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)

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 44, Number 3

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2013

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Rick Atkinson. He's here, I believe, to listen to deliberations and debate on Bill 7. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I seek leave to table a report.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the report of Government's Response to the Report of the 2010 Judges Compensation Commission.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: I now call Motion 13.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 13 — GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
TO JUDGES COMPENSATION COMMISSION
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. S. Bond: I move Motion 13 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[Be it resolved that pursuant to section 6(2) of the Judicial Compensation Act the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Final Report of the 2010 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission as laid before this Assembly on February 20, 2013 as unfair and/or unreasonable for the reasons outlined in the Government Response to the Report of the 2010 Judges Compensation Commission filed in this House today; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

1. The recommended salary increase for April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 of an amount based on the cumulative change in the British Columbia Consumer Price Index (the "BC-CPI") over the preceding three-year period is rejected. The salary increase for April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 is set at 1.5%.

2. The recommended increase in the pension accrual rate for judges from 3% to 3.5% effective April 1, 2013 is rejected. The pension accrual rate is set at 3%.

[1005]

3. The recommended increase in the pension contribution period for judges from age 71 to age 75 effective April 1, 2011 is rejected. The end of the pension contribution period is set at age 71.

4. The recommendation that the cost of long-term disability benefits for judges over age 65 be separately funded by government outside of the budget of the Office of the Chief Judge is rejected. The cost of long-term disability benefits for these judges will remain within the budget of the Office of the Chief Judge.

5. The implementation date for the recommendation that judges be enrolled in the government flexible benefits plan is rejected. Instead of an implementation date of April 1, 2011, the judges will be enrolled in the government flexible benefits plan commencing September 1, 2013.

6. The recommendation that, effective April 1, 2011, the Senior Judges Program be expanded to increase the possible number of sitting days for senior part-time judges is accepted in part, with the following substitution:

The statutory limitation on a senior part-time judge's salary may be exceeded by no more than 20% when

i. the Chief Judge authorizes the senior part-time judge to sit in excess of that part-time judge's scheduled sittings for the year; and

ii. the extra sittings are necessary, in the Chief Judge's opinion, to meet urgent and unforeseen needs of the court, including needs arising from the illness or injury of another judge.

The recommended implementation date is accepted, as is the recommendation that the change should be reviewed after three years.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations contained in the report.]

I'd like to take a few moments to speak to this motion respecting compensation that is paid to the province's Provincial Court judges.

The process that is followed to determine judges' compensation is, very necessarily, different from collective bargaining. The reason for this is the need to ensure that judges are, and are seen to be, independent of government. Indeed, judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system. It is critical to our democracy so that anyone who is accused of a crime or challenges government before the courts can be sure that their case will be decided strictly on its own merit.

Instead of direct bargaining over judges' compensation, there is a process governed by the Judicial Compensation Act under which government and representatives of the judiciary make representations to independent commissions every three years. These commissions, in turn, make recommendations to government setting out what the commissions believe would be the appropriate salaries and benefits for judges.

Governments and legislatures are not bound to accept commission recommendations, but if they wish to depart from them, they must present reasons that satisfy a constitutional test that has been developed in case law over the years. Rejections of a commission recommendation must rely upon a commission recommendation, clearly articulated, and rational reason that rests upon a factual foundation.

In B.C. we have further provided in the Judicial Compensation Act that the government must find a recommendation to be unfair or unreasonable before it can be rejected. As members may recall, the assembly first dealt with the report of the 2010 Judges Compensation
[ Page 13484 ]
Commission in May 2011. This assembly voted unanimously in support of the response brought forward by government at that time, which rejected several recommendations made by the commission.

The provincial judiciary subsequently brought an application in B.C. Supreme Court for a judicial review of that response, which they are entitled to do. That review found that the reasons offered for the rejection of various recommendations by the commission did not meet the established constitutional test. As a result, the report was remitted back to government and this assembly for a second time.

Turning now to government's proposed response to the 2010 Judges Compensation Commission, I can say that responding to reports of this kind is challenging in many ways. Respect for the process for determining judicial compensation as an aspect of preserving judicial independence governs our decision-making, but so do the financial imperatives within which government must operate.

Following the judicial review of the first response to the 2010 commission, government has closely examined once again the commission's recommendations and the reasons that underlie them.

[1010]

We have considered what the commission said. In some cases, we agree with the recommendations; in others, we do not.

The commission makes 15 recommendations respecting judges' remuneration, benefits and allowances. As set out in the motion, we again propose that a number of the commission's recommendations be rejected. Detailed reasons are contained in the response documents that have been appended to the notice accompanying the motion, but I'd like to highlight some of the general principles that underlie those reasons.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the constitutional guarantee of a minimal acceptable level of judicial remuneration is not a device to shield judges from the effects of difficult economic times. We are clearly in such times today. Our government has worked very hard to balance the budget, and we have done so by making difficult decisions. We've had to make these decisions in fiscal circumstances that are significantly more constrained than was predicted when the 2010 Judges Compensation Commission was deliberating.

Budget deficits for the past two years exceeded the forecasts that were before the commission. Since that time, government has initiated a number of restraint measures to bring the budget back into balance. As part of the restraint measures government has implemented over the past few years, we have been very careful in limiting compensation increases paid by public funds. We have also initiated a freeze on new hirings in the public service and frozen the salaries of management employees.

If all of the 2010 judges compensation recommendations were to be accepted, the total cost to government in 2013-14 would be approximately $3.6 million. The largest components of the increase would be the commission's salary recommendation and its recommendations respecting the judges' pension plan.

I wish to make it very clear that the figures I am discussing concern the compensation paid to judges only. These are the only costs that have determined government's response to the commission's report. The commission's recommendation on salary was that judges should, after two years of no increases, receive an increase in 2013-14 that is equal to the last three years' worth of consumer price index increases. That cumulative increase is estimated today to be at 4.9 percent.

Government recommends that the assembly reject that recommendation and instead substitute an increase of 1.5 percent, which we estimate will be equal to or very close to the projected CPI increase for the fiscal year 2013-2014 only. As I mentioned, the 2010 commission based its recommendation on the fiscal forecasts available at the time, which have proven to be overly optimistic.

A second rationale for the commission's recommendations was to bring Provincial Court judges' compensation as close as possible to that of the superior courts. In reviewing the commission's report, it is clear that there is no compelling evidence to warrant such an approach. Applications to the Provincial Court from qualified lawyers continue to be strong, and the commission was unable to find persuasive evidence that the compensation disparity between the two levels of court is harming the Provincial Court.

In light of the fiscal circumstance facing the province, a recommendation of a modest increase in the salary of judges for the 2013-2014 year, following two years of no increase, is fair and reasonable. It recognizes the work of the provincial judiciary and, in particular, their role in the ongoing efforts to reform our justice system.

Government also recommends that the assembly accept some very minor benefit adjustments that would allow the judges to benefit from some of the programs available to others in the public sector, such as flexible benefit programs. But for the reasons outlined in the document accompanying the motion before us, we recommend that those adjustments begin at a later date than recommended by the commission.

That concludes my remarks, and I certainly welcome any comments by the opposition critic.

L. Krog: I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak actually in support of the government, for a change — not always the case with the opposition. [Applause.] Obviously, by the level of applause, the government is grateful for support from any corridor at this juncture in the session, and I'm pleased that they're so grateful for it.

[1015]

Having said that, conscious of my position as a lawyer
[ Page 13485 ]
and still a member of the bar in this province and not wishing to do anything that might inhibit my ability to practise in the future before the provincial judiciary…. Having disclosed that conflict, I feel comfortable now in making a few remarks about the motion before the House.

As the Attorney General pointed out, the original motion which was approved by this House was approved unanimously, and the concept of judicial compensation is one that presents great difficulty. But when one looks at it in a more global context and appreciating how fortunate we are to live in a society where judicial independence actually has real meaning, in comparison to societies where the judiciary is perhaps seen as less biased or not as independent, we are fortunate indeed.

I think most of us, as Canadians and British Columbians, are extremely grateful for the fact that we don't elect our judges. I always thought the concept of electing judges had really nothing to do with judicial independence. Indeed, they were completely at odds. I have never understood the process by which that is carried on in our neighbour to the south in many levels of their judiciary.

Having said that, the act itself is the guide. This Legislature has the ability to reject recommendations or to accept recommendations. Clearly, no one wishes to be seen to or, in fact, interfere with judicial independence. But we do not work in a vacuum in this place. We do not work in some stratosphere where we are able to be unconscious of all that goes on in society around us.

There are many British Columbians who have seen no compensation increases in the last few years, who indeed, have seen their employment disappear and their position in the middle classes, in fact, evaporate. That is an economic reality. Therefore, it is hard as representatives of the people who elect us to this high office to disregard or disabuse ourselves of the reality of the economy for British Columbians and the reality of the lives of many British Columbians. That reality in many cases is neither secure nor comfortable.

An appointment to the bench is a great honour, and I'm not surprised by what the Attorney General had to say this morning in terms of the numbers of applicants who are still seeking appointments to the Provincial Court bench. For many lawyers, it is still seen, quite rightly, as the crowning achievement of a career at the law, an opportunity to put into practise what they have learned in practice dealing with their clients, an opportunity to provide decisions and guidance to society, to all those who appear before them. So it is fundamentally a great honour and a privilege, just as it is to be elected to this chamber.

Nevertheless, we are all paid by the same citizens. It all comes out of general revenue, and governments and the Legislature have to be conscious of that. The compensation for the judiciary may indeed not seem reasonable, perhaps, in comparison to Supreme Court judges or the Court of Appeal, but that is not a problem this Legislature can solve.

What this Legislature can do is look at the facts as they exist in British Columbia, look at the ability of citizens to pay compensation for judges, to provide benefits to them, to ensure their judicial independence and to ensure that the justice system functions as well as it possibly can within the budgetary constraints that are imposed on all of us. As each of us must impose budgetary constraints in our personal lives, we in the Legislature likewise have to consider that proposition when it comes to judicial compensation.

This is a very unique situation. But there is no alternative other than that a decision be made in this chamber. I think, in the circumstances, what has been proposed is, in fact, reasonable. The judges last time, quite rightly, in the exercise of their abilities and rights, took this matter to court. The court came to a different conclusion than the Legislature.

The Legislature, I think wisely, is taking advice from the judiciary in this matter now, and thus the response to the report of the 2010 commission before us today and the motion. I think, in these circumstances, it is reasonable that both sides of the House support this motion, that it will hopefully heal any rift that might exist or be seen to exist between the legislative and the judiciary, in this legislative branch and the judiciary in this province. One would hope that would be the case.

[1020]

There are problems in our justice system. I don't wish to take an entirely partisan approach here this morning, but those problems are recognized by members on both sides of the House and by those who participate in the justice system. The judges have a unique and very important role to play in that — both in terms of making it work to ensure that justice is delivered in a timely way to British Columbians.

It is my sincere hope that the passage of this motion this morning will, in fact, put us back on track, so to speak, with the judiciary in this province and will encourage everyone to participate fully in the reforms that are necessary in order to assure that justice is given to British Columbia and our Provincial Court system.

I, for one, will be supporting this motion this morning.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. S. Bond: As always, I appreciate the thoughtful comments of the opposition critic. I think he's captured very articulately the issue that we grapple with in terms of the economic realities of the day — the importance of the judiciary in our province as another branch of government.

I very much appreciate his comments and the fact that
[ Page 13486 ]
he correctly points out that we are now responding to this for a second time and certainly paying attention to the comments made by the courts regarding this matter.

With that, I move Motion 13.

Motion approved.

R. Chouhan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: In the gallery we have three friends today — Bronwyn Barter, president of the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia; Rick Atkinson, regional vice-president; and Cameron Eby, provincial recording secretary. Please join me to give them a warm welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading of Bill 7, intituled Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — EMERGENCY AND HEALTH
SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am pleased to move second reading of the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013.

[D. Black in the chair.]

This legislation strengthens emergency health services in British Columbia. This will happen through enhanced coordination and collaboration. Previously, in the spring of 2010, our government introduced amendments which started the integration process. The end goal was to integrate ambulance and emergency health services in British Columbia more closely with the broader health care system.

The Emergency and Health Services Commission will carry on as British Columbia emergency health services. It will be fully aligned with the Provincial Health Services Authority family of programs and services.

British Columbians should know that B.C. emergency health services will continue with its core mandate. That core mandate is providing provincial ambulance and emergency health services. B.C. emergency health services will also have a mandate to provide urgent health services and ancillary health services where and when it makes sense. This supports the integration of emergency medical assistants, or paramedics, into the broader health sector.

The legislation also encourages closer cooperation between B.C. emergency health services and health authorities. This will improve patient safety and quality of care. It also recognizes the important role played by paramedics and first responders in overall patient care, and it reinforces the fact that ambulance services are often a patient's first point of contact within the health care system.

This legislation completes a commitment from 2010 to integrate emergency health services. As a consequence, patients and taxpayers will benefit from a more effective and efficient system overall.

I'm pleased to move second reading.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 7, the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act.

The minister correctly pointed out that this was a piece of legislation that follows on from commitments made back in 2010 when the government made some significant changes in terms of the work done by ambulance paramedics throughout the province of British Columbia.

[1025]

There were real issues at that particular point in time and real concerns about how ambulance paramedics are treated in this province, because as the minister just said, they are often the first point of contact that many British Columbians have with the health care system. The role that they play in urban and rural B.C. is of paramount importance, so any legislation that impacts their work and their role, I think, needs to be looked at very closely and very carefully.

One of the concerns that we have about this particular piece of legislation is that it is basically the same legislation as was tabled last year, Bill 48, which did not get passed and did the same things that this particular piece of legislation does today. But what was interesting about Bill 48 that last time — and concerns and questions we have around this bill this time — was that there was no consultation with paramedics last time.

They were left out, which is unacceptable. The idea that you can put together legislation that deals with how a group of professionals do their jobs, the terms and conditions, the rules and regulations under which they operate, and not consult them is something that should not happen.

We will be approaching this particular piece of legislation with an open mind but an awful lot of questions and skepticism based on the record that the government has had in the past around this particular issue and how the last bill came into this House. What we hope to see with this particular piece of legislation is answers to questions in a way that will satisfy not only us as the opposition but will, I think, also answer the questions that ambulance paramedics around this province have in terms of exactly what the government's intentions are.

I'd like to go through it a little bit and highlight some of the areas where we do have some concerns, some of the
[ Page 13487 ]
areas where we will be asking questions, and also to point out key aspects of this bill which we think are important. On some of the issues that the minister has raised there will not be disagreement from us.

I think the question is how regulations are going to be developed. Will consultation be taking place? Will the ambulance paramedics of British Columbia have their questions answered in a timely fashion? If this legislation passes, will they have answers to the questions before regulations are proclaimed? Will there be a transparency in terms of how those issues and concerns are going to be addressed?

I think that's of crucial importance if this legislation is to come into law. We need to make sure that everything that is intended and unintended consequences are identified and, if necessary, appropriately dealt with, either through amendment or regulatory change.

With that, what is Bill 7 going to do? Well, the Emergency and Health Services Commission will become the British Columbia emergency health services and, according to the legislation, will be supported by the Provincial Health Services Authority. It will permit British Columbia emergency health services to provide urgent and ancillary health services where and when appropriate to support the integration of paramedics and other emergency medical assistants into the broader health sector.

It will also set out that paramedics will, in certain situations, be able to determine whether an individual requires emergency care or not under section 5.1. Currently paramedics are legally bound to take patients to an emergency department. The bill also sets out that paramedics will be supporting individuals in caring for themselves and may be supervising other people providing care. I want to come back to that in a second.

With the creation of the emergency health services, it will be a corporation as opposed to an agency of government, meaning that emergency health services no longer is required to report to government annually. It's not accountable to government directly, but the government simply appoints a board of directors. The emergency health services, in essence, becomes a corporation that is controlled by government but is not accountable to government.

[1030]

Those are two very important points that I wish to touch on, because one of the key issues, I think, that needs to be addressed is: are we changing the scope of practice for paramedics in the province of British Columbia, or is this particular piece of legislation administrative in nature? I think there are some real questions around that, and those are questions I look forward to hearing answers to from the minister.

If it is changing the scope of practice, then how are those changes going to take place? Are they taking place by discussion and negotiation with paramedics around British Columbia, or is it going to be by regulation, order-in-council that's done behind closed doors? Is there a process in place, and how is that process going to work? I think that's a key set of questions that needs to be addressed by the government.

When we get to committee stage, I believe that we'll be spending a fair amount of time on some of those key sections that deal with that so that we are able to get the answers necessary to determine whether or not the legislation is going to accomplish what the minister has said it will accomplish.

In terms of acting as a corporation, again it's that issue of accountability — the appointment of a board of directors, the appointment of a CEO, reporting out to the public so that they have an understanding of how this new emergency health services corporation is going to act.

When you appoint a board of directors…. In this particular piece of legislation it also, for example, allows the board to be closed to the public if the minister so orders. It allows for a public administrator to be appointed by the cabinet to override the board.

In a sense, you're sending mixed messages. You're saying, on one hand: "We want you to act as a corporation that is an agency of government, but you're not accountable to government." But there's considerable latitude for government to actually be active in the affairs of the corporation by being able to override the corporation and being able to say that meetings will be closed to the public.

There needs to be clarification in that particular area. Under what circumstances? How and when? Those are all important questions that need to be addressed by the minister when we come to committee stage on this particular piece of legislation.

Other areas that need to be looked at. The minister says that this is going to allow for greater integration — in essence, hopefully, one would think, a better level of service. Yet since 2010 there has not been, I think, a significant amount of headway made in addressing some of the key issues and in addressing some of the issues that paramedics have been concerned about around the province.

The scope of practice, which I talked about just a moment ago. There's not been a great deal done on that. So the question I have on that is: how are we going to address that? It comes back to what I said earlier. We need, at committee stage, to be able to deal with those questions and ensure that we get the answers to that.

As much legislation that we see in the House these days, a lot of it has to do with the…. It's not prescriptive. It's regulatory in nature. Again, what that comes down to is: how are those regulations going to be determined?

Much of this bill is, in essence, quite vague. It's not specific. Much will be dealt with by regulation. Again, that's something that's done, in many cases, behind closed doors without the level of involvement that's required either by the public but in particular by paramedics.
[ Page 13488 ]

My message to the government in this regard is that if this legislation is to do what the government would like it to do and if it is to meet the needs of paramedics, then it really can only be implemented on the basis of discussions and negotiations and working with paramedics. If that's the intent of the legislation, then I hope the minister addresses that within her comments.

[1035]

One of the concerns that I think the public has is…. They have a great deal of confidence in our emergency services and our paramedics across British Columbia. I think one of the questions that needs to be put to rest is: will this legislation allow for greater privatization? Are we going to see, for example, greater privatization in terms of ambulance services in the province of British Columbia? When you have legislation as vague as this, that's a key question that needs to be addressed.

Again, when it comes to the committee stage, we will have quite a few questions that, hopefully, the minister will be able to give answers to that will allow us to get on the record exactly the intent of the legislation and whether or not we're going to see greater privatization. That is a real issue and a real concern.

I'm not going to go on at length in terms of second reading debate, because much of what needs to be addressed can only be addressed in committee stage through the relevant discussion of each of the sections. I hope the minister is prepared, because we will, I think, be spending a fair amount of time on a clause-by-clause assessment on this particular piece of legislation. I hope, as I said, that the minister is ready for that discussion, because I think that it's particularly important.

Anyway, with that….

I said I'm finishing, but that pause certainly caught the minister's attention.The key point is this. This legislation, when you listen to the government, is very straightforward — in essence, almost housekeeping, administrative in nature. Yet when you start to look at this piece of legislation, you see that it has the potential to have a much greater impact than what the government is admitting at this point, or is aware of.

We need to deal with some of the vagaries in this particular piece of legislation. We need to address the concerns of paramedics and the public in terms of areas of transparency, of accountability in how regulations are going to be implemented. We need to look at whether or not it's going to increase opportunities for privatization. We're going to need to look at whether this legislation deals with issues around the scope of practice and how these changes are going to impact on paramedics.

Those are questions that need to be addressed at committee stage, and we intend to do that and take our time going through it.

With that, I will take my place. If there are other speakers, great. Otherwise, I'm quite sure that tomorrow, or Thursday at the latest, we'll be getting into committee stage on this particular piece of legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Health closes debate.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am tempted to get into a bit of a debate about what housekeeping is with respect to the comments of the member opposite. I believe we may have different views on housekeeping, which wouldn't surprise me.

But speaking seriously, this is an important act — certainly not at all housekeeping in nature. It's to strengthen emergency health services in our province.

Very important workers — the ambulance paramedics. What we're talking about here is enhanced cooperation and coordination. We're talking about stronger working relationships between the health authorities and the emergency services. It's an important bill, and I look forward to discussing it further with the members opposite in committee stage.

With that, I close debate on second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading on Bill 18, intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013.

[1040]

BILL 18 — HEALTH AUTHORITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

(continued)

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get an opportunity to join the debate around Bill 18, the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013.

It's a very small bill. It's a couple of sentences that make some adjustment. What this bill does, largely, is move licensed practical nurses essentially from the multi-union bargaining association to the Nurses Bargaining Association.

What that will do is we have about 8,200 practical nurses that will be moved over to the Nurses Bargaining Association under this piece of legislation. The majority of those nurses are currently in the B.C. Nurses Union, but about 1,200 or so are in the Hospital Employees Union. There's another 300, 400 or so in BCGEU, and there are other smaller amounts involved in other unions.

This is a decision that the government has made to advance this legislation. That decision has been made, as the minister has acknowledged, with no consultation with the other unions involved. The minister acknowledged that the other day when she was on with Vaughn Palmer on Voice of B.C. and has acknowledged it at other times.

The minister, at the same time that she acknowledged that there was no consultation on this matter, also recognized that that consultation was an essential piece of making this kind of a change. For some reason, the decision is, of course, that this consultation happens after the
[ Page 13489 ]
fact and that somehow it has value after the fact versus doing it prior to introducing legislation and prior to moving forward with this kind of legislative change.

What this change does…. We all know that the nurses used the system, used what's available to them under the labour code, very effectively to essentially raid other unions and move a large number — a significant number, a majority — of licensed practical nurses to the Nurses Union. They did that quite appropriately. They used the tools that were available to them and successfully did that. That's quite appropriate under the terms of the code, and that's what they did. However people might feel about that, they did it appropriately under the code.

What this legislation essentially does is that it will legislate the remainder of those licensed practical nurses, in effect, into the Nurses Union. The concern here, of course, is that the nurses…. I don't know for sure what their intentions were prior to this legislation as to whether they intended to pursue the remainder of the licensed nurses under the terms of the labour code using votes that are available to them. I suspect that they may well have intended to do that, and that would have been perfectly appropriate under the terms of the code.

Instead, what we have is the government essentially legislating that situation, and that's problematic. It's problematic because of the total lack of consultation on the part of the government with the unions. It's my understanding that there also was no consultation here, from correspondence that I've seen, with the employer, the health authorities, about the intentions to make this change, either.

The employers essentially didn't know that this was happening. Unions other than the nurses were not engaged in this process or knew that it was happening. Yet the government…. As the minister acknowledged when she was speaking to Vaughn Palmer, consultation is important, and it's a legitimate interest here. But none of that consultation occurred, and it hasn't occurred. Somehow the minister says it might happen after the fact.

Well, we all know that consultation after the fact has pretty limited value. It definitely is a problem. The problem here is one that we have seen played out before with this government.

[1045]

We all know, of course, that the government got caught up in a very similar situation back around Bill 29. Just to remind people about Bill 29, Bill 29 was a piece of legislation that was introduced by the B.C. Liberals in January 2002. At the time that was done, they introduced the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. What that law essentially did was tore up the collective agreement of the Hospital Employees Union and laid off a large number — maybe as many as 9,000 — of members of that union, most of whom were women in low-wage jobs.

Two years later the government imposed, under Bill 37, what was essentially a 15 percent pay cut on Hospital Employees Union members.

All of this flowed out of Bill 29. It created significant challenges in the sector. But importantly, what happened — and we know this, of course — is that the union, the Hospital Employees Union, and others took this case to court. They took it to court, and they challenged it.

What we know, of course, is that the Supreme Court ruled in June of 2007. They ruled that the collective bargaining process is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They argued and they ruled that the provisions of the collective agreement had been breached, and they ruled it under the terms of the Charter as a constitutional issue.

Really, the fundamental there was…. What the court said to the government was: "You can't do this. You can't make those kinds of changes without consultation." It didn't say that the government absolutely could not do this, but it said that the government couldn't do this without consultation.

It then, as we know, ordered the government back to repair what they had done. There was a process after that. There was a consultation, and we know that it came to some degree of settlement.

What the Supreme Court justices said was that there was little evidence that the government had made any meaningful effort to consult with the unions before bringing in the legislation. Now, we would have thought that the government might have learned something from that lesson, but apparently, they didn't. So now what we have is Bill 18.

The issue here is not so much the specifics of whether you should put all the nurses, LPNs and RNs and psych nurses in one bargaining entity and have them bargain. The issue is: should you be having a conversation about how you do that? Do you put them in under one bargaining unit, like the nurses? Do you put them in as a bargaining council that allows all the unions that have practical nurses to be part of that bargaining council and to be part of that conversation?

Clearly, the nurses are the dominant union there. They, in fact, would probably — I'm sure they would — drive the agenda of such a bargaining council. But we have bargaining councils in this province. We have a number of them. What they do is bring different unions together who represent members who have common interests in bargaining councils that allow them to bargain collectively. That's not an uncommon or a rare situation.

That option, of course, was readily available under Bill 18 for the government to do that. But that's not what the government chose to do. The government chose instead to make this change that will essentially, by legislation, move these members.

Now, the reality is…. I heard the minister make comments about this, I think, in the media — about the rights of votes, and those kinds of things. That's all good. Those
[ Page 13490 ]
members who moved from other unions to the Nurses Union — the LPNs who moved — voted. They made the decision to move, and they moved. That's quite appropriate.

At this point the nurses who remain in those other unions, maybe about 1,600 or 1,700 of them…. I think it's something like that number when you add everybody in. They have chosen to remain in those unions to this point. If something changes in the future, that could change.

The question is: why would you legislate, potentially, the movement of those nurses to another union? There's no explanation for this. There has been no discussion, and there has been no consultation.

[1050]

You have a situation where the government has clearly not learned its lesson from what happened with Bill 29. If they had learned their lesson, they would have opened this conversation up and had this discussion. They would have done that in a way that may have found some common ground around some nature of a bargaining council, but that's not what we had here.

I guess the question I have, and I look forward to having this conversation when we get to committee stage, is: what was the thinking of the minister and the government about why they chose to not learn anything from what happened in Bill 29?

As we move forward on this, the question will become: how in fact do we deal with this? The chances are very, very good — as a matter of fact, I expect, probably better than good — that this will be litigated again. What we will see is the Hospital Employees Union and other unions that are having their members taken away by legislation without consultation will, quite appropriately, be back in court. They will be reminding the courts of Bill 29. They will be reminding courts of the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional question.

We will be back having this litigated. And who knows what the result of that litigation will be? The courts will make that decision somewhere down the road. What it will do is create a level of uncertainty again within the health bargaining area. We know that uncertainty does nobody any favours. It does nobody any good. There is no positive or upside to having that kind of uncertainty.

The government, quite honestly, had the opportunity to do this differently. They had the opportunity to sit down with the unions, to sit down with the employers and say, "We are interested in this change" — to be able to explain why they thought the change was a good idea, what their objective was, what they hoped to accomplish by making this change — and then to engage in conversation with the parties at hand to see whether in fact there could be some common ground found, probably in relation to a bargaining council.

That's probably what the option would have been if there was ground to move forward. That might well have been something that all the parties would have been prepared to agree to, but it's not what the government chose to do. Instead, they have created a situation where an already very difficult relationship within the labour movement will be exacerbated by this decision when this legislation moves forward.

It will have already created a more complicated situation in health bargaining. It will have created more difficult and challenging relationships — all without any necessity, all unnecessary to do.

You ask yourself: why did this happen? Well, let's go back and look a little bit at what's gone on over the last while. First of all, of course, we can go back. We know that there was this silliness, as I call it, when the government announced that they wanted to do a ten-year deal around the nurses' collective agreement. They announced that they were going to advance a ten-year deal.

Of course, at the time that they announced this, all six health authorities sent a letter to the HEABC and the media calling attention to contract negotiations being held behind their backs, without their consent, between the government and the nurses.

The employers association and the health authorities — the presidents and CEOs — all write, saying: "Wait a minute. You're cutting a ten-year deal, and you're not even telling the employers that you're doing it?" All the presidents and CEOs wrote the letter and released that letter to the media saying, in fact: "This is crazy. Why are you doing this?"

Of course, we know that none of the other unions knew this. The nurses themselves said: "We don't have any interest in a ten-year deal. It's just not on, and we're not interested."

This episode, of course, followed the last piece of frivolity, when the government tried to do the same thing with teachers in a ten-year deal. At the time that that discussion was going on, we know that at the same time the Public School Employers Association and the teachers in fact were coming to a settlement and did find common ground on some restructuring of their bargaining process, which I think everybody is hopeful is going to provide some improvement in teacher bargaining.

That's proceeding now. Of course, that improvement was around the use of a facilitator from day one and requirements around both parties tabling their proposals very early in the process so that people know what they're talking about. These are positive steps that were taken. That was done because, again, this ten-year deal was being sought out without any engagement at all.

[1055]

I know that the teachers told us, and they told the media…. When the Premier made the announcement that there was going to be this notion of a ten-year deal and released documentation on that, the teachers were only told about this at 6:30 the evening before the announcement. That was the level of consultation. So of course, you have to question the seriousness of this.
[ Page 13491 ]

The School Employers Association didn't even have the benefit of that. They read the press release when it came out.

So people don't take that very seriously, but the Premier obviously took it seriously.

Then we saw pretty much the same thing happen with the nurses and this ten-year deal with the nurses that clearly wasn't going anywhere and, again, was a bit of spin. When that spin didn't get us anywhere, what did we see? Instead, we see this move to Bill 18.

Interestingly, of course, the scramble was to get 18 on the table. I'm sure that the notion was to….

Deputy Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston seeks leave.

J. Yap: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence.

We have visiting in the gallery with us a group from my riding. It's a group of students, 17 grade 5 students, and three adults from Garden City Elementary School, a great school in my riding of Richmond-Steveston, led by teacher Ms. Sandip Rakhra. They're here for a day visiting the capital, a tour of the Legislature and to see proceedings here in the House. Would all members please offer a warm welcome to these students.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get a chance to continue. We have this situation where this has occurred, so the question is: why did it occur? We know, of course, that the minister was going to speak to the nurses. Presumably, she was looking for an opportunity to have something to say, and I guess that Bill 18 was something to say.

As we look at this situation, though, and as we look at what's going on here, let's be clear about this. The challenge with Bill 18 is…. I do think that by doing this, it creates more uncertainty. Again, I do believe there will be litigation that will follow this legislation, if it passes. It will enhance some already pretty hard feelings within the health sector, and it's going to do all that at a time when it's not necessary to do that.

Nurses in particular — and I'll talk a little bit about nurses — have a remarkably challenging job. Whether it be registered nurses or LPNs or psych nurses, they have a challenging job. It's a job that we all respect, and it's a job that we know is a critical component…. Even when you talk about doctors, some would say, in terms of the health care system, that nurses in some way may be the most critical component of the health care system in terms of the role that they play.

We're not doing those nurses any favours — in helping them to be good at their jobs, to be able to focus on their jobs — when we're creating a level of controversy that is in front of us now. You have to ask yourself why in fact you're doing that. You have to ask yourself why in fact the government wants to achieve that.

Now, the minister talked about when, I believe…. The transcript that I read from her time, I think, with Vaughn Palmer on Voice of B.C., where she addressed this issue and the question of consultation and talked about this legislation and consultation….

I would remind the minister that there are other ways to have done this. There are other ways to have done this, and we've seen that in this session. We saw that the government, apparently, has introduced legislation about a Senate election. They've tabled the legislation. They've said they have no intention to call it at this point, but they think it's an important conversation to be had. They've tabled the legislation so everybody would understand what the thinking is around this.

Now, if the minister was serious about consultation, she would be saying: "I put this legislation on the table. I'm now going to engage in a conversation with all of the appropriate parties and see whether in fact we can find some common ground, whether in fact there's some way to engage."

[1100]

Maybe it's amendment or adjustment to the legislation to achieve the government's objectives and to make sure that there's fairness and balance for everybody who's involved in this.

That's not what happened. It's unfortunate. It really is what the minister should do, if the minister was being thoughtful about this. I know that the minister is a thoughtful person, but if the minister was being thoughtful about this and not looking to be political about this — which I'm afraid is what's happening here — she would in fact encourage her colleagues at the cabinet table to take that approach and to open that conversation.

We do have the election coming up on May 14. But let's face it. The reality is that if, in fact, that conversation was had and common ground was found in a conversation with all the relevant parties to this, then I think the chances are pretty good, whatever the results of the election, that there would be a meaningful conversation about whether there was a way to restructure nurse bargaining to encompass everybody in a way that was fair and was balanced and was respectful of all of the parties who are legitimately at the table.

That's not what's happening here. Instead, you have this situation where, by legislation, you're going to do exactly what…. I think I heard the minister say this. I might have heard at least one of her colleagues say this as well, in all of this talk about unions and votes. What we're seeing here is, in fact, exactly the opposite. We're
[ Page 13492 ]
seeing a change in representation by legislation, not by vote. That's exactly the problem that we're seeing in front of us here.

What we need to do is look at this again. We need to make some decisions about how in fact this should be conducted. We need to do this in a way that will try to keep this thing, I believe, out of the courts. Maybe we're going to have a chance when we get to committee stage to ask some of those questions, to try to get some answers.

At this point, the minister has offered no answers. She's acknowledged the shortcoming of the legislation — the lack of consultation. She's acknowledged at least the one shortcoming, but she's offered absolutely no answers about this.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The response has, largely, been some convoluted argument about unions and votes and respecting the 70 percent of LPNs who are in the Nurses Union, which is great. Respecting those workers and their right to be represented by the nurses…. They have every right, and that's exactly what should happen. But there are 30 percent or so of LPNs who certainly aren't in the Nurses Union at this point, who have chosen to be in other unions or who have not been given the option to move yet. That might happen somewhere down the road.

There's no respect for them in Bill 18. They're not being respected. They're not being told they have the right to stay where they want to stay. They're not being told they have the right to be represented by the Hospital Employees Union or the BCGEU or whoever.

Nobody's talked to the Health Sciences Association, which represent psych nurses, about how they feel about the broadening of this bargaining association and whether that makes good sense for them. They have a clear stake at the table. It doesn't appear that anybody has talked to the health authorities about how they feel about this and whether in fact they are dealing with this.

As we move forward on this, we need to ask those tough questions. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to do that sometime in the next day or two — we have two days left — to determine what the thinking of the government was and how on earth they decided they could do this when they know the history of Bill 29. They know the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. They know that the Supreme Court of Canada chastised the government very strongly for lack of consultation with the relevant parties, and they have turned around and done exactly the same thing again with Bill 18.

[1105]

I look forward to the continued debate on this bill. I look forward to the opportunity to sit down and have this conversation — hopefully, in much more detail — when we get to the committee stage and deal with the matter there.

I guess if I'd make one last plea to the minister — who I know is a reasonable person and who I think knows better, frankly — it's to rethink trying to force this legislation through at this time.

Instead, do the right thing. Bring the people who should be at the table to the table. Have a conversation. Use the ability and the influence of government, the influence of the minister, the authority of the minister to try to find some kind of collaborative solution to this issue. If the government feels this expansion of that bargaining unit is essential, try to find some common ground there, whether it's through bargaining councils or whatever.

Bring the employer to the table. We've not talked a lot about the employer. Get the sense of the employer as to where they stand on this issue. The employer has been dealing with this bargaining with LPNs through the multi-union bargaining association for an extended period of time. They have direct experience with this. I'm sure they have some views and comments to make about the idea of moving LPNs to the Nurses Bargaining Association. They may think it's a totally appropriate thing to do. But I'm sure they would like to, at least, be asked what they think about that and to do that.

If the minister was really going to be thoughtful about this and going to try to pursue this in a way that would look to provide a solution instead of creating a political quick win, then she would do something different than what she's doing with Bill 18. We'll see what the minister has to say about this as we move forward in this discussion over the next day or two. I do look forward to the opportunity to discuss this in much more detail with the minister in committee stage.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 18 and follow my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, with his very well-thought-out comments as to Bill 18 and what needs to be done with it.

Much has been said, but I think it's important to re-emphasize those comments and comments that other members in this House have made around Bill 18 because it is an important piece of legislation. The Minister of Health is also a former Minister of Labour, so she knows the importance of good labour relations in British Columbia.

She understands some of the history, particularly within health labour relations in this province and some of the controversy that has occurred over the last ten years. I use "controversy" as a polite way to describe some of the challenges that this government has faced in health labour relations over the last 12 years.

Bill 29 was very much, I think, an important piece of legislation in terms of what transpired from it and court decisions that were made, flowing from Bill 29, and how those decisions need to be respected and learnt from by government. Unfortunately, with this particular piece of legislation, I think some of the lessons from Bill 29 have
[ Page 13493 ]
been lost.

As has been stated, what Bill 18 will do is take about 8,200 LPNs from the multi-facility bargaining association and place them in the Nurses Bargaining Association. The question is not about the rights or the decision of the LPNs to join the Nurses Union. That's entirely within their purview, and it's entirely their decision to make and an entirely appropriate decision to make.

Rather, the question is on the need for this particular piece of legislation at this time and whether or not there is a better, more productive path which could lead to a better and more improved climate of labour relations, particularly within the health care sector in the province of British Columbia.

The key issue…. Here's the point I think the minister needs to consider. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot, on one hand, say that the government is following through on the right of the LPNs to make a decision on which union to belong to and say, "Therefore, we're following their rights by moving them into the Nurses Bargaining Association," and then not recognize the rights of those LPNs who are not part of the Nurses Union — those that are with HSA or the BCGEU, for example. They also have rights.

[1110]

What's really required is that government learn from lessons of Bill 29 and consult. Do some consultation. As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings has already pointed out, the health employers have not been consulted with regards to this legislation, the other unions involved have not been consulted with regards to this legislation, and that's a real problem. There may well be litigation coming out of this, and that's unfortunate. That doesn't need to happen.

The right approach to take would be to say: "All right. This is what we want to do. Our intention is to move the LPNs into the Nurses Bargaining Association, but we recognize there are other LPNs, for example, who are not part of that, who are still within other unions."

The question is: how are we going to address that? What issues and challenges come from that that need to be dealt with? The best way to do that is to actually sit down and talk with them — to bring the good offices of the minister and the ministry to facilitate discussions and consultation so that concerns can be listened to, mitigated, addressed in a way that is fair to everybody.

You're not taking away from the rights of those who have rightfully exercised their right of representation, but rather, you're recognizing the rights of everyone, all those involved. That's important particularly when you're dealing with the not-majority group who is not transferring over. I think it was around 1,600 or so who are still staying with either the HSA or the BCGEU. It's important that their rights and the issues and the concerns that they have are dealt with in a way that is open and transparent.

That sends a signal on two fronts — one from the employee, the union member of the respective unions, that the government is serious about listening to and understanding their concerns and, also, trying to communicate that they know what the potential impacts are.

Just as importantly, they send a bigger message to the general public at large, and that is that this government learned from its mistakes that it made around Bill 29, that it has learned the lessons the courts made around issues of consultation raised when they struck down key provisions of Bill 29.

As we all know, it's one thing to say, "Oh yes, we will do consultation," but the reality is that it is much better if consultation takes place before the fact, as opposed to after the fact. Consultation taking place after the fact requires two things. One is an act of faith that it will actually take place. Given the track record of this government when it comes to that, you should not be surprised if the people you are asking to take that leap of faith — "Trust us; we will consult with you after the fact" — are more than a little skeptical, based on the experience that they have had from this government over the last 12 years.

Rather, consultation is much more effective and sends a stronger signal that, yes, we are serious about wanting to ensure we have a better labour relations climate — that we put things on a much stronger, sounder footing going forward if that consultation is done ahead of time. It's not a difficult thing to do. It's not a difficult thing to do at all.

My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings alluded to the Senate legislation, which the government has indicated it is not going to deal with this session. It's out there, in essence, to receive comment from the public. There's nothing wrong with that.

[1115]

Likewise, with this particular piece of legislation, the same could be done. The same could be done on that in terms of: "We're going to take some time and do consultation." It has happened with other pieces of legislation. I mean, just a moment ago we had second reading debate on the paramedics bill, on Bill 7. That was a piece of legislation that was reintroduced after the introduction of Bill 48 in the last session. Again, there is not a rush.

If you bring people to the table, the affected unions, and if you talk with the employers — this has an impact on them as well, and that's something that has not been addressed — then that, too, is important in terms of having those discussions. But the bottom line is that there is a better way of doing this, and I think the minister does know that.

I think the minister has established a reputation in this House for being thoughtful and fair. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, she was Minister of Labour. The minister should know the importance, as I stated at the beginning of my remarks, of good labour relations and the ability to recognize when opportunities present themselves to improve the climate of labour relations in this province, particularly in the area of health
[ Page 13494 ]
care, which is the largest area of public expenditure that the government makes. It is the service that people care about the most.

Given the history of this government, one would think that the minister would want to seize that opportunity — that when changes are taking place, to do them in a way that is respectful, that has the ability to create an improved climate, that allows for consultation before the legislation is done, as opposed to the approach that the current government is making.

As I've said, our issue is not with the nurses and the fact that the LPNs are now part of the nurses. That's their decision to make. Our concern is that the government is missing an opportunity to make this change happen in a far more constructive way than otherwise might happen with the passage of this particular piece of legislation, in the current approach that the government is taking.

Those are my comments on second reading. As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings has said, there will be much to talk about at committee stage. It is not the most lengthy of bills that have been tabled in this House in the number of sections that it has. But it's not a question of quantity but rather of quality.

We will have, I think, some serious questions to ask at committee stage of this bill, and we look forward to the opportunity to ask those questions. With that, I now take my seat.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd like to thank the members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful and thought-provoking comments about this bill. I would like to respond to a few of the things that have been said during the debate.

First of all, the member for Vancouver-Hastings made a few comments that I'd like to respond to. He was talking about how important good labour policy is. I think a number of the members have alluded to the fact that I previously had the privilege of serving as the Minister of Labour. I'm certainly extremely aware of how important good labour policy is.

One of the things I think many people would like to have is some clarity around the thoughts of the opposition about what good labour policy looks like. I certainly heard a number of members speaking, when I was the Labour Minister, about returning to labour policy of some 20 years ago. I personally don't think that would be good labour policy.

[1120]

Also responding to comments of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, there were some comments about my recent visit to the B.C. Nurses Union annual general meeting. I really would like to clarify that. There has been talk of mischief and sudden decisions.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I met with the B.C. Nurses Union last fall. I believe it was in October or November. They very kindly invited me to their annual general meeting at that time, telling me that it was in March. I mentioned to them the difficulties of getting away from the House.

That invitation came to me several months ago, and I said at that time that I would make every effort to attend. I did want to have the opportunity, and I did have the opportunity, to speak to the nurses who were present at that gathering of how much I value the work they do and how much all members, obviously, on both sides of the House greatly value the work that nurses do.

Now, we also heard from the same member that…. Basically, it was sort of a mockery, saying that it was "silly to seek long-term labour stability." Well, actually, we think that long-term labour stability is a great idea, and where it can be accomplished, it would be very constructive.

We have also heard the members speak widely about the importance of consultation, and I absolutely agree. Consultation with the affected unions will be carried out, and we're absolutely committed to that. We have consulted with the health authorities, have had conversations with them, about this legislation. So that has, actually, already occurred.

Now, I'm disappointed in the position the opposition has taken on this bill. I am also puzzled by some of the things that were said during the debate. One of the comments that was made when we talked about this bill last week by the member for Nanaimo was that this bill goes against everything we stand for and we believe in.

Well, for the record, I want to talk about what has actually happened here. The members opposite speak about a raid, which is a term that they use and that is widely used when a union approaches another union for the members to change membership. But here's what happened.

Back in 2011, by a clearly laid-out process and a democratic process, the B.C. Nurses Union applied to the Labour Relations Board to represent licensed practical nurses. There was a secret ballot, which is the current policy under the rules that currently exist. In October 2012 the results of this mail ballot were released. It showed that 69 percent of licensed practical nurses that were part of the vote voted in favour of representation by the B.C. Nurses Union.

At the present time, the current bargaining structure divides nurses. There is a nurse-specific bargaining association, and then there's another association which represents the majority of LPNs at this time — or did represent them. It is comprised of a wide range of health employees that don't have a direct connection to nursing practice. So, greater than two out of every three LPNs voted in favour of moving into the nurses bargaining unit.

I believe this was a very democratic process that followed laid-out regulations and followed policy. Clearly,
[ Page 13495 ]
more than two-thirds of the LPNs who voted were in support of this. It's a democratic process, and I really don't understand why the opposition would not be supportive of this. Again, our government does plan to consult with the unions who are affected by this legislation.

Again, I thank members on both sides of the House for their contribution to the debate. I look forward to the next stage.

With that, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: First, Minister, you have to move….

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, I'd like to move second reading of this bill.

[1125-1130]

Second reading of Bill 18 approved on the following division:

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

Bill 18, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, earlier we failed to move Bill 7 into committee.

Government House Leader.

BILL 7 — EMERGENCY AND HEALTH
SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

(continued)

Hon. T. Lake: I now move that Bill 7 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are 22 students from Millstream Elementary in my great community of Langford. They're joined by teachers and parents. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading on Bill 8, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 8, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, be read a second time now.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, if you want to wait just a couple of minutes here.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. S. Bond: Bill 8 amends a number of statutes.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The Child, Family and Community Service Act amendments will enhance government's ability to support families and protect vulnerable children by clarifying that
[ Page 13496 ]
exposure to domestic violence is a relevant factor to consider when assessing whether a child needs protection; by authorizing child protection workers to assess a child's safety risk, risk of future harm, and the family's strengths and needs when a child protection investigation is not required; by enabling the director designated under the Child, Family and Community Service Act to apply to intervene in guardianship proceedings, under the Family Law Act, when it is in the child's best interest to do so; and by granting individuals the opportunity to apply for a review, by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, of decisions made under the act, respecting information access or disclosure.

[1135]

The amendment to the Clean Energy Act implements a previously announced extension of B.C. Hydro's integrated resource plan to August 3, 2013. The extension provides time for the province, liquefied natural gas proponents and B.C. Hydro to complete electricity supply arrangements and to provide a greater degree of certainty over the integrated resource plan directions and actions.

Amendments to the Forensic Psychiatry Act will remove the requirement for employees, including nurses, licensed professionals and other unionized workers, of the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission to be members of the B.C. public service. This supports an ongoing process in government to transfer health services and programs from the public sector to the health sector that began with the regionalization of health services in 1997. The changes will make it easier for the commission to improve recruitment and retention abilities as well as scheduling flexibility.

I also want to make members aware of the fact that the government does not intend to proceed with sections 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30 and 31 of the amendments to the Forest Act. At the conclusion of my second reading comments my colleague the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations will provide some comment and confirm government's intentions.

The other provisions of the Forest Act, following recommendations of the Special Committee on Timber Supply, are being amended to provide for the creation of a supplemental forest licence and the ability to establish sustainable maximum harvest limits on low-grade timber credited to non-sawlog timber-processing facilities.

The Integrated Pest Management Act is amended to address public concern over the use of pesticides in landscaped areas. The legislation will enable regulations requiring a licence to use most pesticides on landscaped private land. They would also allow for certain exceptions to the licensing requirement, if desired.

The proposed amendments to the Interpretation Act and Statute Revision Act have been recommended by legislative counsel. Four amendments are proposed which relate to limited revisions of public statutes. They are primarily of a housekeeping nature.

The bill also includes a provision related to the Land Act that retroactively authorizes the province's practice of charging interest, calculated daily and compounded monthly, on money owed under the Land Act. The provision also validates interest collected to date.

The amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act provide authority to sell liquor by establishing an auction permit which will allow eligible organizations and individuals to auction liquor to raise funds for charitable purposes. Small volumes of liquor may be auctioned to raise funds for charitable purposes without a permit. The amendments also make provision for liquor manufacturers to donate liquor to eligible organizations and individuals who are hosting events to raise funds for charitable purposes under either a special occasion licence or an auction.

The proposed Medicare Protection Act amendments being introduced will authorize regulations to be made to allow British Columbians who are taking longer-term vacations to remain outside the province for an additional period of time. Currently, the maximum an MSP beneficiary can stay out of the province without losing Medical Services Plan coverage is six months.

The bill contains an amendment to add the Pacific salmon as the provincial fish emblem to the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act. Hopefully, the students in the gallery today will be here to hear that British Columbia is going to have a provincial fish emblem, and it will be the Pacific salmon. In keeping with the rationale of establishing provincial symbols in general, such as the provincial flower or the provincial bird, designating Pacific salmon as the provincial fish emblem will recognize its high ecological, cultural and economic significance to British Columbians.

The proposed amendments to the Representative for Children and Youth Act implement the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. The amendments will also allow government to expand the representative's advocacy mandate by regulation. Priority will be to develop regulations to allow the representative to continue to advocate on behalf of young adults with developmental disabilities as they transition from youth services into adult services through Community Living B.C.

[1140]

The amendments to the School Act will require boards of education to establish a policy promoting the use of their property by licensed child care providers. The purpose of these amendments is to maximize the availability of affordable school-based child care for B.C. families.

The bill also contains a provision validating revision corrections made by regulation. The Statute Revision Act authorizes revision errors to be corrected by regulation, but these corrections must be confirmed by the Legislature to have effect beyond the end of the current session.
[ Page 13497 ]

Finally, a private act governing the Canadian Baptist Seminary, the Vancouver Bible Institute Enabling Act, 1968, will be re-enacted after it had been repealed in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to present those comments. My colleague will also now make comments.

Hon. S. Thomson: I rise today to speak about the proposed amendments to the Forest Act. The legislative amendments, as you know, are in response to the special committee on mid-term timber supplies, the committee's report and recommendations. The committee did a great deal of work over the last summer, visiting over 15 Interior communities, receiving over 650 written submissions in the process and providing a very thoughtful and informed report for consideration.

In October 2012, I released the ministry's Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan in response to the report, which outlines how the ministry and government intend to act on the committee's recommendations. In order to act on some of the committee's recommendations, changes are needed to the Forest Act. Accordingly, in our action plan we committed to introducing legislative amendments during this session of the Legislature, which we have done.

Forest Act amendments in Bill 8 enable the creation of supplemental forest licence and related measures. These competitively awarded licences will be available to those that own, lease and build a processing facility, including bioenergy producers, pellet producers and secondary manufacturers. The Bill 8 amendments are also intended to create provisions that would enable the conversion of replaceable volume-based forest licences to area-based forest licences.

Area-based licences or area-based tenures can act as an incentive for enhanced silviculture, since the licence holder who is making the investment will gain the benefit. It can be a very important tool in the mitigation of mid-term timber supply challenges. But it has become clear to me since the introduction of the legislation that these changes would benefit from a broader public consultation process. This issue is too important, and we must ensure that decisions will be made clearly and made clearly in the public interest.

There is no debate about the value of area-based management, what area-based management can bring to improving mid-term timber supply challenges, improving forest stewardship. We have lots of examples of area-based management with community forests, which we've increased from one to 54 in our term — with First Nations woodland licences, with woodlots, with area-based forms of management.

There's no debate about the values. What is required is to ensure that there is a clear and consistent public understanding about area-based management, the benefits that it will bring and how they will work, their intent and the benefits.

As a result of the need for broader public consultation on this, as was mentioned by the Attorney General, in committee stage we'll be setting aside those sections of the legislation directed at area-based tenure change and initiating a process, a broader public consultation, this summer based on the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply special committee and this proposed legislation.

As I said, more public engagement will ensure that everyone is better informed about area-based management, area-based tenures, their intent and the benefits they can bring. I look forward to continuing the engagement and working towards that process. I look forward to committee stage debate on the balance of the sections, the balance of the Forest Act amendments, that will remain in the miscellaneous stats bill.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It is a process that we do look forward to, that we intend to be actively engaged in and, I think, that will clearly result in an outcome that will have area-based management be a key piece of ensuring that we can meet our mid-term timber supply challenges in the province.

[1145]

N. Macdonald: I think what the minister has done here…. I'll speak specifically to the area I'm responsible for as the critic for forestry. I think it's a time for real grace. There are times when the Legislature works exactly how it should, and this is one of those times.

We've had a lot of discussions. I have a tremendous respect for the way the minister does his job, and I think this is clearly a responsible thing to do.

The suggested changes were problematic. They are problematic for a number of reasons. Their scope was not as clearly defined as it needed to be, and it was going to make things complicated in a way that they don't need to be.

We are coming out of a period where our markets have really been hit hard. Now, there has been expansion into the Asian markets, which is very positive, but the American market collapsed in a tremendous way.

I think what British Columbians need to remember is that the American market, which was a substantial part of where we sold our wood products, collapsed to the degree of a $6 trillion property collapse. Housing starts collapsed completely as well. So these are difficult times that the industry has been through.

What we need as British Columbians, whether it's Liberal, NDP or any other political persuasions, is we collectively need a period of calm and a period where we're focusing on re-establishing the forest industry in a way that it's going to be healthy. This was a debate that was going to be problematic in doing that.

I think the minister has acted in a very responsible way in terms of pushing this debate back to a time where
[ Page 13498 ]
it will be less politicized. I have to say this is where I thought we would end up. I think it's the reasonable way to go, and I'm hopeful about it.

I think the public should take some confidence in the fact that on these issues of long-term policy, where the benefits or the harm shows up decades after policy decisions, your provincial politicians have done, not only with this act, something that's responsible.

Over the spring and summer there was a committee that's referenced constantly that did come up with a set of recommendations that were unanimously agreed to on some very difficult topics. The policies, the recommendations we have made in the report, are reflected in another part of this legislation that we're going to deal with. We talked about partitioning the cut. The committee put forward recommendations we thought were a reasonable way to get at some of the fibre that right now we can't get at.

What ministry staff has told us in the briefing that the minister — again, very generously — set up was that the tools that are in this legislation will allow us to do in a more effective way what we were trying to do with suggestions of partitioning. What we will do as critics, of course, is test the minister when we come to those places, but I have every confidence that those sections that remain in this act that deal with that concept of partitioning are going to do what the minister said they would do.

So this move from the government is one where certainly the opposition but I think British Columbians generally are going to be pleased. It is a responsible thing to do. We have every reason to be optimistic about the future of forestry.

There are a lot of opportunities. We have strong opportunity, as I said, in our markets in Asia. We have a rebounding market in the United States. We have a strong domestic market, and we have new products that are coming on line — some of them in very short order in some of the structural products that are coming on line. I think there is reason to be optimistic there.

[1150]

There's also an awful lot of high-tech that is maybe not years away. Certainly, when we look ten years out, I think you would see a very different industry than we have now, making use of a fibre resource that is endless if we manage it properly.

We have to get to a place where we have a B.C. brand. We have already in the province a realization that people have to work together. You see environmental groups that are working with licensees, that are working with government. That needs to be built upon so that we move forward and make sure that we make the best of the opportunities that are presented to us.

We need in the days that remain to move on to committee stage and a whole host of bills that are still before us, including this one. I won't take any more time talking about this, other than to say I'm pleased, as I said, with the discussions that the minister and I have had. I'm not surprised this is where we've ended up. I think it's responsible. I think it's a good day for governance in British Columbia and a good day for super, natural British Columbia. I'm pleased with that. With that, I'll let the next speaker have their say.

B. Routley: Again, I want to go through some of the work that was done by the committee and comment on the fact that it was an amazing experience to be part of a bipartisan committee that actually was able to sit down with chief foresters from the province of British Columbia, review difficult issues and come up with a joint set of recommendations. The actions of the government while, I'm sure, somewhat well-intentioned…. They really were cherry-picking bits of the work of that committee.

Of course, I'm really disappointed that the government seemed to have some haste. They wanted to have a report done by mid-August. So the committee's work was in this compressed time frame. We did the 15 different communities, heard 650 submissions from all over British Columbia.

I really thought that as a result of those recommendations, the very fact that we had bargained hard, if you like…. Both sides had some give and take in the process. One of the major issues of discussion was this business of the tenure. I'm glad to see that the government has backed away with legislation that, in my view, wasn't at all, not even close to, what we were talking about.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

One of the terms that we talked about was "walk before we could run." We had talked specifically about kinds of community interest when it comes to any kind of tenure. I know that now that it's set aside…. I'm somewhat disappointed that I didn't have the opportunity to review in great detail the history of tree farm licences going back to the 1940s and the incredible conditions that were actually put in place by the original royal commission, the Sloan commission, that developed the tree farm licence. It's been since changed in many dramatic ways.

I am, as my colleague has said, pleased that the minister has seen and that the government has seen that it made sense to park those particular sections that were causing great angst amongst British Columbians. I know I received hundreds if not thousands of e-mails from concerned citizens about the particular sections that we're seen as being rammed through without adequate public consultation.

[1155]

I agree that we need to have a lot more public consultation, and there needs to be proactive education, actually, on the different forms of tenure and one advantage over another or one disadvantage. We actually, I believe,
[ Page 13499 ]
through public discussion on tenure can come up with a better plan, with a way to have people's cake and eat it too, so to speak.

I talked to a representative of the industry just this morning and said: "The industry, in my belief, needs to work harder. They need to work harder at what's in it for the public, what's in it for the community."

It's all fully understood that they would come and say: "Well, we need this done a certain way because it has an advantage for us, for industry." That's great. We understand that. We understand what their special needs or their interests are. But I come from a place of understanding that in bargaining — and I had 52 different companies that I dealt with — you have to listen to the other side's point of view.

I think it is time that I take a break. I'll come back to this later.

B. Routley moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.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 © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada