2013 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Morning Sitting
Volume 43, Number 8
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Second Reading of Bills |
13375 |
Bill 18 — Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013 |
|
Hon. M. MacDiarmid |
|
L. Krog |
|
J. Les |
|
B. Ralston |
|
G. Abbott |
|
S. Hammell |
|
R. Hawes |
|
C. Trevena |
|
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2013
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
C. James: We have another school group visiting me today. Ecole Sir James Douglas is here with 29 grade 5 students, four adults accompanying them, and their teacher Ms. Claire King. I had the pleasure last year of speaking to Ms. King's class of students. I know that any class that Ms. King is teaching will have a lot of questions and will be very interested in what's going on. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.
N. Simons: In the House today we have a couple of guests from Gibsons. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Bill and Pat Forst, who are here on their way over to one of the beautiful Gulf Islands. It's just nice to have them here. Would the House join me in welcoming them.
Orders of the Day
Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to call second reading of Bill 18, intituled the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 18 — HEALTH AUTHORITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am pleased to move second reading of the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013. This legislation involves amendments that will allow for the definition of "nurse" to be broadened to include licensed practical nurses.
This legislation is in line with the recent vote by the majority of licensed practical nurses in provincial health authorities to change their union representative to the B.C. Nurses Union. The BCNU is the largest union at the Nurses Bargaining Association.
[D. Black in the chair.]
The change will allow nurses to work collectively within the same bargaining framework for easier opportunities and integration within the health system. Government recognizes that it must consult with the affected parties on this change, and we will undertake that consultation. However, government also recognizes that the majority of LPNs, in a very democratic and public way, have made a decision to change their representation. We respect that decision.
Nurses play an invaluable role in ensuring patients are seen by the right professional at the right time. By bringing licensed practical nurses and registered nurses together under one bargaining agency, we can ensure that further progress can be made so that LPNs are able to play an expanded role in the nursing care team.
Madam Speaker, I move second reading.
L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise this morning to speak to second reading of this bill. I can't help but be conscious of the fact that the bill is probably one of the shortest in the legislative history of this province.
We have one single section, and I'm going to read it into the record for the benefit of those listening this morning: "Section 19.1 of the Health Authorities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 180, is amended in the definition of 'nurse' by striking out 'an enactment' and substituting 'the Health Professions Act' and by striking out 'or as a registered psychiatric nurse' and substituting ', licensed practical nurse or registered psychiatric nurse'."
Section 2 is commencement: "This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
Notwithstanding its size, its length, much mischief can be created by just a few words. Given that any of us who've had an acquaintance with our health care system appreciate that hospitals, long-term-care facilities, care facilities all operate and must operate successfully as a team, it strikes me as just a bit odd that this government, with its record of a relationship with the health care sector generally, which is anything but positive, which has led to court actions that have gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada…. One would have thought that they could have exercised, in this particular case, some greater wisdom, some greater willingness to consult, some willingness to discuss with the parties who are in fact affected by this legislation. But that's not what has happened here.
This very short and, on the face of it, very simple bill has the impact of recognizing to some extent the democratic decision of many licensed practical nurses in this province who have chosen to join the British Columbia Nurses Union. But it also, in essence, has the effect of moving, without any consultation whatsoever, 1,200 licensed practical nurses who are now represented by the Hospital Employees Union, which has in fact represented those nurses since 1944. That is a very long time. It is close to 70 years.
I come back to my point about how a health care team works. When you go into a hospital, you will enjoy the services of many qualified individuals. You're going to be greeted at the hospital in emergency by a qualified reception person who's going to determine, firstly, whether or not the ailment you've arrived with is serious, whether you should be further up the list. You will probably, dur-
[ Page 13376 ]
ing the course of any given stay, be met and treated by, potentially, a licensed practical nurse, a registered nurse, an emergency physician, perhaps a specialist. You might be shipped off to a part of the hospital for tests where members of the HSA will perform various tests in order to assist in a diagnosis or a treatment. But it's a team.
It isn't really any different if you do something as simple as go into your doctor's office for a regular appointment, if you see your GP. Everyone is going to play a role. They work together; it's absolutely crucial.
The understanding, the level of competence — all reflected in a team effort. So one has to ask the question: what possible benefit is going to accrue to that necessary sense of teamwork, to that level of cooperation so crucial to the delivery of health care?
What possible benefit is going to flow by saying to hundreds of workers who participate daily in that system, whose work we value, who have chosen to go into a caring occupation for their life work…? What possible benefit is going to flow from forcing them into a union they may not wish to join?
The right to bargain collectively — as much as it may be seen as an irritant by some members of our society and, indeed, "an abuse of private property," to quote the language of nastier capitalists from bygone eras — is, nevertheless, in a democratic society recognized to be fundamental. It is one of the great methods by which we redistribute wealth in our society, by which we recognize that as….
Interjection.
L. Krog: I am always delighted to hear the dying echo of the member for Chilliwack, whose dulcet tones will disappear from this chamber next week, whose contribution and interest in my speeches has always given me the kind of passion I need to carry on in my work. And I want to thank him, because if that's what the other side is all about, I'm so glad I'm on this side, hon. Speaker. I'm so very glad I'm on this side.
Interjection.
L. Krog: Oh yes, and I hear the minister from Prince George, no less — the man who lives in the past and who is always willing to accuse everyone in Nanaimo of being corrupt, attacking the third-oldest city in the province of British Columbia, which I find rather shocking, hon. Speaker. But slandering good people's names has always been the hallmark of that member, and I'm delighted to hear from him, whispering again across the chamber as I try to complete a few remarks on a bill which is actually quite important.
It's no different than in any aspect of a society. Whether it be a small business, whether it be a school, whether it be those who work in the Speaker's office, people work as a team. People work together. They have to work collectively. They have to listen to one another. They have to learn from one another.
So what we have before us this morning is the government's wisdom on this subject. The wisdom says: "We don't talk to you. We don't consult with you. We don't care what you think. We've determined, because we think we're smarter and better and brighter, that this is the right thing to do."
Now, I understand something about leadership. All right? I understand, you know, that even in the most radical of societies, at some point somebody has to take charge. Somebody is given authority. Somebody is given power. Somebody is given a particular responsibility. But the best leadership is leadership that is not seized or taken by force. It's leadership that is assumed and leadership that leads by example. Surely, consultation is the hallmark of good leadership.
That is precisely what is missing from this bill. It's precisely what's missing from the fact pattern that led us to this debate today in this chamber.
The Hospital Employees Union put out a release on March 4, and I'm going to quote the first paragraph.
"A move by the B.C. Liberal government to fundamentally change the way that workers are represented in the health sector was done without prior consultation, says the Hospital Employees Union.
"Bill 18, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, would transfer approximately 8,200 licensed practical nurses from the multi-union Facilities Bargaining Association to another bargaining unit.
"HEU is the lead union in the FBA, representing the majority of workers in the 46,000-member bargaining unit including 1,200 LPNs."
Now, I can just imagine — because I know that member is paying close attention to my every word this morning — how the good voters of Chilliwack would feel if this Legislature tomorrow passed a bill that said he was out and somebody else was in to represent those people. He is their democratically elected representative. He is the chosen voice of the people of Chilliwack.
Now, hon. Speaker, I could be cheeky and say that they could have made a better choice, but I'm not going to say that. And it brings a smile to the member's face, and I say it in that manner. But the fact is he is their chosen representative, just as the Minister of Health is chosen to represent her constituents.
The 1,200 licensed practical nurses have chosen a union to represent them. They have chosen to bargain collectively with the assistance of the Hospital Employees Union. What they're being told by this bill is essentially: "Guess what. It really doesn't matter. Your democratic choice, your right to bargain collectively is not of consequence as far as this government is concerned. The choice you have made, the option you have chosen is not one that this government respects."
This is indeed something this government believes is
[ Page 13377 ]
good public policy, because I work on the presumption that this government only brings into this chamber that which it believes to be good public policy. I work on that presumption. Every one of us here in this place works on the presumption that things are brought forward because people believe it to be good public policy. Whether it is or it isn't will be judged by the voters on May 14, will be judged by the political pundits and will be judged by those who are affected by it.
But working on that presumption, I guess I just have to say that we on this side of the House happen to disagree profoundly with that concept with this particular bill. It goes against everything we have been taught and we believe in, and that is that the right to choose who is to speak for us is fundamental.
Now, the world will not fall as a result of this act. I understand that. I don't want to go over the top this morning. But the world, generally speaking, subject to the biblical flood, doesn't end in catastrophe. It goes bit by bit. Democracy slips bit by bit. It's the tiny chipping away, bit by bit, against democratic structures and processes that leads unchecked to ends that we see around the world, whether it be South American countries that were former democracies, early democracies in the Americas, that slipped into dictatorship over time, or even older democracies such as in Europe. But it's bit by bit.
What this bill signals is an attitude, an attitude about the rights of workers and about the respect that should be due them in the decisions they have made.
Hon. Speaker, the member for North Island, I believe, has an introduction. If I could cede the floor for a moment for her to make that, I'd be happy to do so.
Deputy Speaker: The member for North Island seeks leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
C. Trevena: I hope the House would give a very warm welcome to 16 students, grades 5 to 7 from Avalon Adventist Academy in Port Hardy, who are joining us in the gallery this morning. They're accompanied by their teacher, Julie Sukow; school secretary Melissa Markin; and somebody who said that they're just a mom, but a very important role, another volunteer, Tammy Waterman. Their last-minute drivers — because they had a bit of a problem getting drivers to bring them down from Port Hardy — pastors George Hilton and Randy Elliott are with them. As a backup driver, Ms. Sukow roped in her father, Ed Sukow, so he's up in the gallery too.
They got a little bit of a tour behind the scenes this morning and have done the official tour. I did give them a bit of a heads-up about how polite we are in this Legislature now, how we're not going to have the heckling anymore. I hope that the members will show how they are and they learned something from my good friend, the member for Nanaimo, who will be followed, I believe, by the member for Surrey-Whalley, talking about this piece of legislation.
I have to note, unfortunately, that the principal from Avalon Adventist Academy, Mr. Clifford Wood, couldn't be here. He's a strong supporter of parliamentary democracy and was an active participant in last year's teachers institute, which he found extraordinarily helpful.
I hope that the House will give a very warm welcome to all the students from the north Island and give them something that they can take home and learn from.
Debate Continued
L. Krog: I want to join in the welcome to those students and those who accompanied them here this morning. Welcome to your House.
Now, part of what I'm talking about this morning is the right to make choices in our society, in democratic society, and you're not quite old enough, most of you, to make those choices. But someday you will have that great right, and you will be able to exercise it.
Interjection.
L. Krog: The member for Chilliwack is always so careful to listen to my words, hon. Speaker. I'm always delighted by that.
They will have the right to make choices as to who represents them, and that is fundamentally what we're talking about here this morning: who has the right to represent a group of workers in the health care system? A fundamental part of the team that delivers health care across this province, day in, day out, 24-7, 365 days of the year and, most importantly for most of us who've had the awful experience, when it's an emergency — not just an ordinary occasion — or when we're elderly, when we're old and sick and weak and tired.
I'm reminded, because I attended the prayer breakfast this morning, of the wonderful words of Shelley Morris, who spoke this morning and gave a most inspiring talk. She's with the Cridge Centre, the oldest charity in western Canada. Bishop Cridge and his wife founded it a very long time ago.
The thrust of her remarks this morning was around a legacy, and in that general sense, what we are judged by in the longer term is what we do in this chamber as representatives of the people. So what is the legacy that you wish to leave?
I think this government has talked on many occasion about openness and transparency. Now, openness and transparency…. And it's so interesting, hon. Speaker, be-
[ Page 13378 ]
cause the member for Chilliwack was on the radio this morning. He was talking about private e-mails in government and how there have always been those oral conversations and how those records aren't kept. But at least he would acknowledge that there were discussions. There are discussions in government, and that's a good thing. It means they're talking over there. It means they have conversations. It means they think about things.
The fundamental question this morning, given what I've just read out of the press release from the Hospital Employees Union, which represents hundreds of these licensed practical nurses, is: did anyone on the other side of this House ever for a second, for a moment, think that it might have been appropriate, that it might have been polite — polite, hon. Speaker — to actually consult with them, to discuss with them the possibility that the representative union that they have chosen would no longer be able to represent them because of something we did in this House?
I say "we" because we're stuck with the decision collectively. Oh, there'll be lots of us who'll vote against it, but people will just talk about the politicians who did this.
Did anyone ever think that it was the right thing to do? We talk about changing the nature of this place. We talk about improving it. We talk about dialogue and openness and transparency and doing all these good things. Yet in something as fundamental as the right to be represented, the government has chosen, for whatever reason, to deny that to these workers.
The minister was very brief this morning. Perhaps that's because she didn't think it was appropriate, or she wanted to give more time to the opposition, or there were other speakers going to follow on the government side who will explain why the government has chosen to do this. I'm trying to be optimistic and positive.
Perhaps the member for Chilliwack or perhaps the member for Shuswap now — who has less burden, given his lack of ministerial responsibilities — may wish to jump into the debate. I noticed him making notes earlier this morning. I'm sure he wants an opportunity to say a few words. I'll be flattered if he quotes a few of mine back to me. I'm always happy to be recognized by the member for Shuswap. I enjoyed a close relationship with his predecessor, Shannon O'Neill, a fine member for that constituency, a longtime committed citizen — she and her late husband, Len.
But if none of them stand up and explain why or give an explanation or a reason, what does it say about the Apology Act, which was passed with such fanfare in this Legislature? It was put forward, as I recall, as a private member's bill by Mr. Mayencourt, who actually has a position with the Liberal caucus now. I'm sure one of the members there will whisper across to me exactly what that position is.
The concept of that act was: if you did something that was wrong, shouldn't you be able to do what we were taught in school, what our parents tried to teach us, what elders in our community have always tried to teach us? That is to simply say, "I'm sorry. I did something wrong. I didn't do this right. I'm sorry," and to be able to say it without legal consequence.
We've got law. We've actually got legislation that enables you to do that. So I'm just wondering at what point in this debate — and this debate will continue for a little while — will one of the hon. members, given that the minister hasn't availed herself of that opportunity, stand up and say to the members of the Hospital Employees Union: "I'm sorry. We're sorry. We didn't do this right. We could have done a better job. We shouldn't have tossed this bill into the Legislature without speaking to you."
I mean, hon. Speaker, forgive me, but I think it's fairly well known that government on the other side has access to a great deal of technology. We've all got BlackBerrys. Staff have BlackBerrys. I mean, communications flow everywhere. They appear to flow out of the Premier's office and the B.C. Liberal Party with great regularity on issues of importance. They fly back and forth between members on the other side.
So what's the excuse for someone not being able to pick up something as old-fashioned as a telephone and phoning Mr. Elkins, Bonnie Pearson, Donisa Bernardo, Mike Old — a whole series of people over at HEU — and just saying: "By the way, this is what we're thinking of doing"?
"As the people affected by it, how do you feel about it? Do you agree with it? Is this going to be okay with you? Are you going to oppose us? Do you think it's right? Do you have an argument against what we're proposing to do?" Would it have been so difficult to do that, or to send a letter?
Now, I'm not a very good typist. I'll tell the members — they'll find amusement at this: I was one of those kids in high school who tried diligently with those typewriters. And they were old typewriters in my day. And I used to get a C-minus — but a G for effort. I did the best I could with my uncoordinated little fingers.
I'm just wondering: where's the lack of coordination? What's the excuse on the other side that somebody couldn't punch a few numbers in and call the Hospital Employees Union? I understand that their number is readily available. I understand that they have an office and officers and a place to communicate with them. This government, instead, chose not to. Why would you do that?
Hon. Speaker, I don't want to go back into the past too much, because I know the members opposite always want to dwell in the '90s. It's what they refer to as the dismal decade — which, even if one accepted their argument — I don't — is starting to look a whole lot better in 2013 to every British Columbian than it does to the members opposite.
[ Page 13379 ]
The last time government tried to do this — to make a change, a significant change — they actually consulted before those changes were made. That was prior to the last major restructuring of bargaining units in the late 1990s.
The government of the day, the New Democratic Party in power, struck two major inquiries to consult with stakeholders before implementing the structure. Consulted. Oh, they actually consulted. Maybe the result wasn't perfect. I have no idea. That's not the issue here this morning. But the fact is that the government did what is obvious to anyone who values the rights of workers to bargain collectively, who values democratic process, who actually knows, as I said earlier, just plain old-fashioned good manners.
It's inconceivable to me that a member of this chamber, for instance, who wanted to put up a fence around their property wouldn't at least go to their neighbour and say: "I'm going to put up a fence. How do you feel about that?"
Now, you've got the legal right to do it. You've got the authority to do it. It's your property; you're entitled to do it. But common courtesy dictates that you would go and let them know.
In this case, common courtesy could have been exercised very easily, but the government chose not to do it. Now, if this were the first time this government had done it — you know what? — so be it. Perhaps we'd be more forgiving. Perhaps the workers affected would be more forgiving. But we know that this isn't the first time. And it certainly isn't the first time this government has gone after or targeted the Hospital Employees Union.
Bill 29. If we want to talk about the past in this province, if we want to bring up the uncomfortable past, then I would think there is no term more charged in the recent history of collective bargaining in this province, in the recent history of labour law in this province than Bill 29. It was contentious, and on June 8, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the collective bargaining process is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this government, in essence, didn't do that.
We know that the legislation passed in 2002 basically enabled the province to tear up the Hospital Employees Union contract after they were promised that it wouldn't. It led to the layoff of 8,000 workers. We know on this side of the House, as do the people of this province, that many of those workers were single mothers with children.
Bill 37 two years later gave them a 15 percent pay cut to boot — those that had survived. We know that people who had been earning a decent living providing care to our seniors and those in need of health care around this province saw their wages cut, saw their positions eliminated and, as I say, finally ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Now, I don't know how the government feels. Corporal punishment was certainly meted out when I was very young but not anymore. We've accepted that being taken to the woodshed, figuratively or literally, was not exactly the best parenting. So if I may still use that phrase, the government got taken to the woodshed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Here we are with many of the members who supported that legislation still in this chamber, so they can't claim they weren't around. Many of those members are still here, who one would have thought would have learned the lesson that you don't impose something on people without at least some level of consultation.
So they went ahead, and they did it. It's a mess, and it ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. And here we are again today laying the seeds of discontent — potentially laying the ground for another court case; potentially laying the ground for further litigation and uncertainty; potentially destroying relationships in workplaces; helping drive a wedge between two unions, the Hospital Employees Union and the BCNU; and ultimately, helping to cause further disruptions in a health care system that we all rely on and that, notwithstanding the criticism that is levelled at it, is a hallmark of Canadian society, is something to be envied by the vast majority of people living today.
The government has chosen — in, as I say, one of the shortest bills I've ever seen — to push ahead without consultation. Now, I don't understand why they would do that. Is there some financial benefit to this? Or is it just as simple as: "If we put them all together in a little pot, jam them in, they'll be easier to deal with"?
Interjection.
L. Krog: My friend from Surrey says "disrespectful." That is probably the kindest language I could use — "disrespectful." So if it works for the government…. I guess they thought long and hard about it. They think this is best.
Going back to what I said at the start, on the presumption that they think this is good public policy, we on this side beg to differ. I look forward, with my eternal optimism, to someone over there explaining why this is good, why this is going to work, why this is right, why this is respectful, why it's fair and why it's the best thing to do.
But I suspect that I'm going to be sorely disappointed this morning. I don't think I'm going to hear one word from anyone on that side that justifies this bill. As short as it may be, as damaging as it is to the collective bargaining process and as disrespectful as it is to workers and the people who work in health care, I don't think that I'm going to hear one good reason for doing it.
Given that it's the dying days of this government, that is really, really over the top and disrespectful of the voters who will pass judgment on them on May 14. It's not the time to do this, not fair to workers, not fair to British
[ Page 13380 ]
Columbians. I'm surprised that they're doing it, because even in this moment of their existence as government, I would have expected more.
J. Les: It's a great pleasure to rise to speak to this legislation this morning. I must say, in response to my friend opposite, that this has not been his finest hour. We have just heard an exhibition of obfuscation the likes of which I don't think I've been treated to so far in my 12 years in this place. He's been entirely disingenuous and diversionary.
I, frankly, am somewhat at a loss to describe how he has failed to deal with the core of the issue but has tended to talk about a great deal of other things, most of which are completely irrelevant to the bill. I suspect that what is at issue here is that that member and the fellow members with him on that side of the House are under pretty clear instructions by the likes of Jim Sinclair and Judy Darcy that they must not under any circumstances support this bill.
We're all aware that the BCNU conducted what is called rating in union parlance, and they successfully convinced the licensed practical nurses to leave the HEU and join the BCNU. So what we're talking about here is simply recognizing the results of a democratic process.
Now, what is it about that that the members opposite don't get? We know that they're not particularly fond of democratic processes. We know that. We have heard the Labour critic, for example, talking about a card-check system as preferable to a secret ballot. So we know that the democratic processes are something that they're not always comfortable with.
But here we have had a secret ballot process by members of the licensed practical nurses across the province — some 8,200 of them. And in very significant numbers, they have supported taking their union memberships to the BCNU.
Just to put on the record some of the percentages by which they voted to join the BCNU, let me read them out to you. In the Fraser Health Authority, 69 percent of the licensed practical nurses opted to join the BCNU. In Interior Health, it was 65 percent. In Northern Health, it was 65 percent.
In Providence Health Care, 76 percent of the LPNs opted for the BCNU. In Vancouver Coastal Health, it was 70 percent. And in the Vancouver Island Health Authority, it was 74 percent in favour of joining the BCNU.
It seems to me a very clear democratic expression of what these nurses wanted to do, and for the life of me, I cannot understand how members opposite can stand up this morning and talk at great length, as the member from Nanaimo just did. It just totally defies me as to what it is about this expression of democracy that they don't like. But you know….
Deputy Speaker: Member, I just want to caution you that I've looked up the term "disingenuous," which you used earlier, and I would ask you to withdraw that comment, please.
J. Les: I'm sorry, if the use of the word "disingenuous" is unparliamentary. If it is, then I'll attempt to not use that and any other long words in the future, Madam Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: It's not the length of the word, Member; it's the meaning of the word. So please withdraw.
J. Les: I will withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you.
J. Les: It is clear that we've had a democratic expression by a significant group of workers in this province. Members opposite are, frankly, under orders not to support this legislation.
The member opposite, the member for Nanaimo, drew attention to the fact that this is a very short bill. You know, the validity of bills is in no way governed by how long or how short they are. He went into numerous other arguments of that nature, all of which are irrelevant.
We know that in the union world, raiding of one union on another is something that is frowned upon, as much as it might be a democratic process. But in this case, the BCNU obviously put forward a case to the licensed practical nurses and said: "Come over and join us." It seems, with an average vote of approximately 70 percent, the licensed practical nurses said: "Yes, we wish to join the BCNU."
All this legislation does is respect that democratic expression — full stop.
I'm interested in the fact that the Health critic is not here this morning and other members that I would have thought would be speaking out.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Member.
Point of Order
B. Ralston: The member well knows that the absence of members from the chamber is not to be referred to. He knows that. He ought to know that. He's been here a long time. He seems to be intent on ignoring the rules this morning.
J. Les: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I'll accept the guidance on that point.
[ Page 13381 ]
Debate Continued
J. Les: I hope later on this morning we'll hear from the Labour critic, for example, to see whether he might have some points that he wishes to elaborate on.
But let's be clear, in the organized labour world, the success that the BCNU has had in attracting these new members to their union is not popular. It is something that Jim Sinclair and Judy Darcy have been totally outspoken about. It is those two, in particular, that the members opposite are responding to. We on this side of the House, on the other hand, are totally supportive of the democratic expression of the members of the licensed practical nurses in British Columbia.
Obviously, if the vote had been held and it had turned out that less than 50 percent of the LPNs wished to join the BCNU, this legislation would not be here. But there was a very significant majority of the licensed practical nurses who opted to join the BCNU. It is that that we are giving effect to with this bill.
We are saluting democracy. We're giving effect to it, and I am totally disappointed that members opposite would not stand up and support this legislation.
B. Ralston: I rise to take my place in the debate on the bill that's before the House.
I listened carefully to the minister as she gave a very terse speech in beginning this debate. It was significant, in my view, that there was no real explanation of why this legislation is being advanced at this time and what problem it is intended to solve.
The minister said in her speech — I don't have Hansard, because it was only moments ago — that "government recognizes that it must consult," but that's the very issue that is missing from this bill. As the previous member, the member for Nanaimo, has pointed out, there was no consultation with another union, the Hospital Employees Union, nor was there any consultation with the B.C. Government Employees Union, who also represent employees in this sector.
It's not simply a case, I would suggest, of recognizing a vote that took place. There's also an obligation to consult the other unions that are involved in these bargaining structures. To create a bargaining structure in a field as complicated as health and the labour side of the health ministry and all that implies is no easy task.
Indeed, the present structure was created after two fairly extensive consultations in the 1990s, the Korbin Commission and the Dorsey Commission, who consulted exceptionally widely. Perhaps I can just quote from the letter of transmittal from Mr. Dorsey, who was the commissioner of the Health Sector Labour Relations Commission. The second paragraph in his letter dated June 30, 1995.
"Your government and the Labour Relations Board provided every assistance and cooperation to the commission. The affected unions participated vigorously and cooperatively in the process. The B.C. Federation of Labour, the Health Employers Association of British Columbia, the Public Sector Employers Council, the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, the greater Vancouver regional district and capital regional district provided valuable information, assistance and representations."
There were some recommendations which, after that process, were acted upon and enacted into law, and it is this act that flowed from that consultation for which the amendment is now before the House.
Given the breadth of consultation, the intricacy of the issues, the diverse parties who are affected, it's not simply a case of reflecting what the member for Chilliwack seems to think this legislation reflects only — the result of a representation vote that took place fairly recently. The obligation to consult is a broader one than that. Indeed, the absence of that broader consultation will, I fear, create an unstable environment that doesn't serve patients, nurses or anyone else.
The obligation to consult is not simply…. Although, in discourse in a civilized society, it's probably axiomatic that there should be that measure of exchange about legislation in this context, there's also a legal obligation to do that consultation. This government should know and reflect upon what took place when they last rushed through legislation in the health sector without the appropriate consultation.
That resulted in an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, one in which the Supreme Court of Canada — not a political party, not an editorialist but the Supreme Court of Canada — made a judgment which found that the actions of the government in bringing forward legislation and passing it through the House over the course of a weekend without any consultation that was in any way deemed sufficient by the Supreme Court of Canada violated the Canadian Charter of Rights, and the legislation was struck down.
This is something that goes beyond simply a political wish to have broader consultation, as sometimes is said. There's a legal obligation reposed in the government to engage in this type of consultation. The danger of this legislation is that…. I appreciate that there have been discussions with the….
Deputy Speaker: Member, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake seeks to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
R. Fleming: Apologies to the member for Surrey-Whalley for interrupting the flow of his comments, but I wanted to introduce, while they're here, 22 grade 5 students from a wonderful school in my constituency. They
[ Page 13382 ]
all attend Selkirk Montessori School. They are here today with Ms. Noel Leite, their teacher, as well as eight adults who are with them today. They are having a wonderful tour in the precinct. I hope the House will make them all welcome here while they attend the House.
Debate Continued
Hon. P. Bell: Earlier the Speaker ruled that the word "disingenuous" is one that should not be used in the House. I'm, frankly, indifferent on whether it should be or shouldn't be. But I did do a quick word search in Hansard and found that it has been used many, many times in this House over the decades. I'd just ask that it be referred to the Speaker for a decision so that all members of the House will know whether or not that's an acceptable word.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.
The member for Surrey-Whalley continues.
B. Ralston: I was speaking about the Supreme Court of Canada decision. In the citation of that decision is Health Services and Support–Facilities, Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007, Supreme Court of Canada, page 27.
Let me quote from the judgment — this is the judgment of Madam Justice McLachlin — just so that the members opposite don't suggest that this is some interpretation that I am glossing. Rather, this is a direct quote from the decision itself, the words of the Supreme Court of Canada:
"There was no meaningful consultation with unions before it became law. The government was aware that some of the areas affected by Bill 29 were of great concern to the unions and had expressed a willingness to consult. However, in the end consultation was minimal. A few meetings were held between representatives of the union and government on general issues relating to health care. These did not specifically deal with Bill 29 and the changes that it proposed.
"Union representatives expressed their desire to be further consulted. The Minister of Health Services phoned a union representative 20 minutes before Bill 29 was introduced in the Legislative Assembly to inform the union that the government would be introducing legislation dealing with employment security and other provisions of existing collective agreements. This was the only consultation with unions before the act was passed.
"In British Columbia the collective bargaining structure in the health services is sectoral. Thus, the act affects labour relations between health sector employers and their unionized employees. A health sector employer is defined under the act as a member of the Health Employers Association of British Columbia, HEABC, established under section 6 of the Public Sector Employers Act and whose employees are unionized.
"The HEABC is an employers association accredited to act as the representatives of its members in the bargaining process with health sector employees. Members of the HEABC are hospitals and other employers designated by regulation, including employers in the health sector receiving a substantial amount of funding from the Ministry of Health. Therefore, while the act applies mainly to public sector employers, it also applies to some private sector employers."
This is the finding of fact of the court. What the court says, and I think that it's worth noting, is that a few meetings were held. These did not specifically deal with Bill 29. Union representatives expressed their desire to be further consulted. This change to the bargaining structure…. I'm going on what I've been advised.
Two of the unions that are affected were not consulted at all. Never mind a few meetings — they weren't consulted at all. That's their position. I stand to be corrected by the minister if that's wrong, but, certainly, that's what I'm advised. So if that is the position, there was even more minimal consultation than there was in the impugned process referred to by the Supreme Court of Canada in this decision.
This process seems to be proceeding with haste. The legislation, the timetable, appears to be rushed. I'm not sure, and it's not clear from the minister's very brief explanation, why it's urgent that this be done now, as opposed to some other time, and what the timetable that the government is operating on as opposed to any other timetable, given the legal obligation on the government to consult with the unions affected.
It's striking, really, that once again the government seems to be running the risk…. Perhaps that's a risk they're prepared to take. I'm not sure. Once again, the minister hasn't addressed this in her very brief remarks at the outset of this. She hasn't addressed the risk that the government appears to be running in bringing this legislation forward in this way. So one wonders what motivates the timing of this legislation.
It's not only that. The decision does go on — because it's a leading decision on defining the scope of collective bargaining in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's not simply an obligation to consult; it's part and parcel of a Charter obligation that reposes on the government as part of collective bargaining.
The right to bargain collectively is recognized as part of the Charter freedom, of the freedom of association, and that's the basis on which the decision was made. These are important rights that exist in law in Canada as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. So it's not just a question of: "Oh, the NDP is saying that you should talk to these people, but it's not really necessary." It goes far beyond that, and there is, I would submit, an obligation to engage in that kind of consultation.
The government runs a real risk of engendering instability, litigation, which is all rather needless if the government would simply do what would be obvious, I would think. Perhaps…. I'm not sure what kind of legal advice they get in bringing this legislation forward, but if they were to take that kind of advice and engage in the necessary consultation….
The obligation to consult is defined in the legislation as well. Perhaps I can just refer to the decision again. In paragraph 100 of the decision:
[ Page 13383 ]
"A basic element of the duty to bargain in good faith is the obligation to actually meet and to commit time to the process." As explained by Adams: "The failure to meet at all is, of course, a breach of the duty. A refusal to meet unless certain procedural preconditions are met is also a breach of the duty. A failure to make the commitment of time or preparation required to attempt to conclude an agreement is a failure to make reasonable efforts."
Then in paragraph 101 the court continues:
"The parties have an obligation to engage in meaningful dialogue, and they must be willing to exchange and explain their positions. They must make a reasonable effort to arrive at an acceptable contract."
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
As Cory J. said in Royal Oak Mines v. Canada:
"In the context of the duty to bargain in good faith, a commitment is required from each side to honestly strive to find a middle ground between their opposing interests. Both parties must approach the bargaining table with good intentions.
"Nevertheless, the efforts that must be invested to obtain the agreement are not boundless. The parties may reach a point in the bargaining process where further discussions are no longer fruitful. Once such a point is reached a breaking off of negotiations or the adoption of a take-it-or-leave-it position is not likely to be regarded as a failure to bargain in good faith."
So there is a defined legal limit to the legal obligation to consult and to bargain.
Given all that, given this clear enunciation by the Supreme Court of Canada, it's not clear to me why the minister apparently has failed to even talk in any way with two of the unions affected by this change in the bargaining structure in the health sector.
Now, it would be serious…. And it is serious, given what I would regard as arguably a breach of the duty that the government is obliged to follow, which has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
But on top of that, what we know from some of the exchange that's taken place recently in the public from those involved as employers. The chairs and presidents of the six provincial health authorities — and I'm quoting a letter of February 20, 2013 — who expressed…. This is a letter signed by Lynda Cranston, who's the president and CEO of the Provincial Health Services Authority; Dr. Robert Halpenny, president and CEO, Interior Health Authority; Dr. Nigel Murray, president and CEO, Fraser Health Authority; Dr. David Ostrow, president and CEO, Vancouver Coastal Health; Cathy Ulrich, president and CEO, Northern Health Authority; Howard Waldner, president and CEO, Vancouver Island Health Authority.
It's a rare, perhaps, unanimity and a public position taken by the leaders, the executive, the CEOs of the health authorities of the province, who've expressed concern about aspects of this process. Now, admittedly, part of what this process was initially directed to, at least in the public realm, was the idea that there might be a ten-year collective agreement between the Health Employers Association and the BCNU. These CEOs expressed a concern about that process. But this also is relevant to the issue of the change in bargaining structure, because some of the same concerns, at least from what can be gleaned from this letter, would appear to still apply.
In the letter, signed by all of these six CEOs, they say:
"It appears that there may be certain restrictions in the proposed agreement to the renegotiations of elements of the proposed agreement during the term of the agreement. This may deny us the ability to respond to the needs of the system, new technology, different care delivery models and service innovations. We have also learned that binding arbitration may be the mechanism that would resolve periodic reopeners under the agreement. We do not have any direct knowledge of the content of any proposed agreement, but in our discussions a number of other issues have arisen."
They go on to talk about some of those issues. Most of those are related to the proposed term of a collective agreement. But they also go on to say in a subsequent paragraph:
"Our concern is that we are charged with managing health care in the province in a constrained financial environment. Any benefits that may arise from any health system redesign should be applied to the cost of providing care. It is also clear that separate wage rates and conditions of employment must continue to apply to LPNs as they are integrated into the BCNU bargaining unit. It would be irresponsible to allow a third party to determine compensation under the agreement."
While recognizing the reality, and it's not quarrelled with here, of the representation vote that took place, there are certain implications of that vote that the CEOs are concerned about. One bears directly on the financial management of the system, which is in a period of financial constraint. This letter was written in advance or very near…. I'm not sure that the rate of increase of health spending which was set out in the budget had been fully digested at the point that this letter was written. But certainly, the challenges that are set out in the budget in terms of a lower rate of increase in health spending than the government has previously achieved in the last ten years would add to this concern about how the benefits of this change in representation are to be reintegrated into the financial model of the health authorities.
They've expressed some real concern about that. So one wonders. Here we have affected unions not being consulted in accordance with, in my view, a legal obligation to do so. You have CEOs of all the affected health authorities expressing serious concern about how this would impact their ability to financially manage effectively and efficiently the health system they are charged with managing.
So not only on one side, a failure to consult unions; a failure on the other side to apparently consult those who are charged with managing the system. I appreciate that there has been some consultation with the BCNU. I don't quarrel with that. Certainly, that's a legitimate representation of the members that the BCNU is involved in. But there is a broader obligation, in my view, to undertake that broader consultation before this legislation is brought before the House.
The minister has even acknowledged that. She says
[ Page 13384 ]
that government recognizes it must consult. But surely the time to do the consultation is before the legislation is introduced, debated. I suppose, certainly, the intention of the government would be to pass the legislation. Surely, the time to do that is before the legislation is introduced in the House.
Once again, one questions the effect, the thought and the timetable on which the government is operating. The process here, in a very fundamental way, is a bad one. It's flawed, will not serve the long-term interests of the health sector, will not serve the long-term interests of patients or nurses or anyone else. Really, given the history of inquiries and thoughtful discussion and recommendations of how bargaining structures should be fashioned in the health sector, this is a very rash and precipitous move and won't lead to any good.
I hope that the minister, perhaps not in the Legislature but perhaps at some other opportunity, when confronted with an opportunity to explain it to the public and the media, will explain why this failure to consult. Why are health employers expressing such serious and grave concern about what's taking place? Why are some of the affected unions completely shut out of this process?
It's a mystery to many of us. There's obviously speculation. I don't think it's something that I want to engage in here. I'd rather give the minister an opportunity, here in the Legislature, while discussing this bill, to explain why. So far, the explanation that has been offered is really not an explanation at all.
I hope I've made it clear, lest anyone be mistaken, that I'm speaking in opposition to this bill and for the reasons that I have set out. It's a serious matter. This legislation is deeply flawed, will lead to further instability in the health sector, to litigation and who knows what other consequences.
There's still an opportunity. The minister can…. After second reading, we can deal with it in another way — perhaps withdraw the legislation and make a public commitment to consultation. Who knows? In this charged political environment, the commitment to consultation may serve the electoral fortunes of the government. But that's, perhaps, gratuitous political advice that I'm sure they won't take.
With those brief comments on this bill, I conclude my remarks.
G. Abbott: I rise to offer my comments on Bill 18. I guess, in particular, I'd like to respond to a little bit of what has been said by the members for Nanaimo and Surrey-Whalley. They are, of course, two of the finer orators in this assembly, and I'm always humbled to be providing my humble offering after orators of this like have held their place. So it's a pleasure to be with you.
With respect, though, to the comments of the member for Nanaimo and the member for Surrey-Whalley, it seemed to me that what I was hearing was, in fact, a very grand series of arguments in search of a hypothesis.
I was interested, particularly at the conclusion of the comments by the member for Surrey-Whalley, that the opposition is opposed to this bill and, presumably, will be recording that opposition in a divided vote later in the session.
I certainly hadn't until that point been clear about whether the opposition would or would not be opposing the bill. What I was hearing was the pursuit of the time-honoured debate strategy: if one isn't sure about opposing the product, then criticize the process. Certainly what has been undertaken here is concern around the process, as opposed, I think, to what I hope is not opposition to the product — which is a group of workers in British Columbia making their decision about who they wish to represent them in their labour relations.
Surely it remains fundamental in this province that groups of workers can select who they wish it is to represent them. The suggestion I think we heard here earlier on was that somehow this was a new issue, that somehow this had not been the object of some considerable discussion by the LPNs of this province, by the Hospital Employees Union, by the B.C. Nurses Union for years.
This may in many ways be an awkward debate, perhaps particularly for the official opposition. Nevertheless, it is a debate that we in this chamber, I think, must respect. It is not for me to say, it is not for the member for Nanaimo to say, and it is not for the member for Surrey-Whalley to say whether the LPNs, the licensed practical nurses, of this province should be represented by the Hospital Employees Union or by the B.C. Nurses Union. Surely it is to the members of the licensed practical nurses to decide who it is that they wish to represent them.
I am certain that it was not an easy call for the LPNs of this province. I know this is a discussion that has gone on for a long time.
I had the honour of being the Minister of Health in British Columbia for four very long years. During those four years I had the pleasure of meeting on many occasions with the leadership of both the Hospital Employees Union and the B.C. Nurses Union. Both of those unions work very hard each and every day to represent the interests of their members. They are both excellent organizations who do their very best to advance the interests of their members, whether it's in collective bargaining or in the day-to-day work of those unions. They do the very best to advance the interests of their unions.
But even in those years, 2005-2009, the question of licensed practical nurse affiliation with, potentially, the BCNU, the HEU or even, on occasion, the BCGEU was an object of much discussion and certainly the object at times of much-heated debate, both among LPN members and, of course, within the labour family — broadly, the question of raiding, etc.
There's lots of debate around this, and it has gone on
[ Page 13385 ]
for many years. It hasn't been, again, an easy debate, and I'm sure for some it has been an awkward debate.
The central point is this. It is not for me, as the member for Shuswap, nor for the member for Nanaimo, nor for the member for Surrey-Whalley, nor for any member of this Legislature to say who ought to represent the thousands of licensed practical nurses in this province. It is to LPNs to make that decision. Surely it is their choice, and surely we ought to be respecting that choice in this assembly.
So let's pose the question. Have the licensed practical nurses of this great province had the opportunity to express their views? Have they had the opportunity after that debate within the ranks of the licensed practical nurses…? Have they had a formal opportunity to conclude whether they wish to be affiliated with the B.C. Nurses Union or affiliated with the HEU?
The answer to that, importantly, is yes. They have had that opportunity. The vote was held in October of 2012. It was administered by the Labour Relations Board, and to my knowledge, no one has in any way questioned the legitimacy or authority of the conduct of that LRB-administered vote.
Again, I want to say this, because both the HEU and the BCNU are excellent organizations. I suspect this was a remarkably difficult choice for licensed practical nurses to make. I'm sure it was a hugely difficult choice. Nevertheless, in October of 2012 some 69 percent of British Columbia's thousands of licensed practical nurses voted in favour of representation within the B.C. Nurses Union. That was their choice. It was made in a secret ballot. It was made without fear or favour. It was made by them as their decision, as workers in this province, that they would be represented by the B.C. Nurses Union. That is what this House needs to respect and needs to respect in terms of our vote on Bill 18.
This did not happen overnight. The BCNU applied to the LRB back in 2011 for the opportunity to represent B.C.'s LPNs. The vote, as I noted, was held in October of 2012, and 69 percent of LPNs voted for representation by the BCNU. This bill, in 2013, gives expression to the wishes of the great majority of British Columbia's licensed practical nurses in this province.
Whether this outcome is awkward for me or whether this outcome is awkward for the member for Nanaimo or the member for Surrey-Whalley doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to this debate whether we think the decision was the right one or the wrong one.
It is the LPNs who weighed the merits and, I'm sure, the potential drawbacks of affiliation with the B.C. Nurses Union. They are the ones that weighed it. They are the ones that looked at this. They are the ones that made the decision, and it is to this House, for us, to give expression to that in Bill 18. The LPNs of British Columbia have spoken, and it is to this House that we respect the wishes of the LPNs of B.C.
S. Hammell: I am pleased to join the debate on Bill 18, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013. To be clear to the members in the chamber, I want to be absolutely clear that I am speaking in opposition to this bill.
I respect the member opposite, who says that there is process and there is product. But the process is every bit as important in the long run as the product. I will, later on in my speech, speak of a failed process that did end up in the Supreme Court — a process that was initiated by the government and at the Supreme Court level had to be rectified.
The member also speaks of choice. Of course, all of us in this Legislature understand the democratic process and the results of the democratic process. But in this chamber we must also respect the choice of members to choose the organization that they want to represent them.
Bill 18 amends the definition of "nurse" in section 19.1 of the Health Authorities Act to "specify that nurses are authorized to practise under the Health Professions Act," and to "include licensed practical nurses so that they are in the same bargaining unit as the other nurses specified in the definition." As the members before have said and as I will do also, to be very specific, section 19.1 of the Health Authorities Act is amended by deleting some text and adding others.
A "nurse" means a person who is authorized under the Health Professions Act to practise in British Columbia as a registered nurse or a licenced practical nurse or registered psychiatric nurse who works on a job for which the authorization is a requirement of the employer, etc. It seems innocuous at first glance, but the consequences are huge and affect many people.
This amendment would transfer approximately 8,200 licensed practical nurses from the multi-union Facilities Bargaining Association, FBA, to another bargaining unit — a sleight-of-the-pen legislation in the dying hours of a discredited government. And changes are made without consulting the people who are affected.
Hon. Speaker, we have seen this movie before. In 2002 we saw Bill 29 placed in this House — legislation that was disrespectful in the extreme — and that action ended up in a Charter challenge in the Supreme Court. Bill 29. In the case that pitted B.C. health unions against highly contentious labour legislation, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled June 8, 2007, that the collective bargaining process is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now, it has been mentioned before that power in a democracy is not singularly placed. In fact, most of us in a democracy have personal power, but often we belong to institutions that have institutional power. The collective bargaining process is a passing around of power to the collective process. Unions have power and rights to bargain on behalf of their workers. The workers have the
[ Page 13386 ]
power, or should have the power, to choose the unions that they want to represent them.
It is not the product; it is the process. If you suggest that LPNs have the right to choose BCNU, then the LPNs who choose to work with HEU or BCGEU also have that right. You can't have it both ways.
The law passed by this government in 2002 allowed the province to tear up a contract, and that led to the layoff of more than 8,000 unionized health workers. That's the history. That's the context in which we are having this discussion. Two years later, under Bill 37, the government imposed a 15 percent pay cut on the health care workers. This is not a pay cut on highly paid workers. This is a pay cut on unionized workers that are in the health care system.
You know, hon. Speaker, I do have to wonder why this government would want to raise that spectacle in 2013. Why would you bring that back into the House so that we can talk about how bad that process was and then follow up with a process that echoes entirely of that past?
Bill 29 was a disgrace. It was an absolute disgrace, and that disgrace was echoed by the judgment in the Supreme Court. That act laid off more women…. It was the largest layoff of women in the history of this province — the largest layoff of a single group within this province. The majority of those women who were laid off were immigrant women, women who had come to this country and settled here in an effort to raise their children.
In my years in office I have spoken to many people who have chosen to come to this country. By far, the majority have moved here because they want to create a better life for their family and their children. They come from India. They come from Pakistan. They come from the Philippines. We know that they come from everywhere to this country. That act, Bill 29, targeted…. The result was that women from the immigrant community were, largely, the recipients of the layoff notices.
I remember, so distinctly, in 2005 campaigning on the doorsteps and hearing this issue over and over again. I remember one woman who described from the top of her stairs that the government had gone into her back pocket and taken out, every hour, $5 of her paycheque.
These were not the wealthy people in our country and in our province. These were people who had worked hard for their money that they brought home. Their labour was disparaged, their worth devalued. In our country their only recourse was to go through their union to the Supreme Court of Canada, where their grievance was recognized.
A better ethnic strategy than the quick fixes suggested in the multicultural plan would be to start with treating people with the respect and dignity that begins here in this House, and it begins with consultation.
Most people I know — and, I assume, those members across the aisle — know that there is a hierarchy of income in our country. This is also true within the genders. It is prevalent with women. On the bottom of the income scale are aboriginal women, disabled women and immigrant women. When making public policy, the government has a responsibility to understand the impacts. I have to assume, then as now, that the government understands perfectly the consequences of this bill and has chosen not to consult, rather than to consult.
The Supreme Court said that the denial of the right to negotiate around the issue of contracting out in health care was unconstitutional, and the court found the provisions in the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act dealing with layoffs and bumping rights also restricted the union's right to collective bargaining. The Supreme Court justices said there was little evidence that the government had made any meaningful effort to consult with the unions before bringing in the legislation.
A professor of labour law at the University of Victoria said the ruling meant that governments have "room to manoeuvre," but "if they are going to change existing collective bargaining agreements, they have a duty to meet with the union."
HEU is the lead union in the FBA, representing the majority of workers in the bargaining unit, including 1,200 LPNs. BCGEU represents LPNs in both the facility and community subsectors. They have about 150 in facilities, and they are the lead union in community, with 270 LPNs there.
The Supreme Court has said that the government has a duty to make meaningful effort to consult with the unions before bringing in legislation. Where is the consultation? Where is the consultation that legitimizes this legislation?
The Bill 29 ruling makes it clear that there is that duty to consult before making this type of change, and there has been no consultation that we know of with these two unions. As was mentioned prior by the member for Surrey-Whalley, all six health authorities sent a letter to the HEABC and media calling attention to the contract negotiations being held behind their backs and without their consent.
On Monday, February 25, 2013, the Minister of Health said that she believes a push by the BCNU for legislation to reclassify the LPNs was part of what precipitated the informal talks on the long-term deal. So you have the HEABC saying there are negotiations going on and they're unaware of it. You have conversations on the side talking about how a long-term deal might facilitate reclassifying the LPNs. And all of this is going on with the major authorities not understanding or not being aware of it at all.
It sounds like the government saw something that the union wanted and tried to leverage this into a discussion on contract resolution, despite the fact that having this
[ Page 13387 ]
discussion without the employers' knowledge is against the constitution and the bylaws of the HEABC.
In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled several provisions of the legislation to be unconstitutional and noted the government's lack of consultation with the affected unions as a major factor in their decision. It seems to me that we should linger here, because the core of the process that we are opposing is the lack of consultation with those people affected.
Consultation is what I consider the primer of good government. In fact, it's the primer of good relationships — period. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about government or we're talking about families.
If you consult, you signal a number of key things immediately. You signal that you value somebody else's opinion. You're signalling respect for other people and other institutions and that you believe them to be credible and to have some ability to participate in the decision-making process.
When you share decisions or consult around decisions — the clichés are actually believable — I believe that you get better decisions. If you choose to believe that you can just jam through a decision that affects other people without consulting them, the absolutely predictable reaction is one of negativity because what you are doing is signalling disrespect.
When I was teaching, one of the very best principals I ever worked under was a woman called Beth Leulier. She's an amazing woman even to this day. What Beth did, as a matter of course and habit, was when she went into a decision, she consulted with everyone whom that decision impacted. She would consult with the kids, the students. She'd consult with her staff. She'd consult with the parents. Through that whole process — and that is a process that is on the table here…. When you consult, you get a better decision. She was highly, highly respected. She knew the power of owning the decisions by the community.
One thing that has been mentioned, and I do think it's worth repeating, is that you cannot consult after the fact. Once you put it out there, there is some automatic need for you to support the process and the decision that you have put out.
You can't put a decision out and say, "This is a decision I've made, but I'm going to consult you after," because it doesn't ring true. It's not believable that you would then take into your thoughts the positions that other people might give to you or present to you.
I do, in closing, just have to say that I wonder: why would you do this? Why would the government come in at the very end of its time…? We're hours or days away from adjourning, where we will move into an election. There will be a new government, either a government from that side or a government from this side. But it will be a new government. Why you would bring in a contentious piece of legislation, which is completely flawed in terms of the process, and hang your arguments on choice is beyond me — when you're giving some people a choice and other people no choice at all. The flawed centre of it all is your lack of consultation with the people that are affected.
There is a process, and there is a product. Both are important. Both are absolutely critical to, in the end, having good legislation and good government. I see that, in my mind, this process is deeply, deeply flawed. Therefore, I stand in opposition to this bill.
R. Hawes: Earlier this morning the Speaker said that the word "disingenuous" is unparliamentary. Rather than using the word "disingenuous," I think I'll just say that any word you can think of that would be synonymous would fit the arguments coming from the other side.
First and foremost, this bill does not contract any labour out. It does not have anything to do with bumping. There's no bumping. There are no layoffs. There are no changes in wages — nothing like that.
Yet argument after argument is coming from the other side…. You know, let's talk about why. Let me make what the true argument is, by saying that I'm now a member of the other side, and I'm just going to be very factual about why I oppose this.
The B.C. Nurses Union does not make financial contributions to any political party. But the other two big unions, the HEU and the BCGEU, do make substantial financial contributions to — pretending I'm an NDPer — my party. Why, then, would I want to make my supporters angry?
Those on the other side often point at us and say: "Oh, you're just supporting those that contribute financially to you." What's going on here? It has nothing to do with Bill 29. It has nothing to do with the past. Actually, this has a lot to do with the democratic rights to free choice. Surely, the members opposite don't oppose that.
I have heard the critic for Labour on the other side say on the radio, on CKNW, that it's very likely they will look quickly at disposing of the secret ballot in union votes. You know, the fundamental core of democracy — the absolute fundamental core — is the secret ballot. The secret ballot leaves all people free from intimidation — all people. That's what this is about.
The LPNs have voted in big numbers — 70 percent. Pretty much 70 percent of that membership has voted by secret ballot. That's a very fundamental part of this. They have voted to move from one bargaining unit to another, to a bargaining unit that better represents what they actually do on the ground.
They are nurses. Isn't it strange that nurses would want to be in the same bargaining unit as other nurses? My goodness, what a unique thought that is. This is just a little simple to me, and it should be to the other side, if
[ Page 13388 ]
they were honest about it.
The truth is that by secret ballot, one group has decided who will represent them. I'm not sure how the Steelworkers took over from the IWA, but I didn't hear any howls of protest on the other side when that took place, and I assume it was by a vote.
They talk a lot about consultation. This bill enables the move of these workers to be where they want to be. But before that move takes place there will be…. I think you'll hear the minister when she wraps up the debate here. I think you'll hear her say — and commit — that the government is going to go into extensive consultations with the BCGEU, with the HEU, with all concerned to make sure this works for all parties.
Now, the unions that are losing membership are going to lose those dues. Of course they're going to be angry about it. But the dues will be paid to another union. It has nothing to do with who gets what money. If we make it that way, I think we're being very unfair to workers in this province. It's disrespectful, actually, of workers in this province to be really concerned about which union is getting the cash from their membership. It's all about the choice of workers to decide in a free democratic society.
They've made that choice. How can any member on the other side go home after standing up or supporting others that have spoken here on the other side…? How can you go home and look at yourself in the mirror and say: "I have been respectful to the LPNs. I have denied them free choice. I don't respect the secret ballot, and I don't respect the LPNs"? How can you do that?
This is democracy. This is Canada. This is British Columbia. You need to get with the program here and understand what democratic choice means.
As we move on in the argument, I expect to hear a lot more of the subterfuge, the red herrings that are thrown out, the straw men — "Oh, Bill 29," and "contracting out." All of that stuff has zero to do with this bill. Let's talk about the substance of this bill.
We are moving a set of workers who have decided by a free democratic vote who they wish to be represented by. We're going to allow them to move there. Pretty simple stuff.
It has nothing do with the other stuff, so please, on the other side, let's stop the subterfuge. What's synonymous with disingenuous? Perhaps spurious. Well, it's an argument in the self-interest of the New Democratic Party. It's politics. It's not about people. It's not about democracy. It's about the nasty part of politics, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
C. Trevena: I think the remarks by the member for Abbotsford-Mission show that this is all about politics. He has taken it around to a very base level. We are here, as my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers mentioned, in a truncated session. We're coming to the close of that session. We have a contentious piece of legislation that the government wants to jam through. You can use all the words you'd like. I would say that we've talked about what is parliamentary and not parliamentary language, but what is clearly political is this government's attempt to ram this bill through in the closing hours of its mandate as a government.
The member said that this has not got anything to do with democratic rights. It's got everything to do with democratic rights. It's got everything to do with openness and transparency and accountability. Fundamentally, we have two issues. We have health care. We're going to be talking about health care workers here. We cannot forget, in all this rhetoric here about what it is, Supreme Court decisions and everything else that I will talk about…. What we are talking about is the delivery of our health care, and our health care workers, our hard-working health care workers who are dealing with, against the odds, overcrowded hospitals and dealing with the long wait-lists.
I started this week by talking about the problems in Campbell River Hospital and the problems facing all health care workers, whether they be health assistants, whether they be licensed practical nurses, whether they be nurses, whether they be doctors, whether they be members of the HSE, radiographers, or working in a pharmacy. Our health care system is under stress, and this bill will do nothing to ease that stress, no matter what it says and no matter what this government is arguing about how it is only a small change and is only a reflection of some decisions.
This is a small bill, as colleagues on this side of the House have said. This is a small bill with a big import. There is no question about that. It is going to have an impact throughout the health professions and throughout our health care system. It is there, effectively, as a divisive bill. It is there putting politics front and centre, right at the last moments of this Legislature.
We have been discussing in this Legislature all week the need for openness, the need for transparency, the issues of how we can best tell people what is happening. I think this bill clearly, again, shows that this government — despite its rhetoric, again, on how it is going to be open, how it's going to be transparent — has effectively just given up the ghost and moved ahead with something that it wants to move ahead politically. For whatever reason, it wants to move ahead with this politically without going to a very decent way of working, which is consulting. Again, I have to quote my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers: "Consulting with people is at the foundation of all good decisions."
Being open on ideas, being open on where you want to go, but listening to other people and having an honest discussion, is vital for the strong foundation for anything. And nowhere is it more vital than in this Legislature, where we are crafting and creating and debating and
[ Page 13389 ]
passing legislation which will have an impact on thousands of people. If that legislation is founded on a faulty structure, it is going to be challenged. There are going to be problems with it.
We have seen this before. We are talking about — and I will refer to it again — the bills that were brought in, in 2003, the bills that actually crippled the sector, crippled the health employees union and ensured that thousands of people ended up with pay cuts. Others lost their jobs.
It's a lack of consultation. It's a lack of respect. This bill speaks to that lack of consultation and that lack of respect. I have to ask the Minister of Health: why on earth did she try and do this?
The opportunity was there. The opportunity for discussion is there. The opportunity for consultation is there. We've heard from other unions. They wanted to consult, and it's not new. Consultation isn't new. It has happened in the past when we have been talking about major changes to health bargaining. There has been consultation.
I know that the members opposite always laugh about what happened 20 years ago or so. I know it's two decades ago, and many of us were in very different places two decades ago. But at that time, when there were changes to health bargaining, there was thorough consultation.
There were two reports that happened, one in 1993 and one in 1995. These had an impact on the sector, and they came from lengthy consultation. In 1992-1993 there was the Korbin Commission of inquiry into the public service and public sector. It started in March 1992 — so 21 years ago. It's a long while ago, but it started 21 years ago and lasted until the final report was released 15 months later in June '93.
It had a review of human resource practices in British Columbia, which examined…. It was headed by the commissioner, Judi Korbin, and it examined practices in health, education and public service, colleges, universities, Crown corporations and community social service sectors. It was a huge, sweeping commission, but it was consultative. It took 15 months to consult.
So when you're talking for 15 months to develop the public service sector, as it then was, it was going to have buy-in. You're talking to all the people, all the players. You're going to have the buy-in, and that's what you need.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
The second report, the Dorsey Commission in 1994-95, took another year. This created Bill 48, published in June '94. The commission, established in January, was charged with inquiry into trade union representation and jurisdiction into the health sector in the context of transition to boards and councils. The report was delivered six months later. So it was a year in the making, and six months….
When this was put forward, you knew that it had had full debate, full consultation, and that there was as much transparency as possible in this, in something that was significant. So you were going to get buy-in. You were not going to be damaging the working relationships within the health sector. You were going to get something that had a strong foundation.
You don't get strong foundations with the way we are approaching this bill. The only reason I can think of that the Minister of Health has brought this in — as the member for Abbotsford-Mission said — is that it is political. It is all politics.
So we didn't get consultation. We didn't have any commissions on this. We didn't have any detailed inquiries on this as we would hope that we would see when we are moving on something that's so significant, that could impact…. We're talking about thousands of workers. It's not insignificant. We're talking about thousands of workers in the health care sector, workers who we see daily when we are in the system.
But we didn't see any consultation. I've got to say that it's not only the unions that weren't consulted. That is a big slight. It is a slight. These unions have represented workers. The members have voted to move to another union, but you still have the obligation to consult with those unions before you draft this legislation. Not only were the unions not consulted, but the health authorities themselves were left out of the discussion.
I mean, what can the minister be thinking of? We are ignoring not just the unions, which meant that the government may have a hate on for unions and may be willing just to ignore them and think they can ride by without having the decency and the courtesy to discuss this with unions. But you'd have thought that they would consult with the employers, with the health authorities, on this. But they, too, have been left out of the discussion.
Mr. Speaker, noting the time, I would like to reserve my right to continue my remarks in this debate and adjourn debate.
C. Trevena moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada