1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th 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, JUNE 1, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 16

[ Page 14815 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, in politics, friendships and loyalties and support can be fairly fleeting things. In my case, however, there have been at least two people, and perhaps only two people, who have been there from day one, and I suspect will always be there -- and I know that -- and that's my mother and father. They're here for the first time, and I hope the House will make them feel welcome.

W. Hartley: In Victoria for the past two days, 29 students from St. Patrick's elementary school in Maple Ridge, with their teacher Bella Yu and principal, Anne Kully, and some 29 parents, are here to receive an award. They were contestants with over 2,000 schools across British Columbia in the Royal British Columbia Museum schools contest. They were the winners in their grade group at drawing and colouring dragons, and they won a Macintosh computer system for their school. Please welcome them.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mr. Bill Dennison, a longtime South Delta community activist. He's not one of my political supporters, I must admit, but I'm a supporter of the work that he has done for our community over many, many years. I ask all my friends to make him welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to introduce two friends and supporters from Vancouver. In the gallery today are Mr. Laffin Tompkins and his lovely wife, Patricia. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

N. Lortie: I would also like to add my thanks and congratulations and support for Mr. Bill Dennison, who is a supporter of this side of the House and a longtime and dear friend. He is sitting up behind me, and I didn't even know he was there. I thank the hon. member for pointing that out.

Oral Questions

DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE

M. de Jong: Yesterday the Attorney General reiterated his intention not to intervene in any sort of meaningful way in the situation that's developing at the Douglas Lake Ranch. Those statements have been met by a response from the Upper Nicola band, and that has been a unilateral declaration from the band of their intention to maintain the illegal blockade until such time as they have received "total recognition of their claims to aboriginal rights and title." My question to the Attorney General is quite simply this: how much further does the situation have to deteriorate before he will show the leadership that British Columbians expect of him to ensure the speedy removal of this blockade?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Last Friday in court the Attorney General successfully intervened in an application by a private party to get an order to clear the blockade. My agents are actively involved in enforcing the court order. In this case, my agents are the RCMP, and I have full confidence in the ability of the RCMP to make the appropriate tactical and strategic decisions in respect of securing public access on the road in question. The police....

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The members ask about leadership. As the Attorney General in this province, I provide the leadership. The RCMP are the group who actually carry out the work on the ground, and that's the appropriate place for it to happen. The policy of the RCMP is to assess the situation to make the correct tactical and strategic decisions. If the member had his way, the risk of violence would be accelerated, and I don't think members of the opposition want to have on their heads the consequences of violent action which could come about as a result of an inappropriate tactical decision.

Deputy Speaker: A supplemental, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Let's just assess where we are as a result...

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order! Members, let's allow the question.

M. de Jong: ...of the action or inaction on the Attorney General's part. Thirty minutes ago at a press conference, the Upper Nicola band made its position clear. The band is demanding total recognition of aboriginal title and rights. It has also made it clear that any negotiations with the government will take place on the basis of that claim. I understand that there is a meeting scheduled for later this afternoon. My question to the Attorney General is: does he believe it is appropriate to be engaging in that manner of negotiation while court orders requiring the removal of an illegal blockade remain unenforced?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: For the third day in a row I will tell members that there are no negotiations with the Upper Nicola band. The government is not negotiating with the Upper Nicola band about matters in which they feel there are injustices to correct. What we are doing -- what the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is doing, what the police are doing and what other private citizens are doing behind the scenes -- is to try to get the band to pull down the blockade without resorting to consequences that none of us want to have happen.

LABOUR MOVEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Attorney General. Today senior government officials were reported in the media as saying that the delay in introducing the Election Act was due to a lack of agreement between the government and the labour movement. Can the Attorney General tell us which individuals or organizations in the labour movement he or members of the government have been consulting with in regard to this legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have consulted with nobody in the labour movement.

[ Page 14816 ]

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental?

G. Farrell-Collins: Will the Attorney General disclose to the public all correspondence within his ministry and between his ministry and the labour movement concerning the development of this bill? Further, will he disclose all drafts exchanged back and forth between his ministry and the labour movement, and will he tell us which sections were altered or deleted at the direction of the labour movement?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I know of no correspondence between the ministry and the labour movement in respect to the drafting of this bill. If there is, I'll be happy to locate it and share it with the member. I know of no drafts that went back and forth, because to the very best of my knowledge that didn't happen. So I don't know what the member is talking about.

ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT COSTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Yesterday the government extolled the virtues of amortizing the cost of major assets over many years rather than paying as you go. As an example, can the minister confirm that the Island Highway will actually cost taxpayers $3 billion when it has been financed over the 30-year period, rather than the billion dollars announced, and can the minister tell us how the government plans to raise the funds necessary to pay for that very expensive financing?

Hon. G. Clark: The Transportation Financing Authority is responsible for the financing of highway construction. The member is correct that these are amortized over the life of the project to pay for it, but in net present-value terms, the value for the highway is the same, because a dollar spent 30 years from now is not worth as much as a dollar spent today. The cost of the highway we have been dealing with is in today's dollars. That maintains the situation.

In addition, if the members remember the Build BC Act, which was debated in the House and passed, the Transportation Financing Authority cannot spend money that it does not have; in fact, it's illegal to do so. All of the investments in highways in British Columbia have to be financed through dedicated revenue. At the moment, there is dedicated revenue from the car rental tax, as well as, I believe, from a 2-cents-per-litre gas tax. Any future funding for any future highway projects has to be from a dedicated existing gas tax or other sources of non-tax revenue.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member on a supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: I have a supplemental to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, whoever he or she may be. The Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways, Vince Collins, wrote to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, saying that there are essentially two ways in which the government could raise the necessary $3 billion. One is to impose a toll, which will cost Island residents about $736 million over the period of time; the government would also scoop $2.1 billion from the gas tax. The second option is to take only $1.9 billion from the provincial gas tax and impose an additional $977 million tax by way of a special Vancouver Island gas tax of about 4-1/4 cents per litre.

Can the minister tell us which option the government plans to use to retire this debt? Will Island residents be facing a 4-1/4-cents-per-litre additional tax to pay for this government's Island Highway project?

Hon. G. Clark: No quarrels with the letter. There are many options to provide financing for the Transportation Financing Authority, including imposing new gas taxes -- and the legislation allows that; a dedicated gas tax on a regional basis, a provincial basis; tolling, which we are actively exploring -- and the member, of course, is part of a government that imposed a toll on the Coquihalla Highway. In addition, there are development cost charges associated with highway development and other associated ways in which we could look at generating revenue to put back into highways.

I'm not going to announce today a future course of action of any future government, but I will say that to date, as a result of the outstanding financial situation in the province, we've been taking existing gas tax revenue away from general revenue and directing it to highway construction, including the Island Highway. So there have been absolutely no incremental new taxes associated with this magnificent new highway on Vancouver Island.

LIVING ALLOWANCE FOR PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS

V. Anderson: Last year the patients at Riverview Hospital told the Minister of Social Services about the inadequacy of their living allowance. The ombudsman agreed with them. This $82 is used for clothing, bus fare, toiletries and all of their extra expenses. The minister said then that she would try to find an increase in these meagre funds in this year's budget, yet no increase is forthcoming. Will the minister change her mind and now respond favourably to this urgent, minimum need of the patients at Riverview Hospital?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am actually delighted.... It is not prearranged that I get up to talk about an announcement we made last week -- that went completed unnoticed by the opposition -- about expanding the benefits for people with disabilities. So I am pleased to be able to reiterate the details.

We have removed a major barrier to people with disabilities in changing the definition of handicap under the current GAIN system. No longer will people with disabilities have to declare themselves permanently unemployable and, by government definition, remove themselves from the workforce. We changed that; we have redefined it. The definition hadn't been changed for 20 years, and now the definition is based on duration rather than permanence. It has been welcomed by all groups representing people with disabilities. It's excellent news, and I think we're the first government to do so.

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

V. Anderson: The patients at Riverview Hospital are not aware that any situation has changed for them. They are picketing the government offices in Vancouver, even today, because they have not had a positive response to represent those who have mental illness -- not mental handicaps, but mental illness -- for an increase in their.... They are asking for an increase of only $20. They picketed the office today. Can

[ Page 14817 ]

the minister tell us that they are going to receive this increase in their living allowance, their bus fare and assistance with their clothing? Will she tell us and confirm today that all three of these items are now being granted to the patients at Riverview Hospital?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Gee, I'd actually given you the information about the announcement. I'm surprised you don't know that the change in the definition actually now has been expanded to cover those with mental illness. So that's excellent news.

I would also like to say there are limited resources available. We have worked with the community of people with disabilities to target those dollars in a most effective way. The comfort allowance remains at $82 per month. I suggest that if this member opposite wishes us to spend more, perhaps the first number he should call is 1-800-Chretien.

COMPLAINTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION BY JUSTICE OPPAL

J. Dalton: A question to the Attorney General. Justice Oppal has recently confirmed what we have all known for a long time now -- that this government is sitting on any initiatives dealing with much-needed justice reform. We just need to witness again the inaction of this Attorney General on the Douglas Lake issue. Oppal has recommended an independent complaints commissioner as one of his strongest recommendations.

The Attorney General told this House on April 25: "I think Justice Oppal's conclusions were, in part, reached as a result of often conflicting advice and conflicting conclusions reached...." Is the Attorney General saying he does not believe that Justice Oppal's recommendation had any basis to it?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not at all. In fact, on that point I think Justice Oppal makes very good recommendations.

Earlier this year my ministry was engaged in meetings that occurred among a wide variety of people who have an interest in the complaints commission process. They were meeting every week for a full day, over a course of many weeks. It became clear as March progressed that developing consensus among the various interests on this issue was going to be impossible before the legislative deadline; we wouldn't be able to get a bill in, in time in this session. So we decided to continue the discussions, working toward another deadline because we simply couldn't meet the one this year.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A, for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the House today I call Bill 29, continued second reading debate on the Employment Standards Act.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

(second reading continued)

Deputy Speaker: The member for Okanagan East adjourned debate. [Applause.]

J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if the member for.... I appreciate that the member for Mission-Kent has provided support for me. If I'd been in the House yesterday for his speech about the difference between cream and scum, I probably would have provided the same kind of support.

I started debate on this

section this morning and said very clearly that the first

section of this bill must be separated from

section 12 and what follows. The reason is that most of the provisions and changes that are made in the first

section of the bill are long overdue. In fact, I'm sure that the Minister of Women's Equality would recognize that many of those changes will directly benefit women. It's good that we see some provisions in here for pregnancy leave. We will get to how we think that should be fine-tuned in committee stage. By and large, with the exception of some sections that may need amendment, the direction that is taken in the first part of the bill is very encouraging, and the government should be applauded for bringing these changes in.

I heard a lot of members talking about what happens in the fast-food sector, and what happens if you're in a place with a high degree of turnover. Before I get into the second

section of the bill, I should put on the record that I actually was an employee of McDonald's Restaurants for awhile. Unlike many of those in this House who have talked about it from a theoretical point of view or from a book-learning point of view, I know how to make the fries. I know what it means when the beeper goes off, and I know how dangerous it is if you don't clean the grease off the floor before you run back to get more supplies. I've done that.

[2:30]

I've also worked in the tourism industry. My first job, I think, was $2.85 an hour at minimum wage. It's frightening when you think....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Sort of like this job, that's right: underpaid and overworked. I get it. I appreciate the contribution from the other members. I like the all-party nature of this debate.

Given that that was a $2.85-an-hour job, it's interesting that we've heard the leader of the Liberal Party call for abolishing the minimum wage, which is shameful. We've heard the member for Matsqui and other members talk about the abolition of child labour laws, which is shameful. Meagre as the $2.85 an hour was, I recognize that I was protected at that time by both minimum-wage and child labour laws.

I understand the vagaries of the fast-food and retail sectors. I should say my first job was at Flintstones Bedrock City, and I used to make hot dogs and juice. I did the same job for two summers in a row. Being in the tourism sector, you can understand the need for flexible schedules. Even having worked in these areas and recognizing the difficulties that some of the provisions of this bill will have with respect to scheduling, I think the amendments we will be introducing in committee stage will actually assist with meeting the requirements of the bill and the needs of the workplace.

We'll wait to see if the minister will be amenable to that, of course, but I can at least speak with some experience on these issues when I stand up on the issue of small business.

Having been involved in a family business in the wine industry for a number of years, I also recognize that there will

[ Page 14818 ]

be some additional burdens of paperwork in this bill, but it will provide protection for the employer, and that's something that hasn't been raised before. The provision for seven years of recordkeeping, although it may be cumbersome, will protect the employer from those employees who leave and then try afterward to extort money or, through the provisions in this bill that are meant to protect an employee, use this bill against the employer. It will actually protect them in the long run to have those records.

The second part of the bill is the part that the Progressive Democratic Alliance cannot support philosophically, in principle or in any form, as it is written. Having done some research on

section 96 of the federal constitution, I believe very strongly that in a constitutional challenge,

part 12 of the act would not stand up in a court of law. The reason is that the Employment Standards Tribunal, as established, has judicial powers as its mandate. It is not an administrative body; it is a body to carry out appeals and hearings. It's an adjudicating body of decisions of the director. There is a precedent in law. Peter Hogg, who is probably one of the country's foremost experts on constitutional law, has written about

section 96 and when it applies. He has specifically said that when a provision for a residential board in Ontario was struck down in the Residential Tenancies Act, the reason it was struck down was that its primary purpose was judicial or subjudicial, and that it was in fact taking over jurisdiction of a higher court, and there was no constitutional power for the provincial government to give the power of a higher court to a nonjudicial, subjudicial or pseudo-judicial body.

We see in the Employment Standards Tribunal that the government has again tried to strike that. When we read through this, it's interesting to see the things that get a red flag. The tribunal is established -- that's the first thing we see -- and it consists of the following members: a chair, appointed by cabinet; adjudicators, appointed by the chair, who is a cabinet appointee; and members appointed by the minister. This is hardly a process that's coming through either the constitutional act of the federal government or the panel by which we appoint judges, nor is it a body that is accountable to the public in any way, shape or form. It is an appointed body.

What is the power of the tribunal? The power of the tribunal is to hear the determinations of the director, if those determinations are put before the tribunal. As well, the director is not a third party but somebody appointed by cabinet. The proceedings under

section 107 of the act -- and this is where we have a very strong problem with this -- are: "Subject to any rules made under

section 109(1)(c), the tribunal may conduct an appeal or other proceeding in the manner it considers necessary, and is not required to hold an oral hearing." There is no provision for the public to have an opportunity to see if justice is being done in these hearings.

If we ask ourselves what the most efficient form of government is, we all know that the most efficient form of decision-making is a dictatorship. Clearly, if we have all the power to set up the most efficient form of government, and if, because we're in the driver's seat, we think we know best and we know how to solve things quickly, then the most effective way to do that is through a benevolent dictatorship. So perhaps the government would say....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for Yale-Lillooet says that would be great.

H. Lali: No, no -- Frederick the Great.

J. Tyabji: Ah, Frederick the Great. Good thing he clarified that; I thought he was saying it would be great to have a benevolent dictatorship.

Hon. Speaker, I would actually welcome a motion that we have a benevolent dictatorship in B.C., because then we could debate who decides what is construed as benevolent, because clearly....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Well, it depends which Gordon, and you can't name a member in the House.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, it's nice to see so much support for the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance coming from other members of the House.

But to go to the heart of this, if we can agree that a benevolent dictatorship is the most effective way of governing, why are we in a parliamentary democracy? Why have we built up a judicial system, and all the associated powers and checks and balances that, in theory, are in that system -- even though, with the state the justice system is in right now, we're having people ask for reform, change and accountability? This is giving the hearing powers of a superior court when there are assets seized and where there has been a determination.

There could be search and seizure, under one provision of this act, by the director. Once the assets are seized, there can be a closed hearing. In fact, if we look at the director's decisions -- and those decisions are what come before the tribunal.... Let's look at this for a second, because, to me, this is where we start to get on some very shaky territory, unless we decide we want a benevolent dictatorship and that we will in fact get benevolence from the regulation and legislation of this bill.

That's not where I'm at, but if that's where the public is at, I would like to hear that from them before we take that route in legislation.

Under

section 79 of this act, what do we find? This is the director's determination; these are the matters, decisions and issues placed before the tribunal under

section 79.

Section 79(1) says: "On completing an investigation, the director may make a determination under this section." "May not" is implied. How do we know which elements have brought the director to that determination? We see that under

section 79, in subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), the qualification is that if the director is satisfied, the director may do the following.... There are no parameters of satisfaction laid out here.

Section 79(2) says: "If satisfied that requirements of this act and the regulations have not been contravened, the director must dismiss a complaint." We're all happy that the director must dismiss it if there has been no contravention of the act, but how do we know when the director has been satisfied and when not?

Section 79(3) says: "If satisfied that a person has contravened a requirement...the director may" require complicity, require remedy or impose a penalty. There again, when

[ Page 14819 ]

we get into the penalty

section we get into a realm of grave danger, because we find that the penalty

schedule is at the arbitrary whim of the director. If the director is deciding a penalty schedule, that is the person who, on an arbitrary basis, says: "I'm satisfied" -- or not satisfied -- "there has been a contravention." They may then, under this act, go into the business premises without a warrant and search, interrogate and seize assets for the purpose of following through on this. Those are potentially very dangerous legislative powers for an appointed person.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: For the record, the member for Prince George-Omineca has said that when they do search and seize, the people they're doing that search and seizure on will not have guns if the federal gun legislation goes in. I suppose we're supposed to be happy about that. This is a very solemn subject, so I shouldn't be laughing. Sometimes, though, it does allow the debate to go a bit smoother.

Under

section 79(4), we find:

"In addition, if satisfied that an employer has contravened a requirement of

section 8 or

Part 6, the director may require the employer to do one or more of the following: (

a) hire a person and pay the...wages...; (

b) reinstate a person...and pay...any wages lost...; (

c) pay...compensation..." -- and we know that it's going to be at the discretion of the director -- "(

d) pay an employee or other person reasonable and actual out of pocket expenses...."

Now, if you have a small business, and the director is satisfied there's been a contravention, has set up a

schedule of penalties and puts them on this business, then we know that in a later

section of the act there are liens automatically placed against the assets -- automatically. There's no choice there. There can be immediate seizure and sale of the assets.

The business's right of appeal is to the tribunal, which is appointed and a self-interested body. It's a totally closed shop. The proceedings can be done behind closed doors. There are no written proceedings, no transcripts, no provision for any kind of order -- even an order of dismissal. There is one provision for an order that comes out, but even that doesn't necessarily have to take place, with all the needs of the person filing the appeal. That person's needs can be completely dismissed.

We know that also, in the penalties section, a high degree of arbitrariness can be assigned to a business by a director or by the tribunal. They can decide to set the level of compensation if they believe there's been a contravention.

So where we see there being a serious problem.... We know the seizure and release of assets is provided for. There are no time limits. There's no provision for compensation for the person who's had the assets seized, if we find out later on that there was an undue seizure of assets. There's no provision for compensation if there's been a loss of business during that time.

All the power is in the hands of the appointed people, and there's no recourse to the courts. There's a provision in here, under

section 110, "Finality of tribunal's decisions and orders," which I think is also unconstitutional. It says: "A decision or order of the tribunal under this Act or the regulations on any matter in which it has jurisdiction is final and conclusive and is not open to question" -- and most importantly -- "or review in a court on any grounds."

An Hon. Member: Shame.

J. Tyabji: That is absolutely shameful. That is why we cannot have quasi-judicial bodies. We have them through many other acts. We've spoken against them before in the House -- the members of the Alliance have.

But in this bill we see those quasi-judicial bodies having no administrative function whatsoever. This body is a judicial body, a body made to decide disputes and settle arbitrations. In fact, more than that, it's not even made to decide disputes, because the hearing or the determination of the decisions is done at the whim of the director. This body is only there as an appeal mechanism. So it's a closed-shop appeal at the discretion of an individual appointed to make a decision about whether there's been a contravention of the act. That's a problem. I'd say that's a big problem.

There are some other things I'd like to mention. I know I probably don't have a lot of time, and I actually have to close down fairly soon. But all of us should recognize that everyone has a right to the principle of natural justice. In fact, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, which is often maligned for preserving the rights of those who have committed an offence over the rights of the victims, makes a provision for the principles of natural justice to apply in any hearing. We all have the right to due justice and due diligence in the administration of justice.

That does not occur in this act.

Section 114 is headed: "After an appeal is requested." Let's say we're a small business person. We've had a disgruntled employee who's come up and has managed to bend the ear of the director. The director, at his or her whim, has sided 100 percent with that employee, and now we've requested an appeal before the tribunal. There are no time limits on any of this, I might add, which is very problematic.

Section 114 says: "The tribunal may dismiss an appeal without a hearing of any kind if satisfied" -- there's that phrase again -- "after examining the request that (

a) the appeal has not been requested within the time limit..." -- all right, that's a technical reason -- "(

b) the appeal is not within the tribunal's jurisdiction" -- I don't know how it would be satisfied on that. And subsection (

c) is a problem: "...the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or trivial or is not brought in good faith." Who decides? This is a closed shop. This is an appointed group. Maybe, for example -- and I don't want to sound cynical; I don't want to sound like I don't believe in the process.... For argument's sake, let's say that the director is a good friend of the Minister of Employment and Investment. He's here; we'll use him. He's a good friend of the Minister of Employment and Investment....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: That's a good point. There are precedents for this in some of these appointments. Let's say the government says: "We really like the Employment Standards Act and we're really pro-employee, so we're going to put one of our employee-oriented people in as an appointee." That person is going to help set up a little tribunal -- maybe they happened to go to school together; I think there are some precedents for that; we know some of them have taken their master's together, they're buddies, and they've got this little club happening.

The director makes a decision: "The employer was a bit of a jerk in this instance, so I'm going to hammer this person as an example to all the other employers."

[2:45]

Interjection.

[ Page 14820 ]

J. Tyabji: It's just a hypothetical example. So let's say that's what happens; let's say that the director had a bad day. It happens -- gets up in a bad mood and decides to really hammer the first case across his or her desk. Later on, you've got this tribunal. They know there's an appeal coming before them, but maybe the press gallery were actually awake that day, came to work that day, somebody actually wrote the

article up for them and brown-enveloped it, so they printed it.

The government's worried they're going to get embarrassed if there's a tribunal inquiry into this, even though it's closed and we don't have to hear about it.

So the tribunal says: "We'd better protect our director, because the director is at the pinnacle of the entire Employment Standards Act." The government brought in this act, the government can't afford to be embarrassed on this act, and they say, "I'm sorry, this is a frivolous appeal," and they do all the political rhetoric -- not that we've heard political rhetoric before, but let's say that we're in that kind of frame of mind where there's going to be political rhetoric -- and they just shut the appeal down. They can't take it to court.

Even if that small business has any money left after being hammered through this process of the director's determination and the attempt to take it to appeal, they're not allowed to.

Before I forget, the other

section that I have to raise with respect to the director.... First of all,

section 121 is another

section which should make us all quite concerned, because after removing the right to litigate any of the decisions of the appeal board and after removing the right to an open hearing and pursuing justice through this closed process of appointees, in

section 121 we find that the director cannot be required to give evidence in other proceedings:

"Except for a prosecution under this Act or an appeal to the Employment Standards Tribunal, the director or a delegate of the director must not be required by a court, board, tribunal or person to give evidence or produce records relating to information obtained for the purposes of this Act."

That's just crazy. That means that it renders

section 118 a little bit silly, if we have read this bill.

Section 118 says: "Right to sue preserved" -- oh, great! It says: "Subject to

section 82, nothing in this Act or the regulations affects a person's right to commence and maintain an action that, but for this Act, the person would have had the right to commence and maintain." Let's say, for example, that you happen to be in a profession where your reputation.... My time is almost gone. If your reputation matters, and you are being hauled up before the board, you would have a hard time getting the director to testify in a slander suit if you wanted to try to preserve your reputation through litigation.

There's a lot more that will be said in committee stage. We cannot support the bill from

section 12 on, but the first part of this bill is commendable.

D. Mitchell: I too would like to enter this debate. I had a chance earlier on in the debate to speak to the sixth-month hoist amendment moved by the official opposition. We had some interesting debate on that amendment, but I'd like to follow up on a few of the comments made by the member for Okanagan East.

The debate on the amendment was interesting in a number of respects. We were talking about a sixth-month hoist; effectively it was an amendment to kill the bill. During the debate yesterday on that amendment, a number of issues were raised as to whether or not this bill should proceed now, should not proceed now, should be hoisted for six months, should be delayed or postponed further -- what have you. Listening to the debate last night was interesting.

I noticed at one point that some of the government members spoke on the amendment. It was useful to get the government's position in defence of this bill. The member for Mission-Kent actually made an interesting intervention in the debate. He was going on about how.... He was using an analogy: he was talking about the pond in the front of his house and how scum rises to the top of his pond.

At one point in the debate -- I couldn't understand why, just watching -- the member for Delta South actually raised a point of order against the member for Mission-Kent, because he seemed to think that this principle of scum rising to the top was applying to him or to his party, which surprised me, an observer.

Hon. Speaker, yesterday, when you were not in the chair, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources responded to the point of order by clarifying this issue, in a parliamentary sense, pointing out that the member for Mission-Kent was likely referring to scum in general and not in particular.

I think that should have satisfied the point of order raised initially by the member for Delta South, except it occurred to me to wonder -- and I think it's relevant to wonder in this debate: if the member for Delta South is genuinely concerned about the principle of scum rising to the top, how does he justify his continued membership in that party? It was just a thought, and I just wanted to follow up on that.

In addressing Bill 29 in second reading, which is a debate on the principle of Bill 29, I've got to say that we have to ask a question as to whether or not this is an appropriate model for employer-employee relations in the 1990s. I would say that it might be an appropriate model for labour relations for the 1890s, but not for the 1990s.

It anticipates a model of industrial relations that is perhaps reminiscent of the early stages of industrial capitalism, where workers were, according to the mythology, exploited mercilessly and unconscionably by the captains of industry; where employees were forced to work at hard labour in the pits of underground coalmines and haul coal on their backs. As a result, they needed certain rights and protections, which 100 years later are no longer required, because industrial relations -- thank goodness! -- have progressed a long way. Perhaps they were never as bad as the socialist mythology would have us believe.

The model of employer-employee relations that Bill 29 is based upon doesn't really fit the modern-day economy of British Columbia. It's a service-oriented economy that is dominated by small and medium-sized businesses. They are creating the jobs that are being generated in this economy. The large unionized corporations are no longer creating jobs; they're downsizing; they're reducing the number of jobs in the economy. That's a pattern that has been in place for some time now in British Columbia. We know that all the new jobs are coming from smaller, non-unionized firms -- in the service sector in particular.

[ Page 14821 ]

labour conditions in the modern-day economy of British Columbia. Most British Columbians don't work for big government or big unions or big business; most British Columbians actually work for smaller enterprises.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: As the Minister of Employment and Investment correctly says, that's what Bill 29 is directed to. It's trying to force that old corporatist model on the small business sector. When I refer to the corporatist model, what I'm referring to is the model that was used by Benito Mussolini in Italy in the 1920s and '30s. He thought that if you got together with big business and big labour unions and big government, they could scratch each other's backs, and they'd be happy together forever. But it ignored the fact that the small businesses weren't represented.

Now, what did the government do when the Coalition of British Columbia Businesses -- representing the smaller and medium-sized businesses in the economy -- came and asked for one final round of consultation? The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour said: "No, forget it; no more consultation. We're not concerned about the small businesses in the province. We've decided what we're going to do. We've consulted our big labour friends, we've consulted some of the big companies who employ our unionized friends, and we've decided what we're going to do. We're going to enforce the Employment Standards Act on you. We don't really care what the small businesses have to say. They don't count."

That's effectively what this arrogant government's attitude is saying. And it's wrong, hon. Speaker. It's wrong, because it's using a model of employer-employee relations that doesn't fit the modern-day reality of the province. It's a dinosaur model....

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: The member knows he shouldn't be heckling me from the cabinet seats, where he'd like to sit but never will. He shouldn't be heckling me from there, but I enjoy it, because it's nice to see him over there. He'll never sit over there for very long, but enjoy it while you can, hon. member -- so close to the throne, sitting right next to the throne.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: I'm sorry that I've scared him back to his seat, because I was actually enjoying it, hon. Speaker.

Bill 29, I think, is going to result in a diminution of the rights of both employers and employees. It's going to force what some have suggested would be a situation where employees and employers.... It's going to force a situation where both employees and employers aren't working for themselves, aren't working for their companies, but working for the government. They're going to be effectively working for the government, because they're going to be spending an inordinate amount of time filling out forms, dealing with paperwork.

They already have to deal with huge bureaucracies: the WCB -- it's a huge burden for small businesses -- GST, PST, the corporation capital tax. And now we're adding onto that a new Employment Standards Act, which doesn't provide incentives for business people; it provides disincentives. It will effectively discourage anyone from wanting to start a business or go into business and create jobs.

Those are the reasons that I'm disappointed, and I'm dismayed that the government would bring forward this bill at this time. I don't want to belabour the debate. When we get into committee stage on this bill, I know we're going to have some good debate on a number of sections. I'm going to leave my comments at that, but just in case there is any confusion, I will be voting against second reading of this bill.

C. Serwa: I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act. Certainly I've heard a great deal said about it, and I see that in the work of Mark Thompson it talks about rights and responsibilities in a changing workplace. As I read through this particular piece of legislation, my initial fears were really confirmed. We're talking here about the rights of employees, and we're talking about the responsibilities of employers. We're not talking about mutual responsibilities, and that's clearly evident as you progress through this particular bill.

When the review of employment standards came back, and the recommendations of Mark Thompson came in, they were certainly far more expansive, and they were very controversial. Some of the recommendations were really well off the mark as far as reasonableness is concerned. At that particular point in time -- that was in March 1994 -- the Social Credit group issued a press release on that, and what I said then still holds true.

An Hon. Member: You said "group"?

C. Serwa: The Social Credit group, the party that formed government for 13 of the last 15 elections in the province of British Columbia, in case your selective memory dismissed that, hon. minister.

Nevertheless, our concern at that time was similar to what it is at the moment. We have a great deal of concern with respect to the agricultural industry. As I said at that particular point in time, putting their employers out of business is a very strange way to benefit agricultural workers. Once again the government has listened for ten months but only heard what it had already decided behind closed doors with union bosses who fund their party.

Socialist ideology is running wild, while the livelihoods of the thousands of people who depend on the viable agricultural industry in our province are of no consequence to this government. We are appealing to the minister directly to scrap this aspect of the Thompson report.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Gales of laughter -- and from a group that collectively has probably not contributed or created more than one or two jobs amongst them all. They've worked in the public sector; they've worked for the unions; and, fundamentally, they have worked often as parasites in society rather than as builders of society. Gales of laughter.

The legislation clearly indicates the lack of understanding about small business. It demonstrates a lack of understanding with respect to small business, and that's the tragedy -- because of the narrow spectrum of individuals that this party derives its political candidates from. It's also a tragedy and an

[ Page 14822 ]

absolute recognition that the government of the day and government members are not your typical group of political leaders. They are governed by the NDP provincial council, which dictates what happens.

The debate that we're going through and the flow of legislation we've seen in the last few days show clearly that heads have been knocked together by the NDP provincial council. I'd certainly like to know who is on that, other than Ken Georgetti and the other union bosses who have bridled you and directed your concern. But obviously they have said this to you: that, clearly, the easy trying to please all of the spectrum of the public in British Columbia is for naught. You have already lost that particular contest. It has been lost absolutely, and you'd better try to keep the friends who put you where you are.

Then I can see this return to the type of legislation that you've tendered or brought forward in the last few days in order to be mindful that you must do everything to at least elect some members in the next election and form some form of government.

[3:00]

I see the Speaker is a little testy, but I'm mindful that the former Minister of Environment, the former Minister of Labour, the other day took all sorts of latitude not discussing the philosophy and principles of a previous bill. In discussing the philosophy and principles of this bill.... And you have to be patient and understand, hon. Speaker, that I have to describe the background leading into the philosophy and principle of this bill and its origins.

Deputy Speaker: Let me clarify for the member, who has had considerable experience in this Legislature and knows better. The only intervention the Chair was making was through the Chair, when he was directing his comments directly to the minister. I offered that caution without turning on the microphone as a courtesy to the member, so let us be very clear for the record, member: I have no wish to impede debate, nor would I.

C. Serwa: One of the things that enables the House to proceed on a more or less level playing field is the civility of decisions that come from the Speaker's chair. It's very, very necessary in what is sometimes a very testy and obviously partisan forum, so I thank you very much for your comments.

The reality is -- and the newspaper headlines say it well -- that there's a rat's nest of rules, and it will hurt the little guys. It definitely will. What we're seeing in the philosophy behind this particular piece of legislation is the philosophy of the government in power. It's a socialist philosophy. They want big government, they want big unions, and they want big business. That's the area that they wax eloquently on and where they draw their strength, and I can understand that. But it doesn't represent how jobs are created in British Columbia.

And it doesn't matter what type of words the government uses, the fact remains that they are doing everything in their power to make small businesses smaller -- to almost vanish to the point where you have a small business, an owner-operator type of a business, and that's it. Everything else will have to be done by a very large organization, so I imagine they will get the support of the big unions, and I would imagine they will also get the support of the big corporations -- more so than the Liberal Party. They seem to feel that big business has the Liberals in their pockets, but I suggest quite the contrary.

The government of the day is creating an environment that enhances the opportunity for big business and is destroying the field of opportunity for small business, and there is a great deal of concern with respect to that.

I suppose when we've heard a lot of discussion here.... We've heard about the social and economic equality that the government talks about, but one thing they never talk about is equality of opportunity. That's something that's not considered even in this type of legislation. You are militating against the opportunity for new entrants into the workforce. You are militating against it in a number of situations -- for example, no hiring of children under 15 without the director's permission. Now, who is going to go to the director to hire someone under 15?

There are a lot of young people, especially young children who have grown up on farms, who are very adept and capable and who know how to work or are willing to work and who want to work at a younger age. So now we have to go and get someone's permission to hire that young person.

You know, my early years were spent on the prairies. I remember when I was about eight years old that I went out in the farmers' field and picked, I think, wild mustard that was among the grain. There was a large group of small children, probably eight to 10 years old, doing that. We felt kind of proud doing it, and we did earn some money. I don't think it was a bad experience; I don't think it was an abuse of children. I started driving a cat, a bulldozer, full-time in the summertime, when I was 14. That was not abuse; it was a tremendous and exhilarating opportunity.

I worked every summer since that particular point in time. I've always found employers I've worked for to be fair, reasonable and approachable. One of the things in the nature of small business is that you talk to all your employees on a daily basis.

When we look at this particular bill, it has been designed from the large type of employer perspective and from the union perspective. It has not been designed from anything that is sensitive or sympathetic to small business and the opportunity for small business in the province. It has not been designed realistically for the challenges that face those people engaged in agriculture. On the cattle ranches throughout British Columbia, cowboys get up when it's dark, and they probably don't get home till it's dark -- and that's in the middle of the summertime.

So we're going to put them on an hourly wage, we're going to pay overtime and double time, and we're going to do all these things. Where is it going to come from?

I'm going to tell you where it's going to come from. It's going to come from people downsizing or expanding the use of equipment, and we're going to have more and more unemployed people. I've heard members from the government side talk about the strength of the economy and the credit rating; this morning they were feeling very good and very proud of it. But I think the government better have a better look at some of the realities that prevail.

They should take a look at the young people and their opportunities and their future in the province. Right now there's a great deal of hopelessness, because the young people have a very, very high percentage -- higher than ever before -- of individuals who are unemployed. Sure, there may be some of them who haven't completed their grade 12, and maybe there are some who have completed grade 12. There are a lot of young people who have completed university and don't have good jobs in the province. That points to the type of sickness that is out there.

[ Page 14823 ]

The reality is that we can't diminish our necessity to be competitive. We have to be productive, and we have to be competitive. If we have too many obligations imposed by government -- be they taxes, bureaucratic red tape, excessive rules and regulations and inspections or be it this type of legislation -- we are denying that type of competitiveness. Every widget we produce or every pound of beef produced here in British Columbia and then exported has to bear its share of government-imposed cost. That's the unfairness of this. We're getting to the point, hon.

Speaker, where we are pricing ourselves right out of not only our national market but our international market. The government seems committed to jobs, but I have seen no evidence of any commitment to jobs here. Rather, I see the elimination of jobs.

McDonald's does a splendid job of employee training. They may not pay very high wages, but for new entrants into the field there is a splendid training program and a splendid opportunity in self-discipline and the work ethic, and the expectations of the standard of performance are all there. McDonald's does an absolutely tremendous job with young people, and I applaud them for that. But what we're doing with the types of regulations and legislation that we're looking at today is eliminating the opportunity. McDonald's can capitalize.

They can get automatic equipment that can do the job and replace employees, and that's what this government is forcing them to do. What does it mean? It means that more and more young people are going to feel that sense of hopelessness. They will have nothing, and they have nothing to lose. When we talk about social problems, that is fundamentally the basis of those social problems: the loss of the feeling of self-worth, the loss of confidence, the loss of the feeling of contribution and getting remuneration for that contribution to society.

This bill does absolutely nothing to enhance the opportunities in any way, shape or form.

When I go through this particular piece of legislation, I am mindful that employment standards are necessary. Our previous government thought so and indicated that, and it is obviously a concern of all members in this Legislature, but this particular set of employment standards has become overly intrusive into the whole system. It has been designed by individuals who have no understanding of and no familiarity with the challenges faced by small business in British Columbia. If we don't have small business, we do not have jobs for the people in the province, because most of the jobs have been created by small business. That is a reality, and it is something we can't ignore.

Big business has reduced the number of employment opportunities. When we look at the forest industry, we have to understand that as we have paid our forest workers more and more in the way of wages through union demands, we have had fewer and fewer employed in that particular sector. In the last ten to 12 years, there has probably been at least a 30 percent to 40 percent decline in the number of forest workers in the logging and milling sectors of that industry.

The current government may want to colour that by saying they are employing a lot more people because they have these tree-planters and they're going to go into stream rehabilitation, etc., but for the IWA the reality is that those good-paying, full-time jobs have simply vanished through mechanization. I've gone through plants where there is a line of 100 metres of equipment controlled by one person with a computer system, and the finished product is coming out the other side.

Instead of pulling lumber off a greenchain, now we have electric sensors, and we take random-length, random-width lumber and stack it in stacks without a human hand touching it. That makes it more and more difficult for people to find good, satisfying, well-paying jobs here in the province.

The government likes to assume that all employers are poor or bad employers, and it is quite the contrary. With the type of team effort that is required in small business, you'll find that communication is very good. In this particular bill, it indicates that one of the goals of the bill is to enhance communication. The drafters of this bill obviously have no understanding of the reality that prevails in small business, because under subsection 2(c) -- "encourage open communication between employers and employees" -- the reality is that in small business, that occurs on a daily basis.

I have talked briefly about the requirement for no hiring of children under 15 without the director's permission. That is another piece of bureaucratic red tape and, as far as I'm concerned, totally unacceptable. It denies an opportunity for many of our young people in the province to seek gainful employment, and many have the ability and want those types of jobs.

They are restricting a number of issues, such as minimum daily hours. I can only presume that a student delivering papers has to be paid for a minimum of two hours at the regular minimum rate on a daily basis, and that is going to do nothing but dry up jobs. We have a whole series of areas like that. It may be summer camp-type jobs at camps run by non-profit societies that are going to be impacted by this legislation. We hire employees by the month, and all of a sudden we have this legislation.

The summer camps are going to have a great deal of difficulty because, other than trying to evade the letter of the law, they have no ability to comply with it. If they are going to require the fees that warrant this type of legislation, they will have no client base, and the young children will have no summer camps to go to. It's simply not possible to conform to this type of legislation and be economically viable or competitive.

I think that the bill has been drafted by a government that has really lost control. I think history will look at this government as probably one of the most despised and corrupt governments that has ever been in any province in Canada. This government does not have any vision; they do not have any particular plan. They are controlled by an unelected, unaccountable group who are invisible, hidden behind a screen -- the NDP provincial council, a group that is greedy, full of self-interest and lust for more and more power.

This government has never shown any indication of serving the general interest or the public interest of the people of the province. This bill is directed by the provincial council as an opportunity to strengthen the union arm of the

govern-

[ Page 14824 ]

ment. I think it's a tyrannical government that is paying attention to only those special interest groups that have supported the government.

[3:15]

In the end, I will be voting against the philosophy and the principles of this bill because it tends to distort the free market system. It's not based on fairness and balance. There's no effort to ensure that employees also have a responsibility to employers. There's no need to provide adequate notice, and in a small business that is very important. Right now we're relying on the goodwill of an employee. If this legislation made any effort to be balanced and fair, consideration would have been given to that. I see that there is only the consideration given to the employee.

In the end, it's not balanced, it's not fair, and it's not reasonable. It would place a great load not only on a small business, which is violently opposed, but certainly on the agricultural sector.

I supported the hoist motion put up by the Liberal opposition, because I believe in all fairness not only that business throughout British Columbia should have the opportunity to look at this legislation and value and assess it for what it is, but that it's exceedingly important that young people and employees have the same opportunity. Because what this legislation will do is start to erode the job opportunities for all sorts of employees in the province. Whether they're part-time, whether they're young employees or whether they're senior employees, it will erode opportunities. They will simply not be economically viable jobs, and they will simply disappear.

The net result of that will be that more and more individuals are going to depend on government for their livelihood. Government members maybe are quite satisfied, and I'm certain that some bureaucracies in the government are quite happy to have more and more people on the GAIN program or to be looked after by welfare. But we have to remember the loss of the potential of the individuals entrapped in that particular program, and the inability of the taxpayer to support a growing a number of individuals on it.

We're mindful, also, that we have the baby-boomers in their late forties, early fifties, who are moving through the system. Legislation like this is going to deny a young funding base to provide for the health care and pensions of those who are moving off into the pension field. So once again, it strikes out on that basis. I think that the legislation is very partisan. It has been ill-thought-out, ill-presented, and it warrants a second look by government.

D. Streifel: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Streifel: In the gallery today is a group of students, accompanied by parents andteachers, from Ferndale Elementary. I've just spent a very interesting 20 minutes on the front steps with these young folks, answering their questions. I would suggest that all members of the House should spend some time in their community with young people of that age and try to get through those questions. I think it would make these media scrums out here seem rather tame. Would the House please welcome these friends from Mission.

A. Warnke: Actually, I would reiterate what the member for Mission-Kent said. As a matter of fact, all of us meet with students and young people at one time or another. All of us, I think, have had very pleasant experiences on every occasion -- certainly on every occasion that I can recall -- and I meet several classes throughout the year.

I'm not going to go on at length this afternoon. Prior to this afternoon, there had been several presentations both in support of and against the bill. I'll follow up and essentially express to you, hon. Speaker, that I want to add my voice to my colleagues' on one particular aspect especially. Indeed, as I've listened to the debate develop, I've noticed that there is a pattern. There are changes put forward in this bill. Changes are required in terms of establishing employment standards. There are parts of the bill that are very supported.

The opposition critic has made it very clear that there are many aspects to the bill that are worthy of support and that probably will receive our support once we move to the next stage. The pattern that I see in terms of a critique of this particular bill focuses on small businesses.

I just want to add a few comments to that, as well. It is worthwhile reiterating to get the point across very clearly to government members that something of a pattern is evolving. Something in the bill does need some improvement, and that is where small businesses are affected. Indeed, I would say there are two areas of the economy that are affected: small businesses and the farm industry.

The member for Abbotsford spoke very well this morning about the impact of this bill on the farm industry. I find it very interesting that when I compare another piece of legislation that's before us, the so-called right-to-farm act, with this particular bill, I see a pattern there. On the one hand, there is one bill that expresses the right to farm and expresses some raised expectations of how the farming community is supposed to respond to that particular bill; yet when we get down to the nitty gritty in this particular bill, I think it has a profoundly adverse impact on the farm industry and doesn't come to grips with the reality of the farm industry.

Many members -- they represent different parts of British Columbia -- have probably had some experience helping farmers during the summertime in a farming community. I myself had that experience up in the valley when I was a teenager. I helped out farmers in the upper valley, and I got a little for it. I helped farmers by haying, and I helped other companies when it came to raspberry picking, bean picking and that sort of thing.

When I reflect on my memory of working for one company that hires young people to strawberry pick, raspberry pick, bean pick and all the rest of it, and I compare it to the farmers who hire people for haying, I must admit that I've always been impressed with farmers who hire young people. By and large, they have been pretty fair; sometimes more fair than the corporations who hire young people. I suppose this is a part that bothers me just a little bit, and perhaps the minister might once again take a look at the bill and perhaps see those areas where some improvement is needed.

The reason I emphasize this is that where a corporation is involved.... This kind of legislation may have some sort of potential problem but will probably not impede corporations. They get through the hoops very well -- sometimes because they are corporations. I suppose we can think of the fast-food industry. The member for Okanagan West referred to one example of a corporation that hires young people.

[ Page 14825 ]

I share with that member the extent to which McDonald's has helped young people; and it is helping them out at lower wages than what would perhaps be tolerated by the adult community.

The other side of the coin is that when I look at this bill and how it impacts on farmers, realizing that they have to.... Essentially they hire young people to do the haying -- stack bales of hay and that sort of thing. They're not really exploiting young people. Somehow I envisage young people -- and I have had this experience -- having a much different relationship with the farmer than with corporations. I suppose that's where it would be worthwhile to go back and have a re-examination here, because the farm industry -- I'm talking about family farms....

If we are really interested in the right to farm, I think we have to think about the family farm. As the member for Surrey-White Rock eloquently said this morning, the impact this bill has on small businesses -- and a number of members have referred to the impact on small businesses and the family business.... This is where I think we need to re-examine the relevant parts of this bill -- not to impose any more restrictions, impediments and red tape on small businesses.

It's extremely important that in our economy, especially since the minister has said that we're moving from a resource-based economy to a service economy.... I would invite the minister to appreciate that if we are moving -- and with him, I believe that we are moving to more of a service-based economy -- that we have some fundamental respect for family farms, family businesses and small businesses, because the impact that it has on them can be profound. It certainly has a profound impact on the rest of the community, as we are all consumers using these services.

I cannot expand on some elaborate and, I would say, very good presentations that have been given on this, except perhaps one last point: with respect to those provisions in the bill where the intent is to improve the situation of domestic workers, the government may be dead on. And in that context, I am quite supportive. It's one of those bills that has sort of mixed blessings: areas that can be supported and other areas deserve some re-examination. Possibly when we go through committee stage, the minister and the government will respond accordingly.

There was one comment made this morning. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca said we were taking small businesses into account. Yet in that presentation, the member argued in favour of the government and said that it had been in touch with the small businesses. Well, that was twofold.

That member said: "We used Professor Thompson to get in touch with the various small business communities." On that point, I would say: "Precisely; there is an arm's length between the government and the small businesses that are being affected." They're listening to Professor Thompson -- and on his behalf, he put together a good report and all the rest of it -- but the fact is that there is no direct contact between the government and the small businesses that are being affected.

That was one defence where I see there is a problem. The second one is that the government did get in touch with small businesses. How? Through constant consultation with coalitions and associations; the member listed a number of them. But as I listened to the list of coalitions and associations, I said to myself: "You know, that is part of the problem. The government has not paid attention to the impact of legislation such as this on small businesses, because there was no attempt to have direct contact with small businesses." It was done through coalitions and associations....

And to a certain extent, maybe that reflects a bias of myself: sometimes I'm suspicious, or, at other times, and perhaps this is relevant in here....

Again, it acts as an intermediary, because you have so-called representatives of small businesses. To be quite hones with you, I have paid attention to some individuals who claim to represent small businesses throughout Canada, and when they respond to a Finance minister's bill, or the budget or something like that and they're asked by the media for some sort of comment, sometimes I have really wondered and asked myself: "Who the heck is this individual to claim to represent small business?"

[3:30]

I would encourage the government to try to get some direct contact with small businesses that are affected, and listen to examples such as those the member for Surrey-White Rock was pointing out this morning. Pay close attention to those examples, rather than always trying to rely on intermediaries such as the coalitions, associations and all the rest of it. That, I think, reveals why there is a fundamental weakness in at least some parts of this bill. On that, hon. Speaker, I take my place.

F. Randall: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 29 students in grade 4 at Douglas Road Elementary school, and they're accompanied by Mrs. Bradley, their teacher, and other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'll just make a few comments in the conclusion of second reading of Bill 29. I would tend to be in favour of most of the cases in this bill; some items are very good items. But there are a few things that have to be pointed out, I think, and that have been pointed out by a lot of the members over these last couple of days. One of them is that it assumes that employees cannot make any flexible arrangements regarding hours of work, overtime, statutory holidays, leaves and vacations, etc., and that they can only do so, according to this bill, under the tight control of the government.

If this bill is any indication, the government appears to assume that all employers are bad employers, and we all should know that this is not true. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite, in the sense that most jobs are created by small businesses. This is a situation that really has to be taken into consideration if this bill is going to curtail employment through small businesses.

An Hon. Member: How?

D. Jarvis: How? It does. We have always realized that the first-time man on the job, on the scene, is sometimes paid the minimum wage, or close to the minimum wage, or can only work so many hours. There's always the housewife or the single mother who has children and who can only work so many hours a day. Now they are required to pay her for four hours. Those sorts of things do affect it considerably.

[ Page 14826 ]

Another aspect of this bill that I'm not pleased with -- I think it's under

part 5, and we'll get into it in detail in committee stage -- is the larger businesses that it will affect, not necessarily the smaller businesses but larger businesses, those that have collective agreements. Now we have the holiday aspect under

part 5, which they'll have to renegotiate or make some kind of consideration for.

This bill prohibits flexible work arrangements, as I said before, for students and women who are working on a part-time basis. The bill itself makes no attempt to create employment, which is our main requirement, I believe, in this House. Any bills that we're bringing forward to do with labour should be to help create more employment.

To sum it up, this bill simply represents, on the whole, more government intrusion into the employer-employee relationship, and on that basis, I will be voting against the second reading.

F. Randall: I'm going to be very, very brief. I just wanted to make a comment on Bill 29 and certainly go on record as supporting it. Most of the comments that we've heard have been negative with regard to practically everything -- and even comments are made now that the bill should be creating employment. This bill is to protect employees from abuse by unscrupulous employers, and there are few of those around.

I don't want to get into all the details in the bill. When we get into committee stage, we'll be able to deal with each issue clause by clause. I know that the minister will deal with any legitimate concerns or problems that are raised. I know that there was one mentioned earlier, and I'm not sure whether federal government records for income tax purposes are for seven years or six years. There was a speaker in the opposition who said it was six years, and my information is that it's seven years. I think that should be resolved, because I think it should be the same period of time. Those kinds of things can be discussed as we go through.

Certainly this bill is not a problem for fair employers. It's there to ensure that certain standards are met by all employers. There is a fair amount of abuse with regard to working conditions and benefits for people who are usually working in very minimum-paying jobs. Concern about the farm was mentioned, farm labour. If a labour broker brings people in to work, there have to be assurances made that those employees are going to be paid. The person who's having the work performed on their farm should ensure that those wages are paid. You can't have labour brokers not pay the workers when the farmer has all the work done. So I think that is also important.

I guess the other comment is that there's talk about referring this -- tabling it. You know, it's been about two years in the making, and I don't know how long you keep discussing these things. There have been all kinds of consultation -- as was mentioned previously -- and meetings with all kinds of different groups. I just want to say that all the discussion about small business and people going out of business....

From my experience, I would say that most of the people I know who have gone out of business -- and I've talked to a lot of small business people -- have done so because people aren't paying their bills. It's usually larger employers who hire all these small employers. They don't pay them, and they eventually go out of business. That is the major problem. I've not known any of these employers to go out of business because of working conditions that their employees have -- and obviously non-union employees, because they're not working under a collective agreement.

The big problem is them collecting from the larger people they perform work for.

The major problem today is that, on collections, if it's $1000 or under, you're just wasting your time to even try to go to small debts court and collect it. It's written off. Those are all written off, because now the small debts court goes up to $10,000 on collections. It's a real problem even to try and collect; it takes years. That's an area that I know is being looked at currently.

The problem of small business going out of business is mainly because of big business not paying their bills, from my experience. All you've got to do is look at the legal

section in the newspaper, where you see that people have claims in against certain people for not paying. It's usually small businesses that have not been paid by larger businesses -- not their employees who are an effect on them performing business.

Most of the comments here seem to be against the workers receiving some sort of standard or benefit -- in other words, keep them down as low as you can. It sort of reminds me about the story in the paper where it says that Liberals would roll back pay of public employees. The fight here is to not even let these employees, who have no collective agreement or have minimum standards, try and establish something. And here they're talking about rolling back pay already for public employees.

The Liberals have no concern about working people. They have absolutely none, in my mind, and I've listened to them. In fact, I was shocked at the words of the man in the cloth over there, the way he spoke about this bill. A man of the cloth speaking like that really, really disturbed me. I'm going to wind up. I encourage the opposition members to rethink this and certainly support this legislation on second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the debate, I'm going to call on the Minister of Employment and Investment. His remarks will close second reading.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll be brief, in closing debate on behalf of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. I must say I'm a bit surprised by the tenor of the comments from members of the opposition -- that somehow this was a bill "designed by union bosses." That was one of the terms I heard which strikes me as a bit strange, given that this is for non-union workers. One could argue that there's a conflict of interest for unions, in terms of trying.... Why would they support enhancing working conditions and benefits for the non-union sector if it means it will be harder for them to organize them?

Frankly, when you read comments about this being designed by union bosses or you hear the opposite side, it strikes me as ludicrous when you look at the fact that this bill is designed not for union workers. It's in fact designed for those many thousands of workers who are non-union.

Then when you hear comments and a great long speech by the last remaining Social Credit member about how somehow there's a clause in here that you have to get a certificate before you can employ someone who's 15 or under, and how

[ Page 14827 ]

this is some travesty and some socialist plot, it struck me.... I looked at the old bill passed by the previous Social Credit government, and it has exactly the same clause: no person shall employ a child without the permission of the director or his or her authorized representative, if they are under the age of 15. There's no change in this bill, as opposed to the other bill.

Then I heard all this about the agricultural community and how this travesty -- this radical, socialist idealogy -- is infecting this bill. I looked at the old Employment Standards Act, and I find that in fact there's a one-word change, which is really a technical change designed to implement employment standards in the agricultural sector. There are no radical changes in employment standards in the agriculture sector.

Now, I could actually make a speech arguing that we should go further with employment standards. I know some of my colleagues would support that. But this does not do that. So what does it do? I refer members.... This is a little-known fact, but on the first page of every bill it says: "Explanatory Note." It says there are four key changes. Firstly: "The investigative process is streamlined." Non-union workers who file a complaint about minimum standards not being adhered to have a streamlined investigative process.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, I know it; it's a socialist plot to streamline government, but I defend it, and I'd suggest that members opposite should support it.

What else does it do? Secondly: "An independent appeal tribunal is established." Again, I think it sounds very reasonable. A whole review, a consultative study and professors recommend an appeal tribunal.

Thirdly -- and this is a good one; this is a real lefty one: "Enforcement is strengthened by requiring payment of interest on unpaid wages and by providing for penalties." The old bill had penalties. Many times the penalty to the employer was that he had to pay wages that were rightfully owed to a former employee. Now you have to pay it with interest -- surely a reasonable response. Yes, it is a tougher response, but it's a tougher response to employers who have been convicted of violating the minimum standards in law for non-union employees. They now have to pay interest to the workers they've abused -- a reasonable response.

I acknowledge that the last point here is a major step forward. It says that we require unpaid leaves. "Unpaid leaves are added for bereaved employees and employees with family responsibilities." I might remind members that I think it was Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who allowed for family leave. One of the only progressive bills that Ronald Reagan signed when he was President of the United States was to allow for unpaid family leave. We're bringing it in here following on the footsteps of that major left-wing leader, that socialist leader, Ronald Reagan. We're providing unpaid leave.

I won't make a big speech about it, but unpaid leave for family responsibilities, for children who get sick.... A single mother is trying to look after her family, and her child is sick at home. They can't afford a babysitter; they don't have a nanny. I know that's hard to understand for some members: they don't have domestics working for them. They can take time off, and the employer can't penalize them. Even though it's without pay, they can take time off to look after their children. That, I suggest, is absolutely the appropriate role for government when it comes to preserving family values: protecting families, and allowing them to take time off to look after their children.

[3:45]

This bill -- and I think members opposite made this point -- really answers the question: what is the appropriate role of government? Members opposite suggest -- and I heard it today from many speakers -- that this goes too far in protecting the rights of workers and in not allowing employers more freedom when it comes to employment standards. We suggest and make no apology for this: this bill modernizes the Employment Standards Act. Yes, it goes farther on unpaid leave for bereavement and for dealing with children, but it also says that there is an appropriate role for government.

Not all businesses are good to their employees; not all businesses are unscrupulous -- of course not. This bill will do nothing to impact good, decent employers, which are the majority. This bill is not a burden to the vast majority of businesses, small, medium and large, who treat their employees fairly. But there are unscrupulous employers. Government intervention is required to protect the rights of workers who work, unfortunately, for unscrupulous employers.

Go down to the employment standards branch and talk to the investigative officers, and they will tell you that every year there are thousands of legitimate complaints and convictions under the Employment Standards Act dealing with unscrupulous employers.

This bill is tougher on unscrupulous employers. It extends protection for the non-union sector in British Columbia. It is a modest step, one that all members should support, and I commend the bill to them.

Second reading of Bill 29 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 31

Pement

Edwards

Zirnhelt

O'Neill

Perry

Hagen

Kasper

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Smallwood

Cull

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Pullinger

Sihota

Randall

Beattie

Farnworth

Doyle

Janssen

Streifel

Simpson

Jackson

Krog

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Lali

NAYS -- 17

Dalton

Warnke

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Stephens

Weisgerber

Hanson

Serwa

Tanner

Jarvis

Anderson

Symons

K. Jones

van Dongen

de Jong

Fox

Bill 29, Employment Standards Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 14828 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.

WATER PROTECTION ACT

(second reading continued)

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I recognize now the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

An Hon. Member: It's not Port Renfrew?

M. Sihota: No, it's not Port Renfrew. In fact, the Chair last time called it Malahat-Juan de Fuca, but Port Renfrew is in the riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca now. They have the second-best MLA ever there. Oh, I'm sorry, he's gone, so I can say whatever I want to say.

I know that I've spoken for about an hour on this bill, and I'm not going to speak much longer. [Applause.] Maybe I should, and talk about the efforts of the opposition to mine the Tatshenshini.

By the way, I see the Minister of Environment. We, of course, announced another park today -- Tetrahedron -- and I give her credit.

Hon. E. Cull: It was a good announcement.

M. Sihota: It was a good announcement.

But, hon. Speaker, I'm not.... I think I've made the comments that I wanted to make about salmon and the need to protect the salmon resource in British Columbia, and that that is one of the two pillars of this legislation. I think I've already put on the record our record with regard to protection of the integrity of the salmon resource in the province. I think I've also, during the course of those comments, made clear my observations of the total lack of interest and commitment on part of the opposition in this province to protect the integrity of our salmon resource in British Columbia.

I note that to date they haven't.... I talked about Kemano and in particular about the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in that regard, in the one sort of green spot that the leopard showed.

Today I want to talk about the other pillar of this legislation. The other pillar, of course, is the fact that this legislation vests in the possession of the Crown the water resources of the province. In that sense, this legislation is historic and unprecedented but also necessary. The reason I say it is necessary is that, constitutionally, British Columbia and all the other provinces have the right and the jurisdictional control over resources that are situated in the land that sits within the provincial boundaries. We have control over our forest resources, our mineral resources and our water resources.

In the context of forests and mineral resources, this Legislature -- and particularly this government with regard to legislation like the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal B.C. -- has made a very determined statement about control over those resources and our ability as a province to manage those resources for the benefit of future generations. We want to ensure that future generations have access to an environment and a land base that is at least as safe, as clean and as bountiful as the one that we as British Columbians are fortunate enough to inherit.

To illustrate that case, what we have done as a government is change the way we manage our forests, through the Forest Practices Code and through Forest Renewal British Columbia. We have changed the revenue that accrues to the province because of the rent that is charged for that forest resource. We've brought forward changes in terms of Forest Renewal British Columbia. As I noted the other day, the opposition voted against the Forest Practices Code despite the overwhelming acknowledgement in this province that we had to change the way we manage our forests.

The opposition in British Columbia, and the Liberal opposition leader in particular, called Forest Renewal B.C. both bad politics and bad business when, indeed, we are reinvesting back into that resource to ensure that future generations have access to a resource that is as bountiful as the one we have inherited.

[4:00]

Similarly, we brought forward environmental assessment legislation in this legislative chamber last session to ensure that land base decisions -- on mining, for example -- go through the process of environmental assessment. Not only do we make sure that decisions are made in an environmentally sustainable way, but we also make it very clear that we have sovereignty over our land base in this province.

This legislation before the House seeks to do the same with regard to the water resources of British Columbia. In this legislation we are saying that British Columbians have control, constitutionally, over the water resources that are located in this province. We are acknowledging in this legislation that water is an essential commodity not only to the existence of human life but for the future economic prosperity of this province. We as British Columbians have a right to determine how it is that we utilize our water resources in British Columbia.

I had the privilege of engaging in the 1992 constitutional discussions with the federal government. The federal government, under law, has the constitutional responsibility of signing international treaties on behalf of the country, and they enter into international covenants with other nations of the world. The federal government entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of the people of Canada. Under that agreement, they purported to sign agreements that covered the utilization of our natural resources, including water.

When the federal government executed the North American Free Trade Agreement, in my view it had no right to give

[ Page 14829 ]

Do we have the right to control our water resources for our own domestic needs in British Columbia? If we want to prevent diversion of water from one watershed to another as was supplied under the Kemano project, then we have the right to decide that we don't want to allow for that kind of diversion, as part of the exercise of our control, our sovereignty of our natural resources. If we want to prevent the Thompson River diversion so that water from that area can be diverted from one watershed to another, we can put a block to that, as we've chosen to do under this legislation.

And we can do it in part because we want to protect the integrity of our salmon resources in British Columbia, for all the reasons outlined earlier on. Or we can do it because we want to protect a commodity as vital to human life -- and all life -- as water. We have the right to do what we want to do with our water resources. We have the right to utilize the resources that God has given us -- to control our own economic destiny in the interests of British Columbians.

This legislation says very clearly and unequivocally that bulk water in British Columbia is not for sale, nor should it be. Under this legislation we have determined that water will be available for sale only in the case of bottled water, and under the conditions that are allowed for in the legislation, but that bulk water, despite all of the desires of corporations like Multinational Water and Power Inc., will not be sold to the Americans.

Therefore we're making the statement that we have the right to control our own economic destiny, that we're masters of our own economic fate, that the federal government has no right to give away our resources in the way that they have contemplated in the North American Free Trade Agreement, and that it's not for the Americans to assume that our water can be available at their whim, to irrigate golf courses in Arizona, as they would prefer. It's not on.

We are also saying under this legislation that there are environmental imperatives that we have to take into account. We will not allow for that export, because of its environmental impact. For example, under this legislation we are saying and acknowledging that diminishment of water in a river can have an impact on the environmental attributes of this province.

For example, withdrawing water from a river close to a river's mouth -- let's say that it's worked its way through all of the factories that want to have access to it -- will have a negative impact on the environment with regard to estuaries in this province, and to ducks and other wildlife that depend on water for their own purposes.

I am confident that all members of this House, of all political parties -- even the Liberals, who would love to give away our water resources -- will offer support for this fundamental principle and powerful statement being made by government in this legislation.

T. Perry: A bill like this has been a lifelong dream of mine -- perhaps not lifelong; I think when I was a baby I was more interested in milk than water. We're permitted the occasional hyperbole in this House just to keep things lively. Back in university, when I studied ecology at UBC, I remember a young woman named Laura Falk, now Laura Duncan. She is now the leader of the East Kootenay Environmental Society, and on the board of the University of Victoria. She and I did a project together on dams and proposed water diversions in B.C.

Because of that we became aware of the so-called NAWAPA project -- North American Water and Power Alliance -- a frightening scheme first put forward in about 1964 or 1965 by the Ralph M. Parsons Engineering Co. of Los Angeles, California. I still have a copy somewhere of that original report, and it's ironic that the former B.C. Minister of Energy, the late Jack Davis, was once a proponent of that scheme. He was also the federal Environment minister at one time. It's frightening to think he was in favour of the NAWAPA scheme at one point.

Really, what it related to was the notion common to the Three Gorges project on the Yangtze River, the Aswan Dam on the Nile, the major dams on the Columbia and similar projects all over the globe. That frightening project on a river in northwest India, for example, that the World Bank is....

An Hon. Member: You're supporting the Three Gorges dam.

T. Perry: No, we're not. I see the member is suggesting that we're supporting Three Gorges. The government is not supporting Three Gorges. The Premier announced in China last fall that B.C. would not participate in the Three Gorges project.

There was a philosophy at one time -- and it was common in Quebec, in Manitoba, and in the early days in B.C. -- to flood everything you could find and divert water in every which direction -- and the environment be damned, so to speak. Well, thank God there was an awakening to worry about water diversions after the havoc the Aswan Dam in Egypt wreaked on the sardine fishery in the Mediterranean at the mouth of the Nile.

British Columbians have been in the forefront of that concern, yet wild and crazy people have had the ideas of diverting rivers like the North Thompson River. I remember that the member who is going to speak subsequently and who represents that area, and others in the Kamloops area, are very concerned about that scheme. My reaction is that it is such a crazy idea, why worry about it; no one would ever seriously dream of putting that idea forth now, to divert the North Thompson River south into the United States. Yet people do seriously consider ideas like that.

There are people in California who would love to get their hands on that water, to put our farmers out of business by outcompeting them with our water and to change global hydrologic patterns.

I don't think we need a long speech here to say why that's so bad. I just want to say that I think it's long overdue in British Columbia for us to decide that we will not allow our exports of bulk water in the form of massive river diversions or huge transfers of water by pipeline.

The water has been created by the evolution of this planet over four or five billion years. It belongs where it is now, and I hope it stays there. I'm confident that this act will help to protect our natural environment in B.C. and keep the water where it belongs, as part of a natural hydrologic and ecological cycle. So I'm going to be very proud to vote for this bill and look forward to hearing from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

[ Page 14830 ]

F. Jackson: It is with great pleasure indeed that I rise to say a few words in support of Bill 9, the Water Protection Act. In the previous New Democratic Party government, we protected land through the Agricultural Land Commission. We, the other day, debated legislation which will protect the farmer's right to grow food on that land. We protected the quality of air by implementing AirCare and extending it to commercial vehicles. We will be doing away with beehive burners, which are a major contribution to air pollution.

Today, we are moving towards protecting our water. Bill 9, the Water Protection Act, has one very clear purpose. It states that the water of British Columbia is for use by British Columbians within the borders of British Columbia. This bill is very important for me and for my constituents, because one of the things that it does prevent happening is the diversion of the North Thompson River into the Columbia River system. The previous speaker talked about how, at various times, he said that this was very unlikely and they would never do that.

Over the last three or four years, it's very clear that in fact there is a great demand for our water south of the border and even in Mexico. It's also become very clear that it could well be very profitable for some to do that.

[4:15]

Over the last three years in the North Thompson valley, I have been to a number of public meetings in Clearwater and Barriere, where the message was quite clear: "We don't want our river diverted." The North Thompson Indian band says very clearly: "We don't want our river diverted." In the case of the North Thompson Indian band, they don't only look at the economic or the possible environmental impacts of such a deal; for them the river has spiritual connections.

At the south end of the North Thompson River, in the city of Kamloops, the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce said in no uncertain terms: "We don't want to divert the North Thompson River." So it's relatively easy for me to speak in support of this bill, because I know there is constituency support for this.

There are members of other political parties who seem to think it still might be a good idea to study this and do feasibility studies on it. One thing this bill will prevent is even that thin edge of the wedge from happening. Anybody who drives up Highway 5 cannot miss the signposts: "Leave our water alone." "Don't sell our water." "Don't divert our river." This bill is very important to my constituency, and I'm very pleased to be part of this debate and make sure that this Water Protection Act passes through this House.

I would like to finish on lighter note, with the fact that in the North Thompson valley we're getting a kind of double benefit. We have a plant in Clearwater that bottles water from the Clearwater River, a tributary of the North Thompson. There is great demand for it in bottles, and that will be allowed under this act, so we can continue to bottle our water and satisfy that demand.

We have said in no uncertain terms, and this bill says in no uncertain terms, that we will not allow the diversion of the North Thompson. In so doing, we will protect the environmental aspects, whether they be for salmon or the downstream benefits, maybe for irrigation, and also protect the North Thompson Indian band and their spiritual values. This will also protect the idea for the residents in the valley that the river is theirs. For the people of British Columbia, it establishes very clearly that this water is ours. I think this is a very important piece of legislation we are passing through this House, and I would ask all members of the House to support it.

M. Farnworth: Bill 9, the Water Protection Act, deals with one of the most important resources in this province. Those of us who live on the West Coast on this side of the mountains often take for granted that when November comes, it will cloud over for the next five or six months, and when the rain comes down, sometimes we have more than enough water. But if you live on the other side of the mountains, water is scarce, which creates deserts. It's the stuff of life.

What happens is that our water, which is this province's greatest natural resource, is viewed as something that other countries -- the Americans in particular -- think of as being very desirable. One has only to look at their wasteful practices in agriculture, where they grow cotton and alfalfa in the desert, and they consume ever-increasing amounts of water to grow crops that really aren't economically viable without cheap, subsidized water. Yet they want more, and where do they turn? Not to their own states, because they don't have any left.

The Colorado River no longer runs into the ocean; it sort of trickles out as a mud flat into the Gulf of Mexico. They look north to British Columbia, and they have come up with schemes to divert our own rivers and to flood the Rocky Mountain Trench. They look to Ontario and to other provinces.

We have jurisdiction in British Columbia, and we can do something to protect our water for today and tomorrow. The Water Protection Act does that. I know we have the support of members in this House, and when the time comes, I'm sure they will vote with the government. Every British Columbian has to realize that there are schemes out there to divert the North Thompson that have a lot of money and influence behind them. There are people who would like to dam the Fraser; there are people who would like to flood the Rocky Mountain Trench.

Large corporate American projects would love nothing better than to turn the Rocky Mountain Trench into one giant reservoir. It has the support of influential Canadian Senators, and former Tory cabinet ministers support the diversion of some of British Columbia's most important rivers.

Well, this government won't stand by and allow that to happen. This government realizes the importance of water to the people of this province. It is our greatest resource, and we have to ensure that it's there tomorrow. This bill does that. We've seen the federal government try and protect it for us through a free trade agreement, by adding a clause that Canada's water is not for export. Unfortunately, the Americans don't recognize that. Why? Because they want access to our water. They want unlimited access to it, something which we must not allow.

For only on our own terms and our own conditions, through such things as bottled water exports, which we currently allow, where you can turn the tap off on very short notice, and there's no international agreement controlling the amount that has to go across the border....

It is vital that British Columbians realize the threat that our water resources are under -- not just the pollution threat but the threat of greed and the threat from those who see it as a way of postponing the day of reckoning with their own resources, because they have squandered them. This may not

[ Page 14831 ]

be the most headline-grabbing bill that we debate in this Legislature. It may not be to many people the most glamorous bill, but as the hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain says, it should be. We have seen in too many places what happens when water resources become polluted or overexploited -- how environments suffer, how people suffer, how countries can suffer, and how irreversible the damage can be.

One of the greatest environmental tragedies in the world today is occurring in the old Soviet Union on the Aral Sea, where the Oxus River used to drain into one of the largest inland seas in the world. The river was diverted to supply water to cotton fields, water to grow citrus crops and vegetable crops in the desert, and it did this for some 25 or 30 years. But what happened was that water levels declined because water was no longer reaching the lakes. Towns that were once coastal towns are now some 15 to 20 miles inland. The lake itself, the Aral Sea, is now devoid of all fish. There are no fish there anymore. It is a nightmare, an environmental nightmare of gigantic proportions.

That type of thing will not be allowed in British Columbia. That is why we are passing Bill 9, and I urge all members to support it.

R. Chisholm: I rise today to support Bill 9. I think it is very good legislation brought forward by the government in this particular case. And I think that over the past years we've seen some question about the exact status of water. When you take a look at NAFTA, when you take a look at free trade, there have been various opinions about whether it was traded away, and much controversy has raged in the past couple of years. This bill was very much needed to prove to the rest of the world that B.C. will maintain its sovereignty over this resource.

It is a very valuable resource. For instance, we dump 187 billion gallons a day into the ocean, yet right now today there's rationing in Abbotsford. So we must be very, very careful in what we do with this resource -- whether we divert it, bottle it, put it into transmissions lines or put it on tankers. We have to be very careful, because at a minute's notice we could be rationing, just like they are in Abbotsford today.

Water has always been envied south of us. They have been diverting and drying up their rivers for use in their agriculture, and they've been looking northwards at ours. They have been competing with us in agriculture, and they would dearly love to get hold of our water to help them continue competing. Then, like I've heard in other speeches, there are consortiums out there that would dearly love to use the Rocky Mountain Trench to transmit water from our watershed to California. There are consortiums out there that would love to dam the Fraser River, which would destroy our salmon fisheries.

I didn't hear that in these other speeches. These are the salmon fisheries that we're so worried about at this point in time.

There are things we have to question in this bill -- that is, will there be taxation of well water and this type of thing? We'll get to these various points in committee stage. But in the main, not transferring water between watersheds is a very good thing. The minor points that we have to discuss in committee stage will just clarify the confusion. I would like to know in committee stage if formal requests for water have been made to the government of British Columbia. This will come out in committee stage. It is very important for us to know these things.

We are expecting another 1.5 million people in the Fraser Valley in the next 15 years. Water is going to be very big, and we do have to protect it.

I mentioned earlier about the salmon fisheries. The salmon fisheries are sitting right now on the brink of extinction. We talk about water. What happens if you take water out of the Fraser, or if you divert it? What happens to the fisheries at that point in time? We discussed this with the Kemano situation, and we came to the conclusion that it would destroy the fisheries; it would be very shortsighted of us to do so. It is no different with this particular situation. This resource is probably the most important resource that we have to protect, and we've been very lax with it in the last few decades.

As far as bottling it and sending it to the United States is concerned, I firmly believe that that is perfectly all right. But when we start bulk shipments of water, we are going to be looking at our eventual downfall.

[4:30]

The last thing I'd like to say, and I've said it twice already in this speech.... We're talking about water. Here we are: it is June 1, and we're talking about whether it should or should not be sent out of the country as an export. On June 1 they're rationing in Abbotsford. Members of this chamber should think long and hard on that one. If we're rationing in Abbotsford on June 1, it could very easily be a lot earlier in other years. We have lots of water -- or so it would seem -- but our ecosystem requires that. Any change to that ecosystem is liable to destroy the whole fabric of our environment.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 9. I'm very, very pleased that the government has decided to move in this direction. Overall, I have to agree with the philosophy and principles of this. I spoke to one of the high-profile government members prior to putting the moratorium on the export of water and the issue of licences in British Columbia, and I'm grateful for his wise counsel in this matter. We discussed a number of areas in that particular phone call.

There is certainly an issue with native concerns; there's the concern with coastal estuary situations; obviously there's a significant concern with bulk water exports, be they from the coastal rivers or from the interior. A very famous Social Credit member and a Premier of the province for 20 years, W.A.C. Bennett, cautioned us about the concerns of exporting water.

When I was Minister of Environment, there had been a great deal of pressure on the province to issue more licences for the export of water. It's incumbent on everyone in this Legislature to know that water licences that enable the bulk export of water from some areas already exist -- in particular the water behind the dam at Ocean Falls, for example. It's a significantly large volume of water.

There were a great many controls, and I initiated a study and a search for information on a number of different aspects of what the impact would be. Some of them had to do with the bilateral trade negotiations -- the pricing of water. If we charged even 1 cent a gallon for the export of water, we had to charge a similar price here at home. An acre-foot of water contains approximately a quarter of a million gallons, so you would be looking at a return of $2,500 for an acre-foot. Obviously, our agricultural sector, particularly in the interior of the province, has difficulty with water taxes as they exist at the present time. So there were those implications.

[ Page 14832 ]

There were other elements that deserve scrutiny. Some of them have not been answered. If I have concerns with this legislation it's because I haven't seen evidence that all of the questions I had asked or had initiated have been responded to. There are areas in the province, especially on coastal watersheds, where there are no salmon streams; the water drops directly into the ocean. There were concerns about the local environment and what would happen if a certain quantity of that water were denied from that traditional source and what it would do to the ecosystem. I don't think that question has been answered.

I did take the trouble to make a trip to California, and I went through the area where the Goleta water board had served water, and these were the potential customers for the bulk export of water from British Columbia. At that time they were suffering the significant effects of a drought, and they were looking at all sorts of options and alternatives, one of which was the export of fresh water from British Columbia. Washington and Oregon, by the way, declined the opportunity to export water to their neighbouring state of California.

Desalination was one option, but the one they finally chose was recycling water from the sewage system and putting a dual system within their community to water public areas -- lawns, parks, that sort of thing -- with the recycled water. The necessity for the export of bulk water has diminished with the heavy rains on the Pacific West Coast in the past several years. Reservoirs are full, and flooding has been more of a problem in California than drought. The water table, the aquifers and the surface water reservoirs have all been replenished, so the demand is not there.

It's been said by all members in this House that water is a very important natural asset. We do have control of our water. That is one of the things we do have under the British North America Act of 1867 and the Constitution Act. We have that control within British Columbia. I certainly agree with the government's specific concerns about the export of large-scale diversions or bulk water export. There are still many questions out there, and I think that while this is a conservative measure -- and I applaud being conservative -- we'll have more time to study it.

At some point in time, if we do have surplus water, I think that the opportunity is there. But the inter-watershed transfers of water are certainly opposed within British Columbia. With the heavy growth in the Okanagan some time ago, there was a suggestion that a canal be built from the Shuswap River and connected into the Okanagan system, therefore absolving some of us in the Okanagan from a responsibility to maintain water quality. That option was denied, and rightfully so.

In the course of reality, the Okanagan communities had to come up with sewage systems and tertiary treatment systems, and I think the Okanagan is a leader in that. Actually, water quality in Okanagan Lake has improved dramatically. This is in spite of the longer period -- an almost 200-year turnover -- that's required for that water, because we're storing more and more water at the higher elevations for domestic use and irrigation systems.

So all in all, as for the philosophy and principles of this bill, I heartily applaud and approve of this particular bill, although it is not without fault.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: I have to say this to the gang that couldn't shoot straight. A few days ago we were going to have a debate -- I think it was on the Columbia water basin and the sale of power to the Bonneville power authority. As a matter of fact, the gang that couldn't shoot straight couldn't even initiate a debate on a Wednesday morning, because they didn't do their homework.

This particular bill contains elements in it that are not well thought out, for example the prohibition against B.C. water removal. This is in

section 5. There's a limitation, I believe, to 20 litres of capacity or less. There is no accommodation or allowance for the reality that prevails. Really, this legislation means that individuals in a camper or trailer or motor home, if they cross the line into the United States, can be charged under this legislation with the export of water. That's not considered.

What has not been considered is aircraft that load up with thousands of gallons of water, in the case of a 747, not in 20- litre containers but in large tanks. They can be charged with the export of bulk water; they fall afoul of this particular piece of legislation. What about ships? We tried to encourage a cruise ship basin in the port of Vancouver, and it has been highly successful. They obviously go through hundreds of thousands of gallons of water on a cruise, and are we to prohibit them from loading up with British Columbia water, or do we make them dump it?

So there are flaws in this particular legislation. I am confident that the flaws will be attended to in Committee of the Whole, as they must. But in spite of the flaws, the philosophy and principles are in fact correct. Water is life. Water, in spite of the apparent abundance in the province of British Columbia, is in very heavy demand. I'm well aware of it, living in the Okanagan Valley, which is really the northern tip of the Sonora Desert, which starts in Mexico and ends in the southern part of the Okanagan Valley. Even in the Kelowna area, without irrigation systems we are a semi-arid desert, with precipitation somewhere between ten and 20 inches annually, so we need irrigation.

In the conservation of water -- which is very important in our particular situation, with a growing population and with the agricultural demands -- the irrigation districts are becoming more and more efficient. We've gone from open ditch systems to sprinkler systems, and now we're going to trickle systems, which supply the water exactly at the point that it's needed, and we conserve more and more water. Our communities are more mindful of the consumption of water.

So we're on the right track. I applaud the legislation. It certainly supports the moratorium that I placed on the export of water, and that is a significant compliment to the former government that imposed that. I will be supporting the philosophy and principles of Bill 9.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further debaters at this point, I ask the Minister of Employment and Investment to close debate.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm pleased to close debate on behalf of the Minister of Environment and to speak briefly on Bill 9, the Water Protection Act. British Columbians know the vital importance of water, and they know that British Columbia's water is at risk, at least in parts of British Columbia. I believe they know that strong, decisive action is needed to protect it. Today through this bill, British Columbians are getting the

[ Page 14833 ]

decisive action they want, and today through this bill, British Columbia's water resource is getting the protection it needs. Bill 9, the Water Protection Act, prohibits two environmentally unsustainable practices.

First, the bill bans large-scale, interbasin river diversions. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has been pressing the government on this matter, and I'm very pleased to be here today, as I know he is, to support this bill, which does exactly that. Secondly, the bill bans large-scale bulk water removals from British Columbia. As a result, the passage of this bill will mean British Columbia's rivers will not be diverted to California or anywhere else, and bulk fresh water will not be sucked out of the province.

This government, with the overwhelming support of British Columbians, is resolutely exercising its authority to the fullest to ensure that British Columbia's water remains under democratic control, and to safeguard our water for current and future generations.

Several speakers have mentioned that water is the lifeblood of our environment. It's obviously essential for life. For humans, water has always influenced where people settled, what they did and how they lived. In many ways it determines our way of life. Today, clean and abundant water is essential for our entire economy, including our agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism industries. Unlike any other substance, water integrates and links our economy and our environment.

People could ask: "So what is the problem in British Columbia?" Of course, no one is suggesting that it will stop raining here in British Columbia along the Pacific coast and suddenly all of our water will disappear. But water does face some very serious risks here in British Columbia. Some consumptive uses of water appear to be, or could soon be, unsustainable, particularly in certain regions, especially as British Columbia's population continues to expand. The previous speaker talked about very serious pressures on the water resource in the Okanagan Valley.

Global climatic change could make this problem much, much worse. Water is continually at risk from pollution in the form of industrial effluent and municipal waste or as the result of unsustainable forestry or agricultural practices. Uses of water also frequently conflict. As the review of Alcan's proposed Kemano completion project has shown, the diversion of a river for generating electricity may devastate both human settlements and critical habitat for fish and other wildlife. All of these risks