauntlet down.

In fact, these very same ambulance paramedics will be due to bargain again on April 1, and labour lobbying — what it is in B.C. — means that those negotiations will likely start four months ahead of that date. That's December 1. So the first meetings for the next collective agreement may take place as early as December 1.

What kind of goodwill will those ambulance paramedics and their union representatives feel heading to a table with a government that would take this unprecedented and brutal act of interference, a government that has absolutely failed and refused to recognize their legitimate complaints about the structure of the service?

Remember, we're dealing with people who most British Columbians hold in the very highest order of esteem — a job that very few of us could face day in and day out, night after night, knowing that the next call might be the one that sends them into the cycle of post-traumatic stress disorder or challenges their very souls as they try to help people in crisis. Like so many other British Columbians who provide the services that we as human beings rely upon in an essential way, they have been insulted by the policies of this government and the actions of this government.

[1440]

They have been, through the social policies of this government that have created a situation on our streets where homelessness in the province has increased by at least 350 percent, where people are being scooped up off our streets in absolute crisis.

Our ambulance paramedics are being asked to do more than just the job they were trained for. The training they're receiving on the job is delivered thanks to the mistreatment of the people of British Columbia by this government. They're being forced to be social workers. They're being forced to be police. They're being forced to be drug and alcohol workers. They're being forced to be mental health workers, and they're not being recognized.

In fact, they're being slapped, and they are being insulted. They have stood proudly to serve us. On Vancouver Island at the same time we only had those three ambulances serving the population of Nanaimo and south through Ladysmith, Chemainus and Crofton. At that same time car dealers were being paid to remove the On Strike stickers from their ambulances.

What priority is this? What priority is this that this government should deliver to the people and to those who serve them in such a dedicated way. None of us — not many of us — can even imagine the commitment it takes and the strength of character it takes to continue to deliver that service.

With this decision, how many more will leave the profession? How many more will decide that they aren't recognized or valued? How many more will take the training they've acquired and apply it to the fire service or take it out of our jurisdiction or into a completely different field because they are so frustrated by this government's insult?

The recruitment and retention problem that this minister faces will only be amplified, multiplied by the action he's taking now. Who will pay for that? Who will pay for this government's failure to do its sworn duty to represent the public interest of this province, this time?

Will it be someone in a car accident when we don't have the attendants we need? Will it be someone who suffers a heart attack or stroke when we don't have the attendants or the ambulances required to help them in a timely enough way to perhaps save their lives?

This government is playing a cynical political game ultimately with the lives of British Columbians. We've seen the ads from the ambulance paramedics. They asked the same question: who will pay? Who will pay in the end? This government thinks it's okay that British Columbians should face that bill, that the result of their actions should lead to an increased difficulty in recruiting and retaining our ambulance paramedics, which will lead to an even increased level of frustration amongst those dedicated British Columbians.

This government thinks that's okay, and they think it's okay to drag their feet through months and months of non-negotiation. They think it's okay for them, now at the final hour as the votes are being counted, to take this unprecedented action, this unprecedented interference and interruption of the collective bargaining process.

They think it's okay because they're used to playing cynical games with people's lives. It is a very sad circumstance in our beautiful province with the wealth of this province, the wealth of natural resources and most particularly the wealth of human resource.

The faith of British Columbians is what built this province. The faith and commitment demonstrated every day by those ambulance paramedics is exactly the character and principle and value upon which this province is founded, and it is being insulted by the cynical political game being played by this government and that minister.

[1445]

How can it be? How can it be that such an essential service to British Columbians should wind up being the political football of this sad government? It's fine that they have their ideology — that they will privatize and deliver the benefit of this province into the hands of the few.

If they're honest about that ideology, we can judge them on that. But when they hide from the public their true intention and motivation the way they did during
[ Page 1960 ]
the election campaign, the way they did before they were originally elected when it came to HEU workers and the tearing up of those contracts, the way they have here…. The way they have taken the contract between our province and the people who serve us and who we value at a higher level than practically any people in our province — that they could do that — and turn this into cynical political gamesmanship is sad commentary on the place that we have come to.

There aren't many other steps this government could take that would be more insulting to the character of British Columbians than to bring an affront like this to people like ambulance paramedics. But I'm sure there's more in store for this province as we head for further collective bargaining amongst other public workers.

I'll make a prediction here. This cynical and brutal step taken by this government in dealing with the supposedly good-faith bargaining process between our ambulance paramedics and the people of B.C. will come back to haunt them and, unfortunately, also to haunt the people of B.C. when they go back to the table in as little as a month's time to seek good-faith commitment from the other side.

I hope, for the sake of British Columbians, there's enough faith left in the hearts of the ambulance paramedics for them to extend it to the government, because it's hardly something that we should hope for — that they should not be at that table.

I predict that this government will have a very difficult time acquiring any credibility when it comes to dealing with the human issues of British Columbians. When they seek to negotiate any kind of settlement with any group, in the interests of British Columbians, we will all be looking to their vest pocket, to the true interest that they protect. It's never been the public interest of British Columbians; it's always been some of their insiders and some of their friends.

M. Sather: I rise to address Bill 21, Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. As a speaker before me commented, it's a very bizarre title for this bill — collective agreement act — when, in fact, what the government is doing is gutting the collective agreement and saying that the collective agreement doesn't count, saying that all of the negotiations that have gone by so far don't count, saying: "Your whole process of free collective bargaining that is recognized in a democracy doesn't count."

It's a troubling day, I think, for British Columbians when a government makes a move such as this, particularly with this employee group, this group of workers that means so much to the safety and security of everyday British Columbians. All of us depend on the B.C. Ambulance Service and the workers who do the exemplary work that they do for them.

We don't know whether it's going to be today, tomorrow or sometime down the road, but we do know that most likely we or certainly our family members are at some point going to depend on that service. It is life and death. As we know, we're not talking about optional services; we're talking about essential services.

[1450]

It's troubling to look at what effect this legislation, in imposing a settlement in the way that it's been done, is going to have not only on the morale of paramedics but also on the future security of our ambulance services. Certainly the trust in the process for those folks must be severely shaken, and I expect they're mulling over what their options are.

But when the government comes in with a big hammer and they have the power to do that — government has the power to do that — it doesn't leave these workers with many options, except they have to figure out how to deal with it psychologically. They have to figure out how to deal with it financially, which we know is a big issue for paramedics, particularly in terms of the standby time issues that they have.

What is it going to mean for all of us? It's a dark day, I think. It really can be said without hyperbole that it is a dark day for labour relations in this province when we see the government come through with this bill in the way that it's been done. It's certainly disconcerting. We know that the health and well-being of those that are the caregivers and caretakers is in many ways more important than the health and well-being of the rest of us, because if we can't depend on them….

If you go to your doctor and he's not psychologically in the position of stability that he can act in your best interest, then you know you've got something to be concerned about. Yet these workers, the paramedics, deal with considerable trauma all the time in ways that we, not having done that, can't imagine.

I remember talking to a friend years ago. He wasn't a paramedic, but he was a volunteer with the fire department. We have a partially volunteer fire department in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. You know, he would unfortunately have to witness some pretty severe scenes at car accidents and the like. I asked him what effect that had on him. I was surprised at his response. His response actually kind of concerned me, in that he didn't think it had any effect on him.

Having been a mental health worker myself, I know that's how post-traumatic stress disorder creeps up on people. They don't think it has any effect on them, and then things start happening in their lives that are…. It could be a number of things — certainly sleep disorders, nightmares, inability to concentrate, sometimes overuse of alcohol or drugs.

These are the kinds of stresses and strains that we take for granted that these folks are doing for us every day. I don't think I could do it, and I take my hat off to them and the work they've done. I just feel strongly that the kind of respect we should all have for those workers is not being shown here by the government today.
[ Page 1961 ]

We're going to talk about other members. I'm going to talk about other members. I've already talked about what appear to be some of the overriding or underlying reasons for this draconian measure that the government has taken. One of the things, too, that interested me about this dispute since its beginning…. Paramedics certainly have fallen behind in terms of comparability in remuneration and benefits with police forces over the years.

[1455]

I wondered what the police departments feel about that. We know that the police, of course, deal with very difficult situations. They're given arms to manage what are sometimes very dangerous situations. So when I started talking to them, I was surprised to hear some of the things I heard.

I remember one officer telling me: "Oh absolutely. They should have parity with us." I said: "Yeah? Can you tell me why you think that's the case?" And he said: "Well, those folks are out on calls where they have no idea what they're going to be facing."

They don't know when they arrive on the scene whether there's anybody armed. They don't know whether there's anybody dangerous. They don't know if the person has a gun or a knife. They have no idea, and they go in there unarmed to a completely unknown situation and a dangerous situation. Those are often in homes.

The ambulance, 911, gets called, and there's a need for an ambulance. Sometimes they're the first ones there. They may be the only ones that are called in a situation. Yet they have to deal with the situation as they see it, and they don't have the security that being armed provides to one when you go…. Of course, we know that being armed is not a surefire way to keep from being injured oneself. But they don't have that security, and I think that's been the impression.

The support from police forces for the paramedics has been shown quite visibly. I've seen the paramedic signs up at RCMP detachments in several places around the province. I think we should be aware of what other professionals think about the jobs that paramedics do, because it seems that the government doesn't value very highly the job that they do. They're willing to sacrifice the stability of the system — I think that's what it amounts to — and the future stability of the system for some questionable reasons or apparent reasons.

In Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows we have only two cars, two ambulances, and they have to serve not only our area from Mission to the Pitt River Bridge, but they have to serve outside of our community. Because they're often short-staffed, particularly in a larger call, they're called out of the community. So when you dial 911 and need an ambulance in Maple Ridge, one of those ambulances may be in New Westminster. In the kind of traffic congestion that we have most of the time, most of the day and evening, between New Westminster and Maple Ridge, it can be some considerable time for them to get back.

So people's lives are at risk. We had a tragic death of a young child a few years ago. She choked to death. We did not have the capability to get there in time to save that child's life. We know that the capacity to do that, to respond, is dropping. But I know it certainly gives me a feeling of security.

Actually just the other morning, Monday, about two o'clock in the morning, I woke up. We happen to live close to the Lougheed Highway in Maple Ridge. I heard this screeching sound followed by a big bang, and I knew there was another accident on the Lougheed Highway. I'm waiting and was very pleased to hear within a matter of a couple of minutes….

[1500]

The ambulance station, fortunately, is not far from our place, and I was very pleased to hear…. I sometimes have gone out on the Lougheed Highway, because I am close to it, to assist. I'm wondering. Do I get up and go out in the middle of the night to help or what? Fortunately, very quickly I heard the ambulance coming to the rescue.

The problem for us is — and it's even more acute, as we've heard from other members on this side of the House before and as I know we're going to hear again…. The situation is even more acute in rural areas. The response times are not up to what they should be because of the lack of resources that our ambulance services have and that our paramedics have to work with.

When we look at the breakdown of how this came about or what was taking place, we see that three days before a vote on an offer made by the government on September 28…. The government pulls the pin on the paramedics three days before they're due to take a vote. That's curious.

Apparently, the minister said that Mr. Strohmaier, the president of CUPE Local 873, said that the contract was crap, so that was it. They weren't going to accept it. Or that's the supposition of the minister, apparently — that they weren't going to accept it.

Well, it seems to me, in fact, that anyone in labour negotiations would say and I think most reasonable people would say: "Why not wait and see what the result of the vote was going to be?" But no, there seemed to be, suddenly, a great urgency on the part of this government to….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

The member rises on a point of order.

Point of Order

J. Rustad: Some of the language that has just been used in that speech, I believe, is somewhat unparliamentary, and I'd ask him to withdraw it.

M. Sather: Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member.
[ Page 1962 ]

I would certainly caution all members to be cautious in their use of parliamentary language.

Please proceed.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I certainly will take your advice on that issue.

Debate Continued

M. Sather: Clearly, this is a government that each and every one should be ashamed of this day — should be ashamed of this legislation, should be ashamed of treating working people in British Columbia like this. I can understand that the government should feel a little bit sensitive about the issues that we're discussing, because they're not comfortable for them and certainly not very comfortable for us either in that. It's just a sad day all around.

The government could have appointed an independent arbitrator months ago. We will remember that back a few years ago, a couple of years ago, when the government was thinking about how to have labour peace — I'm sure that over the Olympic period was part of the equation — the then Finance Minister Carole Taylor came up with a package that was acceptable. Any of the good feeling or rapport or trust that might have been built up by that time by that then-minister has certainly disappeared now. It's gone out the window in a big way.

[1505]

This Bill 21 — the minister says that it's for a short time, that it expires March 31 of 2010, which just happens to be after the Olympics. I'm sure it's a coincidence. As the previous speaker mentioned, bargaining is probably going to resume on that collective agreement very quickly — before Christmas, certainly, I would expect. Or it should, in normal terms. Whether any of the normal terms are going to be pursued in terms of labour relations from this point forward seems to be very much in doubt.

I can't imagine sitting across the table on the government side as a negotiator in a few weeks, after having pulled this bill out of the hat. It's going to be very difficult for the sides to come to an amicable agreement, and that's the problem with this. It damages, poisons labour relations.

People don't forget, and we've seen already that the paramedics don't give up. They're standing strong for the needs that they see in the system that they work in, and who could see them better than them?

You can't expect them…. Maybe the government doesn't care. I don't know what future plans they have in terms of labour relations in this province, but maybe they don't care about what the paramedics think or how they feel. That's a very shortsighted perspective, because we will all pay the price if we don't have a paramedic workforce that is not only well trained, adequately paid but that is able to work and feel respected and to have the psychological support to be able to deal with the trauma of the kinds of situations that they have to deal with every day.

Certainly, there's a troubling direction that has been revealed that has come from VANOC with regard to labour relations, specifically the paramedics and the Olympics, saying that VANOC must have a guarantee that no services will be disrupted during the games. Otherwise, VANOC will have to invoke contingency plans to avoid cancellation of the games. Whoa, really? This is what it's come to?

We get a letter, or the government gets a letter. They can deny it, but I don't think it's false. They get this directive from VANOC saying: "Well, you know, you better deal with these paramedics. We're going to have to figure out something, or we'll cancel the games." This is a few months before the 2010 Olympics.

Interjection.

M. Sather: Well, the member used a word that I guess I probably shouldn't repeat with regard to my colleagues on the other side being offended, but it certainly does really give cause for concern as to what on earth is going on here and why this has happened now and in such, to use a word that former colleagues have used, a brutal fashion.

I talked to a young man not too long ago who was very keen, and he's in the process of becoming a paramedic. As he mentioned, it takes some time to become a full-time paramedic. He's a young man who lives here in Victoria. They get sent out in the process at various times to other communities for days or a week or more at a time.

[1510]

He was spending time over in Tofino and Ucluelet. It's a small community — right? He loves his job. He wants to be a paramedic, but he says: "How do I pay my bills when I'll be sitting there for days and there may be no calls? A couple of days go by, and there's no call for our services, so I'm getting paid a standby rate" — which would barely pay his gas to get there and back.

Now, nobody can build a career on that kind of an arrangement, so we've got a big problem. We've got a problem with paramedics leaving their profession in large numbers. Recruitment isn't a big issue for the service.

Again, I just don't understand how the government can see any wisdom in a precipitous move, apparently to satisfy VANOC — that they would put at risk the future of our ambulance service. I certainly would think twice. I probably wouldn't enter a profession…. If I looked around and saw this is what I'm facing — this is the lack of respect that the government has towards me — I would think, you know, there must be somewhere else that I can work where I would be treated better. So that's a real concern that we all should have.

You know, it's not as though there hasn't been…. The services have been provided lo, these many months —
[ Page 1963 ]
the essential services legislation that requires workers like paramedics to not be on a regular strike. Yeah, they had some On Strike signs on their ambulances, but they really weren't in any real strike situation. So a lot of them ended up working overtime to make sure that things worked, because unfortunately there are not a lot of people, as I say, that are looking to become paramedics these days.

Now, if we look at the proposals that were put forth by the government and by the union, there doesn't appear to be a mile of difference between the two. We have a 3 percent wage increase in common. A labour market adjustment of 1.2 percent and a not all that different, perhaps, proposal from the government side. Expiry time — 17½ months from the union and a year from the government side. And some differences around the employment of an industrial inquiry commission.

But no signing bonus for the paramedics. The signing bonus that public sector workers…. I don't know what the member feels; maybe he feels they don't deserve it. You know, other public sector workers were offered that. It seems like it's just absolutely adding insult to injury.

It really makes one wonder if…. I think some workers in British Columbia thought, after the broad collective agreement for public sector workers was negotiated a couple of years ago, that maybe things were getting better with this government. Some of the concern they had about their attitude towards labour, about their attitude towards public sector workers, was changing.

Well, it's gone back to zero and then some, I would suggest, in terms of the confidence or faith that working people can have in this government when it comes to respecting free collective bargaining, when it comes to respecting the work that they do. So these will be long-lasting, the effects. They won't go away easily. People don't forget this kind of treatment.

[1515]

I wanted to look at some of the things that the union is calling for the industrial inquiry commission to look at: staff recruitment, training and retention. Well, those are the big basic issues that they talk about, as well as the resources to do their job. I've talked to them many times over the years. They said: "Money is not the big issue for us. It's the resources to do our job." And it's the capacity to do a good job that they have a concern about.

Employee compensation, of course, is part of any negotiation, but what I see as being relatively close to being an agreement certainly doesn't look exorbitant by any stretch of the imagination.

Staff workload and occupational health and safety issues. And of course, rural and remote deployment and management structures and staff responsibilities and other related matters.

Very reasonable requests that the workers, through their union, have been putting forth. I don't see that the government couldn't have come to some agreement with them. Instead, there seemed to be this need to bring in the hammer to make sure that we have "labour peace." And it is a quote, because this is not labour peace. This is labour unrest — and long-lasting unrest.

VANOC may think it's peace. I don't know. They're, of course, focused on the Olympics, as they should be. That's their job. But it's not the only job of the province of British Columbia and the government of British Columbia — to ensure that anything and everything is done to ensure that there are no disruptions in any way, shape or form to the Olympics. We've seen that in other legislation before this House and in legislation that we've already discussed in this House.

We have to hope that the government has not lost sight of their general mandate in governing the province over these next few months and is going to focus solely on the 2010 Olympics. But if this is any indication, it seems to me that their perspective is really out of whack, if I can use that term.

You know, the response times are just not good enough, and that's due to a lack of resources. Now it's down to 52 percent on average — the goal of reaching the intended party within nine minutes. That's dropped from 85 percent in 1985. We need ambulance services every bit as much now as people did in 1985, and yet we've dropped from 85 percent to 52 percent. That should be a concern for each and every British Columbian.

With that, I'll take my seat.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak to Bill 21. It is misnamed, as many of the members have already said, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. But of course, there is nothing in this that is collective, and there is certainly no agreement.

What this does is continue in what has been year after year of mismanagement of this service, and the people that have paid the price…. The first thing I want to do is to just say to paramedics just how much we all appreciate the work that the paramedics do and really respect the fact that they are willing to put up with such mismanagement. They're the ones that have to deal with it.

[1520]

But what you see again and again is this government letting them down and not doing their part. It is that lack of respect on behalf of the government that you see. To my mind, it's epitomized by this Premier. During the election he flicked a loonie at striking paramedics, told them not to spend it all in the same place. That contempt, that disrespect is what you see here on display again, where you have the imposition of conditions that…. For years it has been recognized that they are conditions that simply aren't acceptable if the service is going to work the way that it needs to.

This is more than just a labour issue. These are people that we depend upon at the most difficult times in our lives. This is when a child is choking. This is when
[ Page 1964 ]
a senior is having a heart attack. This is after a motor vehicle accident. We depend upon these people to come and do things that we are unable to do. At that moment there is nobody more important than the person that comes and provides comfort and uses their skill to help somebody that's injured. Yet what we see from this government is a willingness to allow the system to operate in a way which simply does not work.

The main issue in this debate is the one that the minister alluded to. For me, the part of it that I am most familiar with is the rural paramedic issue. The minister recognized that there are huge problems with how this government has organized itself to deal with the rural paramedic issue. There are huge problems.

The B.C. NDP and local government and the UBCM and AKBLG — every organization that has knowledge about rural paramedics — have raised it with the government over the past four years. We have raised it repeatedly in the House, pointing out the problems that exist for the Ambulance Service, in particular, in rural B.C. — not just rural B.C. but, in particular, in rural B.C. And it's been ignored.

I'll bring members here back to a question period when Corky Evans asked a question about Nakusp. He said that Nakusp could not get paramedics to provide service for the community. They put out a letter to every person in the community, asking if somebody would be willing to be a paramedic, and they couldn't find anyone.

When the past Minister of Health was asked, the Minister of Health said…. The direct quote is that he gets it — that there's an issue — but it's a collective agreement issue. That was, like, three years ago, and there was some expectation that the government would be working to try to find solutions.

I mean, let's be clear about who created this problem. This government changed the working conditions for paramedics. In the past training was paid for, and then people very often in rural communities would be almost like volunteers. They would be able to have another job, and just like the volunteer fire department, they would come out and provide ambulance service.

Well, this government changed those roles. They said that you needed to pay for the training yourself. Now, there are many professions that do that. As a teacher, I would pay the cost of getting the training, go for four years. But then with my job, I would be compensated in a way that would make that worthwhile. But what this government did was download the cost of the training, and we're talking $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 — not an insignificant amount — and then basically required the paramedics to stay at stations and earn $10 an hour.

Well, how are you ever going to pay back the investment in training? You never will. You won't be able to. If you are in a smaller community, you can be paid as little as $2 an hour. When you treat people like that, there is no question that there is going to be problems with retention.

That happens again and again, but instead of dealing with the issue, instead of listening to people, to the opposition, and dealing with the issue, it is put off again and again. With this legislation, it's put off for another year. They're not going to deal with it for another year.

[1525]

So what you have left is this expectation that paramedics are going to accept the burden that comes to them, because this is a government that cannot manage this system.

This government required members to stay at the station. They said that they had to. Did they check to see that there were stations that were adequate for people, for paramedics, to stay there? They didn't. So across rural British Columbia, you had areas that didn't have appropriate stations.

Was there any thinking as to how you would retain paramedics and actually make the system work? There wasn't. So what we've had over the past four years is that again and again we have put these problems in front of the government, and the government ignores it. The best the Premier can do is flick a coin.

Do we hear any B.C. Liberal talk about these issues? There used to be a member for Cariboo South that would talk about B.C. ambulance issues, but that seems to no longer be a problem in Cariboo South. Presumably, no B.C. Liberal represents paramedics that have any issues. They won't even stand and speak in this House — not one. The minister stands and gives his ten-minute talk, and because the Premier has contempt for paramedics and flicks coins at them, each and every one of these B.C. Liberals will sit down and be quiet and say nothing on the issues.

But do they depend on the service? Absolutely. Surely they are aware that there are problems. Surely they should be standing up and demanding that something be done. The minister himself recognizes that certainly in rural British Columbia, the system is not working, and yet year after year, they allow it. They allow it to remain the way it is.

I'll talk about each of the communities that I represent. In September I was at each of these stations. Now, Kimberley has a station. It has, I believe, one, maybe two, full-time paramedics. They get paid a salary. The rest of the force that is there doing really difficult work is part-time, but part-time is kind of a strange term.

There was a gentleman I talked to. He works the equivalent of two full-time jobs, and because he's often getting $2 an hour or $10 an hour, he earns less than $50,000 a year, and only one-third of that is pensionable. He is not doing that work for any benefit to his family. It is a commitment to the community, and yet that is not even respected. That's what he said to me.

He said: "Why can I not, even at the very least, get some respect from this government?" Instead, they're treated with contempt.
[ Page 1965 ]

Now, Kimberley knows more than many other communities the dangers that go along with coming in and doing this service. We lost two paramedics in the Sullivan mine disaster, and when you had the gathering of paramedics from across the province that came to that community funeral, what you saw was tremendous emotion and tremendous dedication to that service.

You know, there were stations that couldn't send representatives. Golden couldn't send a representative. We did not have enough people. We needed them there in the community, and it just points to the fact that for year after year, there has been this retention issue. The fact is that the government has not managed this in a way that works. Who is left carrying the ball are rural paramedics, and paramedics in general.

I'm focusing on the things that I understand. I can tell you that in Kimberley the depth of feeling on this issue is huge. You go from house to house, and you will see signs. You will see signs on people's lawns that indicate that they want something done with this issue. They want to save the paramedic service. They want the paramedic service to be treated with the respect that it deserves, and clearly, that's not happening now. In Kimberley you have a situation that is clearly very, very difficult.

[1530]

I just want to give people a sense of the next community, which is Invermere. Invermere has a station. They're fortunate in that way. But the government there decided that it was best to get rid of one of the full-time paramedics that we have there. So it depends, again, on what they describe as a part-time service, but it is by no means part-time. These are jobs that require people to stay at the station.

This is a community that is hugely expensive to live in, and yet for most of the time that the paramedics are working, they get paid less than the Tim Hortons. So they have to pay for their training, they have to live in an expensive community, and much of the time they spend getting less than somebody who works for Tim Hortons.

Then you take them from there, and you put them into some of the most difficult situations that we can imagine. You put them in a situation where they have to go and deal with a medical emergency. You can imagine the trauma that's involved, but what sort of respect does this government show? None at all. That's an issue that has been put in front of this House again and again, and that this government has failed to deal with.

In Golden paramedics aren't in the station. This government can't even figure out how to have a station for paramedics to stay at in Golden. There's a mould issue. They've been out and in a motel for the longest time. It's not like a motel….

I see that in Victoria they've got them outside of motels, too, so it's not just rural areas they're mismanaging. But in Golden it snows. You have the ambulance sitting outside. You have all of those issues that have to be thought through, and this government can't even manage that part. They have to make paramedics' lives more complicated than they need to be because they can't do the basics in terms of figuring out how to make this service work.

The other thing that struck me, going again and again and meeting with paramedics, is that they actually make the best of it. For all of the things that you hear, you think: "Why do you put up with that? Why do you put up with no pension for years? Why do you put up with getting paid ridiculous amounts of money and then being required to go on overtime and having no life? Why do you put up with it?"

Yet what you consistently see with paramedics is this sense of duty which is incredible and which this government takes advantage of. They absolutely take advantage of it. The government comes in and changes the rules however they want to. But do the paramedics ever do anything other than their duty? They don't. So that sense of duty, this government takes advantage of.

The paramedics are out there right now. Are they happy about this? Do they think it's fair? It's not. And they're not happy about it. Are they out there doing their job? They are, to the best of their ability.

If only we had a government, if only we had members here who would do what they should be doing. Instead, what will we get? We will not have one B.C. Liberal stand up and actually speak. They've been told to be quiet. They'll be quiet. They do what they're told. So the contempt that the Premier shows for paramedics is acceptable to each and every one of these members.

We've had questions about VANOC. Is the minister responsible for the Olympics going to stand up and explain anything? No. She's been told to sit down and be quiet. She will. She'll do exactly what she's told, despite the fact she has to know, and other members have to know, the situation that's there and real for paramedics. But a complete unwillingness to speak on their behalf or to try to understand this issue or to put in place a piece of legislation that is in any way reasonable.

In Golden you have the Trans-Canada Highway. You have one of the most difficult sections of the Trans-Canada Highway. Between there and Revelstoke is a very challenging place, and there have been some horrific accidents. When those accidents take place, paramedics are expected to go and deal with the situation and deal with it basically on their own.

[1535]

They are not minutes away from a facility. They will often take an hour to get to an accident. Then they have to deal with the patient and look after them for an hour and a half until they get back to a hospital, a local hospital. Then following that, it can often be hours again before they get to a trauma centre like Foothills in Calgary.
[ Page 1966 ]

That is an incredible burden that you're asking those paramedics to carry. Yet, how are you going to retain the most skilled people in that community? You simply can't.

There was a paramedic in Golden that I was talking to. She made more as a waitress. You're asking her to pay for her training, the thousands of dollars, to come in and earn less than she would if she had not trained, if she had simply remained as a waitress, and to do jobs that, to be honest, very few of us would do because of their challenge and how difficult they are.

Revelstoke is the last of the communities I'll speak about. Here was a community that, when these changes were introduced four or five years ago by this government, had found themselves with no station. The area that they were in was part of the fire department. There was no room for people to stay overnight, so they had to leave. They had to leave that station, and where they ended up was in a motel. This is just how poorly thought through this service is.

They put them in a motel. If you have been to Revelstoke…. I doubt there is a part of British Columbia that gets more snow. The ambulance was parked outside over the winter. It was covered in snow. Because they had to be ready to go if an accident happened, they were constantly out there cleaning off the ambulances, and they were told by their employer, they were told by this government, that they're not allowed to do that. That $10, when you're supposed to be sitting in the motel….

Here's an official note: "Don't clean off the ambulance, because you're not covered by workers compensation." Not only do you not get pension for that, but you're not covered by workers compensation. If you injure yourself, it's not only tough luck for you, but we've told you not to do it. Therefore, you're going to be in trouble with us as well.

Paramedics, of course, have to clean off the ambulance, so they're out there doing it. But it just shows you, each and every time you have paramedics with the burden of the mismanagement of this government and having to deal with it.

In Revelstoke we were promised a station. What we have ended up with in Revelstoke is the motel situation, then into an industrial site. Because of pollution issues and safety issues, the paramedics went back to a motel, and now they're back in a cleaned-up industrial site, waiting for a station that we were promised a year ago, six months ago.

This summer I was on the phone with the B.C. Ambulance Service, and I was guaranteed, from the minister on down, that that ambulance was coming. The city of Revelstoke bought property, got it all ready, and still it's not arriving. It's just one more of the many, many cuts that this government makes.

When the minister stands up and says that he's going to deal with rural issues for paramedics, you've got to wonder, in the context of…. At some point, some of the commitments that a government makes have to actually come true if they expect to be believed on anything, and that's just not the record of this government. They say one thing, and you can be sure that the opposite is more likely to happen than not.

I just want to, again, say to paramedics how much I respect the work they do. I just want to read, in the time that I have, a couple of things. First, related to the life of a paramedic and then related to the life of people that live with paramedics and what it means for families.

This is from a gentleman named Michael Tomaino. He's from Vancouver, actually. He e-mailed me after my throne speech, where both in the throne speech and in the budget speech the first thing that I did was just talk about paramedics for a few minutes. I think it's instructive just to hear what he said.

He heard me speak, and he sent off a quick e-mail. He says: "My name is Michael Tomaino, and I am a paramedic with the B.C. Ambulance Service. I'm attaching a picture of a colleague of mine, who this week was photographed by the Province newspaper, sitting on the bumper of an ambulance with his head in his hands. His heart was heavy with sadness, for he just witnessed the aftermath of a terrible accident."

[1540]

The member will remember a tragic accident this summer in Vancouver where a young child was with the mother, and the child was hit by a runaway truck. He just talks about that paramedic and that paramedic having to deal with that situation. We can all imagine it — the mother, the young child, realizing there was nothing they could do for the child.

What Mr. Tomaino goes on to say is that it reminds him of things that he's had to deal with — removing a young man out of the waters beneath the Pattullo Bridge and realizing there's nothing that he could do and having to make that decision. He talks about attending the mushroom farm in Langley a year ago and having to deal with all of that.

I think that these are things we forget. Most of us are quite fortunate in our lives that we don't deal with these traumatic events. These are professionals, and he goes on to say that they're not asking for sympathy or to be called heroes or to do anything else. They want to do this work, but they do think that it's absolutely important — and Michael makes this point — that they receive respect for what they do. That is a big part of what is missing here, a big part of what is missing.

The B.C. Liberals are going to line up and vote for this. I would expect that at the very least they explain their vote. If nothing else, stand up and explain why this is a reasonable course of action. I don't think that's too much to expect. Surely we all came here to express the views of our constituents, and to accept that you don't get to say something on it, for the B.C. Liberal members, is ridiculous to me.
[ Page 1967 ]

I want to read one other thing. It just talks about a family member. It just gives you an idea of how it's not only the paramedic but also the members of the family. It's from George Weitzel from Kimberley, a good friend. Here he's talking about his life with a paramedic.

"I would like to address the on-call pay issue as one that I am personally familiar with and one that I believe demonstrates the disregard the provincial government has shown to our paramedics.

"I would like you to imagine that your spouse is a fully trained paramedic who has a schedule that may include as many as five on-call shifts per week. They can be either ten-hour day shifts or a 14-hour night shift. Your spouse carries a pager at all times when on call and must be at the ambulance station in uniform and ready to roll in ten minutes. They are not free to go out for dinner, go grocery shopping or do anything that would prevent them from responding in ten minutes.

"Now try to imagine going to sleep when you're on call, with a pager inches from your ear. Imagine being paged at three or four in the morning and quickly putting on the uniform and being out the door into a cold winter night, the adrenalin pumping hard.

"Now imagine receiving $2 per hour for being on call. There is not another emergency service provider in the province who receives such a pittance for being on call.

"The present treatment of our paramedics is shameful, and the failure of our government to recognize the importance of a well-trained and motivated ambulance service is a disservice to us all."

I don't think anyone could sum it up better than George Weitzel. That is exactly what is going on here.

"The present treatment of our paramedics is shameful, and the failure of our government to recognize the importance of a well-trained and motivated ambulance service is a disservice to us all."

You could not articulate the issue here any clearer than that.

I know that the opposition will continue to fight on this issue. We will do what we need to do to get the B.C. Ambulance Service so that it works not only in rural British Columbia but in all parts of British Columbia. I know and want to say again to paramedics how much respect we have for the work that paramedics have done. I think that this piece of legislation treats them, again, in a manner of contempt that most British Columbians find offensive.

In each one of my communities and actually across the province we see the signs. We know that if you look at surveys that are done of jobs that are respected…. I saw one recently in the Reader's Digest. It had firefighters at the top. Right behind them you had paramedics, the people that we depend upon.

[1545]

I won't say where politicians fit in that list, but you can imagine. It's nowhere near.

These are people that deserve respect. To wait a year for another process that's uncertain is a ridiculous option. This is something that could have been settled.

It is actually not up to the paramedics to make this work. It is actually up to the government. The government should be the one that is looking at the issues of retention and getting the training piece right. That should be the minister's responsibility. He shouldn't have to be dragged into that by paramedics.

I'm going to wrap up. I know that there are other members, B.C. NDP and independent members, who are actually going to stand and speak on this bill.

I will say again that the behaviour by the Premier of flicking a loonie at paramedics was indicative of contempt. That's an action I've never heard the Premier apologize for. He should be in this House and apologize. The fact is that he's not even going to speak on this. He's not even going to stand and speak on this issue.

There should be a B.C. Liberal that stands up and explains their vote. Otherwise, I don't know how you go back to your communities and hold up your heads. I honestly don't.

With that, I turn it over to my colleague. I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I thank paramedics again for the jobs that they do.

V. Huntington: I'm not normally given to speaking on behalf of unions, but I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.

The explanatory note attached to the legislation states: "This bill settles the labour dispute between the Emergency and Health Services Commission and its ambulance paramedics and dispatchers." The explanatory note, to me, is unsettling, given that the legislation was obviously drawn up in the middle of a formal offer to the union. If that isn't an example of bad-faith bargaining, I'm not sure what is.

I agree with the minister that we're going into a bad flu season. Yes, the holiday seasons are coming, and yes, the managers are tired and frustrated. Yes, we would all like to see this labour dispute settled. I also have to admit that even though there are legitimate demands, I feel the expectations of the paramedics and dispatchers are somewhat unrealistic, given the announcement in the February '09 budget that there would be no new money for public sector wage increases.

I can even understand the government's decision not to go to arbitration, and I certainly applaud the minister's announcement of the industrial inquiry commission. There are many structural issues that clearly need independent resolution in this dispute.

What I do not understand, however, is the decision to enter free bargaining, the decision to make an offer and the decision to bring in back-to-work legislation four days before the vote was taken on that offer. I wonder sometimes if there's been a decision at some level to so discourage participation in this profession that a move to privatizing the Ambulance Service is in the offing. If that's so, let us have a public and open debate on the merits or otherwise of such a move.

In the meantime, I feel that there are principles of fair play on which our society depends and on which it is founded. There is law surrounding collective bargaining rights. There is, or was, public expectation that government
[ Page 1968 ]
operates within the sphere of law and fair play. In fact, the long-term stability of a democracy is, in its essence, dependent upon the predictability of process. That is what contract law is all about. That is what we expect our governments to honour: the legal processes that bind a sound, stable and democratic society.

[1550]

But fairness and dependability are in danger of becoming unknown commodities in this province, at least for the people this government should be representing. If you are an industry, access is now your speedy right. There's a new noblesse oblige in this province. But if you are just the people, you can no longer rely on the expectation of fair play or the ear of this government.

So here I am, a strong free-enterpriser defending the right of a union to fair play. I strongly believe the government should let the bargaining process play out and that the vote should be taken. If the offer isn't accepted and the government continues to believe there is a threat to the delivery of ambulance service in B.C., then perhaps legislation of this nature would be more understandable.

At the moment I can only say that I believe the government has acted in bad faith and has moved intemperately with the introduction of this legislation. To me, it is just one more nail in the coffin of public trust and faith in the legitimacy of this government.

H. Lali: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 21 entitled Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act.

It's a bit of a misnomer here because there's no collective agreement. The collective agreement, or the so-called collective agreement, is being forced upon the paramedics while their rights are being run roughshod by this government — all of this following, basically, months and months and months of foot-dragging from the government while the paramedics had been looking for an agreement and a solution.

The government's basically wasted all this time. Now, because the Olympics are around the corner and they don't want anything going astray, they're bringing this forward under those auspices.

I'm just going to read you a list of some names of communities here. There are a whole bunch of communities on the north coast, not the least of which is Prince Rupert. There's Masset, Sandspit, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Stewart. We also have Kamloops, 100 Mile House, Agassiz, Harrison Lake, Lake Eric, Ruby Creek, along Highway 1 from Annis Road to Herrling Island, northern part of Vancouver Island, Invermere, Revelstoke, Kimberley, Fernie, Chase, Merritt, Armstrong, Ashcroft, Salmon Arm, Canoe, Sicamous, Terrace, Alexis Creek, Chemainus and Port Renfrew.

You're probably wondering why I'm reading all these names. What is it that these communities have in common? Well, with the exception of a couple of larger communities like Kamloops and Prince Rupert, which is kind of medium-sized, it's all rural British Columbia. Every single one of these communities is located in rural British Columbia.

They're not just in one part of the province. There are communities here from the rural part of Vancouver Island, the north coast, communities here in the Cariboo, in the Thompson, in the Okanagan region, from the Kootenays, and there are some communities that are not listed here up in the Peace River country as well. They are communities all over rural British Columbia.

The reason those names are mentioned is that if anybody was looking at all of the written media or even listening to the radio or television, every one of these communities and dozens more that are not listed here in my list…. Every single one of them has had problems in terms of the ambulance service, whether it's a shortage of paramedics or the overly length of time — I think I just invented that word — the extra amount of time it actually takes for the ambulances to respond to emergency situations.

[1555]

It's not good enough. It's actually pathetic, in terms of the lack of resources that have been given to our ambulance service by this Liberal government over the last eight years, and the situation is not getting any better. It's getting worse year by year, month by month, week by week, and for some communities it's getting worse day by day.

You know, these are some of the municipalities and the incorporated communities that I have talked about. There are dozens and dozens of unincorporated communities which are not actually covered in the list that I just sounded off, but I have another list of hundreds of communities where they are included.

What's also not included is all of the aboriginal reserves, the aboriginal villages that surround almost every single one of these communities that I mentioned. If the length of response time is a little too long in those municipalities and in those communities, just imagine the length of time that's tacked on because you happen to be a first nations community. Some of them are as far away as two or three hours from these municipalities or these organized towns.

Communities up on the north coast, communities up in the Cariboo region, which are on the actual west coast of British Columbia — how long it takes for an ambulance to get there, or the ambulance doesn't get there because there are no paramedics. It's getting worse.

Successive Ministers of Health have done nothing to improve the situation for these small communities. I see my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, who did a fantastic job of outlining some of the concerns, nodding in agreement, because the problems that I'm going to talk about, some of these issues that I'm going to raise in my constituency, are no different than the issues and the concerns that people are talking about in his constituency and in the constituencies of the rural members opposite.
[ Page 1969 ]

But you would be hard pressed…. You know, they're going to stand up here on Bill 21. They're all going to stand up, one after the other, and they're going to vote to actually pass this bill. They're going to vote to get the paramedics back to work. They're going to force them. They're going to bring the hammer down on them. They're all going to get up and do that.

Since getting re-elected in '05 and again in '09, I haven't…. I might be wrong, because I might not have been in the House at that particular time, as members, as you know, go in and out and serve their duty. They have other duties they have to go to — meetings and functions, etc. But I have not heard a single one of the Liberals, especially the rural MLAs, and some of them are in the House right now, actually get up and defend the paramedics or defend their rural communities where ambulance services are being nonchalantly and routinely gutted by the Liberal government since 2001.

I have not seen a single one of them actually stand up and lock arms with their rural colleagues on this side of the House to stand up for our constituents and their constituents and hold the government to task, to say: "We're not going to put up with this any longer. We're not going to actually put up with the continued onslaught and the disrespect that this Premier and this Liberal government have been showing to not only the paramedics but to residents who live in rural communities, residents in these small communities."

Some of them are significant — these municipalities. Others are very small, and some of them are in remote areas even, especially first nations. Not a single one of them actually got up to defend, and I mentioned…. I think Kimberley is in the Minister of Community Development's constituency. How come I don't see the minister stand up to defend his community of Kimberley? How come I don't see the minister from Kamloops stand up, or the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson, who sits a few seats to my left?

How come I do not see any one of the Liberal MLAs from rural British Columbia, and cabinet ministers…? I see the cabinet minister from Prince George is also here. How come they don't stand up and fight for their communities?

[1600]

How come they don't stand up to fight for their constituents, these paramedics, who are doing a fantastic job? How come they never get up to defend them? How come they don't stand up for their communities? How come it's always the NDP opposition who stands up to not only fight for the NDP constituents in our own communities and in our ridings…? I mentioned all these communities that I read out. They must be — what? — only, maybe, 1/10 or 1/15 of the master list that's out here.

We're standing up. We're fighting for our own constituents. We're standing up, and half of those names that I read out here are constituencies held by members on the government side of the House, on the Liberal side of the House. Their constituencies, their communities, their constituents — members opposite sit muted, not a word. They don't take their place in the debate of Bill 21. But it is us, the members opposite, the New Democrat members, who are consistently and routinely standing up, fighting for the rights of our constituents and their constituents opposite, while they sit on their hands.

We have seen this happen every week here in the House, every month that we're here in the House. We've seen this happen for the last eight years, where members opposite do not fight for their own constituents. They do not stand up for their constituents, the paramedics. They don't stand up for the first nations who need the ambulance services and the paramedics. They don't stand up and actually talk for them. They don't stand up and fight for them. We're doing it.

We've been doing it day in and day out, and we're going to continue to do that. We're going to stand up and fight for our constituents, and we're going to fight for the constituents opposite because their Liberal MLA refuses to do so. Consistently we've seen that happen over the last eight years.

You know, my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke spoke so eloquently about the respect that he has for paramedics. I know other members opposite here on our side have as well. I'm going to continue in that vein, because of what the paramedics have been going through for the last number of years as the B.C. Liberals have systematically dismantled and destroyed the Ambulance Service in British Columbia through its chronic underfunding and neglect and their uncaring attitude.

While they've done that, you just see the morale of all these paramedics and the folks that work for the Ambulance Service. They won't speak up for them, but we respect our paramedics. We respect the folks who work for the ambulance services.

Whether it's the person who's driving the ambulance, or the paramedic who's doing the attending or doing the lifting, or the person who's sitting there in the ambulance services answering the phone call, or the person doing the paperwork, or the manager who's actually doing the managing, or the administrator or the head person in each one of these outfits who is doing what he or she is supposed to do in terms of the management, or the persons who are the baseline workers, on our side of the House, on the NDP side of the House we respect the job that each and every single person working in the Ambulance Service, including paramedics and administrators, does.

We respect the job that each one of them does. We do on this side of the House.

I'm still waiting for somebody on that side of the House, on the Liberal side, to actually stand up and say those very words and actually show that they care
[ Page 1970 ]
— show that they care about not only the people who deliver our ambulance service and our paramedics but also the people who receive the service on the other side, the people in all of those small communities spread out all throughout rural British Columbia, the first nations communities in the unincorporated territories and the unincorporated territories in the regional districts.

They're the ones who are hurt the most if they can't get adequate medical services in time because of this government's uncaring attitude and their neglect. That's the bottom line.

[1605]

I want to show how much disrespect this government has shown. You know, the paramedics have taken a vote. They're still in the middle of it. They're still voting. Amazing.

G. Coons: Unbelievable.

H. Lali: Unbelievable. Unbelievable, and not because they're taking the vote. That's not what my member for the North Coast behind me is sitting there in disbelief over.

That vote has been going on for a while. The Minister of Health knows about it. Cabinet ministers know about it. The Premier knows about it. Every single one of these Liberal MLAs who sit to my left…. It's amazing they're actually sitting to my left — behind me to my left, in front of me to my left, right in front of me, you know….

Interjections.

H. Lali: The member from Langley says it's to his right. It's unfathomable to think that somebody would actually be to the right of that member, but there are some Liberals who are even to the right of him. All of those Liberals…. I'm waiting for some of them….

Interjections.

H. Lali: Well, wait until the 2013 election. If the minister thinks there are not enough Liberals in the House, wait until 2013. There will be even less of them after 2013, with the way that they're doing things.

Is there a single member on the opposite side, even those folks that sit behind me, the Liberals there…? Does any one of them even know that there's a vote taking place? I know the member for North Coast said it's unbelievable that they wouldn't, but there's a vote taking place. It's part of the collective agreement process. It's part of our democratic right and our democratic process as part of the union to have a vote when there is an offer ahead of you.

"Here's one side," the government says to them. You know, there's an agreement — bargaining taking place. They're having a vote. They're not even finished the vote. The vote hasn't even been counted.

My good friend the Minister of Health doesn't even know if it's a negative or a positive vote, but he's sponsoring…. He came in here with this Bill 21. He says: "Regardless of how you guys vote or which way you vote, I'm going to take this sledgehammer, and I'm going to show you that you guys can't do this. You guys can't go on strike. You folks can't do this. We're going to legislate you guys back to work. We're going to impose an agreement on you guys because we the government have this big, big, huge sledgehammer that we can use through the Legislature."

That's what's happening — unbelievable. My good friend from the North Coast says: "Unbelievable." Isn't it unbelievable? It's unprecedented. While the union takes a vote, the employer, the government decides: "Oh no, we're not going to wait for the results, because we've got this hammer. We're going to use it, and why are we going to use it? Because we can." That's what the government is telling them. "We're going to use it because we can." They're government, and they're going to use it — unbelievable.

Hon. Speaker, I also want to go through that list I was telling you about just a few minutes ago of some communities. I won't read about all of them, but I'm going to read about some of them in terms of the paramedic data from '08 and '09 that's been supplied here.

The B.C. Ambulance Service has actually set a benchmark of reaching 90 percent of critical calls within nine minutes. That's the government's ambulance service. They set the rules. So the B.C. Ambulance Service has set a benchmark of reaching 90 percent of critical calls within nine minutes. In 2007-2008 they reached this benchmark only 52 percent of the time.

You'd think it might have rung some alarm bells in the minds of the cabinet. "Okay, we set the rules — 90 percent. It's only at 52 percent. There's something wrong. Let's go out there and talk to the people who know best. These are the folks on the ground — paramedics and the Ambulance Service on the ground. Let's talk to them and ask them: how are we going to improve this? What's needed?"

[1610]

You'd think somebody might…. The little light might have gone click — on. "That's the idea. Let's go talk to them." No, those are their own rules. You know, this is only in urban and metropolitan areas. In rural areas it's far worse. In remote and rural areas they almost never even reach this benchmark of 52 percent.

I'm going to give you some examples. I'm not picking and choosing, you know, looking for the worst examples or the community of the member from Prince George or the community of the member from the Chilliwack area — I guess he's only got one community — or of some of the other rural members.

No, I'm not picking and choosing. I'm actually going with communities I represented. That's it — in one area, all those communities, whether it was in Yale-Lillooet or
[ Page 1971 ]
now in Fraser-Nicola. Remember, they set a benchmark of 90 percent for critical calls within nine minutes.

Ashcroft, rural. They've had a 75.13 percent increase between '02 and '09 in terms of the calls. The percentage of the calls reached in less than nine minutes: 31 percent. That's it.

Boston Bar, which is not in my constituency now. It's remote. It's unincorporated. Over 70 percent increase in the calls, and the percentage of time they actually reached it within nine minutes: 7.14 percent. That's it.

Clinton, another remote. Over 86 percent increase in the calls, and the number of times they reached it within nine minutes: 3.57 percent. That's it.

Hope, which used to be in my riding. I don't know why it's called urban, because it's at the end of the Fraser Valley. They call it urban. It should be rural. Although there's a drop in terms of the number of calls, they reached it in under nine minutes just a touch, 29½ percent of the time. That's it.

Keremeos, which is outside my constituency now. It's rural. A 110 percent increase in the number of calls. How many times did they reach it within nine minutes? Only 42½ percent. That's it.

Lillooet, which is in my constituency of Fraser-Nicola. It's rural. There's a 123 percent increase in the number of calls. How many times did they reach it within nine minutes? That's 46 percent.

Lytton — 85½ percent increase in the calls. How many times did they reach it within nine? It was 4.17 percent. That's it.

Merritt, my home community. It's rural. A 69.67 percent increase in the number of calls, and reaching it within nine minutes: only 47.88 percent. That's it.

Princeton, which is a rural community. There's a 68.66 percent increase in the number of calls, and how many times did they reach it within nine minutes? It was 37.66 percent. That's it.

All of these communities that are listed here…. When you look at it, some of the records are even worse than some of the communities in my riding that I talked about. When you go to the north coast or the Cariboo or the communities surrounding Kamloops, in the Kamloops–North Thompson, or you go to the communities in the Peace River country or Prince George, where the minister is from, in those areas, in every area, all of those small communities…. In some of those communities the record is even worse. You'd think somebody might do something about it when they see that kind of a dismal record.

I want to share some stories here with you as well. In Princeton — this was a couple of years ago, and for some reason my computer has kind of crashed and I couldn't get the name back out again; it was about 2½ years ago — there was a young couple, and the man's wife was going to have a baby.

Went to the Princeton hospital in Princeton, and you know what? They didn't send him in an ambulance to go to Penticton. They asked him: "How fast can you drive?" He had to take his pregnant wife in his own truck — this is in the middle of the winter — and drive from Princeton to Penticton, which is well over an hour's drive. In the winter it would be even more. It would be about an hour and a half.

[1615]

They didn't quite make it to Penticton general. Why? Because he had to stop on the side of the road and actually deliver the baby himself. This is the reality under a Liberal world.

In 2003 go closer to home. My wife was expecting, and a doctor told us: "Go to the Merritt hospital first." I drove her to the Merritt hospital. My kids were in the back seat. And in Merritt they basically said: "How fast can you drive?" Those exact words. No ambulance, no. "How fast can you drive?"

Here driving in the middle of the night…. It's past midnight — summer. I'm driving fairly fast, over the speed limit, to get there because my wife's ready to push. I was going around one corner, and I thought.... I just decided: "I'd better slow down. There might be an animal on the road." Sure enough, I slowed down. I went around the corner, and there was a deer that was crossing the road — some animal; I don't know if it was a deer. I think it was a wolf or something. Sure enough, around the corner there it was.

But in any case, we got to the hospital, Royal Inland Hospital. They didn't even do anything in terms of checking us in or whatever like that. They said to me: "Just go park your car. We'll take care of your wife." I go to park the car and I go into the hospital, and about three minutes later our baby was born. That's the reality under a Liberal world.

One doesn't have to go too far to read about stories in newspapers. Each one of us here on both sides of the House has friends or relatives or somebody we know, our neighbour or somebody well known in the community, who has gone through similar situations. Nobody has to make anything up. You don't have to read anything in newspapers or watch the TV. These are real stories.

This government has refused to deal with the paramedics issue. And how are they dealing with it while the voting is still taking place? The hammer of legislation. That's the kind of respect that they show to those very people who are in the business of saving lives.

These are health care professionals. These are people in the health field whose job it is to actually save lives, to transport sick people from one community to another, from one hospital to another or from an accident scene where there's all sorts of blood and everything and broken bones and the devastation of accidents that takes place.

They're often or, in most cases, the first people who are there to respond to these kinds of situations. How does this government show respect for the kind of
[ Page 1972 ]
work that they do? By bringing down the legislative hammer.

Not a single one of these folks from rural British Columbia that are Liberal MLAs is actually going to stand up and vote against this and say: "No. It's time we actually showed some respect for some of our lowest-paid health care workers in our province of British Columbia." That's how the Liberals deal with these kinds of situations.

I want to read, actually, something from the Hope Standard, April 1, 2009. This is a story. It says Howard Johnson has been a paramedic for over 20 years and currently works in a rural community. He compared his recent experience in Regina with B.C.'s ambulance service, and he says:

"Their equipment made our equipment look archaic. We are required to manually lift and assemble our equipment — chair cot and stretcher — while their new equipment has hydraulics and can be assembled by the push of a button. Since implementing their new equipment, the responding paramedics told me that they have not had one back or shoulder injury.

"Yet new equipment that the B.C. Ambulance Service has been supplied with is heavier than our usual stretcher and requires additional strength to operate. Currently with obese patients, another ambulance crew or a fire department has to be called out just to assist with the lift, using resources that could have been required for a motor vehicle accident or another medical emergency."

I want to read another one from the Goldstream (News) Gazette, May 5, 2009. Chris Meyer has been a full-time paramedic for 28 years, and he wrote this piece. Way back when, he says, paramedics were on par with Vancouver police. Chris mentioned that a Vancouver paper found in the fall of 2008 that of the most dangerous jobs in B.C., paramedics were No. 2, just behind steelworkers at No. 1.

[1620]

Chris said: "It would appear that we are six places ahead of the next most dangerous emergency responders. We get spit at, puked on, assaulted, degraded by the employer and generally left unsupported. We are exposed to things the rest of you don't want to deal with, and we have to resolve the repercussions of dealing with car fatalities, drug deaths, suicides and regular calls." These are not made-up stories. These are real. These are absolutely real.

Then on February 21, 2009, a woman collapsed at an event in Invermere. The 911 call was picked up by Kelowna dispatch, which was then transferred to the Kamloops call centre of the B.C. Ambulance Service, which, in turn, contacted the Invermere unit.

The minimum wait time, according to observers, was 30 minutes for an ambulance. A local councillor, Bob Campsall, said they could have had her at the hospital within minutes. The woman was eventually confirmed to have had a stroke. She was taken to the Invermere and District Hospital before being transported to Calgary. This is from the Invermere Valley Echo, March 3, 2009.

I will be voting alongside my colleagues against this. I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the extra couple of minutes to finish this off.

Deputy Speaker: While the member takes his seat, I will caution him on the use of commentary on who is present and who is absent in the chamber.

G. Coons: I rise to take my place to debate Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. As we start this debate…. It's not much of a debate. We're only having one side of the story here. As we look at this appalling, shocking legislation, well, again, it's not really all that surprising.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

People that have followed the B.C. Liberal government in the last eight years expected this — expected this draconian, archaic type of legislation to come through at a time when the union is taking a vote on this. It's going to be released Friday, the results. They could have waited until Friday or next week and then decided what they needed to do, but no.

This bill is just unprecedented in how it's interrupting the collective bargaining process. Instead of using the process of free collective bargaining, they undermine the rights of workers throughout the province.

Interjections.

G. Coons: Now, I hear some comments on the other side. I'm glad the member is making some comments. Less than a year ago we had a motion in this House on November 24, 2008. The motion was from our colleague on this side Charlie Wyse, from Cariboo South. This is the motion: "Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of the ambulance service provided by the Province of BC and the importance of continued improvement to this service."

At that time we had some of the members on the other side stand up. They stood tall, arm in arm on their side, mind you. But now where are they? They're cowering in their chairs. They're being forced to sit there. All they got is some heckling. That's all you got coming out of you.

Come on. Have the gumption to stand up and comment on this bill. No.

Interjection.

G. Coons: The member for Nechako Lakes, who may be sitting in the House…. Somebody is sending some comments over.

Deputy Speaker: Member, no comments about who is or isn't in the House.
[ Page 1973 ]

G. Coons: Or he may not be in the House. I'm sorry, hon. Chair.

The member for Nechako Lakes last November talked about how critical the Ambulance Service is. He actually said this. "We have done a lot with paramedics, and I am pleased to stand here and support paramedics," continues the hon. member for Nechako Lakes last November, "because they do provide an incredible service in this province. I look forward to continuing to work with them in the years to come."

"I look forward to working with them in the years to come." In less than a year look at what they are doing to the valuable paramedics in this province. It's shameful, and he should sit there with his head down.

[1625]

We also had other members stand up and talk about how valuable our paramedics are, their paramedics are. The member for Burnaby-Lougheed also had some comments. But where are they today? They are missing in action.

Now, this bill should be about respect and trust, but what we have is a government taking a 2-by-4 and hitting our paramedics across the face with it, and that's shameful. This Bill 21 calls for a retroactive one-year deal, and it legislates them back to work from their essential service. It also puts a legislated contract on our paramedics.

We've seen that before. The bargaining history of this government is just outrageous. We've seen it under Bill 27, Bill 28, where they ripped up contracts, even though they promised not to rip up contracts. That's what they've been doing in their reign of terror with workers in this province.

What could they have done? Well, the paramedics called for, and we supported, an independent arbitrator to settle the strike months ago. But, no, they chose to just sit on their hands. Now they're imposing a settlement that is going to put labour strife throughout the province, especially when we start moving towards the Olympics and after the Olympics.

It's interesting, when we talk about the Olympics, because a lot of people were wondering where this legislation is coming from. The minister starts talking about, "It's as light a touch as possible," because it's only for one year. Well, "as light a touch as possible" just shows how out of touch this minister actually is.

This bill will only inflame labour relations throughout the province at a time when, in the recession, we need to be working together. What they do is they bring forth this appalling piece of legislation that's going to put collective bargaining way back into the dinosaur years, where these guys are.

The minister, this government claims that it's necessary to introduce this legislation because of the H1N1 crisis. You know, there hasn't been an urgency until now. We could have waited until Friday. That's when the results of the strike vote are going to be forthcoming. They could have waited a couple of days, but no. They hammer this through, and they're going to put back our labour relations, set it back years.

The government also claims that it's because of overworked managers. But when we look at the overwork, the essential services that they put in require paramedics to work overtime. There isn't much change to that.

The minister is in this realm of blame, blame, blame. He blames the union. He blames the paramedics. He blames the president of CUPE. He should be waiting for the vote to finish, and he's ramming through this legislation that, as I said before, is archaic.

Now, we start wondering, as I mentioned: why is this coming forward? Well, there's speculation out there that this is all because of the Olympics.

Interjections.

G. Coons: It's speculation, they say. I hear it from the members.

Interjections.

G. Coons: I sure look forward to the members standing up and taking part in the debate.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

Continue, Member.

G. Coons: When we look at this memo that came out earlier in the fall…. It was sent from Dr. Mike Wilkinson. He's director of medical services at VANOC. It went to Stephen Brown; Lee Doney, who is the CEO of ambulance services; and other government officials.

[1630]

This memo, in part, stated:

"VANOC Medical Services, and thus the IOC, requires definitive confirmation by October 1, 2009, that all required ambulance services will be provided as planned. These services include the ability to engage the VPCs and the B.C. Ambulance Service members in full venue-planning as soon as possible. This confirmation must also include a guarantee that no services during the games will be disrupted or reduced from what was planned.

"If we are unable to obtain that guarantee through either settlement of the strike or legislated détente for the games, then VANOC will be required to initiate alternative contingency plans to avoid cancellation of the games."

Here it is. This is all based on, not the H1N1 crisis, just fearmongering by the minister. It's not because of the overworked managers. It's because they want to interrupt free collective bargaining.

When we look at this unprecedented move that this government has done…. It's the first time in Canadian labour history that a government, any government, has forced public employees to accept a collective agreement while
[ Page 1974 ]
the union is in the middle of voting for it. It's unbelievable that this government would do that. But again, we get used to it. We've got what happened throughout the years under this government.

I look back to the previous Minister of Health's comments about collective bargaining in this House. The previous Minister of Health, in May 2006, was confronted in question period about the struggles that the paramedics were having in our communities, especially in rural and remote communities. The Minister of Health back then said that their new collective agreement was endorsed by all and that it was a freely negotiated collective agreement. So obviously, he believed in freely negotiated collective agreements. But not on this day does this government believe in that.

Last year, February 2008, the minister said again, when questioned in question period about an agreement signed, endorsed, by the union: "We're not going to breach it."

Here they are in the middle of free collective bargaining. The union is having a strike vote, and it's coming out in two days. What do we have? We have this shameful, archaic piece of legislation coming forth. It's an attack not only on the paramedics throughout British Columbia but on all workers across the province.

When we look at the impact on future labour relations that this will have…. We have public sector bargaining coming up next year, 2010, and this heavy-handed move by the government has damaged the possibility of meaningful collective bargaining for the rest of the public sector.

It's something, probably, that they did on purpose. Over the last eight years, we've seen how they've treated workers across the province, how they've treated children, how they've treated women, the most vulnerable and especially rural communities.

What we've seen and what I've heard from a lot of my constituents…. The riding I represent is Prince Rupert — Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla, Kitkatla, Hartley Bay, Haida Gwaii, down the central coast, Klemtu, Bella Bella, Bella Coola and Rivers Inlet. When I travel through the riding, I make a point of trying to talk to our paramedics, who are out there hoping for the respect and trust of their government. A bill like this just flies in the face of any respect and trust from this Liberal government.

[1635]

Over the years we've talked about the concerns that we have for our paramedics: the $2 pager pay, the problems of recruitment, the concerns with training, the uncertainty of actually having ambulance services in the rural communities. Again, this blatant attack on the credibility of our paramedics is shameful from this government.

On this side of the House…. I don't know about the other side of the House. They haven't stood up at all. They haven't put forth any arguments for why we need to do this. I got an e-mail from Jeff today. He wanted to send a thank-you note to the members who are speaking on their behalf: "I am, at this point, the most demoralized that I have ever been while working for the B.C. Ambulance Service, and there have been a lot of low points. Seeing someone who actually cares is somewhat uplifting."

What this government should be doing is working with our paramedics and ensuring that they're feeling this way and not demoralized and angry.

Jen, who's from Denman Island, sent an e-mail out. "It's very tough for me to survive financially with the current situation. I am unable to lateral out of the rural station I work at on Denman Island. I make $2 an hour sitting at my station waiting for a call. When I get a call, I get my regular wage at four hours' pay. However, I've only had three calls in nine months. I am doing this to help other people. That is why I am still fighting."

That's why we're, on this side, opposing this bill. That's why we are still fighting for our paramedics throughout the province, while we have the cone of silence over on the other side.

Throughout the last three or four years, where we've been bringing up the concerns of recruitment, of training, of wages and benefits, the other side — the B.C. Liberal government — has treated our paramedics shamefully.

Recently, a couple of months ago in the newspaper, in the Prince Rupert Daily News, there was a letter from Kristy Schwenning. Her husband is a paramedic. She says that because of the $2-an-hour pager wage, he does not make enough money to quit his full-time job, so he works Monday to Friday at a sawmill and then drives hours to the station to put in Saturday and Sunday shifts. On weekends when he did not receive a call, he would end up making $48 for the whole weekend. Subtract gas, food, etc. while he's away, and he'd come home owing money.

These are the people that we are legislating back to work and legislating a contract. That's shameful. He's invested 18 months and thousands of dollars to further his paramedic career, and Kristy says: "I often wonder why he stays working for an employer who just doesn't seem to care about him. The answer never changes. He loves his job. He is good at it too."

That's why we're here. That's why we're here challenging Bill 21, called the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. What a title. This is not a collective agreement. This is an imposed agreement by this government on our valuable paramedics.

Chris Meyer, who's been a full-time paramedic for 20 years, mentions that in one of the newspapers in 2008, they found that the most dangerous job in B.C…. Out of all the jobs, paramedics were No. 2, just behind steelworkers, who were No. 1.

He says, and this is a quote from Chris Meyer, who is a paramedic: "It would appear that we are six places ahead of the next most dangerous emergency responders. We
[ Page 1975 ]
get spit at, puked on, assaulted, degraded by the employer and generally left unsupported. We are exposed to things the rest of you don't want to deal with, and we have to resolve the repercussions of dealing with car fatalities, drug deaths, suicides and regular calls."

[1640]

This is a fact of their daily life, and we need to treat them with respect and trust. This Bill 21 before us just throws that right back in their faces.

If we look at some of the data that we have before us and that we know about, paramedic data from 2008-2009…. We have it for community, for stations throughout the province: the type of station, the call volume, the percent increase that they've had in the last six or seven years and the response time.

If I look at some of the stations in my riding…. I look at Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert in the last seven years has had a 49.7 percent increase in call volume from 2002 to 2009. Their average response time is just over nine minutes.

As our communities, especially in rural British Columbia, have been decimated under this Liberal government because of no forestry policy, no social policy and no economic policy, we see a lot of the impacts falling upon the most vulnerable in our communities, who are probably the increase in the call volume. That's shameful as we move forward with this Bill 21.

In Bella Coola there's an 11 percent increase in the call volume. In Sandspit there's a 68 percent increase in call volume. In Port Clements, which is a small community, they've got dedicated ambulance paramedics who work long and hard, who volunteer their time, not only in Port Clements but in Sandspit, Bella Coola, Prince Rupert, Masset and Queen Charlotte. They had a 250 percent call increase from 2002 to 2009.

When this legislation came out yesterday, one of the paramedics, a chief paramedic in Port Clements, contacted me. He says…. I think it's better that it's coming from the front-line workers, the people that this legislation is going to impact. They need to have a place to voice their concerns. It's not coming from the ridings of the Liberals on the other side, because they're sitting on their hands, being silent and saying nothing.

This paramedic chief in Port Clements says — I'm going to read this portion of the letter:

"It is difficult to summarize my feelings about a legislated contract, but suffice to say, it includes anger, disappointment and fear. I am angry because CUPE has bargained in good faith, unlike the government. I am disappointed because this gives me no incentive to continue working for B.C. Ambulance. And finally, I am very scared because if this legislation passes, then it truly confirms that the government has no respect for the job I do and, more importantly, no respect for the citizens of British Columbia."

No respect for the job this paramedic does, and no respect for the citizens of British Columbia. That's the take of our paramedics out there.

He continues:

"I already knew about the lack of respect for the citizens of B.C." — as we all did on this side of the House and in most of British Columbia — "when last week they relocated paramedic crews to the Olympic test events while, at the same time, leaving 20 ambulances unstaffed around the province."

Coming from a rural area, when we looked at unstaffed ambulances…. It's a part of life for us in rural British Columbia. On many long weekends throughout the north coast, there are ambulances that do not have enough staff, and you just pray something does not happen.

[1645]

This paramedic chief continues:

"As a part-time employee, with the essential-services order no longer in effect, I will no longer be obligated to work my historical availability, and I can assure you, I have no interest in working for B.C. Ambulance at all. I'll be spending my new-found free time with my family — unless, of course, I get conscripted to work again like the essential services order."

He continues:

"Thank you for the support that you have given us as paramedics and for your colleagues."

When we see a piece of legislation come forth like this, which could have waited until after the vote on Friday…. I would think that a letter like this…. The comments like this from this paramedic would probably be the same throughout the province.

When we look at what's in Bill 21 and see what's happening as far as legislating them back to work and legislating a contract…. We've seen this in the history of this government. You know, there were Bill 27, Bill 28 and Bill 29. Bill 27 was the Education Services Collective Agreement Act. Bill 28 was the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act. Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. All of these, all they did was look at collective bargaining and rip it to the core.

We saw in this House with the two members…. When these bills were coming forward, the two members were on here for 17 straight hours of debate on the legislation to privatize health and education, lay off thousands of workers, increase class size, rip up contracts. It was passed into law by this government. Hour after hour, the two members on this side stood tall.

We have legislation like Bill 21 that is so vital to labour peace throughout the province, and every single member on the other side sits on their hands and fails to rise — fails to rise to support our paramedics, the key components to our communities.

I'm particularly appalled that none of the rural MLAs from the Liberal side are standing up to tell their stories — to let British Columbians, to let the House, know how they feel and how their constituents feel.

Going back to the history, back with Bills 28 and 29, there was one MLA from the other side that stood tall and joined the two NDP MLAs opposing the legislation. Well, who was that? That would be the Peace River MLA. I'm surprised. I'm surprised that we don't see the member rising again, at least making some comments to this bill, or any other of his colleagues who may have a shred of integrity, who may have something to say.
[ Page 1976 ]

I remember those days. I was a teacher when those bills came forward. I think I might have sent an e-mail to the member expressing gratitude, the same as the paramedics are expressing gratitude to this side of the House. I'm not too sure what types of e-mails the members on the other side are getting, but I don't think it's gratitude.

When we look at what's been happening with this government and the ambulance paramedics…. They've been warned. The paramedics told this government that any type of legislation to impose a contract will neither resolve the dispute with the paramedics nor improve the rapidly deteriorating ambulance response times.

They warned this government that imposing a contract will have a huge impact on labour relations. They've put out to this government that…. This is a quote from the ambulance paramedics: "We have a B.C. Ambulance Service that is in critical condition, and we have ambulance paramedics without a new collective agreement. It will take both sides working together to resolve both of these issues."

[1650]

They have worked with and talked with the government calmly and clearly: "Don't impose a contract on our members that we will not accept." Taking away their legal right to collect and bargain and take a very limited strike under the government's own essential services will only make a bad situation much worse, and that's what this bill is doing.

Right now the Ambulance Service is saying that the Ambulance Service only meets its emergency response time goal of arriving in under nine minutes 52 percent of the time, compared to 85 percent in 1985. We need a contract that is bargained collectively with the paramedics, and we need members on the other side to stand tall and vote against Bill 21.

On that, I will cede my spot.

M. Karagianis: I will take my place in what I consider to be a fairly sad and sorry piece of legislation that we're debating today in the House. My colleague the previous speaker alluded to a story that appeared in my local paper, the Goldstream Gazette. I'd like to go back to that for a moment, because for me it kind of sets the baseline for my concerns about this piece of legislation and what has happened here in the province of British Columbia.

As the previous member had talked about, Chris Meyer is a 28-year full-time paramedic here and wrote a piece in the Goldstream Gazette recently, where he pointed out a couple of really interesting facts. Chris, of course, has been a paramedic long enough to remember when paramedics were on par with the Vancouver police in the way of pay. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth now than that kind of parity with police or fire departments.

Chris talks about the fact that a survey had been done on the job of paramedics and that it was rated as the second most dangerous job in the province — the second most dangerous job. Chris goes on to say that in the line of work: "We get spit at, puked on, assaulted, degraded by the employer and generally left unsupported. We are exposed to things that the rest of you don't want to deal with, and we have to resolve the repercussions of dealing with car fatalities, drug deaths, suicides and other regular calls."

What concerns me about this is that in fact we have paramedics doing a job that I, quite frankly, could not do and that I suspect many members in this House could not do.

My oldest daughter was an ambulance paramedic between Gold River and Campbell River for some time. She has since become a nurse and is practising in Campbell River, but in the years that she was doing that job, I actually could not listen to the stories of her experiences because I feared for the kind of work she was doing, the experience that she was having, the kind of stress and trauma that it was causing in her own life, and just the nature of the work.

I have nothing but the deepest admiration for paramedics and for the kind of work they do because, as Chris very clearly says here, paramedics are doing the kind of job that most of us don't want to deal with, and they end up, like anyone who works with constant trauma, bearing just an enormous amount of stress on the job.

For that, unfortunately, here in the province the expectations that have been put on them by the government are, I think, way beyond the call of duty. When we are expecting that one of the series of our emergency service personnel in this province, ranked along with police and fire and probably emergency staff in hospitals…. When we are expecting paramedics to work under the conditions that have been imposed on them by the government, to me it's pretty tragic.

[1655]

We have individuals who are on call on a pager being paid $2 an hour. We have individuals who are manning a station for $10 an hour and are only paid a decent wage on the basis of the calls that they make — calls that, as clearly discussed here by Chris Meyer and by the experience I know my daughter had, are demanding heroic behaviour.

Yet we are paying these individuals an unbelievably penurious and insulting wage to be on call for the purpose of, when the 911 call goes in, rising to the occasion and becoming heroes that save our lives.

Frankly, in this province we all anticipate that when we dial 911, a paramedic will come and will rescue us and save us from the heart attack or the car accident or the other innumerable number of tragedies that occur that get us to dial 911 and expect a trained, professional, heroic paramedic will be there to save our lives.

For that we are paying them an on-call pager wage of 2 bucks an hour and a station wage of $10 an hour.
[ Page 1977 ]
That's the basis on which paramedics have been struggling to provide us with those heroic services here for a number of years.

This summer I was on Mayne Island, where the ambulance paramedics there, of course, like many of our other emergency services, have days when there are a lot of calls and days where there are very few calls. We ended up sitting down to dinner, a group of us. Many of them are friends of my daughter, who lives there. We began to talk about how difficult it was for them to maintain that job and to stay on Mayne Island and provide that emergency service.

At the kinds of wages they were all being paid — they, for the most part, were on their pagers waiting for that call for 2 bucks an hour — they couldn't afford rent unless there was a tragedy or several tragedies or several emergencies in a day. They would, therefore, get paid a reasonable wage that would allow them to pay the rent and feed themselves.

For me, it really put the whole thing into perspective. We have individuals who are professionally trained to save our lives that we are allowing to sit and work for $2 an hour, on call, waiting for some tragedy to call them into service where they can use those skills to save a life. How that squares with the ability to pay your rent and put food on the table and all the other things that we would take as a given for professional emergency personnel to be able to do….

Bill 21 that we see before us here is interfering with a process that I believe has been long overdue, which is the bargaining that's been undertaken here by paramedics with the government. The basis of this just seems to me to be so obvious — that these paramedics deserve to have had the right to collective bargaining. They certainly have, for a very long time, called for arbitration. It seems to me that the government has been perfectly happy to ignore that for many months now.

Pre-election it wasn't a big issue for them. Post-election, apparently, now that we've moved forward into the fall, it's become a dire circumstance, where they're going to come in and use the kind of legislation they are with Bill 21 to impose an agreement upon these paramedics.

[1700]

I opened this by saying that it was a sad and sorry day, and it is. It's actually a very sad day, which means we have to come in here and impose a collective agreement on individuals who have been so poorly treated and have had such overwhelmingly poor treatment at the hands of government around wages and some of the other things they are asking for. In the process of their own bargaining agreement, before they could even come to a vote, the government has somehow felt this urgency around suddenly bringing down Bill 21 and imposing an agreement upon the paramedics.

The fact remains that despite the paramedics having been on strike since April, they have continued to serve our communities in a seamless way. In fact, I think there have been discussions on public radio and certainly in my community among the people I know about the fact that it was a fairly benign strike. At no point have the paramedics let down the people of British Columbia, despite the lack of a living wage, despite the fact that they were trying to bargain in good faith with the government and were being ignored.

Despite all of that, the paramedics have continued to do that heroic job and be on the front lines ensuring that services were provided to British Columbians. It makes very little sense to me that suddenly in November, we now find ourselves in a situation where the government is coming in and saying that they have to somehow impose legislation on this group.

The essential services order has continued to protect the public. It has not interfered in any way with the public's confidence and their ability to dial 911 and get a paramedic when they need one and where they need one.

Even when communities have been stretched to the breaking point…. I know many of my colleagues have talked about the very thin resources on the ground in rural communities and, in fact, in some of our suburban communities as well. It's not strictly a rural problem. Despite that, paramedics have continued, in a thoroughly professional way, as most of us would expect, to be there when we need them.

It somehow seems contrary at this point that the government has felt it necessary to come in and impose Bill 21 on our paramedics. It is senseless in so many ways. I have to wonder exactly what the true driving force behind this is, and there are probably some clues in some of the information that we have.

I have a copy here of a memorandum that was sent from Dr. Mike Wilkinson, director of medical services for VANOC, to Stephen Brown, Lee Doney and other government officials with regard to the Olympics. It would seem to me, in many ways…. I know that the minister in delivering this talked about H1N1.

We are actually at the second wave of the H1N1 virus, and the government didn't feel compelled in the first wave of the H1N1 to impose this kind of legislation. Frankly, I don't buy the fact that this is the big incentive at this point to impose this legislation. If the H1N1 had truly been the motivator, then it would seem to me we would have done something long before this. In a very skeptical way, I don't buy the government's premise that this is about H1N1.

In fact, I think it is about this in some ways. This memorandum that came down said: "VANOC Medical Services, and thus the IOC, require definitive confirmation by October 1, 2009, that all required ambulance services will be provided as planned." Of course, we're expected to supply emergency service and ambulance service to the Olympic Games when they are here in a couple of months.

[1705]
[ Page 1978 ]

This memorandum goes on to say: "These services include the ability to engage the VPCs and BCAS members in full venue planning as soon as possible. This confirmation must also include a guarantee that no services during the games will be disrupted or reduced from what has been planned." Very interesting.

It goes on to say: "If we are unable to obtain that guarantee through either settlement of the strike" — the strike being, of course, paramedics in the province —"or legislated détente for the games, then VANOC will be required to initiate alternative contingency plans to avoid cancellation of the games."

There is a very compelling reason — much more compelling than H1N1 because, of course, we're in the second wave of that flu. There is a much more compelling reason to clear the decks. The suggestion is right in here: a settlement of the strike or legislated détente.

I would surmise from this that this is probably one of the many things at the heart of the real issue around legislating these paramedics back to work. There have been many opportunities for the government to take all kinds of advantage of the offers by the paramedics for arbitration, for discussion. Government has refused up to this point. They've ignored the paramedics up to this point, for the most part. They've ignored this situation despite the fact that it was in their face during the election. There was no mention of that during the election.

I think the real impetus behind Bill 21, or at least one of the impetuses behind Bill 21, is this memorandum about the Olympic Games and the requirement by VANOC and thus IOC — as is alluded to here — to make sure there is no possibility of a strike or an appearance of a strike that would in any way undermine confidence in the Olympic planning for ambulance services. I think that's one of the huge issues behind this legislation today.

If we look at the situation and the years of neglect of this critical issue around British Columbia, in rural British Columbia…. That's been canvassed very, very adequately and very well by my colleagues. In fact, we've raised the issue over and over again in the House for a number of years now.

Again, the government felt in no way that the underlying issues around the treatment of paramedics, around the lack of decent pay, around the requirement for individuals to work from the goodness of their heart rather than from a just and fair living wage….

You have to ask yourself, again, why they now feel that coming in with this hammer is the appropriate action and the appropriate way to treat this group of individuals who supply an essential emergency service.

More than that, it sends a very chilling message, I think, to all those who will be bargaining, or expect to bargain, here in 2010. When you look back at all of the collective agreements that were settled with such a flourish by government in order to keep a clean slate through the Olympics — many of them will be expiring just after the Olympics — of course the paramedics were the only fly in the ointment. In fact, their agreement has been inadequate, and they are now bargaining and were expecting to bargain in an open and respectful way. They have not been treated that way.

This really does send a chill, I think, and a very chilling message to everyone else who wants to bargain their agreements shortly after the 2010 Olympics are completed and finished here in the province.

[1710]

So 2010 will be a very interesting year, I suspect, given all the various actions that the B.C. Liberal government has taken, all the cuts that communities have experienced in order for us to pay for the Olympics. Frankly, lots of my community members believe that the cuts are directly about making sure that a lavish event takes place here for a few, at the expense of vulnerable people in my community.

Certainly, we're going to see now that the B.C. Ambulance Service is going to be legislated back to work and will continue to have to survive on these outrageous conditions of $2 an hour to sit by your pager or $10 an hour to sit in a station and be available to provide vital emergency services when they're required.

I can't imagine that we would expect the same circumstances to exist for other emergency personnel here. We wouldn't expect emergency nurses to sit around for $2 an hour waiting for an emergency to come through the door in a hospital. We certainly wouldn't tolerate that in any way for our other emergency service providers, like fire and police — that you only get paid when you're out doing the job, that you're only paid when you're fighting a fire or when you're out arresting a criminal.

That's not how emergency services work. In many ways, we pay for the insurance that when you dial 911, that service is there. Whether it be police, fire, ambulance, that service is there. That's our insurance as people in British Columbia — that our tax dollars go to make sure that those services are there for us.

I know from my years in municipal government that the number one cost for communities is around ensuring that those emergency services are there, because when it's about saving a life, then your insurance premiums have definitely paid for themselves.

Yet our insurance premiums here, if I can quote them as such, for ambulance workers is that you're going to sit around for $2 an hour despite the fact that the young people on Mayne Island can't even afford to live on $2 an hour waiting for an emergency. I know that the citizens of Mayne Island and of every other community like that, that is dependent on those individuals to be there, are appalled to think that those individuals are sitting there for $2 an hour or $10 an hour if they're in the station.

When that 911 call goes out and they rush to save you or me — or our children, our parents or whoever it is that needs those emergency services — there is no
[ Page 1979 ]
cost too high. But apparently, there is a baseline that the province will allow these paramedics to live on.

I see that the government has announced today that this commission to review ambulance service bargaining has been initiated. This came out this afternoon from the Labour Minister, announcing that he will appoint an industrial inquiry commission to put forward options for a new bargaining structure for ambulance paramedics.

At this point the government has never allowed binding arbitration to come into effect here. They have, I believe, purposely kept this issue out of any kind of binding arbitration, because I think the reality is that there is not any arbitration in the world that, given a fair chance, would allow these individuals to struggle with the kind of pay levels that they are being paid now.

It will be very interesting what happens with this commission. Of course, you have to ask yourself: why did this not get done earlier? The paramedics have been asking for this. Certainly, this is one of the things that they have listed. But the government did not feel compelled in any way to take these actions until this point in time either.

It's a very curious piece of legislation to me. The timing of it is very interesting. I think, for me, the end-game here is a very, very curious thing. You have to say to yourself: what is the end-game?

[1715]

Looking at the language…. Certainly, it's very clear that this language is not friendly language in any way. It says here in the explanatory note that this bill "settles the labour dispute between the Emergency and Health Services Commission and its ambulance paramedics and dispatchers, and provides for the constitution of a collective agreement between the parties." Well, they've already constituted their own collective agreement. They are voting on it this week, on a yes-or-no vote, and the government is coming in with this hammer in the middle of that process.

The terms here. The collective agreement will seen to be constituted when this legislation passes. The collective agreement will be binding. There will be a resumption of service.

I go back again to what the minister said on the surface of this — that this was ostensibly about the H1N1. I earlier said that I didn't buy that, and I think that's true. I think that the end-game of this Bill 21 is absolutely not about H1N1, because in fact, ambulance services are there for us now.

They are currently dealing with whatever repercussions there are from the H1N1 flu virus right now. They're doing it today right out there, even as we speak and debate this bill. Whatever the repercussions are of this flu bug, the ambulance services of British Columbia are dealing with their part of the responsibilities.

Certainly, most of the debate around H1N1, publicly and in this House and in the media, is not around whether the Ambulance Service is there for people. It's about all the other chaos that's going on around supplying vaccines.

We canvassed here in the House today that the government is busy laying off nurses in communities, nurses that would be administering the vaccine. That's the action that the government is taking. If they were so worried about the H1N1…. If they're using that as an excuse for bringing the hammer down on this process with paramedics, then I don't buy that at all, because they wouldn't be laying off nurses in rural British Columbia if they were worried about the repercussions of this H1N1 on communities.

That's a much more vital service that communities need right now — people to administer vaccines. The ambulance services and the paramedics in British Columbia are doing their job. They did it yesterday, they're doing it today, and they will do it tomorrow. The flu pandemic that's on right now is already being adequately served by paramedics, without the government having to hammer an agreement onto them and impose agreement on them.

Perhaps this is about the Olympics, as we saw with the memo from VANOC. Yes, I think a huge part of this is about that. It's that several months out from the Olympics the IOC and VANOC want to ensure that this pesky little strike is not going to interfere with the games.

Frankly, I've also heard that the government has been unsuccessful in canvassing paramedics from other provinces to come to British Columbia to help supply services to the Olympics. That wouldn't surprise me in the least, because paramedics right across this country can see how we are treating our paramedics in British Columbia. Certainly, now that we are imposing this legislation on them, this will again send a very interesting message across the country around how British Columbia treats its paramedics in order to ensure that there will be no strike action during the Olympics and that ambulance services will be there as planned.

I think there is one other end-game here. It is a larger end-game, which I know this government has been embarked on from the very beginning of their time in office, and that's about privatization. We have seen widespread privatization across all sectors in British Columbia under the B.C. Liberal government. Certainly, it has been a recurring debate — the privatization of health care services.

I think that at the heart of this is, in fact, privatization of the ambulance services. It's one other piece in the puzzle as the B.C. Liberal government works towards a wholesale privatization of as many of the services in British Columbia as possible.

[1720]

We've certainly seen it creeping into the health care system in the way of private clinics. We have seen it with
[ Page 1980 ]
all the outsourcing that's gone on, with things like MSP premiums. We've certainly have seen it in other sectors like hydro.

I believe that the third piece of the end-game here is privatization, because I believe that the government is purposely keeping paramedic wages low so that it is not a profession that attracts a great deal of interest other than working for the goodness of your soul and because you're dedicated to a community and to supplying emergency services to your community because you care deeply.

It's becoming less and less of an attractive job now that the government is manhandling even the democratic process of collective bargaining for this. I think that it's, again, about tearing the system down, breaking it on purpose, and then saying that privatization is the only answer and solution.

S. Fraser: I'm rising today to take my place in this House to debate Bill 21, the Ambulance Services Collective Agreement Act. I will not be speaking in favour of this bill, and I'll spend about 30 minutes to explain why that is.

It's bizarre that we're here debating this bill that basically undermines the process of bargaining in this province. You know, there are places in the world where workers have no rights, places like Burma where there is a military junta that ensures that workers are abused and not respected and have no rights.

Canada — we are so fortunate to be living in this great land — has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has protections in place that actually recognize workers' rights and the rights of collective bargaining in the constitution. If that isn't a great thing, I don't know what is. We should be so proud of that, and we should stand by that, and we need to defend that.

Now, we're dealing today with a bill that undermines the basic rights of ambulance workers, paramedics, to a fair collective bargaining process. This is an act of thuggery by this Liberal government. The fact is that there is a vote occurring as we speak, this week. To bring in Bill 21 now is a show of muscle, a show of force, and it is unbecoming any government in this country we call Canada.

But I guess it was not to be unexpected, following Bill 29. When this government came in, they stripped the rights of thousands of HEU workers in this province — a broken promise to go along with that. Now, a lengthy court case, the challenge of that from HEU, found that the government — the Premier, if you will — violated the rights established in the Charter.

I don't know what anyone else's opinion is on the government side, but I don't think there's any more fundamental role of a government in Canada than to protect the rights that are established and have been fought for and people have died for under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This government makes a mockery of governments in Canada by taking such positions instead of defending the rights of workers.

These particular workers are emergency service workers. I've spoken with so many paramedics and ambulance workers in this province. They have a passion for the job. They have taken on the job because they care about their fellow human beings.

[1725]

For every dime that the government spends on the Ambulance Service in British Columbia — which used to be, about ten years ago, probably the best in the world — it is paid back so many times over because of the passion and the caring that comes from paramedics and the ambulance workers in this province.

As soon as the Liberal government got in, they started undermining and eroding this service that was arguably the best of its kind anywhere. The minister claimed that with this bill, Bill 21…. He's claiming that the legislation is about protecting health services in B.C. Well, it's exactly the opposite. The minister and his predecessors have been undermining this essential service of health care in this province since they got in.

They've been undermining the collective agreements, yes, but also, there have been maintenance issues. There are all kinds of problems around the delivery of this service. I think, if I read correctly in this year's budget, less than 1 percent of the entire health care budget is devoted to the B.C. Ambulance Service and paramedics.

Now, we have a great big province and many remote areas of this province. The B.C. Ambulance Service and the paramedics are the lifeline. They are the difference between life and death for people in medical trauma, in distress and in emergency situations. To not provide fair and adequate bargaining for these in some ways heroic people in our province is undermining the very concept of health care in the province.

We have in my constituency a health authority, Vancouver Island Health Authority, that has been shutting down services at hospitals in regions that are quite isolated. The Tofino hospital, for instance, doesn't just serve Tofino; it serves the district of Tofino, Ucluelet, all of the Nuu-chah-nulth communities of Clayoquot Sound. That hospital has been a great service to the whole region, but it hasn't been adequately maintained.

We're losing critical services like obstetrics. So if you're a woman in Ahousat, for instance, who is pregnant and is having some trauma…. She has to travel by boat for 50 minutes to get from Ahousat to Tofino, weather permitting, and get to the hospital that no longer has obstetrics. Now it's an ambulance service. This is paramedics bringing a woman in distress, pregnant, on a very twisty road, Highway 4, for two hours to the nearest hospital — Port Alberni, West Coast General.

The paramedics and the ambulance service are the lifeline for that woman and her expected child, and if it were not for them, because of the cuts to services, there would be no service for her. It's a stark reminder of just how important and how much it is not an understatement to
[ Page 1981 ]
say that our paramedics and our ambulance service are critical lifelines in our medical system.

In Port Alberni a couple of years ago VIHA shut down the psych ward with no consultation, with no discussions with the doctors, the community, no discussion with the RCMP, no discussion with the Ambulance Service and paramedics. Again, another service was removed, and another increase in reliance on our paramedics and on our ambulance service.

More and more in rural communities, in my constituency — it's not unique — and all across the province, because of cuts to vital health care in our hospitals we have seen a greater need and a greater reliance on our paramedics and our ambulance service.

[1730]

To undermine those workers that are picking up the slack from cuts in the health system that have been made, and that continue to be made by this government, is putting people at risk.

Now, we on this side of the House, the opposition, have been raising for years the problems in rural British Columbia, problems with ambulance services where there have been insufficient resources put towards funding and maintenance of ambulances and, certainly, paramedics' equipment. Yet our ambulance personnel, our paramedics, continue to do their good work — often with substandard equipment, sometimes with vehicles that aren't even drivable. That's become more the norm than ever before. Yet they continue to do the job.

Bill 21 is a direct slap in the face to those paramedics and ambulance workers who do the job because they care.

One of the issues that we have raised continually over the last number of years, from the opposition, has been around retention of people in this service. It's very difficult to stay in a job that has such high requirements of the people working in the job with less and less resources to do the job. They're being undermined.

So it's very difficult to retain paramedics and ambulance service. We're seeing a drop in numbers of people wanting to stay in that particular sector, and we're certainly seeing, and have been seeing, a very difficult time in recruitment.

I know young people who have come right out of high school, in my constituency, who had been hoping their whole lives to become paramedics and who had taken many courses while they were going through high school. Then, of course, they have to pay for their own training to serve as a paramedic and ambulance service. The costs are high. Then they end up getting a job that they are passionate about but are only getting $2 an hour to be on a pager.

Now, I don't know if anyone else in this House has been on a pager as an emergency service person. I've been on a volunteer fire department in Tofino. Your life is on hold 24 hours a day — $2 an hour. I guess Bill 21 could potentially bring that up to $2.06 an hour — a slap in the face to paramedics in this province.

There's been no attempt at a fair and collective bargaining process, and it's particularly difficult when there's an emergency service designation. Under the collective agreement, there's an attempt to negotiate in good faith with government, but the government knows that they've got them designated as an essential service. So they have a greater responsibility to honour the good-faith part of negotiations because they know that they hold a hammer over those people working as paramedics and in the Ambulance Service.

When the government disrespects that, when the government ignores the "fair" part of fair and collective bargaining, we have a big problem here. That's where the thuggery comes in. This is a strong-arm technique, and it's led to a point where there's a vote occurring this week.

There is a proposal on the table, and votes are being collected from the paramedics across the province, through CUPE, as we speak. Bill 21 is an affront to that entire process. It is an affront to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to fair and collective bargaining, I would submit.

[1735]

The minister also stated that the government was bringing this legislation in that it was necessary in light of the H1N1 crisis. Of course, we're well beyond the second wave of that crisis, and there's certainly some crisis around the H1N1 crisis, but it isn't the Ambulance Service. Nobody buys that.

It's been cited earlier, but I'm going to cite it again. It's a memo — VANOC Medical Services. I don't believe that people are engaged in a conspiracy theory when they believe that Bill 21 is just about trying to bring some artificial peace for the Olympics, but this memo certainly affirms that.

"VANOC Medical Services requires definitive confirmation by October 1, 2009, that all required ambulance services will be provided as planned. These services include the ability to engage the VPCs and the BCAS members in full venue-planning as soon as possible. This confirmation must also include a guarantee that no services during the games will be disrupted or reduced from what has been planned."

So the tail of VANOC wagged, and the minister responded by suggesting this was due to H1N1. Well, the memo suggests otherwise. The collateral damage is the paramedics and the Ambulance Service personnel that we rely on as a critical lifeline in this province.

I went to a rally in Campbell River a couple months ago now, at Big Rock. It was put on by the paramedics, and I listened to them. I heard their stories. There were no Liberals present, I would comment. But I know what they do, and what's more, the public knows what they do. I was there for 2½ hours, and everyone who was showing support for those paramedics did so by honking their horn. Just about every car that went by, the thousands that went by, were showing their support.
[ Page 1982 ]

The public has the greatest of respect for our paramedics and our ambulance service in British Columbia. The Liberal government does not. They treat them with disdain. To force through this legislation during a week when the vote is occurring on an agreement which could go either way is unbelievable. It is an act of bullying, and it is unbecoming to any minister of the Crown or any government in Canada.

On the east side of Vancouver Island — Coombs, Errington, north Qualicum Beach, Bowser, Dashwood, Qualicum and Parksville — there is no hospital. There have been organizations…. Local governments in the area have been fighting to get some basic public facility that will provide emergency care, some diagnostic care and primary health care.

There are three hospitals that are within reach. They're all about 40 minutes away. West Coast General in Port Alberni — Highway 4 is sometimes challenging; it's not always the best bet. Going north to Comox hospital — again, probably 40 minutes, and again, sometimes there are highway problems, weather problems. Nanaimo — similar time. A long time when you need urgent care.

So community groups — I've been working with them — have been trying to get basic primary care in an area that has the highest percentage of population of seniors in the country. It makes good sense. It certainly does. VIHA and the government's reaction to that has been: "We have a great ambulance service. We can rely on our paramedics." While they're saying that, they're undermining everything the paramedics do.

[1740]

My colleagues have mentioned that some people believe it might be just a push by this government to force a situation so that this service will end up being privatized.

You erode the service enough, underfund the service enough, disrespect the people that work in the service enough, bring in bills like Bill 21 that undermine the basic rights of collective bargaining…. You do that, and you're eroding what used to be, arguably, the best service in the world of its kind — in British Columbia, the B.C. Ambulance Service.

That seems to be, certainly, the pattern of this government from the moment it took office. We've seen a pattern from the early days of the Liberal government. They froze the budget for the first four years, and that was the beginning of this government's disrespect for a service that has never ceased to be a vital link, a vital lifeline for the people of British Columbia.

Because they are designated an essential service, they've been on strike but they continued to work. They haven't let anyone down. They are doing their vital job. This government is abusing that trust that the paramedics and ambulance workers have displayed and lived by as part of their job, as part of their lives in the province of British Columbia.

It seems that we are the only members in this House — the New Democrats, the official opposition — that are standing up for the paramedics and ambulance staff in the province of British Columbia.

Bill 21. I hate it, but it's worthy of debate because we are in this House, and it is a bill before all members. There are 85 of us.

I know the response from every person in my constituency about protecting our ambulance service, our paramedics, and providing them with fair treatment. Every Liberal member knows that too. They've seen the signs. They know the local support. They've seen petitions. They've got letters. And they're not doing their job. They are not standing up for what is right. They're not standing up to protect our ambulance service, our paramedics or the public that relies on them.

This is an integral part of our health care system. When you cut services to the hospitals, like I've mentioned, when you shut out obstetrics in Tofino or a psych ward in West Coast General in Port Alberni or refuse to provide primary health care, emergency health care, urgency health care in Oceanside, Parksville-Qualicum area, you've increased the needs for the public of our ambulance service and our paramedics. You've put more of an onus, more of a burden on those services while you're undermining those services as government, and that doesn't add up. It doesn't make any sense.

As a part-time employee, if you're on a pager at 2 bucks an hour, you don't get any benefits. You've had to pay for all of your training out of your own pocket, on your own dime. You're not even eligible for benefits for six years, the time it takes to get a master's degree at university. Those people that work in our ambulance services as paramedics deserve a fair and honourable collective agreement.

[1745]

So why is this government ramming through Bill 21 now? Why are they forcing an issue while a vote is occurring? It is an affront to the people of British Columbia, it is an affront to everyone in the opposition, and it should be an affront to every Liberal member. Except for the odd heckle, we've seen no support for our paramedics, for our ambulance service from the Liberal side of the House. This bill makes a mockery out of a fair collective bargaining process.

The designation of essential services puts workers in an awkward position. They can't formally remove themselves from the workplace, as other workers can do, to push for their collective rights. They maintain the services, maybe wear a T-shirt or put a banner on the ambulance to say that they're upset with the fact that they're not being treated fairly. Even then, I think they've been threatened with legal action and such. But they are providing the essential service. They can do nothing less, nor would they.

For the government to force an agreement at this point, when they haven't even voted on the existing
[ Page 1983 ]
agreement this week, is unbelievable. For the minister to make a statement that this will solve anything, that this will bring peace and stability, is ridiculous.

We're coming into public sector bargaining following the Olympics, and everyone is watching this one. This act of thuggery, of bullying — which is what Bill 21 is — is a warning to all workers in the province that this government has learned nothing since it lost the court challenge on Bill 29, where they defiled the rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this province.

The government is marching along and the Premier is marching along as though there are no workers' rights. That is the message they're sending to workers in this province.

Less than 1 percent of the entire health care budget towards our paramedics and ambulance service in British Columbia. A work action — as much of a strike as they can deliver to stand up for their rights — and they're still delivering excellent service to the province and the people of British Columbia, and they get hit with Bill 21.

Now, I don't know how many of the votes on the proposed agreement are in the mail already, but you can be sure that with this imposition of Bill 21, the government is forcing a negative vote. If anyone who is willing to stand up for their basic rights was witnessing what this government's doing by forcing closure while the vote is occurring, any one of us, any person with backbone, would be fighting that. They would vote…. This government, this minister, is forcing a no vote.

I know there are quite a few rural members not just on this side of the House but on the government side of the House. They know the issues. They know the good work that their paramedics and ambulance service do. I mean this with no disrespect to their urban counterparts, but I'm speaking as an MLA from Alberni–Pacific Rim.

I have a large and challenging riding, as many of the rural ridings are in this province. Because of the cuts I've talked about to basic health services — refusal to provide basic health services — and because of the moves by health authorities, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, to try to centralize services…. It forces more and more people to utilize the ambulance service and paramedics.

[1750]

If you have to travel 40 minutes, and you're having a heart attack or a stroke…. If you're living in, say, Qualicum Beach or Coombs or Errington, and you've got to travel 40 minutes, the paramedics, the ambulance service is what's going to save you. It is the only thing in this health system in this province that is going to save you.

They talk about that critical time at the beginning of trauma, of an emergency situation. The early minutes make all the difference between survival and dying. As we move, as the health authorities under the direction of the minister move in a direction of centralizing services….

Another broken promise is health care when you need it, where you need it. The reality is that health care for many people in British Columbia…. The health care where you need it and when you need it is in an ambulance. It's taken care of by paramedics that are being bullied by this minister and this government. That's their sad reality of what we're dealing with, with Bill 21.

I noticed some of the other cuts that we're seeing in the province.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I'd like to remind members to use parliamentary language when discussing the bill.

B. Simpson: I rise today, of course, to speak against this bill for a variety of reasons which I will point out. But I do want to, first and foremost, offer our respect and our gratitude to the paramedics of British Columbia, those who are volunteers, those who are full-time, our air-ambulance people, all of those folks who, day in and day out, provide this essential service to the people of British Columbia. I don't want that to be lost in what we're saying.

On this side of the House we're talking about the government ramrodding a collective agreement down the throats of the paramedics, but I do believe and the evidence shows on the record that both sides of the House respect the work that the paramedics do. However, respect only goes so far, and the difference between ourselves and the government is that the government has, within its ability, a wide array of vehicles and options to actually show that respect in practical action.

It goes far beyond the steps that the government's taking in this bill. It goes to the very things that we as an opposition have been raising since 2006 and, prior to that, when the two members of the opposition were here raising these issues. But we have the public record of raising the concerns of paramedics and ambulance attendants in question period, in motion debate.

This is not a new issue. It is, I believe, on the part of the government, deliberate government policy to say: "We respect you, but we want a different kind of ambulance service in the province of British Columbia. So we're going to slowly undermine, we're going to slowly take away some of the benefits. We're going to slowly try and transition this ambulance service into something else." The government has not been clear for the Ambulance Service about their intents.

I want to take a look at what the minister has said in introducing this bill. I want to take a look at the bill itself, and I want to speak about the paramedics in my area. Before I start all of that, I want to recognize a voice that we are missing in the House, and that's my partner in crime from the last session, former MLA for Cariboo South, and that's Charlie Wyse.

I know and can imagine that if Charlie was in the House during this debate, he'd be apoplectic as only
[ Page 1984 ]
Charlie can about his passion for this issue, and he has stood his ground. He has educated us both in our rural caucus and in our general caucus about how important these issues are. He has held the torch for rural ambulance service and rural remote, and of course, he has some tragic examples of the government underservicing and under-resourcing the Ambulance Service in his community.

It's unfortunate, as many members on this side of the House have pointed out, that our counterparts on the other side are not standing on this issue, because some of them definitely should.

[1755]

Some of them made promises during the election that they were going to stand for paramedics. They were going to stand for their issues. Some of them wore the On Strike buttons as a badge of pride. Some of them answered the questions that were put to them in election debates and all-candidates debates about the paramedics and the Ambulance Service and said they would show their respect by coming into this House and being their voice. They are not being their voice, and quite frankly, that's shameful. It is shameful, and it is unacceptable.

At least they could stand and show respect for the paramedics and stand and say whether or not they agree with the minister's statement as to why this has to be done now. And they will not. In particular, the person and the MLA who replaced former MLA Wyse made a promise during the election campaign to do that very thing. So I would like to hear her voice in this House.

Deputy Speaker: I would urge a bit of caution, Member.

B. Simpson: So to the point of the bill. The explanatory note in the bill is quite interesting, actually. It states: "This bill settles the labour dispute between the Emergency and Health Services Commission and its ambulance paramedics and dispatchers." It settles the labour dispute.

I think, quite frankly, that's a poor choice of words, because this does not settle the dispute in any way or shape. What it does is it exacerbates the situation that we have with our paramedics, because what it actually does is it forces a collective agreement. It undermines the collective bargaining process during the time when the vote is actually going on. It doesn't even wait for the outcome of the vote. It simply imposes a collective agreement. That's not settling a dispute.

It does not make the issues of the paramedics go away. It does not make the issues about the B.C. Ambulance Service go away. It simply, for a very short period of time, imposes some wage benefits to the paramedics, and there are some promises that the minister makes about some other things that they've been asking for.

The minister actually doesn't even say settle the dispute. It says it ends the strike. I would suggest that it might only be postponing the strike — and postpones it until after the Olympics. That's really what's going on here.

One of the things I think we all as politicians need to be very careful of, considering how we rank in popularity contests next to other avocations and vocations, is what we do in this House with respect to the public trust. I think that the public has an appetite for us all to be more forthright about what we're doing and what we're saying and why we're saying it than we often give them credit for. That's why I want to take a look at what the minister has to say about why they are now imposing this collective agreement.

First off, the minister goes on and says that he values the work and services of the ambulance paramedics. I don't dispute that for one second. However, he states — and this is in his introduction of the bill: "…we are concerned that the longer this dispute drags on, the higher the risk for patients…." He's concerned about the implications of the H1N1 pandemic. He's concerned about the implications of the busy holiday season.

Later on when he actually brings the bill into the House and starts second reading, the minister makes the comment: "Ultimately, this legislation is about protecting patients and ensuring the safety of the citizens of British Columbia."

I find that interesting — that H1N1, the safety of the citizens of British Columbia, the holiday season, etc., are all the reasons given for introducing the bill when the minister makes the following statement in his second reading statement in this House: "Fortunately, to date there have been no adverse patient outcomes directly attributable to the dispute." No adverse patient outcomes directly attributable to the dispute.

So if that's the case…. Because as everybody should know, these paramedics operate under the essential services legislation. They still offer all of the services. In fact, their mandate did offer overtime. The minister admits that there have been no adverse patient outcomes directly attributable to the dispute but makes excuses that he's concerned about the safety of British Columbians.

I think that that, quite frankly, is not being straightforward with the reasons why the bill is being introduced.

[1800]

If it's H1N1, then it causes me to wonder why the Minister of Health is not paying attention to what the representatives of the paramedics are saying about the lack of equipment in our ambulances for our ambulance attendants to protect themselves against the H1N1 virus and for them to have the resources they need to deal with the implications of this potential pandemic in British Columbia. They haven't addressed that issue.

If H1N1 is the issue, where is the plan for the Ambulance Service that comes with additional resources, additional equipment, as has been asked for by the paramedic members' representatives? It hasn't happened.
[ Page 1985 ]

Quite frankly, it's not H1N1. It's not concern for the health and safety of the people of British Columbia. If they were concerned about that, the government would have appointed an arbitrator. The government would have addressed the framework issues that the paramedics have raised around retention, around recruitment, around remuneration, around the future of the Ambulance Service, and around the rural-remote situation we have and the disparity of service in those areas. If they were truly concerned about the health and safety of British Columbians, those issues would have been addressed.

If they truly respected the paramedics, they would have at least, even in this bill, given them the signing bonus that was given to all of the other public sector workers. That would have been a sign of respect — that they get that they're imposing something, but "We also want you to be standing with your brothers and sisters in the public sector who got that signing bonus." That's not in the bill, and that's not an oops. It's not an oversight. It's deliberate.

If the government was serious about the threats that are articulated by the minister as to why they have to impose a collective agreement, then they would have addressed the issues as I have suggested — H1N1 resources. They would have shown respect, they would have agreed to the framework agreement, and they would have a retention and recruitment strategy in play. They would have already appointed an industrial inquiry, not talk about: "I'm going to go talk to the Minister of Labour and ask him to put in place such an inquiry."

All those things would have been in play. But they haven't done that, so it really calls into question the minister's rationale for introducing this bill.

As my colleagues on this side have pointed out, there's really one reason why the bill has been introduced as it is, when it is and the way it is. That's because they've been warned by VANOC that they'll cancel the games. That's the real reason.

It's not respectful of the people of British Columbia to suggest otherwise. It's not respectful of the paramedics to suggest otherwise. It would have been much more respectful to say: "Look, we've got a real problem. The problem is that we've got a big show coming in February. We need to be sure that we can actually offer the highest level of ambulance and paramedic service. We tried to go elsewhere to get it. We couldn't get it. We tried to figure out ways around this. We couldn't do it. So we're introducing this bill, and it's explicitly because of the Olympics. It will only last until March 31, and then we're back to square one."

The minister actually had the option of standing in this House and saying that in his introduction to the bill. I think that for the paramedics and the Ambulance Service, that would have maybe been something they would have found easier to swallow. They all believe, quite fundamentally, that's what is going on. When they're told it's H1N1 and when they're told it's the safety of the public, it's another insult to injury for a group of people who already feel they're being disrespected by this government.

It's unfortunate that the introduction of this bill, in settling a labour dispute and ending a strike, doesn't simply say that we need to put this strike in abeyance in order to guarantee VANOC what it needs guaranteed in order to make sure that we have the ambulance and paramedic service available to host the Olympics.

Now, it's interesting that this is a bill that undermines the collective bargaining process. I think that governments of all stripes, and historically in this province and around Canada and North America, have used the ability to bypass collective agreements and impose agreements. However, it should be a piece of legislation of absolute last resort.

The people of British Columbia need to pay attention when the government does these things, because as I've said many times in this House, democracy is a very fragile form of governance. It actually requires an awake citizenry that's paying attention to what the government is doing on a number of fronts.

[1805]

If we actually look at some of the things we have raised in question period recently around freedom of speech, as simple as the freedom of speech and the freedom to gather without having the RCMP go and investigate you and your family and everybody else, that's a right that we better be careful we're not giving up. We better be careful that we don't give up collective bargaining rights.

Much of the benefits, the pensions, the working conditions that people enjoy in this province in the large corporate sectors and even in some of the small and medium-sized businesses are a result of collective bargaining that was fought for, which people were beat over the head for fighting for and people were sent to jail for fighting for. It's a democratic right in our society to have the right to bargain in good faith, and it's a democratic process.

A government that, when a vote is occurring…. It's not just that they're going to impose a collective agreement but that they will impose it when an actual democratic exercise is underway. That's a government that is abusing its power. The citizens of British Columbia need to pay attention to that, because in their workplaces collective bargaining is what gets them their ability to work in a safe environment.

We all know that slowly but surely, under the guise of competitiveness, under the guise that we have to be competitive on the world stage, we are allowing the whittling away of all the benefits that people have fought so long and hard for, collective bargaining rights that people fought so long and hard for.

When a government does this, it better be a last resort. I would argue that in this case it is not a last resort. It is an abuse of power. It is forced, and it's forced for reasons
[ Page 1986 ]
other than what the minister articulates in his introduction of the bill.

The paramedics raised their concerns — not just the wage concerns they have but all of their concerns about the situation with ambulance service in British Columbia — during the election. I want to give them credit for doing that and for persisting in maintaining that campaign.

I drive around the province. I have the luxury, as part of this job — as many of the members here do — to drive around this wonderful province, and you still see the paramedic signs all over the place. You see that there are people in this province who still care enough about the paramedics to make sure those signs are on our highways, at our businesses and in our downtowns.

During the election campaign in Cariboo North, the paramedics did a very, very good job of holding all of the candidates to account on this issue, of extracting from us promises that we would bring their voice into the Legislature. They held leaflet campaigns, and they were respectful. They made sure that they obeyed the laws, and they made sure they got to as many people as they could.

They came to all of the all-candidates meetings and, of course, put us under pressure that everybody who was sitting at the all-candidates table had their pins on. But they also asked respectful questions about what it was they wanted. All they wanted was the assignment of binding arbitration. It was a simple ask, and of course our side of the House agreed at that point.

Then, of course, they visited locations where the Premier visited. We know the shameful incident that occurred during the election when a paramedic was flipped a loonie, and the disrespect that showed and how that went through the whole community of paramedics and people who were concerned about them.

What is the alternative? Again, the other side of the House claims that we always just stand up here and rail, that we don't offer alternatives. It strikes me that in this case the alternatives are quite self-evident, quite straightforward and would actually be a better reflection of the minister's statement of respect for the Ambulance Service. They're quite clear.

First, the appointment of an independent arbitrator. Quite frankly, we on this side don't understand why that hasn't gone on. There's a situation that occurs here where the Ambulance Service reports to an employer that isn't really the government, but the government imposes on that employer the resources and budget, etc., so the government actually can step in and play a role and appoint that independent arbitrator.

They've asked for an industrial inquiry. As I said, in the minister's opening comments the minister indicates that he's going to ask the Labour Minister to appoint such an industrial inquiry. My preference would be that this government actually announce the appointment of such an industrial inquiry. Quite frankly, we have a government that often uses words as a substitute for action, and we have a government that has jaundiced the public about promises they've made.

[1810]

We have, of course, as opposition, a list of all the broken promises that we go out on every day, and I hope that this is not one of them. I hope that it does turn into an actual industrial inquiry. But the reality is that as a signal to the paramedics, that industrial inquiry should be, could be and must be appointed right away.

Second, the government really needs to take a look — and the minister has indicated that he will take a look as well — at the rural situation. It will likely be part of the review, the industrial inquiry, and it also needs to be part of what the government does through the Health Minister and through the Labour Minister.

As my colleague former MLA Wyse has pointed out many, many times, we have a growing disparity in British Columbia between rural and rural-remote ambulance service and the urban service. Our response times are simply not adequate. How we remunerate — the $2 wage — and all of the things that members in this House have pointed out over and over again simply chase people away.

What often happens to us is if we can get somebody who is willing to pay to have all of their training and education done, willing to put in the time at $2 on call and $10 in-house and so on, then they end up going to the urban centres. We lose that ability to deliver ambulance service.

The report that we've got, which people have referenced, about response times is that often in a lot of our areas we do not meet the targeted response time of nine minutes ever. It's zero when you look at the targeting for that response.

What's really going on here — and an independent industrial inquiry may actually explore these issues — is that we've long believed that the government either deliberately or by omission failed to take into account the Ambulance Service when it came up with its grand scheme for health care.

The agenda for health care has been crystal-clear: centralize, downsize, privatize. That's the agenda for health care. Those of us who live outside the Lower Mainland have seen that writ large. We have regional hospitals instead of local hospitals. We now have even more the regionalization of things like addiction services.

We had a question in question period today about losing public health nurses, and the minister intimated that that's okay. They can go to Prince George. There's a bit of a distance between Smithers and Prince George to go get public health services. But it's in keeping with this government's approach to health care that they've regionalized.

They have also taken away lots of the other services that we need in our communities. One would think that
[ Page 1987 ]
a government that actually thought that through would realize that the arterial network needed to support that was going to be a more robust ambulance service.

If you were going to remove and extract health care resources from rural British Columbia, you had to then bring up the capacity of our paramedics and the Ambulance Service to be able to transport people around the province, to deliver immediate services both in critical care and in ambulatory care, to actually offset the regionalization and the centralization on the health care side.

This government didn't do that. Instead what they did was continue to chip away at the Ambulance Service to undermine it. It leaves us with the conclusion that the only thing that's operating here is that the government wants to go back to the good old, bad old days of a private ambulance service of some kind. That's really what the agenda is.

Again, all this bill does is get them over the hump of the Olympics to March 31, but we're back to square one on March 31, 2010, post-Olympics. I'll be very surprised if there are any positive moves on the part of the government to actually address the real issues of the Ambulance Service independent of the wage or remuneration which, if it can't be done by collective agreement, needs to go through binding arbitration.

I think the government's agenda is quite clear. Just as their agenda for health care is privatization, I believe their agenda for paramedics and ambulance service is privatization as well. I think what they're doing by their actions is undermining that service, demoralizing that service, getting more and more people to walk away from that service so that it cannot deliver what all of the good folks who work in that service want to deliver.

[1815]

As a consequence, the government has an excuse to then turn around and say: "We need an alternate model, and that alternate model looks like this." A big chunk of that alternate model is private service.

Anybody who knows the history of ambulance service in the province of British Columbia knows that's the way it used to be. It didn't work. We had all kinds of delivery services for ambulance. We had all kinds of user fees and upfront payments and sporadic service around the province. It's back to the bad old days, if that's the direction the government is intending to go.

The Ambulance Service was specifically and explicitly put in place in order to address those concerns. Yet I believe the government's agenda is to take us back there again.

If the minister is serious — and again, we would all like to take him at his word, but we should be forgiven for being jaundiced about this government's words — then I think that the way forward is actually clear. Pull this bill off the table. Do not continue with it. Sit down with the union in good faith. Do the work that needs to be done on the framework around ambulance service. Either allow the collective bargaining process to proceed, or appoint an independent arbitrator to get through this dispute.

With respect to the best way to provide the best paramedic care to the people of British Columbia…. It's to show full respect to our paramedics, to show full respect in the way that we equip them, to get their education and training, and we give them the resources to do that. It's to show them respect through a collective agreement that actually gives them fair wages, gives them the kind of signing bonuses that other public sector unions have enjoyed and gives them the ability to get this monkey — the collective agreement — off their back.

That's the way you make sure that when an individual shows up at an incident, they are fully focused, that they are free and unencumbered to do what they want to do, what they're trained to do and what they're in the ambulance service to do. That's to deliver the highest level of care to the people of British Columbia in their time of need.

Noting the time, adjourn debate.

Not yet? Okay. I wasn't sure if I was getting a signal or not — on timing.

Deputy Speaker: Continue.

B. Simpson: Okay. As I said, I thought I was getting the hook there, but the members on the other side say I'll know when I've gotten the hook. I won't have to guess about it.

I had the opportunity to meet with our ambulance attendants and paramedics. I have a brother-in-law who is with the air ambulance. I think one of the things that strikes me about all of these folks is that they absolutely love the work they do. They love the knowledge that they get.

Many of them take great pride in the fact that from a trauma care perspective, they have — because of their experience, because of their work — a lot to offer to the health care service in terms of immediate ability to stabilize patients — to give them the level of care they need to make sure that when they do get into our hospital system, the work of the health care professionals in the hospital system is able to make sure we get a speedy recovery because the patients have been stabilized.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I know my brother-in-law tells me that when he flies into many remote communities, the doctors are very happy to see them show up just because of the level of care that advanced life-support paramedics bring into small communities. He tells stories of doctors that breathe a big sigh of relief. It's kind of: "Oh, thank God you're here. Here's the patient. Stabilize them and prepare them to be flown to a higher level of care."

Both sides of the House, as I opened, have full respect for our paramedics. Our preference would be that that
[ Page 1988 ]
respect is shown in a different way than this bill. We do not believe this bill is either necessary or needed. We believe this bill is a result of the Olympics, not the reasons that the minister put forward.

B. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[1820]

Speaker's Statement

rules for public bills
in the hands of private members

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to review Bill M203, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2009, which was introduced in the House by the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads.

The bill would require expenditure of public funds, contrary to Standing Order 67, and therefore is out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL
BUSINESS, TECHNOLOGY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $43,830,000.

The Chair: If you'd like to continue with an opening statement.

Hon. I. Black: Yes, I would. I'd like to take a moment or two and walk through, for the benefit of both those viewing and the members opposite, basically an overview of our ministry — what it does, both in terms of its objectives and broad mandates, and some of the specific initiatives it pursues.

But I would like to first introduce, if I can, Deputy Minister Don Fast, who's behind me. As well, we'll have a variety of staff joining us through the day. But at this early stage I have behind me Simone Decosse, who is our executive director of small business; Jim Soles, our assistant deputy minister of small business, research and competitiveness division; as well as Brian Hansen, our assistant deputy minister of management services division.

Mr. Fast leads the ministry operations of a team of people that is 200 strong. I would like to start by thanking each and every one of them for their contributions to British Columbia on a daily basis. They provide an outstanding service to us.

Their focus is helping to build a strong economy here in British Columbia. It's a very, very broad commitment. I think that's exactly the point that demonstrates the ministry's striking characteristics that make it stand out from others.

It's got an astonishing diversity — and I suspect my colleagues opposite will be canvassing some of those different areas — with respect to the programs delivered and the initiatives supported. We have, as examples to illustrate that, looking at supporting family-run businesses, small businesses, in the most remote communities of this province through to representing our global economic strategic interests, from promoting trade relations nationally and internationally to fostering a competitive business and investment environment here at home in B.C.

[1440]

I want to simply illustrate that range, if I may. We have a trade office in Beijing, a city of 17 million people. Our ministry supports at the same time a solar energy project at the T'sou-ke Nation, an aboriginal community that's only 40 minutes' drive from where I'm currently standing, with a population of 200. You have that range of activity taking place within our ministry.

Somewhere in between, we manage to make B.C. the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in North America, we achieve groundbreaking trade agreements, we implement clean technology programs, and we invest in our knowledge-based industries.

We spearhead our efforts to grow our low-carbon green economy in B.C., and we stimulate private sector investment in our economies and our businesses within it. We also have the responsibility of capitalizing commercially on the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games and maximizing B.C. as an ideal place to do business, invest, work and raise a family.
[ Page 1989 ]

Now, all this dizzying diversity is actually very, very good. It has helped put our province in an enviable position in most western economies, frankly, in terms of coming through what is a very difficult time globally, economically. We're positioned, in the minds and views of most leading economists, to bounce back from the current economic difficulties faster than any other jurisdiction and to a higher degree.

Those diverse activities that I've described lead to that assessment on the part of those economists because the people within our ministry have a common purpose, and that common purpose is focused on presenting and developing opportunities for success economically here in B.C. — opportunities to build a better future for the province, for families and for communities.

That's why the ministry worked to make the TILMA agreement with Alberta a reality, and that's why we're working on now including Saskatchewan on an extended version of that agreement. That's why ministry staff were in Ottawa just last month, working on a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union, and why we support the economic freedom of things like Open Skies and vehemently oppose the trade protectionism of Buy America.

That's why we're now implementing a joint $50 million economic development program with the federal government called the western economic partnership agreement because, frankly, it boils down to opportunities for British Columbians. That's why we've invested $1.7 million to support research innovation, including almost $357 billion for the B.C. knowledge development fund, $260 million for the Michael Smith Foundation and over $152 million for Genome B.C.

That's why we invested $47 million in 34 clean energy projects with a total project value of about $174 million, in communities across B.C., through the innovative clean energy fund. That's also why we offered over $30 million in tax credits each year through our venture capital programs to help British Columbia businesses to compete and to grow. That's also why we administer the B.C. Renaissance Fund, a $9 million investment to date that has leveraged over $39 million for British Columbia's high-tech companies.

On a broader level, it's also why we've cut the small business tax rate by over 44 percent, saving small businesses $401 million over the last three years. We've also focused, as promised, on eliminating regulation — over 151,000 of them since 2001.

We are very serious about creating opportunities for B.C., and that's why we're enhancing B.C.'s presence overseas, especially in Asia, because it is a very, very important part of our ministry, and its opportunities for our province are equally as great. We have now established six trade and investment offices in Asia, two trade reps in Europe and one in the United States. That's why we've opened the Asia-Pacific Business Centre, right near Robson Square, to help B.C.-based companies connect to business opportunities overseas.

It's also why we're working very hard to establish Vancouver as a global financial centre, creating a hub for international trade and investment opportunities. It's all about these opportunities.

I'd like to close by thanking the leaders in this ministry and all staff for their efforts in maximizing those opportunities for the benefit of all British Columbians.

J. Kwan: I'd like to thank the minister for his opening comments and also thank his staff for the work that they do each and every day on behalf of all British Columbians.

Time is short with respect to the estimates debate, so I'm just going to move right into the issues at hand and let the minister know that this is sort of the order which I'm going to go with. I'm going to canvass issues around the HST, then I'm going to move on to Asia-Pacific trade and investment, and then we'll talk a little bit about the technology professionals in B.C., particularly the shortage of female technology professionals in British Columbia.

Then I'm going to ask some general questions around discretionary spending and, related to that, in various different areas within the ministry. Then we'll move on to some other general questions within the ministry.

[1445]

How much I get done really depends on the time that's allotted. Then, hopefully, we can have a crisp exchange in terms of getting answers and move forward with that.

I also want to let the minister know that there will be some MLAs coming in periodically as well. That's why I have my computer on, to let them know that if they want to ask their community questions, to please pop on by. When that happens, I will make sure the MLAs get their opportunity to do so as well. Hopefully, they'll follow the general guideline in terms of the headings that we have.

With that, I'm going to ask the first question. The minister's predecessor, Rick Thorpe, mentioned that the ministry would do an HST assessment. I'm wondering whether or not that happened. Was there an assessment done by the ministry regarding the HST?

Hon. I. Black: The member is referring to a ministry that at the time — as led by Rick Thorpe, as was identified — included the department of revenue. The assessments around taxation would be done by that part of his ministry at the time, which has since moved to the Ministry of Finance. I would refer questions on the assessments and the activities around the Revenue part of the former Small Business and Revenue Ministry to the Ministry of Finance.

J. Kwan: The Finance Ministry's estimates will be coming up, and we'll certainly ask the minister that. In the interim will the minister also commit, then, to ask his colleague to provide that assessment and ensure that
[ Page 1990 ]
the opposition gets a copy of it for the Finance Ministry's debate?

Hon. I. Black: I'm not in a position to make commitments on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Finance. I'd have to refer the question directly to him.

J. Kwan: I was asking for a commitment from the minister to make the request to his colleague but not to necessarily say that the minister will provide it. Would the minister himself make that commitment and ask his colleague to provide that document to the opposition?

Hon. I. Black: I would need to fully understand the request. I'd need to understand the nature of the assessment that's being discussed about, and I don't have enough information from what's been given to me so far from the hon. member to be able to make such a commitment at this stage.

J. Kwan: Okay. It's not that complicated. That would be a simple question to the Minister of Finance: "Minister of Finance, I was asked the question at the estimates by the opposition critic if you would provide the HST assessment that was done by the ministry when it was formerly with the Ministry of Small Business that housed Revenue. Because it's now been changed in terms of responsibility and the Revenue component has now moved to the Ministry of Finance, would you please provide that document to the opposition?"

It would be a simple question of that nature. If the minister responds no, the Minister of Small Business, I'm sure, can just come back and say: "I'm sorry. I put the question to the minister, and he said no." Or maybe he will say yes. Who knows?

Hon. I. Black: I would be pleased to pass along the courtesy of advising the Minister of Finance that the question was asked here today. That, in addition to the Hansard record, I think, will reflect the desire of the member opposite. But I'd be pleased to pass along, as a courtesy, the request that's been made to the Minister of Finance for his consideration.

J. Kwan: Okay. So I take it that the minister will simply tell the minister the request was made, but not actually ask the question. Now I know how we're going to operate here.

Will the minister, then, tell us when he first learned about the HST?

The Chair: HST is not part of the debate on this budget estimates. The HST has not been implemented. We're here to discuss Vote 40 on the ministry operations.

[1450]

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The HST issue, of course, is very important for the small business community. I've got reports from the small business community as it impacts their operation. No doubt this would be of interest at the minimum for the minister, I would expect. Therefore, I would expect an answer from the minister, if you please.

Hon. I. Black: A couple of thoughts for the member's consideration. My understanding — and I stand to be corrected — is that the focus of our conversation is the 2009-10 budget. There are no implications of the HST on the current fiscal year with respect to the HST.

J. Kwan: Sorry, that's not my question. It will come, no doubt.

My understanding is that the small business community had conversations with the minister after the government announced the implementation of the HST. One would have assumed that the Minister of Small Business would know and anticipate that the implementation of the HST would impact the small business community.

So my first question to the minister is: when did he first find out about the government's intention to implement the HST?

Hon. I. Black: Hon. Chair, the member opposite has been a member of an executive council and understands fully the cabinet confidentialities that surround conversations of that nature. To that extent I am a little perplexed at the question.

I will say that the enormous benefits associated with the HST have been in the public domain for many, many years. I have served on the Select Standing Committee on Finance for several years with the member opposite, where we had one business group after another, most of them overwhelmingly representing the small business interests in this great province, make their views very clear that such contemplation was a good thing.

I mean, the bulk of these questions are best referred to the Ministry of Finance, which has responsibility for the HST. But given the limited time we have here today to discuss the current expenditure plans of our ministry in 2009-10, I would be pleased to answer any questions on the numbers contained within those budget estimates.

J. Kwan: Well, let me ask the minister this question, because he's reluctant to answer the question. I suspect that the minister may well not have known that the government intended to implement the HST. Or maybe he knew all along. The fact is that the Liberals during the election actually told British Columbians that they would not implement the HST and only after the election announced that they are now going to implement the HST.

Why does it relate to this set of estimates, Mr. Chair? You may wonder, along with the minister. Because it
[ Page 1991 ]
impacts the small business community overwhelmingly. Let me just actually provide some documentation for the minister's information in terms of what they have to say about the HST.

[1455]

This is a document from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. They say the problem with harmonization…. "The significant tax increase caused by harmonizing the PST and GST in British Columbia will hurt restaurant operators, their customers and their employees. Harmonizing the PST and GST will increase the tax on restaurant meals from 5 percent to 12 percent. It will result in an annual loss of sales of $750 million, or nearly $50,000 a year for the average restaurant."

As we know and as the minister knows, a significant proportion of small businesses are actually in the service industry, and the restaurant business is very important in the small business industry in British Columbia. And that's only one piece of the information that they've provided in terms of the impact of the HST on their businesses.

So my question to the minister is: is he aware of this documentation, and does he have any concerns in terms of the implementation of HST for small businesses?

The Chair: I would just like to remind the member that the questions should be directed towards the administrative and operations portion of the 2009-2010 budget estimates we're discussing today.

J. Kwan: The operations of the ministry and the work of the ministry, one would assume, is that they would have done some analysis on government policies as they impact that ministry and the people and the stakeholders that ministry deals with. That is the reason why, I would assume, there's a round table on small businesses.

Did the minister talk to the round-table stakeholders — what did they have to say? — one of which I know would be the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. That's how it relates, Mr. Chair, so if the minister could just answer that question.

Hon. I. Black: You know, we can spend our time on this if the member wants, but the reality is that the analysis of which the member speaks is done by the Ministry of Finance. The very long list of very real and tangible benefits to the small business community with respect to harmonizing the sales tax is very well articulated. For the member's reference, it's at www.gov.bc.ca/hst.

The small business community has been overwhelmingly positive about the information contained on that website and how it benefits their members throughout the province in a variety of industries. I would refer the member there if she wishes to see those benefits beyond any conversation she may have with the Minister of Finance in this forum.

J. Kwan: So is the minister saying that he's done no consultation with the small business community around the government's desire to implement HST prior to it announcing the implementation of it?

Hon. I. Black: Those are questions for the Ministry of Finance, which owns responsibility for this. If there is a question pertaining to the fiscal '09-10 numbers, I would be pleased to answer them.

J. Kwan: Was the HST discussed or debated during the Small Business Roundtable meetings?

Hon. I. Black: We are very, very fortunate to have a group of committed individuals in B.C. who serve on the permanent Small Business Roundtable, a vehicle which was implemented by this government in response to a vacuum that was identified by that community about their needs being understood by the previous administration.

We are very proud of the work they've done with respect to the advice they give to government. It was their advice that led us to take the small business tax rate, which was a punishing 4½ percent back in 2001, and take it down to 2½ percent, commit to take it to 1½ percent and then, most recently, in the throne speech, to eliminate it altogether.

It was also on the advice of that Small Business Roundtable — taken, again, by this government — that we increased the small business tax threshold — which, for the benefit of our viewers at home, is the amount at which small business starts paying tax — from about $200,000 to $400,000, with an additional commitment from our government to raise it to $500,000.

[1500]

In combination with the previous measure — beyond saving over $400 million directly back into the pockets of the men and women who take very real risks in their lives to start small businesses, to pursue the opportunities that they wish to pursue — it was also the Small Business Roundtable that encouraged us down the path of eliminating over 42 percent of the existing regulations in this province, about 152,000 of them, and then urged us to zero-flatline the new regulatory burden at that level and keep it flat, upon which I would advise that we're ahead of that target.

We're down 9 percent, never mind a zero baseline. We're actually down 9 percent more unnecessary regulations in the province of B.C., thanks to the Small Business Roundtable.

I would include in the many conversations that we have had with our Small Business Roundtable a discussion on the benefits associated with harmonization that predates me as minister, but conversations that I've been involved in with the Small Business Roundtable since having the honour of being appointed to that role in late June of this year.
[ Page 1992 ]

J. Kwan: The minister might not have been around that table, but surely his staff would have been. Was the HST discussed or debated during the Small Business Roundtable meetings?

Hon. I. Black: One of the very clear benefits for the people of British Columbia through their Small Business Roundtable is the open and frank dialogue that they have with government through this ministry. One of the vehicles that they have to express their various views is an annual report that they present to government.

I'm holding in my hands the fourth annual report to government, dated October of this year, which is an accumulation of the previous year's meetings and recommendations as well as some extraordinary success stories of our vibrant small business community across British Columbia.

I'd like to read, if I may, from page 14, for the member's reference, of this report. I will quote as follows. It's already a permanent record, a public record, but I have no problem reading this into the record. On page 14 of the Small Business Roundtable annual report…. To be clear, hon. Chair, this is a report from the small business community to government; this is not a government document that I'm referring to.

It says: "Many small businesses suggested harmonization of PST and GST to reduce the tax complexity and tax burden for small businesses. The province of British Columbia has responded and will be implementing a harmonized sale tax on July 1, 2010. The round table recognizes the overall benefits that harmonizing will bring to the B.C. economy." I would refer this document to the member's attention.

J. Kwan: Great. I'm glad that the minister actually found that document, because I have it too. Will the minister actually table the minutes from the round-table meetings?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, Members.

Hon. I. Black: The hesitation on my answer is only because I am concerned about the privacy considerations of the individuals who sit on this round table. These are private citizens from the province of British Columbia who give of their own free time and give a great deal of commitment to the Small Business Roundtable. I would be pleased to ask them of their thoughts on this when we next meet.

[1505]

J. Kwan: Good. Sure, go and ask them about the minutes. One would think that in the spirit of openness and accountability, and where there are round-table discussions around the small business community impacting all British Columbians, that that information would be provided and made available for the public's consumption.

One would assume that people would follow through with that, so I would welcome the minister to go and ask that question, and I will await his answer as well. Of course, there are other means by which to get minutes of meetings and so on, and of course, that's onerous as well as time-consuming and sometimes not the best time and expenses spent on behalf of taxpayers either.

Ian Tostenson, president of the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, stated that the minister told him just one week before the HST was announced that they would not be bringing in the HST without extensive consultation. Did the minister honour this by doing the extensive consultation with the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association?

Hon. I. Black: There have been ongoing consultations with business for several years with respect to the benefits associated with harmonizing our provincial sales tax system. As for that specific question, I would, again, refer that, as a matter of tax policy…. As the vehicles around implementing, planning for, administering and consulting on tax policy are within the strict purview of the Ministry of Finance, I'd refer the question there, accordingly.

J. Kwan: No, this question is directly for the minister, because the stated comment made by the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association was about this minister, not the Minister of Finance. My question to the minister is: did he do any consultation with the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association prior to the government's announcement of their intention to bring in the HST?

The Chair: Member, I just want to caution you that the minister may have answered this question already on a number of occasions.

Hon. I. Black: The member's perspective and the member's opinion and the member's desire do not change the role of this forum, nor does it change the focus of this being about 2009-2010 expenditures on behalf of our ministry. I'd be pleased to answer any questions pertaining to those financial transactions.

J. Kwan: Actually, no. As I mentioned, the HST policy impacts the small business community in a significant way. The small business community is the responsibility of this minister.

Implication of government policies across the board means something for each minister — if they were do to do their job, to figure out what it is that impact is going to be — and in particular, when this minister himself, as
[ Page 1993 ]
I understand, had made a commitment that he would ensure that there would be consultation with the small business community.

He made that commitment, as I understood, to the food services association people. So my question to the minister is about his action as the Minister of Small Business: did he actually fulfil that commitment? Did he actually do that consultation?

Not someone else's responsibility. As I tell my daughter, who is just six at the moment, sometimes you have to live up to what you say, even at six years old. When you say something, you have to take responsibility for it.

Hon. I. Black: Yeah, this is making for great theatre, but I have to tell you that I could spend half an hour, 40 minutes espousing the benefits of the HST to our small business community in British Columbia. I've been proudly doing that in a series of speeches and remarks around the province over the last couple of months.

Nonetheless, if there is a question pertaining to the HST that the member can point to — any line item at all within the existing 2009-2010 budget documents — I'll be pleased to address it.

[1510]

J. Kwan: Is the minister denying that the HST would not impact the small business community? Is he denying that there would be no implication whatsoever? Part of that is that it implies, as it applies to this set of estimates — and the minister well knows that it does — that every single small business in British Columbia is going to be affected by this. They are going to be affected by this.

One would have assumed that the minister would have taken up his responsibility, especially as a brand-new minister. He would have gone out and consulted with his stakeholders to ensure that their interests are represented at the cabinet table, with his colleagues, and so on. Instead of being a yes-minister to whoever says whatever, he would have gone out and done his job.

Maybe that's not the case. Maybe that is too big an assumption on my part. If you don't think that there's a responsibility for the minister to go and do that, to ensure that your stakeholders' interests are represented at the cabinet table, then I find that quite astounding, because that's what I'm hearing from this minister right now.

The significant tax increase caused by the harmonization of the PST and the GST in British Columbia will hurt restaurant operators, their customers and their employees — this coming from the small business operators themselves.

They also say…. In fact, they've done some analysis. When Canada brought forward the GST back in 1991, the B.C. restaurant and food services industry was hurt by this. In fact, their businesses went down 9.5 percent. Is the minister aware of this in terms of this policy implication, and did he do any comparison between the implementation of the GST versus the intent to implement the HST?

Hon. I. Black: Where to begin. Let me start by saying that I find the conversion on the road to Damascus, with respect to looking out for the interest of the small business community and the economy in general, to be somewhat refreshing. However, it was the lack of that view that led us to the challenges that we had to inherit and do something about back in 2001.

This member asking the question was part of a government that drove jobs out of this province and took our tax regime to one of the most punishing in the country at the personal, corporate and small business level. We have managed to take that situation and turn it around now to where our small business community in Canada represents the highest contributor of GDP of any other province in the country. We're number one with respect to the reliance that we have on our small business community.

It was our small business community on whose shoulders we stood in 2001 to get us out of the financial difficulty that we inherited, and it's on the shoulders of our small business community that we're standing today to get us out of the economic difficulties that we currently find ourselves in.

We do that because we did lower their taxes. We did get rid of the regulatory burden, and we paved the way for opportunity so that these men and women could take very real risks by walking away from successful careers to take the risk of starting a small business to pursue their life-long dreams, to try to build their families and their communities by taking very personal risks — putting their house on the line, if they needed to.

I find that the comments and somehow presenting themselves as the advocates of the small business community in this province are hypocrisy at its finest. I find that the small business community should be getting quite a giggle from the remarks that have been said here this afternoon. The benefits of the HST system are over $2 billion in terms of the savings to business in British Columbia. With 98 percent of all business in British Columbia being small business, they're the ones who will benefit — $880 million in benefits to the construction industries. Those are predominantly small, family-owned businesses.

You look at the money and the transportation sector — very often family-owned trucking firms. I think of our northern communities who are so reliant on that — our forest industry, alone, a $140 million benefit.

So the benefits associated with the HST are very, very well established. The business community understands them. The small business community understands them.

[1515]
[ Page 1994 ]

They understand the $140 million that they were spending each and every year administering two different taxation systems, which is why they came out and presented to the Select Standing Committee on Finance for years and years, talking about the duplication that was unnecessary of two tax systems that cost the very real out-of-pocket costs associated with maintaining two tax systems — not in growing their business, not in driving a new customer base, not in developing new products and services and growing their business and hiring more people, but in administering a second taxation system.

Do they understand this? Yes, they do. They're applauding our government for it, and they recognize this as well.

If the member's got a specific question about how the HST came to be, with respect to the analysis — numerically, consultatively, whatever that may be — I would refer her to the Ministry of Finance, with the greatest of respect.

J. Kwan: Well, the introduction…. Actually, I want to backtrack. Just for the record, because the minister actually opened it up, on the question around reducing the small business tax. So the minister knows — and maybe he wants to go back and get this information — after 20 years of a conservative government, the Socred government, it was actually a New Democrat government that first brought forward a reduction in small business taxation.

That was actually under Glen Clark, during his term. I think that by the time that New Democrat government left office, the small business tax was brought down to 4.5 percent, in that neighbourhood. Just so that the minister knows, in terms of that history, that it was the New Democrats. We do support reducing small business tax and their burden, because they are the economic engine in British Columbia. Make no mistake about it.

I will also canvass questions with the Minister of Finance, who actually says that they are not the economic engine in British Columbia. But we'll leave that for another day.

Hence, the issue around taxation policies and the implication for the small business community is critically important and therefore should be of concern for this minister, not just for the Minister of Finance, who has responsibility for implementing it. The implication of that tax policy across government — there's got to be some work done by each individual ministry to see what it means for their stakeholders.

One would have assumed that the government would have spent some time in this budget cycle doing that — doing some consultation with the community groups around that. The introduction of the GST in 1991 resulted in the large drop in tourism — specifically, occupancy rates across Canada. Some provinces were down as much as 20 percent.

As the HST will increase taxes in the hospitality and restaurant sectors, has the provincial government done any forecasting on the economic effects that the implementation of the HST will have on the occupancy rates and tourism in British Columbia? If the government hasn't done it, has the minister actually seen the report from COTA? Because they've done it, and their projection actually says that there would be something like 15,000 jobs lost in the small business community, as they relate to the tourism sector.

Has the minister seen that report? Has the ministry done any analysis? Did they take any money from this budget cycle to do that work so that the minister knows how he can ensure that the interests of small businesses are represented?

Hon. I. Black: Well, I appreciate the effort to try to link it to something, anything, resembling a 2009-2010 budget question. I also think it remarkable that a bragging point of the member opposite would be that her government ended up lowering the small business tax rate to a point, at 4½ percent, that still left it amongst the highest in the nation.

In any event, I think that the questions with respect to the analysis that's been done, as I've said, is a matter that should be canvassed through the Minister of Finance. If she would like to ask questions about the tourism industry, my understanding is that this forum is available as well to ask questions of the Ministry of Tourism.

J. Kwan: I take it from this minister's response that he's just going to wash his hands of the impacts of the HST for the small business community. He's not interested in knowing from them what the ramifications are on the ground, and he's not interested in the tourism industry, which happens to have a whole lot of small businesses in that sector. He doesn't care about that.

He says it's someone else's responsibility. When you would have thought that the government…. This ministry, not very long ago, maybe about a week ago, told this House that they operate as a team. So much for that concept. The team approach only works when it suits the government.

When it comes to major taxation policies as it impacts across government ministries, this minister is now saying: "I'm no longer that team player. Don't ask me, because I actually don't know the answer, nor do I care to get the answer." That's what I'm hearing. Maybe that's the message he wants to send to British Columbians and to the small business sector.

Does the minister even know about the ramifications of the GST and how it hit the small business sector when it came into play?

[1520]
[ Page 1995 ]

Hon. I. Black: One of the great benefits associated with being the minister responsible for this area is the ongoing consultations that we do through the Small Business Roundtable throughout the province, especially in the month of October, which is Small Business Month.

A point of trivia, perhaps, but British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in the country 30 years ago to recognize our small business community. We had Small Business Week. We were the first ones in the nation to do so. Then three years ago we decided that a week was not enough, and we took it to a month.

As such, October is a very, very busy month for the Small Business Minister. I spent a part of that month, despite our House being in session, travelling to places like Fort St. John, Prince George, Quesnel, out to Surrey and here in Victoria, meeting with the consultation groups associated with the Small Business Roundtable.

The HST discussion was alive and well. When you've got a trusted relationship with a community of people, where you've listened to them as much as we have over the last eight years, the dialogue flows very, very well. The HST was very much a topic of discussion. A great deal of interest in it, and a great deal of, I would say, general support for the topic.

As mentioned, I can do 25 or 30 minutes with very few notes on all the benefits associated with HST, in particular for our small business community. But I would suggest that this is probably not the forum for me to do so on that topic. If the member would like me to espouse on that, I do have a few more presentations lined up over the next number of weeks. I'll be sure to let the member know when and where those are taking place.

J. Kwan: Very cute. Yes, in fact I was just going to bring that up. The minister is supposed to show up in Burnaby to talk about the HST. On the one hand, he says that it's not his ministry's bailiwick. He won't answer any questions related to HST in this set of estimates. Yet he, being paid out of this set of estimates for his very salary, is going to go out and talk about the HST.

Interesting, isn't it? Someone who wants to claim no responsibility is going out there on the circuit to cheerlead for the government on this issue yet won't answer specific questions related to the HST as it impacts his stakeholders in his ministry; has not done any analysis related to that, or wouldn't provide it if he's actually done it in his ministry; and won't tell us who he's consulted with on the HST.

One would assume that in this set of estimates, in his budget, they would have set aside dollars to make sure that they go out and do consultation regarding that. But no, not so. But he's happy to go on road trips to actually talk about the HST.

Now, I note that the minister didn't answer the question around the GST as it impacts their community. Well, let me just put this information on the record for him. British Columbia enjoys Canada's second-highest per-capita expenditure on food services — $1,773 per person in 2008. One of the biggest reasons for B.C.'s good performance is the fact that the province does not apply PST to restaurant meals.

This is what the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association have to say about the GST:

"It isn't neutral. It reduces disposable income. It distorts the marketplace, especially for food service. It's bad for tourism, and it is regressive.

"Harmonization creates a significant redistribution of who pays the PST. While some price reductions should occur over time as a result of the removal of the PST from business purchases, the expansion in the tax base under harmonization creates a more immediate and significant effect on final consumers.

[1525]

"The introduction of the GST in 1991 reduces disposable income, and consumers reacted by reducing consumption. Canada's food service industry suffered a 10.6 decline in real sales in 1991, 7.3 percent of which was attributed to the GST.

"One of the biggest arguments for the GST was that it removed taxes on exports and made Canadian industries more competitive. In the case of tourism, however, the exact opposite occurs. Visitors end up paying the GST, and Canadians can escape it by vacationing outside the country. British Columbia's tourism industry is suffering from a sharp decline in U.S. visitors. Another tax will only accelerate this trend.

"The significant tax increase caused by harmonizing the PST and GST in B.C. will hurt restaurant operators, their customers and their employees. Harmonizing the PST and GST will increase the tax on restaurant meals from 5 percent to 12 percent, and it will result in an annual loss in sales of $750 million, or nearly $50,000 a year for the average restaurant."

Those are the ramifications from the industry itself, the majority of which are small business operators.

I gather from the minister that he hasn't done that consultation. He's not interested in doing that consultation. He's happy to wash his hands and say that it's someone else's responsibility, and hopefully, nobody will ask him any more questions around that.

The question around the HST. I'd like to ask the minister…. He mentioned the construction industry, the home-building industry. Has the government done any forecasting on the increase in the home-building and renovation industry in terms of the underground economy as a result of the implementation of the HST?

Hon. I. Black: I'm flattered at the confidence in my presentation skills such that the member opposite would consider my presentations on tax policy a form of cheerleading. However, I think there are a couple of things here that are causing me just a little bit of confusion.

I just, in fairly specific ways, explained the small business consultations, 39 of which we've done under this ministry. I've spoken about meeting with chambers of commerce and discussing the HST. I've spoken about doing individual meetings with small business owners in various communities most recently and up in some of our northern communities. Yet the member makes
[ Page 1996 ]
an observation — something about our not doing consultation. So I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on that.

The member asked me to distinguish between the work that I do as a minister of the government and the discussion that we're having today. I think that answer is very simple. Those forums are different in very clear ways.

This forum is subject to the standing rules of this House, and this forum is specifically in the estimates process. It's specifically focused on financial expenditures of our ministry for 2009 and 2010. To that end, I would be delighted to start on any questions that actually have to do with our expenditures for 2009 and 2010.

After the preamble to the most recent question, the question was asked yet again about various analyses on the HST implications. I'll repeat my answer that such analyses are within the purview of the Ministry of Finance.

The Chair: The minister has made his point that he's answered these questions. Some of the questions appear to be repetitive in nature. If the member could direct the questions towards the operations portion of the 2009-2010 budget for this ministry. Thank you, Member.

J. Kwan: I'm happy to, Mr. Chair.

The minister just said that they've done consultation. All along, just prior to that moment, the minister said that that wasn't his responsibility. But now he's finally come clean and said that he's done consultation, and I'm happy to hear that.

Can the minister tell us: what is the timeline of that consultation? Who did he talk to? When did the minister talk to these folks? Where did these consultations take place, and what was said?

Hon. I. Black: The Small Business Roundtable was established in 2005. We have done 39 small business consultations around the province. We continue to do them.

Because our government has made it very clear in many tangible and meaningful and repeated ways that we value our small business community and their points of view, I predict that our consultation process with them will continue for many, many years to come.

[1530]

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that the only consultation he's done is with this Small Business Roundtable?

Hon. I. Black: That's been answered.

J. Kwan: The question to the minister is very specific. The only consultation that the minister has done is with the Small Business Roundtable. Is that correct — yes or no?

Hon. I. Black: I'm not in any way trying to sound obtuse, but the reality is that every engagement that we have in this ministry, every engagement that I personally have as minister, involves speaking with businesses, associations, stakeholders of all types.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

It would be difficult to categorize or characterize the various meetings that I have with chambers of commerce; the mainstreeting opportunities to meet with small business owners; the more formal forums, or more structured — they're not more formal; they're open to whomever — the more open and structured forums of the Small Business Roundtable consultations. Those are all forms of consultation.

To the member's point, I have been in dialogue with a variety of businesses, business associations, the Small Business Roundtable proper, if you will — the board of directors — plus the various consultations that we do as part of our ongoing efforts in that area since the day I was given the honour of taking on this responsibility. To that extent, I'm in consultations virtually every day that I have the privilege of holding this job.

J. Kwan: Will the minister provide a list of whom he's consulted with, and when? Was the HST talked about, and what was the response?

Hon. I. Black: There are established processes for members opposite to get access to my calendar. I would suggest the member avail herself of those processes.

J. Kwan: So much for openness and accountability. The minister actually just said that we should be talking about the budget. The minister, of course, engaged in consultation, he says, virtually every day. So I'm interested in: whom did he consult with, when and where, and what did they say? But the minister is saying: "Oh, sorry. That information is off-limits. Can't tell the public."

What does the minister have to hide that he can't actually tell the public? If he's actually done consultation on behalf of the government with the small business community, why can't he tell British Columbians whom he's consulted with, what they had to say, when he did that and where that took place?

[1535]

Hon. I. Black: The activities of the ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development and the activities of the minister are predominantly in the public domain. There's very little that is a surprise when it comes to the activities of the minister in particular.
[ Page 1997 ]

When, for example, I go on a tour to engage the small business community on a large variety of issues, if I am speaking at a luncheon with a chamber, it's typically advertised in advance. If I'm doing a Small Business Roundtable consultation, it's advertised in advance on the ministry website.

Various associations that would like to come and hear the views on any number of topics very often distribute that information in advance. There's a whole lot that's in the public domain about the activities of the ministry — and the minister, in my case — well before I show up at any given location.

With respect to other specific elements of meetings I might have in the day-to-day execution of my duties, I would again refer the member opposite to the processes available for accessing such information.

L. Popham: My questioning will be regarding the HST on bicycle purchases. I think there has been a real lack of communication to the public about moving them into transportation choices that are good for our climate change action plan. I think that for almost 30 years bicycles have had an exemption to the social service tax. It included the repairs, I believe, and the helmets, and now we see the HST affecting bicycle purchases and the repairs.

I don't think the cycling community, the small business community that sells bicycles, was consulted at all, because I don't think you would find anyone in support of that tax coming in. I'm just going to read a quote from a bike shop in my constituency regarding the HST:

"I'm against it. I think it will alienate a lot of people from riding. It's added a cost that is too much. The cost of living is already so exorbitant that the minimum wage isn't going up.

"It's kind of frustrating, especially with things like helmets. Helmets are already a huge chunk of money for some people. You have to wear them or you get a fine, and now they're going up. The cost is going up on other accessories too — oil and grease, patch kits, reflective stickers and locks. All of that was PST-exempt."

[1540]

I'm just wondering at what point this symbolic change of transferring a social tax onto the bicycle was made. I think that there would be no support from anyone in B.C.

Hon. I. Black: Again, those questions are best directed to the Ministry of Finance.

The Chair: Member, I would remind you at this time to please focus your questions on Vote 40. Some of the other questions might be relevant to the Ministry of Finance.

L. Popham: I think that I would like to know whether the minister is hearing that sort of conversation on his consultation tours.

Hon. I. Black: I've heard nothing from the retailers of bicycles. I'm advised by my staff that they are similarly lacking in any direct correspondence with people who retail bicycles.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the estimates debate for Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. We all know that small business is essential to our province and our well-being, and to the economic development of our province. The minister has done a lot of consulting, apparently, with folks, so he'll know this too. I have to say that the kind of feedback I've been getting lately is quite at odds with what the minister is suggesting that he gets in his consultations.

I've gone out and talked to a number of small businesses in my community, including hairdressers, who tell me that they simply cannot…. Their margins are so low. If you follow the success of hairdressing businesses, they're like restaurants. Their margins are low, and it's not easy to make a go of it. They say to me that they cannot absorb the extra cost of the HST and that it's going to negatively affect their business and that the consumer would have to pay the full amount.

What would the minister say to these small business owners in my community about how they can deal with this burden that they're going to be faced with?

Hon. I. Black: While people in the hairdressing community will be able to take advantage of the now tax deductions that are available on cleaning products, hair supply products, chairs, sinks, taps, flooring, furniture and fixtures, etc…. While all of those benefits associated with a flow-through tax like the HST will be available to that community as well, again, these broader questions of the implementation of the tax and the tax policy questions have to be referred to the Ministry of Finance.

[1545]

M. Sather: Certainly, we're going to be asking the Minister of Finance a lot of questions about the HST, but personally, I'm a little disappointed that the minister is not defending his ministry more fully. I mean, in the first estimates we faced with him he didn't, but I thought this time we might get a bit more.

The minister is wrong, in my view, about the impact of this measure. My constituency assistant just e-mailed me a couple of minutes ago to say we just got another 359 petitions delivered to our office today. Everywhere I go, people are concerned.

I talked to a dry cleaner — been in business a hundred years — and he's saying that he thinks he's going to see a drop of 20 percent in his business and that it's going to take years for him to recover. Now, these are small businesses that I would hope the minister would want to engage in some sort of support of.
[ Page 1998 ]

He did say something — I will give him that — with regard to the issue of hairdressers. But, you know, it is his bailiwick. It's not just the Minister of Finance. Technically it is, but in fact, this is the bread and butter of these people's livelihoods.

We've got real estate agents — who I'm thinking generally are supportive of the government — very, very upset in my community. We have a lot of development, a lot of new houses. They're going to be facing new fees, purchasers are, on houses, for lawyers' fees and real estate fees, notwithstanding the fees on the houses themselves. It's going to cost, for the average house, about something in the neighbourhood of — I can't remember the exact figures — $10,000 to $30,000 or more in Maple Ridge.

This is all going to have an effect on the well-being of our community and our ability to rebound. In addition to which, people who are trying to save money are hit with administration fees on their mutual funds. All of these things are huge to the small business community, my community and, I think, throughout the province.

I won't question the minister about it again, but I would like to hear a statement of support from him for these businesses — a recognition that it is a negative effect for them and that it will be difficult for them.

Hon. I. Black: While it is always a source of angst to disappoint a colleague opposite, I should perhaps point out for the member's benefit that I have difficulty accepting a point of criticism on my last appearance in the estimates process, because this is actually my first appearance in the estimates process. So it must have been another one of my outstanding oratory performances that caused him his concern.

Nonetheless, I can only refer to the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Vancouver Board of Trade and a long list of other organizations that collectively represent tens of thousands of small businesses across British Columbia that have come out strongly and immediately to express their support that this is, without question, the right thing for our economy.

[1550]

It is the right thing for small business, and it will benefit British Columbia in a great number of ways, not the least of which, frankly, is job creation and job security. People with jobs are the ones who have the extra money to actually go and avail themselves of the services, including those offered by the businesses that the member references.

B. Simpson: The minister had a recent visit up to my riding, so it has to do with his time spent during this term. He did a tour of downtown businesses, I believe. I wonder if the minister could, for the public record, indicate if he'd heard anybody in the downtown Quesnel business area complain about the potential impacts of HST to them when it's put in place.

Hon. I. Black: Yes, I had the privilege of being in Quesnel recently, and the member lives in a very beautiful part of the province. I've been there before, and it's always a treat to go back. The people are very, very friendly, and their attitude is incredibly positive. I enjoyed the visit and the hospitality a great deal. One of the best Italian meals I've actually had in a long time was at a restaurant in the member's riding in Quesnel.

But to the member's question, I had the opportunity of mainstreeting, for lack of a better phrase. In the businesses in which we went, the HST was not brought up as a conversation point, number one.

It would also perhaps interest the member that we did a Small Business Roundtable consultation in Quesnel later that afternoon. During that consultation we tried to elicit from those present their most pressing concerns. We said: "This is what we're hearing so far. What do you think? Do you agree? Are there things we should add to the list?"

There are themes that develop through the process which are very instructive to our ministry. They go back to the Small Business Roundtable. In turn, they produce the report that was referenced earlier.

The HST was brought up in one very specific context. First of all, as a point of concern, it did not make the three or four key issues that were front and centre for the small businesses in attendance at the small business consultation that day in Quesnel.

Where it did come up was as a point of communication, and this has been a theme that I have heard a great deal in my travels on the topic of the HST. Most of the small business community that I've engaged on this topic — and most of it is conversational, most of it is one on one, business owner to business owner — is in the area of communication and understanding.

I've found that repeatedly, including in some of the speaking engagements I've had on the HST, when people understand the implications better, when they understand how it's going to be implemented, when they understand the impact of a flow-through tax, people generally are much more relaxed about the topic, and their angst typically dissipates a great deal.

To the extent that the HST came up in our consultation in Quesnel, it did so as a point of communication — people looking for more information. I referenced earlier the Ministry of Finance website, which — surprisingly for a website, never mind the topic at hand — is actually receiving very, very good accolades as being very good in its communication and quite specific and very, very helpful. I would mention that into the record, as well, and for any small businesses that happen to be tuning in at the moment.
[ Page 1999 ]

The Chair: I would like to remind both members at this time that HST is a future policy. It is not in effect right now. Previous Chairs have ruled before that if it's not relevant to the current vote, it's not something that is discussed under the current estimates. Can we keep the questions relevant to Vote 40, please.

[1555]

B. Simpson: I'm speaking about the minister's expenditures as a minister under his executive functions in a visit to my community, and exploring what he learned while he was in my community. So it has to do with the vote.

Did the minister visit three particular businesses that are right in the core — the minister said that he mainstreeted: Carryall Books, Cycle Logic and a restaurant called Season'D?

Hon. I. Black: I have to ask the member's indulgence on this one. The number of businesses I've been inside in the last month or so is a little overwhelming. I actually don't remember the names of the specific businesses that day, so I couldn't give the member a specific answer one way or the other on that one question. I could see if I still had it in my notes, but I'm not actually aware, off the top of my head.

B. Simpson: Well, the bookstore is the only bookstore in town, so if you visited a bookstore…. Let me get to my point. Those three businesses form the central core of the main street of businesses. If the minister went mainstreeting, he should have seen Ban HST signs on the front door and the window of all of those three stores, and they're all side by side. It would be very hard to miss.

I have a twofold question: (1) did the minister see those signs, and (2) if he did, did he go in and have the decency to ask those folks why, as small business people, they don't want to see HST come into existence?

[1600]

Hon. I. Black: Again, we're kind of in that odd area of discussing policy without discussing policy. I'm trying to be respectful of the member's question because I understand how he's trying to link it to our budget estimates for 2009-10.

You know, there's no question that despite the overwhelming and immediate support of organizations like the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and others, who represent tens of thousands of small businesses throughout B.C., there are pockets within the business community who are impacted differently by the HST. That has never been a secret. That's never been anything that's been hidden.

So to the member's question: am I aware of businesses that have posted signs in their windows? I've certainly seen the signs. That's not in and of itself anything that's a surprise. Again, when we went and visited the businesses we did in Quesnel that day, in the conversations I had with those business owners, they didn't bring it up. I can only go based on what I hear from people that I speak to, of course. But it is perhaps interesting to note that the Quesnel Chamber of Commerce has come out in favour of and does support the HST.

B. Simpson: I did mainstreeting, as well, with all those businesses. I simply asked them a question: what do you think about HST? That would be a novel way, actually, for the minister to find that out if it's not being given uninvited. He could hear directly from individuals and then feed that forward into the system.

When I visited Caryall Books, they were very concerned, particularly about seniors who are going to have to pay additional costs for their favourite magazines or newspapers, etc. When I visited Cycle Logic, they were very concerned that they were losing the PST exemption on bicycles and repairs and accessories, and that added an additional 7 percent cost in a community that has a very high unemployment rate and a very uncertain future.

When I visited Season'D, they're struggling to keep their doors open and see the HST as one of the final insults from the government for failure to consult with the restaurant business.

Again, the minister can go in and glad-hand and do mainstreeting in that way, or he could actually go in and ask public policy questions and solicit feedback even though it may not be the feedback that he wishes to hear.

My question is: how does the minister take direction from the community or from staff and determine who gets invited to the little closed-door sessions when he goes into communities? Who makes the determination, when you come into a community like Quesnel, on who gets to sit with the minister and have an audience with him?

Hon. I. Black: Actually, I need you to expand on it. I'm not sure what you mean by closed-door sessions. Most of what we do on these consultation tours is published in advance of our arrival. I need the member to clarify if he could, please.

B. Simpson: Well, the minister knows that he had a sit-down meeting with a number of businesses. He actually stated it here on the public record. As part of that dialogue he had a number of things that were given to him in his priority list.

The question that I got in my community was: who determined who got invited to sit down and give the minister some sense of what the priorities were in the community? That's the question I'm asking. Who sets
[ Page 2000 ]
up the invitation list, and who gets to come and sit and have an audience with the minister?

[1605]

Hon. I. Black: The meeting in question that I referenced earlier and which was cited back a moment ago by the hon. member, was the actual Small Business Roundtable consultation meeting that I was speaking of and that he just referenced.

To answer the member's question, the attendance is determined in two ways, both of them public. One of them is by advertising on the ministry website where the Small Business Roundtable consultation meetings will be taking place. There's a general invitation there for people to register, sign up and attend.

The second way that happens, as did happen in Quesnel, is that we go to the chamber of commerce or other business associations. We let them know that we are coming, and they, in turn, contact the various member organizations within their communities and encourage them to attend, where possible, and to give the kind of feedback, the candid feedback, the constructive criticism, the encouragement, as it may be.

Whatever is on their mind is open for fair-game discussion, and the forum is a very wide-ranging discussion. There's a specific point at the meeting where everyone is given a chance to identify the one major thing that the government could do on a go-forward basis to make a very meaningful difference in their small businesses.

It's a very open and frank dialogue, and it's something that we, in our ministry, value a great deal and have a great deal of respect for — the time that these small business owners give to come and share their views with us.

B. Simpson: I want to just close off with a couple of questions. The first is that I'm trying to understand how the Minister of Small Business, who is supposed to be the champion for small business, actually champions small business concerns into the executive, into cabinet and into the Finance Minister's office, etc. Because really, what businesses want in the minister is that champion.

As the Chair has already pointed out, with respect to today's debate, HST is a forward policy. As yet, the legislation has not come in. There's supposed to be some potential to shape that legislation. I know, for example, that the member for Saanich South raised the whole issue of bicycle stores, and I have the same feedback in my neck of the woods.

So how does the minister take forward what he hears into the process of government and attempt to influence future legislation? He's deflecting us to go just talk to the ministry, but the reality is that this is an in-process thing. It is part of the minister's responsibility today to champion small businesses. We're certainly, on this side, hearing a lot of concern from small businesses, and the minister has even admitted in one of his last comments that not all small businesses are happy with this.

So if the minister could tell us: how is he taking forward feedback about adjustments that are needed to be made to HST to make it work for the small business community?

[1610]

Hon. I. Black: As I mentioned a little earlier, it's the responsibility of our ministry. The member opposite used the word "champion," and I agree with his choice of words. It is our responsibility to champion the views of small business on every topic that's important to them. It's certainly not limited just to a taxation policy on the table today.

A couple of answers for the member, because he asked a broad question that had some specific bits within it. I think that, first and foremost, the ongoing nature of the consultation process that we have in place with our small business community does a couple of things. It illustrates our commitment to them when we established and made a permanent part of government the Small Business Roundtable in 2005.

It was to do precisely what the member has intimated is important, and I share the member's view on that — that we have to constantly listen to and champion the causes of our small business community. It was the establishment of that round table and the ongoing consultations that we do across British Columbia with our small business community that has led to two important documents.

One, as I mentioned earlier, is the Annual Report to Government, written by the Small Business Roundtable. The other document is actually what falls out of that, which is the Action Plan for Small Business. I'm holding a copy of the more recently published one in my hand at the moment.

Just for the member's information and anyone viewing at home who is interested, this talks about the priorities for action within government, pertaining to small business. It starts with a section entitled "Action to Date" and talks about the tax saving. It mentions the 68 tax-related measures returning over $2.3 billion in tax savings to small businesses and consumers since 2001.

It talks about the specific income tax relief vis-à-vis the small business income tax threshold, which I mentioned earlier, taking it from $200,000 to $400,000.

Fewer regulations. I mentioned that as well. We're expected to champion the deregulatory cause in the province, which we did very effectively in our first series of steps, eliminating 152,000 regulations. The small business community told us to do that. We heard their input. We took action on that input. We championed
[ Page 2001 ]
that cause on their behalf, and there are 43 percent fewer regulations on the books today as a result of that.

They were obviously supportive of their round table. It's their round table, not government's round table, and it is a vital communications conduit between the small business community and government.

They also include provincewide surveys and consultations to date. "The round table itself" — and I'm quoting from the action plan — "undertook a provincewide survey and held consultations with small businesses in 18 different communities in '05-06 to identify the key issues and opportunities facing them." That, again, led to many of the policy changes that have been discussed here already.

Then they talked about the small business venture capital fund. The request came from our small business community to streamline it. We did that and, as a result, had a fivefold increase in the investment from that area.

Then, on a go-forward basis, the priorities for actions that have been identified and that we continue to be focused on are the regional consultations and small business forums. We've just exchanged, in the last hour or so here, some conversations talking about my travels to the northern part of the province, and clearly that's alive and well.

The actions that they're looking to have taken in their area are the small business exports. We have a great percentage of our small business communities involved in exports in B.C., so we have to make sure we're attentive to that.

Government procurement. They'd like focus on that area.

The single business licence is a pilot that we've done, again, at the urging, championing the cause of our small business community to get to a single business licence. We've piloted that with great success — a cross-jurisdictional business licence. There are plans and a stated direction to roll that out across B.C. Again, our small business community came to us, asked us to do that. We championed their cause.

We look at BizPaL, which is a marvellous opportunity for any small business owner to basically take care of all their permitting type of requirements. Something that could take a day or two can now be done in about 20 minutes. One-stop shopping through BizPaL, which is an on-line vehicle rolled out by the federal and provincial governments together on a municipality-by-municipality basis — 79 of them so far in B.C. — where you can get all your permitting done across three levels of government. Getting out of the way of small business owners and letting them do what they do well.

[1615]

I think there's a long list — and I could continue here, if the member wants to indulge me — with respect to employers' toolkits, the business skill development for small business owners and the regional access that's required to some of the business resources. Then, one of the priorities for action here is to support a competitive tax structure, and it specifically mentions the review on the sales tax.

I think that it's clear that the efforts to listen to our small business community, to champion their cause, have been very, very well established by our government. We will continue to do that. We don't believe that there's a finish line in this exercise. They come to us on a wide range of topics, some of which I've just touched on in quoting from the action plan.

I should point out, as well, that this is a living, breathing document. This document gets refreshed and republished every year as a direct result of the input from our small business community. It is with great confidence that I say that we do listen to our small business community. We are listening to them in a manner they've never seen before. They're embracing that opportunity to give government advice and will continue to do so.

Now, the member did ask a specific question in the area of advice and consultation, vis-à-vis the HST and input that they may wish to have to the implementation and rollout, etc. The answer that was given to them, as the questions came in of that nature, was the same, quite honestly, that we've been giving here today, which is that the Ministry of Finance does own that responsibility of the rollout of the HST and of hearing the different avenues or the different ways they might consider doing so.

Those consultations have been ongoing with the Ministry of Finance, and I've referred our small business community — mainly, I should point out, their associations that had questions and concerns — to work directly with the Ministry of Finance officials. My understanding is that they've done just that.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister did any championing for the restaurant and food services industry, to tell the Minister of Finance and the Premier that they did not support the HST.

Hon. I. Black: I wanted to add a quick follow-up point. To the member who represents Quesnel: I am advised, actually, that an invitation was extended to you to attend that as well. Whether that was lost in the pile of mail that we all get every day or not, I don't know, but I wanted to make sure that the member knew he was welcome and that should we come back he'd be certainly welcome again to attend the Small Business Roundtable in Quesnel.

Hon. Chair, the question was asked about the communication with the Premier and the Minister of Finance. The trusted, very open and frank relationship that we have with a variety of business associations, including the restaurateurs, is a relationship that is not
[ Page 2002 ]
owned by this ministry or by this minister in a stand-alone fashion. There are existing and healthy relationships that exist with the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance and indeed the Premier of British Columbia. My understanding is that a dialogue is alive and well and will continue to be alive and well. It does not and has not required my assistance or facilitation.

J. Kwan: Of course, that wasn't my question. The minister went on for some length about how he champions the cause of small businesses, and of course, as we know, the food services and restaurant business community is very much part of the small business community. My question was actually about the minister's actions, whether or not he's done any championing for them. I take it from that answer that the answer is no.

[1620]

A harmonized goods and services tax is, of course, as the B.C. Liberals said during the election, something they would not contemplate during the platform. We now know that that's different and that the government has flip-flopped on that decision. Peter Simpson, who is the chief executive officer of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, expects that the HST will have serious ramifications for homebuilders and renovators as the cost of doing business goes up — another sector of the small business community that would be tremendously impacted by the HST.

The B.C. government is fond of pointing out the implementation of the HST in the maritime provinces, where the HST is linked to increasing capital investment and the general trend to lower prices for consumer goods. Of course, in the maritime provinces harmonization resulted in a decrease in the overall sales tax rates, since the combined PST and GST was 19 percent in Newfoundland and 18.7 percent in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The situation in British Columbia, however, is just the opposite, where the harmonization will actually result in an increase in the overall sales tax rate in many areas.

I wanted to note that for the record, because there's a significant difference. Again, a lot of the services impacting the small business community and the products which they sell did not have the GST applied to it formerly, and now with the HST, they will have a new tax that they would have to pass onto their consumers. No doubt that would be huge in terms of its implications.

I'm wondering: in the minister's cause to champion for the small business community, did he actually ask for any exemptions from the HST in any small business sector?

Hon. I. Black: The member, in her wide-ranging series of remarks, mentioned the Home Builders of British Columbia, and in doing so touched upon yet another organization with a longstanding open and trusted relationship with our government. Again, when you have longstanding open and trusted relationships where you are able to speak candidly about your views on different things, and we have….

[1625]

As a point in passing, I have engaged with the Home Builders of British Columbia on several occasions in the last number of months since assuming the responsibilities of this ministry. I should say that having been present in their company when they, in turn, have been discussing among themselves, they've been very clear on a couple of key points.

It's important that when you're cherry-picking from different areas to bring specific things to a forum such as this, that some of the broader messaging is also understood by the public. When you look at the Home Builders of British Columbia as an example, their opening foray into a discussion such as the HST — in fact, specifically including the HST — often includes comments like: "We know the HST is right for British Columbia. We know that the HST is right for the economy."

Then they go on to say: "Our industry, however, has some questions, and we want to understand how the impact to our industry is going to take place and what types of mitigation steps can be taken." Those are reasonable things to ask and reasonable things to say. We have never stood in judgment of their desire to ask those questions and to make those statements.

But here's the rub. Those conversations took place and are taking place — as I understand it, as I'm advised — with the Ministry of Finance. At the risk of being very repetitive, the specific conversations about how a new tax of any kind is going to be rolled out are done with the Ministry of Finance.

I've engaged in the consultation process that's ongoing both formally and informally since I was given the honour of taking on this responsibility. As a former business person, as somebody who understands full well the responsibilities of running businesses and the challenges associated with it, I'm able to have very good conversations because I speak the language.

The reality is that when we reach a point in the conversations where they want to have input, where they have specific questions of policy, where they have policy implementation, they are referred, appropriately, to the Ministry of Finance, which is where I refer the member once again.

J. Kwan: The minister waxed eloquent about how he was the champion of all causes for the small business community. So I wonder, in that championship of the causes of the small business community, if he actually undertook to bring their voices to the minister who is going to implement the HST for the province of B.C. or to the Premier's attention. I take it from that answer, frankly, from the minister that the answer is no. He has
[ Page 2003 ]
not. He has not done that work. So much for being the champion. Lip service is cheap.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Let me just say this, in terms of the implications. I'll close with this, and I'll move on to another area. The CFIB, in fact, did a prebudget survey, and the results actually said that 74 percent of those surveyed said: "Customers would not like higher tax rates on some of my firm's goods or services." The information also says that on the question, "how important would it have been to consult with small businesses prior to announcing the change to the HST?" the results showed 79 percent.

Based on this information — and I'm not going into the details of it — the small business community who were surveyed say that they've not been consulted. They say that is very important, that they should have been consulted. Yeah. When the minister says that they have these trusting relationships and so on, part of that trust is contingent on the government doing what they said that they would do prior to the election and following through with it. Guess what.

This Liberal government has failed on that score. They said they wouldn't implement the HST, and then after the election they are implementing the HST. Hence, I would say that they've breached that trust, and I think that's most unfortunate.

Just for the minister's information…. I don't have all the resources of the minister, you know, but I've gone out and talked to a few people about the HST and the implication for them in their small businesses and what it means to them. There's a long list of people who are opposed. I'll just put some of those organizations on the record.

[1630]

The chair of the Chinese Canadian Chef Association, Mike Li, is on the public record against the HST.

The Floata Seafood Restaurant. Now, I must admit that I go to the Floata pretty well every week, because there's a community event there pretty well every week, and to support the community, I show up as much as I can. They are against the HST. I talked to the patrons of the Floata restaurant and the people who use their services there, and they are against the HST.

The union of the Traditional Chinese Medicine Association of B.C., Tony Zhang — they are against the HST. The owner of the Swiss Spa and beauty salon, Jamie Chan, is against the HST. The operator of Hanson Travel, Hanson Lau, is against the HST. The operator of Wong's Insurance, John Wong, is against the HST. Barry Morley, on behalf of the Community Business and Professionals Association of Canada, is against the HST.

Francis Chen, who is representing the Chinese Consumers Association, is against the HST. The owner of the Golden Swan Restaurant, Trevana Ho, is against the HST. The Canadian Alliance of Chinese Associations, Helen Quan — she, on behalf of her association, is against the HST. The Traditional Chinese Medicine Association of B.C.'s Brett Studer is against the HST. The Chinese Benevolent Association, the chair John Lum, on behalf of their association — which represents over a hundred organizations in the Lower Mainland — is against the HST. The Chinese Freemasons of Canada — Peter Luke on behalf of the Chinese Freemasons — are against the HST. Ben Tseng, the chair of the Greater Vancouver Taiwanese-Canadian Association — they are against the HST.

This is just a sampling of some of the organizations that are against the HST. So, if there was a real champion within the government, somewhere along the way in there, I would expect that they would have actually spoken up on behalf of the community. If there was a minister of small businesses who would actually champion the small business community — on behalf of these organizations and on behalf of the small business community and the individual businesses — that minister would have stood up and voiced their concern. At a minimum, I would anticipate, they would have asked for exemptions, instead of just passing the buck along to someone else.

Perhaps — who knows? — if Rick Thorpe was back, he would actually be championing that cause on behalf of the small business community. Who knows? I never thought there would come a day that I would miss Rick Thorpe, but maybe somebody on that side of the House — and maybe the minister thinks it's funny — would find a voice to champion the small business community, so that the impact of the HST would be well understood by the government and eliminated for those sectors.

I'm now going to move on to the Asia-Pacific trade and investment file. We don't have that much time, but I'm going to move on to that sector. On the question on the Asia-Pacific Business Centre, which the government announced with much fanfare, could the minister please advise: what is the cost to create and maintain the Asia-Pacific Business Centre?

Hon. I. Black: I realize hit-and-run politics is a style with which this member has developed considerable expertise. I realize that this is a consistent behaviour pattern: that when you don't get the answer that you want, you resort to personal attacks. But I don't play that game.

I will tell you that misguided and misinformed as many of the views are of the member opposite, when she speaks of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, she cherry-picks, again, from elements within a survey, but she fails to mention that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has come out resoundingly in favour of the HST.

It doesn't stop there. I don't have the dozen and a half or so individual businesses that she identified within
[ Page 2004 ]
her constituency, but what I do have is a list and, for the purposes of making sure there is something resembling a balanced view on this subject entered into the record, these don't represent a dozen-and-a-half or so small businesses, I must admit. They represent several hundred thousand businesses in British Columbia.

[1635]

Organizations that have come out strongly in favour of the HST as being the right thing for our economy, the right thing for the small business community and the right thing for the employees within this province — and the prosperity of the families that they're trying to raise and grow — include the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Retail Council of Canada, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, the Certified General Accountants, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, the Business Council of B.C., British Columbia Technology Industry Association, the New Car Dealers Association of B.C., the Conference Board of Canada, B.C. Agriculture Council, Canada West Foundation, the Mining Association of B.C., the Council of Forest Industries, the B.C. Trucking Association, the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association, Coast Forest Products Association, the B.C. Construction Association, the B.C. pulp and paper steering committee.

The Truck Loggers Association, the Motion Picture Production Industry Association of British Columbia, the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, the Railway Association of Canada, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C., Initiatives Prince George, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. and New Media B.C.

These are organizations — and it's a partial list — that have come out in favour of the HST as being the right thing for our economy. They represent a multitude of industries. They represent organizations and small and large businesses alike across the entire province. They understand very clearly — as the people who sign the front of paycheques, who actually create the jobs in this province and who lead to the direct prosperity of the families and small business owners across the province — that this is the right thing for our province.

We stand by this policy, the specifics of which can gladly be referred to the Ministry of Finance. But as a Small Business Minister who's actively listening to our small business community on a daily basis, I can tell you that there's support for this within the small business community. I'll continue to listen as minister to the different views that they have on this topic and any others that they wish to bring before me or our ministry.

Madam Chair, I would like to answer the member's question with respect to the new topic. I would like to request, if I may, just a five-minute recess.

J. Kwan: I will just close with this, then, before we recess. You know what? Maybe we should rename the minister's ministry and call it the big corporation ministry, because a lot of those groups that the minister read out actually are not small business people but rather from the big business community.

Having said that, I could match the minister, if he wants, but I'm not going to waste that time in reading off a long list of people that are against the HST as well. The fact of the matter, and I have to say this, is that virtually every single small business person that I speak with has been against the HST since the government actually announced it.

What we've heard from this set of estimates is that we don't have a champion of the small business industry. We don't within this government. I haven't heard it in the estimates today. I was hoping that there would be analysis done, that the government, from this ministry, would actually have done that work and brought it forward to the Minister of Finance to make sure they considered that before the announcement of the HST took place.

I was hoping that I would hear from the minister that consultation would have been done with the small business sector and the small business community prior to the announcement of the HST implementation, and we haven't heard that.

I was hoping that the government would actually have had some review of the impacts of the GST and as it relates to the HST and its implications and what it means.

I was hoping that the minister would actually have done some work on a sector-by-sector analysis in terms of the implications of the HST. If he's done that work, maybe he'll table it for the public to see.

I was hoping that the minister would actually look to see whether or not the HST would drive some of the small business sector into the underground economy and what that would mean for our province of British Columbia. I heard none of that from this minister.

Cheerleading is all very well and fine, but the real work actually comes in doing the consultation and making sure that the reports and the analyses are done, and making sure that is actually tabled with the minister responsible in bringing forward the HST.

With that, I'm happy to take a five-minute break. We'll resume, I suppose, on Asia-Pacific.

The Chair: Committee A will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:39 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. I. Black: For the information of the member, I wish to quickly correct something. To the member's
[ Page 2005 ]
point in citing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and their survey work that was done, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has for many years advocated government analyzing the HST and taking advantage of its benefits and moving in this direction.

I wish to clarify, for the benefit of the member opposite, that they have not formally come out in favour of this particular implementation of the HST. While they have encouraged us to look at it because of all the benefits associated with it, I am advised that they are still analyzing their specific position on this. I thought it was appropriate to correct that on the record for the benefit of the member opposite as well as the viewers at home.

With respect to the member's specific question on the Asia-Pacific centre, the cost of that was $1.1 million.

J. Kwan: I have the Canadian Federation of Independent Business documents in front of me, and I've studied it. I met with them on several occasions about the situation, and they told me exactly where they stand on it.

I'm glad that the minister has corrected the record so that there is no misinformation in Hansard with respect to their position, because it's different from what the minister had said.

So it's $1.1 million. Could the minister please advise: for the centre, is that $1.1 million for the operating, or is that for the startup capital cost?

Hon. I. Black: It is $1.118 million of capital expenditures associated with the actual building of the original construction and renovation of that space.

J. Kwan: What about the operations cost?

Hon. I. Black: I just require a little clarification from the member, if I may, please. Is the member asking us about the costs of the physical building itself — the rent, the heat, the electricity, all that good stuff? Or is the member asking us about the cost of the people who are inside the building doing the actual work they do on behalf of the people of British Columbia?

[1650]

J. Kwan: All of the above.

Hon. I. Black: The cost of running our Asia-Pacific program is about $11.9 million. That is a cost figure which includes not just the physical Asia-Pacific centre located in around Robson Square but also people who work out of Canada Place as well as people who work on international projects for us physically located in offices around the world. The total cost of that program is $11.9 million.

J. Kwan: I would like to actually get a breakdown of that program cost on a program-by-program basis. How much of that $11.9 million is for the Asia-Pacific Business Centre operations in terms of the maintenance of the building, in terms of the staffing, in terms of the actual work that they do, for example? Can I get a breakdown of all of that cost on a program-by-program basis and what it is for? How much goes to what to fund what?

Hon. I. Black: The challenge we have in how we run this particular part of the ministry is that the people involved in delivering the different programs do so from a variety of different locations. If there is, for example, a trade mission being planned, that might involve one or two people who are working at the Asia-Pacific centre, it may involve one or two people who are working at Canada Place several blocks away, and it could involve one or more of our trade representatives in the Pacific Rim area.

[1655]

I'm not trying to be evasive at all. I'm just trying to understand how I can best answer the member's question. The work that is done in that physical facility in and around Robson Square called the Asia-Pacific centre and the people who work within that are assigned across a multitude of different projects at any given point in time. Their work could not be contained and identified as being a specific project in and of itself.

They are actually contributors on a day-to-day basis to any number of initiatives taking place around the world involving people that are physically located in a lot of different spaces. So coming up with the….

We could certainly come up with a number that says what it costs for rent, heat and electricity and what it costs for the salaries of the people who are there, but I want to ensure that we're providing meaningful information to the member. That information, in and of itself, isn't necessarily going to help determine how the ministry spends money and on what they spend money. But I would welcome input and suggestions from the member opposite.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can provide me with a master list of all the initiatives that this amount of funding supports — the $11.9 million. One example the minister raised was trade missions. So how many trade missions? From which area did this take place? When did it take place? Where did they go, and how much was spent? How many staff were allocated to it, and what did they achieve?

For example, if the minister can actually itemize the list of initiatives which this $11.9 million supports and provide the detailed information on who, when, what, and what was accomplished and the individual expenditures. That would then, perhaps, make it easier for the minister
[ Page 2006 ]
— so that we don't have to go building by building per se but, rather, go in these broader categories that would fit in the definition of how the ministry themselves define it.

Hon. I. Black: While the ministry doesn't necessarily package the information that way, they believe they can do so. They will endeavour to do so, and we will forward that information once it's compiled.

J. Kwan: I would expect that would be before the session ends. If I could have that information, would that be a reasonable request?

Hon. I. Black: Which session?

J. Kwan: The session end of November.

Hon. I. Black: I am advised that our staff believe that they can certainly accommodate that time frame as well.

J. Kwan: Can I just focus on trade missions for a minute? Can the minister please advise this House: how many trade missions did the ministry undertake in this fiscal year and where did they go?

[1700]

Hon. I. Black: The ministry undertakes a variety, and a fairly extensive list, of both inbound and outbound missions in a given course of a year. My suggestion, if it's agreeable to the member opposite, would be to include that information with the information that she's just requested, because it's an extensive list of both inbound and outbound.

I would leave that for the member to comment on, but in doing so, I would simply add the observation that by virtue of the large number of people coming our way in the next four or five months, most of our focus this year is on the inbound-mission end of things.

J. Kwan: Sure. The information that the minister can compile could be inbound-outbound, but in two separate categories so that it's clear which ones are which.

I would also like with it, on the outbound missions, those who went on these missions and for how long, what the expense associated with these missions was, and what the accomplishment was — the set-out mandate of the mission, what the mission actually accomplished and how you measured it, or how the ministry measured it, more to the point. If the minister can ensure that those questions are answered within each of the missions, I would appreciate it.

Then again, on the inbound missions, I guess it would be delegations from elsewhere, where their ministry would be entertaining these delegations. I would assume that's what the minister is referring to. If we could have the information on who these visiting delegations are, what the purpose of their visit is, how much the ministry spent in entertaining these delegations and who was involved in that work, I would appreciate that.

The other question I have for the minister is more of a general one: is it the case that this ministry would pay for other ministers who have gone on trade missions? For example, with the member for Burnaby North — just because he's sitting right there, and I know he's travelled to Asia and other places on a number of occasions — is it this ministry which pays for that expenditure?

Hon. I. Black: One of the very intriguing parts of this ministry, as the minister responsible for the Asia-Pacific, is that I am called upon on occasion to travel abroad on behalf of the government of British Columbia and to go to various meetings in international locations.

[1705]

In the event that I am not able to travel, as was identified specifically by the member opposite, the member for Burnaby North, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary for the Asia-Pacific, would be requested by me and by our ministry to travel in my stead. To date that has not been required.

J. Kwan: So is the minister saying that all the trade missions which this ministry funds do not support any other MLAs who have travelled on behalf of the government — that is to say, all other MLAs who have travelled on trade missions for whatever reason — that that expenditure does not come out of this ministry?

Hon. I. Black: The travel budget associated with our ministry with respect to the international travel and, specifically, the Asia-Pacific travel is there to fund the interests of our ministry. Normally, that would involve funding for my travel and those who would be required to support our efforts and my efforts in that endeavour.

I'm trying to address the broader question of the member. If we felt in a trade mission some time in the future that we required the company of other private member MLAs, including but not necessarily limited to our Parliamentary Secretary of the Asia-Pacific and the member for Burnaby North, then that would be contemplated on a case-by-case basis. So we wouldn't rule it out, but I can say that to date and to this point in the fiscal year that has not been required, and it has not taken place.

J. Kwan: When the minister says "to date," the fiscal year for 2009 has only just begun, so I don't expect that there have been very many trade missions, because we have actually been in the House. Maybe there have been a whole bunch of them, but I expect not.
[ Page 2007 ]

But surely there have been trade missions. Is it the case, then, that as a policy of this ministry, this ministry has never funded MLAs on trade missions?

Hon. I. Black: Well, we are over seven months into the 12-month fiscal year at this stage, and to this point, anyway, we've not required that type of travel on the part of my office. The question was whether that's ever happened in the past. I can tell that you that it hasn't happened in the term that I have been minister, and I cannot comment on what happened before I was minister. I'm not aware of a policy that precludes or specifically includes the involvement of private MLAs to enhance and support a minister doing business abroad.

[1710]

J. Kwan: As the minister knows, prior to the election we didn't actually finish the estimates debate. So for the budget year of 2008-09, the question on…. Maybe the minister can answer this question. Had there been trade missions which government MLAs had gone on that were funded out of the '08-09 budget from this ministry? If so, could the minister provide details on those trade missions.

Hon. I. Black: We're a little bit at a disadvantage because we are prepared to talk about '09-10, versus '08-09. The staff behind me advise me that, to their knowledge, there were no trips paid for, for private member MLAs in the previous fiscal year either. Again, my caveat on that is that we came with material to discuss '09-10, not '08-09. But the corporate memory sitting behind me, extensive as it may be, is of the opinion that there were no trips funded for private member MLAs from last year's fiscal expenditures of our ministry as well.

J. Kwan: In my experience with trade missions you would often go on a trade mission and make various connections, meet with various delegations, and it goes on day and night, literally, for the entire trade mission, which is a lot of fun. But with that rigorous schedule, you also bring home contacts and leads and follow-up work, which often lasts into future fiscal years.

If it's a successful trade mission, it goes on for several years and not just one year, not just in that fiscal year. So certainly that would be the case, I would expect, for this ministry. It certainly was the case when I was in government, so I would expect that's the case now.

I would want, if they can't provide this information at this moment, which I can understand, for the minister to actually ask his staff to look back in previous years — let's say in the last four years of trade missions which the ministry had undertaken. Where did they go? How much was expended? And whether or not MLAs also attended. And then, what follow-up work followed from that ministry in terms of leads in pursuing economic opportunities for British Columbia from those trade missions?

[1715-1720]

Hon. I. Black: My apologies for the delay in coming up with an answer here. We're struggling with this one for a couple reasons. The first one is that, again, we're here to discuss our expenditures on '09-10 in this area and not a four-year retrospective on some of the initiatives that have taken place by some of these great people.

Perhaps more to the point, the challenge we're having is that while we can go back to '08-09 and look at the some of the projects and trips that took place and some of the reports that came out of that, there has been…. First of all, this is a very new initiative. The Asia-Pacific initiative was launched by our government because we recognized the importance of trade with India, with China, with Korea, with Japan, with a lot of the other countries in the Pacific Rim area and the South Asian part of the world.

These are very new initiatives. These are very new programs that are in place, and there's a complete new staff added as we build capacity to focus our attention in this area or, in some cases, a turnover of staff. Part of the challenge that we're wrestling with is trying to come up with meaningful information with the resources we have.

The concern we have, frankly, in not being able to fulfil the member's request as it's been articulated is that we don't necessarily have the capacity to go back four years and dig up the information in the manner that has been requested. With respect to '08-09, I would offer up to the member that we'll certainly pull together what we have from that fiscal year, when some of the current activities were first started. Hopefully, that will be some use to the member.

The Chair: Let me just remind the members that we are trying to stick to Vote 40 and the current fiscal year with regards to these debates.

J. Kwan: With respect to how it relates to this fiscal year, let me just outline that for the minister and for the Chair. As I said earlier, presumably trade missions take place. But after you finish the trade mission, you don't just sort of go, "Oh well, that's been done," and there's no follow-up. There is always a lot of follow-up if you're going to chase the leads and the opportunity in which the trade mission presented itself.

Oftentimes that takes several years, and that would mean that ongoing resourcing of staff in the current budget would be required to continue on with that work — unless it's the case that there have been no opportunities that arose from those other trade missions to carry on in pursuing economic development opportunities for British Columbia. Then I could accept the answer.
[ Page 2008 ]

To say: "Sorry, there has been nothing that has continued in terms of possibilities for us to pursue in B.C., so therefore, those fiscal years and that expenditure has ended…." I would expect that's not the case, because trade missions go on year after year after year, and those leads often don't die. In fact, when you get them, you don't want them to die. You pursue it like crazy just so you can get it to materialize into something. That's why I'm asking these questions, and I expect that the current expenditure supports that work.

I can fully understand that it is difficult to gather all that information together. I do fully understand that. I know that there are two, four, six staff with the minister at the moment, and it's tough to have that kind of detailed information with him.

I'm happy to receive it at a later date so that we can go through that information and then figure out the value of these trade missions and what was accomplished and the potential leads that continue to exist and what work the government is doing to continue to pursue those opportunities.

[1725]

Hon. I. Black: The challenge we're having with the question is that the way the information is tracked in the ministry is not in the same format or structure as has been asked for by the member. So we're trying to give a meaningful answer without being able to follow a specific kind of structured format of the actual question, because that's not the way information is tracked and collected within the ministry.

If I look at, for example, the trade stats from 2004 versus 2008 and the efforts that have been extended in this area, the resulting trade numbers look just….

I'm touching on a couple of examples. Taiwan — we did about $487 million of trade in 2004, compared to 2008, where it was almost $600 million. I look at Japan, which was $3.8 billion in 2004, and it was over $5 billion in 2008. China was $1.2 billion in 2004 and almost doubled to over $2 billion in 2008. South Korea is a similar story — $910 million in 2004, and South Korea was just shy of $2 billion in 2008.

So there's no question that the growing importance of the Pacific Rim as a trading partner with British Columbia is there. The efforts focused by our Asia-Pacific initiative seem to be paying off in a fairly material fashion. But to provide the information in the specific format of the member opposite is inconsistent with how it's actually tracked within the ministry.

J. Kwan: In what format, then, can the minister provide that information to me?

Hon. I. Black: The previous couple questions ago of the member, I believe, will answer most of that question with respect to getting the information about the various trade missions that have taken place and some of the details around them. It's a format that we believe should answer most of the member's questions.

J. Kwan: Why don't we do it this way then? I'll receive the information. I'll take a look at it and see if it actually answers my questions. If not, then I could perhaps have a follow-up meeting with the minister's staff to canvass other questions that might pop up if it doesn't actually provide the answers that I'm looking for. That might be the best way to do it.

If the minister believes that the information his staff will gather together will answer all my questions, that would be great. If it does, then no follow-up would be required. But if it doesn't, then perhaps we could have the minister commit that his staff can meet with me, and we can go through all of that to ensure that I get the answers that I'm looking for.

Hon. I. Black: I would be pleased to host the member opposite for a follow-up meeting if the information provided isn't sufficient for her.

[1730]

J. Kwan: Excellent — progress. Can I ask the minister this question? Maybe this will be provided in the information that the staff would be gathering for the minister. There was a trade mission that took the Premier to Korea and to Beijing for the Summer Games. Is it safe to assume that those expenditures came out of the Premier's budget and did not come out of this minister's budget?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. I. Black: Notwithstanding the compilation of the information that has been requested, assuming it's the same mission in question, I am advised that the Premier's costs and those of his staff were not funded out of our ministry. I'm advised that they were paid for by the Premier's office.

J. Kwan: Were there staff that came out of this ministry, who supported the work of the Premier in that mission?

Hon. I. Black: Again, we're struggling a little bit here, because we're using a serious rearview mirror on numbers from a previous year. But it is my understanding, and I'm advised, that the Premier's staff took care of the Premier.

J. Kwan: That is to say that nobody from this ministry supported the work of the Premier in his missions. Okay. Good. Then we can canvass the Premier's travels in the Premier's estimates.
[ Page 2009 ]

Could the minister please advise: did this ministry provide funding for the marketing of British Columbia in any other jurisdictions?

When I say that, I mean: did the ministry provide any financial support to a marketing campaign — let's say in China — to promote British Columbia for trade opportunities? Let's say in Korea. Let's say in Japan, in India and so on. If so, what is the budget for that, and what were the programs which the ministry undertook?

[1735]

Hon. I. Black: The $11.9 million put aside under our ministry budget for this year is focused on marketing British Columbia on an international basis, using a variety of programs and a variety of techniques.

It would include, of course, using the nine offices that we have around the world. It would include the website, which is surprisingly — surprising to many — a very well-utilized tool for those looking at investing in British Columbia and understanding more about our competitive tax regimes and all the other advantages of investing here. So we are not limited to any one geography in those marketing efforts.

J. Kwan: Where did the ministry do their marketing or focus their marketing efforts? The minister says it's not limited to one jurisdiction. Where did the marketing campaign take place, and how much was spent in each of those locations?

Hon. I. Black: Just a very important distinction, if I may ask the member.

There's a difference between advertising and marketing. Marketing is an umbrella exercise in which advertising or an advertising campaign…. I picked up on the word "campaign." I'm not trying to be evasive. I just want to make sure I am answering the question appropriately.

An advertising campaign is one of up to a dozen different initiatives that a marketeer or an organization does in marketing, in positioning and whatnot — product placement, price, all those kinds of good things that one does in business. That's all considered part of the marketing exercise. So I would have to ask for clarification on the question, if I may, of the member.

J. Kwan: I was going to go into advertising, but in light of the time and given that the minister brought it up, we may as well just cut it short. Why don't we do both of them at the same time?

In terms of the marketing endeavours, which ones were actual advertising initiatives that took place? How much did it cost, and where did it take place? What was advertised, actually, would be useful as well.

Then in terms of the marketing initiatives that took place — what were those, where did it take place, and how much did it cost?

Again, I do understand. These are kind of detailed questions, and if it's easier for the minister to provide that information to me at a later time with his staff in compiling that information for me, I'm happy to receive that as well.

[1740]

Hon. I. Black: For the member's information, for '09-'10 there is no specific advertising campaign per se that has been budgeted for — identified as an intended expenditure on the part of our ministry.

I can say that the other marketing activities that take place within the ministry include things like our website; our inbound and outbound trade missions — a topic on which the member has asked for and will receive information, in addition to what we've already discussed here today. It would include the funding of the sales calls of our various trade representatives around the world, and it would include the printing of marketing collateral which references British Columbia and gets reproduced in a variety of different languages.

J. Kwan: What about for the '08-09 budget year, which I know the minister says is the previous budget year? Again, if those advertising and marketing schemes actually yield a return, there may well be follow-up, I would expect, which the ministry would be busy with in this budget cycle. Therefore, expenditure from the staff from this budget cycle would show the connectivity, if you will, from last year's budget.

Can the minister tell us if there were any expenditures in the marketing and advertising aspects of the ministry's work in the '08-09 budget?

Hon. I. Black: I want to be very careful with my answer here. I don't want to give the House or the Chair or the member opposite the impression that I am accepting the logic or establishing precedence vis-à-vis allowing previous years' expenditures to be dragged into the current year's estimates debate.

I will say that while I'm very, very pleased to provide, as a courtesy to the member opposite, some of the information that has been requested from years gone past, it's an important distinction to make…. I don't want any silence on my part vis-à-vis the logic that's been expressed about previous years' expenditures somehow tying into current year budget items to be one that I necessarily — or that our ministry or our government or, for that matter, the standing rules of this House — accept.

I would, however — again, on a point of courtesy — advise the member that according to the gentlemen sitting behind me…. They are not aware of any advertising that took place at all in the '08-09 year.
[ Page 2010 ]

The Chair: Member, just a reminder to deal with this year's estimates, please.

J. Kwan: I've linked these things because, of course, the government is fond of saying, for example, with the Olympic year going forward, that all the work in promoting British Columbia is going to yield a return in economic activity for British Columbia. Therefore, it follows. The fiscal year doesn't just end, and all of a sudden all the activities that took place in that fiscal year stop, and there's no other follow-up and no work being done in the following fiscal year as it relates.

These programs are connected if they are to yield the kind of return that one would hope. Therefore, surely I would think that folks would understand the connectedness with respect to that, and that's why I ask these questions. I do think it's important.

We now know that none of the marketing and advertising that took place in terms of the funding came out of this ministry. That's good. I assume that if you didn't do the work, then obviously there's no follow-up.

Can the minister please tell us, with the trade offices in China and in…? I believe there is a trade office in India. I believe there's an existing one in Korea and in Tokyo and Japan as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, if those are not the right locations. Can the minister provide information to me on: what is the budget to support those trade offices?

Is it an actual office that exists in those respective locations, or is it a trade representative? The former Minister of Economic Development, who is now the Minister of Finance, used to advise us in this House that there were trade representatives but not actual trade offices. I believe that has now changed and that the government actually set up trade offices in those countries. If that's the case, could the minister please advise us what the budget allocated was for each of those trade offices?

[1745]

Hon. I. Black: Just to make sure, again, that the record is very clear on this point. I didn't want to leave the member with the impression that I didn't understand her logic in trying to connect previous years' expenditures to this year. I did understand the logic, and I understood it well. I simply disagreed with it, and I felt it was important to have the record reflect my disagreement with it.

The other comment made by the member, which I also think has to be clarified from our standpoint, is that according to the recollection of the staff present, looking in that rearview mirror, there was no advertising campaign specifically in the year 2008-09. No follow-up was necessarily required on initiatives.

I just wanted to point out that follow-up is a regular part of the efforts of the talented team in the Asia-Pacific initiative. Our trade and investment reps around the world, as they do various sales calls and whatnot, will have follow-up meetings and follow-up initiatives that are required. Those are other types of marketing that are taking place. So again, I draw the distinction between advertising as a subset or an example of a broader marketing campaign.

I'll use that, if I may, as a segue to the member's question, which had to do with the trade and investment reps. The member asked a couple of questions, which I'll try to answer, the first one being the model deployed for our trade and investment reps around the world. I can confirm for the member that it is the same model that was first deployed by the now Minister of Finance when our government stepped up to the challenge and the opportunity of investing in this area to the betterment of our economy in British Columbia.

That model involves independent contractors, competitively procured contractors, in the different locations in Asia. They do have physical offices which have British Columbia–consistent branding on their doors to make sure that we're being consistent in our approach to the world.

J. Kwan: So am I understanding the minister correctly that there are trade offices in these countries?

Hon. I. Black: There's a distinction here — which I thought was important to clarify with our staff — between, if you will, a trade office in a more traditional sense and what we have for the trade and investments reps who, yes, have physical space in the foreign countries in question.

A traditional trade office would involve, frankly, more of an expat model, where we would typically have a Canadian move to a foreign jurisdiction, incur the cost of an office and support staff, etc., to help him or her integrate into the local environment, understand it and then try to leverage the benefits of British Columbia in the local environment and encourage trade and investment accordingly.

[1750]

The model we have basically says that we take individuals who are already living in these countries, and we contract them. Typically, it's managed space, so they basically sublet a piece of real estate, and they're already integrated into the environment.

There's no premium associated with what you would normally have to pay an expat on that model. Their families are part of the community, and children already go to school there, etc. This ends up being a far more cost-effective model for the people of British Columbia to get the same positive result as a more traditional trade office — a bricks-and-mortar type of concept, to which I think the member was referring.
[ Page 2011 ]

J. Kwan: These are trade representatives located in an office somewhere in China, for example, or in India or any one of the countries in which these trade representatives are located. They're not what used to be, in terms of actual trade offices, set up like many other provinces and jurisdictions that have actually actively pursued ensuring that there's a gigantic presence from their country to represent their interests.

This is what I'm understanding from the minister, so that's actually very different from the notion of a trade office. We only have a trade representative in China in a physical location that has an office space but is not a trade office, by any stretch of the imagination. Okay, it's good to understand that, because I was under some misdirected information around the setting of the trade offices by the government in China and these other jurisdictions.

Noting the time, I'm sure I will have other questions around these issues and that we'll have an opportunity to canvass that perhaps in a meeting with the minister's staff, as well, related to these missions that we're going to be talking about. We can do that.

I do want to quickly ask the minister on the U.S. situation. As we now know, the United States had been our primary trading partner, although with things evolving and changing, that is now starting to shift. I'm wondering what the ministry is doing about that and about looking into how to ensure that British Columbia recaptures and maintains our trade share with the United States.

Hon. I. Black: Actually, I characterize that quite differently than the member. There's been a very, very deliberate focus, much of which has been reflected in the topic that's currently under discussion with respect to our Asia-Pacific trade and how it has gone up substantially with China and India and South Korea and Japan over the last number of years. This is a crucial thing that we've done.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

If you look at the economies in the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, which are between 82 percent and 85 percent dependent on the United States, our neighbours to the south — our friends and neighbours and largest customer south of the border — they have a reliance on the United States which puts them in a very precarious position. Frankly, that's one of the reasons why they are considerably more disadvantaged than British Columbia at the moment, as we come through what is one of the biggest economic interruptions we have seen in a generation.

Quite frankly, when the largest consumer block in the world stops consuming — their customers just aren't buying — those provinces that have a very high dependency on them are going to be hurting more. You're clearly seeing that in Quebec; you're clearly seeing that in Ontario. Their economies are suffering as a result. Their provincial revenues are taking a hit, and families in those provinces are going to be in considerably more difficulty than in British Columbia for some time to come.

Relative to that, let me paint a picture of British Columbia, whose dependency on the United States or the percentage of trade we do with the United States is at 65 percent, not 85 percent. That has allowed us in this difficult economic time, frankly, to look to the Asia-Pacific as a trading alternative to the United States, and we are a far healthier province in terms of diversity of the trade that we have going geographically.

There has been a diversity of our economic development across industries as well, but it's a bit of a matrix because it's both across industries and across geographies. That has given us the position of strength that we currently enjoy in this difficult economic climate.

[1755]

I would characterize that as a very important, very positive and very deliberate step on the part of government. We do not wish to see that trading balance with the United States go to the 85 percent level — go back, if you will — which is currently causing a great deal of difficulty in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

J. Kwan: Well, I'm actually very happy to say that the New Democrats worked very hard to expand our trading partners — in fact, through the work of former Premier Dave Barrett, who was the first Canadian Premier from B.C. who travelled to China to make that connection. In fact, this would be the 35th anniversary of the trade mission that took place with former Premier Dave Barrett.

That, of course, was followed up by former Premier Mike Harcourt, who has done a tremendous amount of work in expanding trade opportunities into China and other jurisdictions in his capacity as the former mayor of Vancouver, twinned with Guangzhou, and then later on as the Premier of B.C., twinning Guangdong province with British Columbia.

Again, that legacy continues on in terms of the work and then followed by former Premier Glen Clark. So the list sort of goes on, and that is valuable, no doubt, in terms of B.C.'s economy and building the strength on that.

But at the same time I recognize that we are also sliding backwards with respect to trade opportunities in the United States. I recognize that we should not put all our eggs in one basket, but having said that, we also need to ensure that we don't lose trade opportunities as well with our traditional partners.

My specific question is — and noting the time, if I could get a short answer from the minister: what specific work is the ministry doing in trying to make sure that
[ Page 2012 ]
we don't lose our market share of trade opportunities with the United States?

Hon. I. Black: I find it humorous to think that the member opposite has the monopoly on long-winded preamble, but the fact is that I'm a little confused only because I'm hearing a contradictory message.

On the one hand, in response to the great work that's been done by our Asia-Pacific team expanding there, I'm hearing that there's credit being solicited for the work of previous NDP governments. At the same time, there's a question: why aren't we doing more with America? So I'm trying to reconcile those two things.

Let me attempt to do so this way. There's a variety of initiatives underway to expand our trade relationships around the world. As we look to America we do not have the desire to see our relative trading position by percentage. We do not have the desire to see it go as high as it is in Ontario and Quebec. We've spent too many years working to bring that down, to give us the position of relative security that we've got, so we don't want to go back there.

The member makes the point — and it's a good point — that we always want to be looking for ways to expand trade and do more business internationally, including with our American friends.

I would point to the B.C.-Washington initiative that's currently underway. I would point to the very strong lead that British Columbia has taken in response to the buy-American initiative in the United States and the leadership that's been shown by our Premier taking that message to the federal stage and making sure there's a very strong message of open and fair trade being delivered to the Americans on that very, very important issue. I would point to the fact that we have a trade investment rep in the United States as well.

J. Kwan: The notion of actually increasing your market share does not necessarily mean that you need to and should diminish the market share in other countries as well. You can actually drive up both aspects to ensure that we capture those opportunities for B.C.

[1800]

I am noting the time, so I'm going to move on very quickly to another area. What is the minister doing with respect to the skill shortage in the high-tech industry in B.C., particularly with respect to the shortage in female technology professionals in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Black: There's no question that as we come through the economic environment we're in right now, a consistent message coming from our business community will be skill development. That's very clear. We've got a good problem to have perhaps, but we've got a million jobs to fill in the next ten years. We only have about 800,000 people graduating from high school, technical colleges and universities. So we certainly do have that challenge, and it's across many industries.

With a bit of a caveat on my answer that a lot of labour market development questions should be referred to the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development, what I can say is that in the technology industry as I understand it, there are about 55 percent male and 45 percent female in that industry, according to B.C. Stats. While it is not gender parity by simple math examination, it does fare better than some other industries that we have in British Columbia. I'd welcome the member's comments as to where she thinks we might go with that.

J. Kwan: The association of technology professionals in B.C., Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia, actually recently wrote a letter. In their letter they raised the issue of the skills shortage, particularly in the technology professionals in B.C. among women, and that only 9 percent of the ASTTBC's 9,000-plus technology professionals are in fact female.

These are not very good stats, I may add. We can have that discussion — I'd be happy to engage in that discussion with the minister — around initiatives that could be undertaken to enhance that probability. One of the things they pointed out is that young students need to be captured at a younger age in terms of those opportunities — their awareness made — and technology careers promoted among students, their teachers, the counsellors and so on.

Co-op programs, internships and those kinds of things would also assist in that regard. For women to access tools, seminars, workshops, etc., so as to better prepare them for the job search is another tool. These are just some examples with respect to that, and of course, the minister can work collaboratively with other ministries to achieve that goal.

[1805]

I'll leave that for a moment and set it aside. I want to quickly just ask this question of the minister. Can he tell us, in this budget, how much of the budget had been set aside for pure advertising and how much of it would be set aside for statutory advertising?

Hon. I. Black: I'm advised with respect to the previous question, incidentally, that part of the discrepancy between the numbers…. B.C. Stats is a much larger sample size. The number cited by the member is a very specific sample size, particular to the membership of that organization. That could explain the disparity there.

With respect to the member's specific question, we do not have an advertising budget in the ministry for the current fiscal year.

J. Kwan: So no money will be expended by this ministry on advertising at all, then?
[ Page 2013 ]

Hon. I. Black: There are no advertising expenditures planned with respect to the operations of this ministry.

J. Kwan: Is there any discretionary spending for this ministry?

Hon. I. Black: I just need a little more clarification. You can consider travel as a discretionary expenditure. I'd ask the member to be a little more specific just so that I can give her the answer she's looking for.

J. Kwan: Maybe more to the point is for the minister to define what he calls discretionary spending. How much is allocated for that?

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Sure, travel would be one of them, but that's only one item that I would call discretionary spending. It looks like the minister is very busy in discussion with his staff, so maybe they're coming up with a list of discretionary spending in his ministry.

Hon. I. Black: I can advise the member that the travel budget for our ministry was reduced this year by about 26 percent to a total of $424,000.

[1810]

J. Kwan: Could the minister actually provide me, not at this time, with a list of the cuts that the ministry has made with respect to their budget this year in comparison to that of last year?

Just to clarify and to be more specific, in terms of cuts, I'm talking about the global number and the programs and initiatives that might have been eliminated as a result of that budget cut.

Hon. I. Black: There have been two significant reorganizations in our ministry as various responsibilities have gone in and gone out over the last year or so, but we will certainly put our best efforts into putting something together for the member opposite.

J. Kwan: Are there any Olympic-related expenditures coming out of the budget of this ministry?

Maybe I can assist. Maybe the minister can provide me with that information in writing — if there are Olympic-related expenditures from this ministry, what they are and how much. He can provide that to me at a later date, because I am noting the time.

I also note that my colleague, the member for Vancouver–West End, has arrived. He does have one quick set of questions around tax credits.

S. Herbert: Thank you to the minister and his staff for their attention to this matter. It's about the digital and new media sector in the province. I know the minister's predecessor took some interest in this sector as well.

I'm just wondering if there have been any discussions about potentially advocating for a change in the tax credit structure so that digital effects companies, new media companies and technology–video game kinds of companies might be able to have a similar tax credit as the film sector has with a labour tax credit, as some in the industry have been advocating for?

Hon. I. Black: I have not, to my knowledge, had any conversations of this type with the new media industry. I would refer the member…. With respect to some of these tax credit issues, he may wish to canvass them as well with the Minister of Finance.

J. Kwan: I just, then, want to clarify my request on Olympic-related expenditures. Could the minister please get on record to say that he will actually provide me with that information?

Mr. Chair, while they're deliberating, maybe I can just throw this one out there as well. Did the ministry spend any money or does it intend to spend any money on Olympic tickets to entertain guests from anywhere?

[1815]

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour.

Hon. I. Black: Noting the hour indeed, hon. Chair.

The ministry has an ongoing program that has been going on for several years with respect to the inbound and the outbound missions, which we canvassed fairly extensively a little over an hour ago — an hour and a half ago now.

To the extent that some of those activities will involve the hosting of some of our international guests, there is no question that some of the programs that we've been running for years will come in touch with people who are coming here for the Olympic Games. It's what we do. It's what our team here has done very, very well for a long time, and it's very much a part of the, if you will, going-rate business that that section of our ministry does.

There are no specific line items in our ministry that have a specific tagged expenditure related to them. To the member's second question, there are no expenditures planned within our ministry for any Olympic tickets.

J. Kwan: I will then simply say that I will follow up in further questions, no doubt, with the information that the minister will provide around these trade missions as they relate to the entertaining of guests and to the Olympics in those meetings.
[ Page 2014 ]

I do want to take a moment to thank the staff and the minister for their agreement in providing the information to the subsequent meetings in which we'll engage in exchange of information and better understanding of the operation and the expenditure of this ministry.

With that, I note the hour.

Vote 40: ministry operations, $43,830,000 — approved.

Hon. I. Black: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175