British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 30, 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session) (H0530pm-10) (H0530pm 10)

H0530pm-10

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 30, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 8, Number 10 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, May 30, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 3749 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 3750 Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 53) Hon. G. Plant Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 56) Hon. G.

Bruce Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 3751 Hats Off Day R. Lee Ten things you didn't read in the newspaper P. Bell New era for B.C. K. Krueger Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3752 Crown prosecution policy in spousal abuse cases J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets J. Kwan Hon. R.

Neufeld Resolution of physicians' dispute K. Krueger Hon. C. Hansen PNWER conference and U.S. softwood lumber duty P. Bell Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt J. MacPhail Funding for heritage language programs J. MacPhail Hon. G. Abbott Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3755 J. Kwan Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 3755 B.C.

Assessment, Annual Performance Report for the Year 2001 and a Report on the Creation of the 2002 Assessment Roll B.C. Assessment, financial statements, 2001 Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3755 R.

Sultan Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 3755 Information and Privacy Commissioner office, annual report, 2001-02 Point of Privilege............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3755 Premature disclosure of the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process draft report J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 3755 Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, third report B. Penner J. MacPhail Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3756 Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Bruce J.

Kwan Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3776 Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3776 Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) Motions on Notice (Motion 33).................................................................................................. ............................................. 3776 Third reading of Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) J.

MacPhail J. Kwan Hon. G.

Bruce Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 3780 Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21) Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28) School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34) Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38) Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39) Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 40) Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41) Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 42) Office for Children and Youth Act (Bill 43) Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 44) Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 46) Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 50) Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51) Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52) Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) Carrier Lumber Ltd.

Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58) Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401) Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402)

3749 THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. C. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce today for the very first time three employees of the Ministry of Education who, although they worked for the ministry for many years collectively, have never been intro- duced in the gallery and have never visited the gallery. They are Paige MacFarlane, Deb Naubert and Terry Foster. I hope the House will please make them wel- come. Hon. G.

Plant: I have the honour to welcome into the gallery today four extraordinarily hard-working people who work for me in the office just down the hall from here and have come a hundred feet or so to see in person what they have heard about for a long time. I'm hoping that the House would please welcome, from my office, Gail Dawson; Christine Willows, the admin- istrative coordinator; Michele Obara, my executive assistant; and Joan Dick, my ministerial assistant. [1405] S. Brice: It gives me great pleasure to introduce six members of the B.C. Hospital Maintenance and Trades Workers Association.

In the gallery are president Dave P e l l e r i n , v i c e - p r e s i d e n t E d M o l , D a v e L a w , M y r l e P e - ters, Jim Barrett and Ray Melville. Members of this House had the privilege of meeting with them today, and we discussed how we can work together to im- prove the delivery of health care in British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome. D.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House a very good friend of mine, Jassa Grewal, who, along with Tom Peach, Russ Burtnick, Norm Blain, Paul Keenleyside, Del Virk and Lorraine Gordon, was very instrumental in my election cam- paign. With Mr. Grewal in the gallery this afternoon is his daughter-in-law Simmerjot Grewal and, from Eng- land, his niece Kulbinder Dosanjh and his granddaugh- ter, three-year-old Serena Dosanjh. Would the House please make them very welcome. J. MacPhail: I have the privilege of welcoming a whole bunch of friends today.

Some of them are very young, and some of them are older, and I will leave it up to the House to determine whom are which: Melanie Vogels, Pye Fernstrom, Rose Dacosta, Patricia Little, Susan Baker, Jim Sinclair, Geoff Meggs and Bill Harper. I thought you'd laugh. I hope everybody will make both my new and my old friends welcome. G. Trumper: Today in the precincts we have stu- dents from Alberni District Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. Frank Holm. The high school, this last weekend, celebrated its fiftieth anniversary of be- ing in existence. I would ask you to please make these students welcome. S.

Orr: I have the privilege today of having lots of people come visit us. Firstly, I have a young UVic Lib- eral called Trisha Girard. She's not only a young UVic Liberal; she is also a member of the Cree nation, who is spending her summer in a first nations aboriginal in- ternship program. I also have 21 grade 5 students from St. Andrew's School with their teacher, Ms. Brown. Also, I think there are about 25 grade 4 students with some parents from Hampton Community School, also with their teacher, Ms. Forshaw. Would the House please make them welcome. R.

Stewart: I t ' s m y p l e a s u r e t o d a y t o r i s e t o i n t r o - duce Maxine and Gordon Wilson from Coquitlam — the Gordon Wilson from Coquitlam — and their friends from England, Dianna and David Barfield. Would the House please make them welcome. Hon. G. Bruce: I've been under a tremendous amount of pressure in this session this past while, be- cause very early on I introduced a guest, a friend, and some of you were fairly biting and wondered whether I actually had more than one friend. At that time I told you that I had ten.

The other day I introduced my ninth friend, and today, hon. members, I'd like to introduce to you my tenth friend. My friend is close to me. He comes all the way from Thailand. I had to search far and wide to find my tenth friend. If the House would j o i n w i t h m e i n m a k i n g N o o r H o s s a i n f r o m B a n g k o k welcome here, not only in British Columbia but in Canada, I would certainly appreciate that very much. Would you please make him welcome — my tenth friend. [1410] Mr. Speaker, I was on a roll. I actually found two more friends beyond the ten, and the pressure is truly off now.

Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: Be gentle. Be gentle. With my family are friends of my children, Rob Pickerings and Jennifer Young, and if you would please make them welcome, my eleventh and twelfth friends, I'd appreciate that. Hon. L. Reid: I would ask this House to please join with me in bidding a very fond farewell to my execu- tive assistant, Rhonda Dashevsky. She has performed outstanding service to this Legislature and to my office over the past year, and I would ask the House to wish her every good wish as she goes forward. Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge some special guests visiting British Columbia from Mongolia. The Hon. Chimiddorj

3750 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 Ganzorig, Minister of Industry and Commerce for the government of Mongolia; Mr. Bat-Erdene, the Depart- ment of Geology and Minerals; Mr. Badamsuren, direc- tor general of a major Mongolian mining company; Mr. Herlen of the Mineral Resources Authority; His Excel- lency Mr. Batsukh, Ambassador of Mongolia to Can- ada; Mr. Bardach with the embassy; and, lastly, Mr. Jim Cambon, the honorary consul for Mongolia, out of Vancouver.

During their stay in British Columbia, I hope that the minister and his delegation have the opportunity to discover many of the opportunities that we have here in British Columbia, and we look forward to develop- ing a very good working relationship with the minister and his delegation. Would the House please make them welcome. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to advise the House that Pat Samson of Hansard Services is retiring today after 11 years of service as a console operator for com- mittee meetings and as a tablet operator here in the chamber.

Pat travelled extensively with travelling commit- tees, working long days to set up the microphone sys- tems and be ready for the members' arrival in various cities and communities across our province. She was the first one to rise in the morning and the last one to call it a day to ensure that the equipment was ready for members. O n b e h a l f o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , I w i s h P a t a n d h e r husband, John, good sailing as they depart on their retirement journey. Introduction and First Reading of Bills HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002. Hon. G. Plant: I move that Bill 53 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, Bill 53 will strengthen human rights in British Columbia by reforming the machinery of human rights to make it accessible, timely and affordable for complainants, respondents and taxpayers. This bill incorporates the results of ex- tensive study and consultation, and it is being intro- duced now to encourage further discussion before de- bate in the fall.

For too many British Columbians, complainants and respondents, the processing of a human rights complaint has been a bureaucratic nightmare out of a Franz Kafka novel. It's too complicated, it's inefficient, it's too slow, and it's too expensive. I have seen no credible defence of the status quo. We are not proposing changes to the substantive protections in the code, but we are proposing changes to the institutions which are intended to make those protections real. For the first time, complainants will have direct access to the Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal will continue to be fully independent.

It will be given enhanced powers to handle all aspects of complaints filed under the code and will emphasize mediation and settlement — in short, problem-solving rather than adjudication as the preferred means of re- solving complaints. In keeping with this new structure, the bill pro- poses the elimination of the Human Rights Commis- sion and the Human Rights Advisory Council. Educa- tion, research and promotion of human rights protec- tion can and will be undertaken by government.

The new model includes funding for a clinic to provide education and training as well as legal advice and sup- port to parties. [1415] Mr. Speaker, this bill will create a human rights system that is strong, effective and affordable for all British Columbians. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002 Hon. G.

Bruce presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002. Hon. G. Bruce: I move that Bill 56 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Bruce: I'm pleased to introduce the Work- ers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002. This bill amends the Workers Compensation Act to reform the systems appeals processes and structures. This bill reduces the number of levels of review and appeal of Workers Compensation Board decisions from three to two.

It imposes statutory limits on the length o f t i m e a n i n j u r e d w o r k e r m u s t w a i t f o r a f i n a l d e c i - sion. Cases will be in appeal for a maximum of 11 months versus the current 30-month average for all three levels — a reduction of almost two-thirds in the time taken to complete an appeal. It establishes an internal review function at the board, focused on enhancing the quality of initial deci- sion-making. This bill establishes a new appeal tribunal, inde- pendent of the Workers Compensation Board, to serve as the final level of appeal for workers and employers

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3751 on the majority of workers compensation matters. It makes WCB policy, as set by the board of directors, binding on the workers compensation system. I'm introducing this legislation today for debate in the fall session of this House. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) HATS OFF DAY R.

Lee: This Saturday is Hats Off Day in Burnaby. Originally, the Heights Merchants Association in Bur- naby began Hats Off Day in the mid-1980s for cus- tomer appreciation. Since that time it has grown into one of the largest celebrations in the lower mainland, bringing together more than 20,000 people and showcasing many local community groups and organizations. The celebration begins with the Hats Off Day pa- rade, now in its thirteenth year, led down Hastings Street by the Vancouver and Seattle motorcycle drill teams.

Participants include the Burnaby fire depart- ment, the Chinese lion dancers, marching bands, com- munity groups and many others. After the parade the street festival begins. People can experience different ethnic foods as cultural asso- ciations cook up foods from their homelands. While they eat their lunch they can also enjoy the music of over a dozen different musical groups. For the first time ever, this year's Hats Off Day will include a collector car show displaying at least 80 hot rods, classical cars and specialty cars from Europe.

These rare vehicles from the 1920s to the 1980s will definitely attract many car enthusiasts and spectators from all over the lower mainland. As the parade marks its thirteenth birthday, next Tuesday also marks the thirteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. On June 4, 1989, thousands of civilians and students in the pro-democracy movement were killed by machine guns and tanks in Beijing, China. In Canada we are fortunate to be able to participate in events such as the Hats Off Day, having the freedom of peaceful assembly. [1420] Hats Off Day is a testimony to the community and human spirit.

I commend all the organizers, including Gilmore Community School, the Heights Neighbour- hood Association and the Heights Merchants Associa- tion for this great multicultural event. TEN THINGS YOU DIDN'T READ IN THE NEWSPAPER P. Bell: Some members know I produce a weekly e- mail entitled "Ten Things You Didn't Read in the Newspaper This Week." Well, here are the top ten of the "Ten Things You Didn't Read." No. 10. A little-known fact. The Nechako basin, which incorporates the Prince George, Cariboo and Bulkley ridings, contains over five billion barrels of oil.

This represents almost 30 percent of the estimated oil reserves in B.C., and oil companies are showing inter- est. At No. 9. A quote from the 2001 annual report of Northgate Exploration Ltd. Speaking of B.C., they say: "Those benefits include a favourable political, regula- tory and business environment." At No. 8. Did you know that 8 percent of the people in B.C. pay almost half of the personal income tax in this province? A t N o . 7 . A n u m b e r o f n e w t e s t w e l l s a r e b e i n g drilled around the province exploring for coalbed methane — a whole new industry in the offing. At No. 6.

In our first year of office over 7,000 regu- lations have been eliminated, making it easier to do business and invest in B.C. At No. 5. According to the recent Gallup Poll, 59 percent of the people in this province believe that what we're doing today will make it easier to invest and grow in the province of British Columbia. At No. 4. Already this year in the first four months we've created over 40,000 new jobs in British Colum- bia, with fully one-third of all the jobs created in Can- ada in the month of April. At No. 3.

B.C. moved from the least-favoured prov- ince to invest in, in 2000 and 2001 to the third most- favoured province in all of Canada. At No. 2. Since July of 2001 the average wage in the province has increased by 4.6 percent, the second high- est in all of Canada, comparing that with an average of only 3.1 percent. From '97 to 2001 we were dead last in Canada. And the No. 1 thing you didn't read in the newspa- per this week: we accomplished this in just our first year, and we have three more great years to go. We're back on the map in B.C., and we're ready to grow. NEW ERA FOR B.C. K.

Krueger: As the spring session of the Legislature closes today, we celebrate a successful year of begin- ning new approaches, fulfilling promises and launch- ing a new era of hope, opportunity and prosperity. This Saturday the most beautiful girl in the world will take her wedding vows in Kamloops. She is my daughter Keturah Anne Krueger, and for the past 20 years she's given me incredible joy — the joy a man only gets to experience through the privilege of being the father of a girl. I've been utterly captivated by her since the moment she was born.

Keturah and her hus- band, Joel Neustaeter, will make their home in British

3752 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 Columbia. They were in Alberta for awhile — pretty scary for me — but they've decided to build their lives here in Canada's most beautiful province. I'm so thankful to be part of a government which is moving resolutely, competently, skilfully to restore our province to its natural position of leadership in this country. I grew up in B.C. knowing that I could become whatever I chose to, and I want that for my children and everyone else's in this province. Fathers don't get to say much in the traditional wedding script, I've been thinking.

Katie and I have always teased each other a lot, so I've been toying with the notion of ad-libbing. Perhaps instead of the usual that her mother and I do, it could be a little dissertation on how it takes a whole village to raise a single child, and how the B.C. Liberals are creating a whole new and improved village for Katie and Joel and their chil- dren. However, I doubt that I would survive the prank, necessitating a by-election and expenditures of taxpay- ers' scarce resources, so I may stick with the script.

I do want to express gratitude, though, to the Pre- mier, the cabinet and my caucus colleagues for keeping our promises, working so hard and making the changes to bring the bright new era to British Columbia so that young people like our Saturday newlyweds can pursue their dreams and build their lives in the prov- ince we love. [1425] Oral Questions CROWN PROSECUTION POLICY IN SPOUSAL ABUSE CASES J. MacPhail: According to this government's own statistics, B.C. has one of the highest rates of violence against women in the country. In 2000 over 10,000 spousal abuse cases were reported.

In B.C. we have pol- icy that says Crown prosecutors must file charges in virtually every spousal abuse case. It's gained the strong support of the police and the justice system at large. So I'd like to ask the minister responsible for women's services: is he aware of any plans the gov- ernment has to change this policy that would give Crown prosecutors more discretion in the laying of charges in spousal abuse cases? Hon. G. Plant: The criminal justice branch is indeed looking at policy around the criminal practice of British Columbia with a view to making a good thing better.

If the member opposite has ideas for how we can exam- ine and, if necessary, reform policy such as the vio- lence-against-women-in-relationships policy to ensure that we do, in fact, have a criminal justice policy that works to prevent violence against women, I would welcome her suggestions. I would welcome the sugges- tions of all members of this House and, indeed, the suggestions of all British Columbians. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: I'm afraid that offer comes far too late, because the policy is already being changed.

On May 2 B.C.'s Crown prosecutors were told at a conference in Harrison Hot Springs by senior ministry officials to expect this policy to change. Apparently, a zero- tolerance policy for spousal abuse costs money to en- force, money which this government is unwilling to give, so the prosecutors will be given discretion. This policy change is a huge step backwards for victims of spousal abuse.

To the minister responsible for women's services: does he agree that victims of spousal abuse should not be further victimized by an Attorney General who is more interested in balancing his own budget than he is in ensuring British Columbi- ans have access to justice? Hon. G. Plant: I had the good fortune to attend that conference in Harrison Hot Springs, and what I heard was completely different from the member's charac- terization. What I heard was a statement of a commit- ment to ensure that Crown counsel policies are rele- vant and modern, work and do the job they're sup- posed to do.

Yes, it's time to look at all criminal justice policy. It's always timely to ask the question whether our policies are working, including the policies with respect to laying charges in cases of spousal abuse. I repeat my invitation to the member. If she has ideas for how to improve policies to ensure that they do what they are intended to do, which is to protect women from abuse in British Columbia, I welcome her constructive participation in this important discussion. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J.

MacPhail: It's not surprising that this Attorney General heard things differently than virtually every other lawyer attending that conference. It's not surpris- ing, given his relationship with the legal profession these days. It's surprising, though, that he would get up and defend a weakening of a zero-tolerance policy in this province which is recognized across Canada. It was this Attorney General that cut funding for victim assistance to provide help and support to victims of spousal abuse. Is it any wonder that women are wor- ried that he's going deny them justice?

The minister responsible for women's services won't answer the questions. So, to the Attorney Gen- eral: if the Attorney General is saying this direction is not occurring and if he is once again disagreeing with his colleagues who did attend the conference, will he rise up today and assure victims of spousal abuse that he won't let abusers off the hook by watering down B.C.'s get-tough prosecution policy? [1430] Hon. G.

Plant: As I said in the first answer, as I said in the second answer and as I'll say in the third answer, the goal of any policy review is to determine how we can make the policies that exist work better to serve the purposes they are intended to serve. That is the goal in

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3753 this policy review. The goal is to prevent spousal abuse in British Columbia. The goal is to have a criminal jus- tice policy that responds appropriately to spousal abuse by ensuring that those who commit crimes are charged, accused and convicted of them. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Plant: M y g o a l a s A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i s t o ensure that we have a criminal justice policy that will do exactly that. PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS J.

Kwan: Is it any wonder that the legal profession has lost all confidence in this Attorney General? One of the Liberals' core campaign promises was not to privatize B.C. Hydro's core assets, including transmission lines, or to engage in deregulation — in its New Era document, page 9. A large number of mu- nicipalities have voiced their opposition to the privati- zation of Hydro, and an overwhelming number of Brit- ish Columbians agree. Many British Columbians are worried that this government plans to break that prom- ise. It doesn't help matters when some big Liberal backers are suggesting just that. The B.C.

Gas presi- dent, John Reid, whom I'm sure the Premier will be seeing tonight at his fundraiser, says he loves to buy them. The chamber of commerce president, John Win- ter, agrees. To the Minister of Energy and Mines: will you help clear up some of the confusion and promise British Columbians, like he did during the campaign, that he will not break up and privatize or deregulate B.C. Hy- dro, including transmission lines? Hon. R.

Neufeld: The goal of this government is to continue to have Hydro provide the lowest possible prices in British Columbia so we can use that as an advantage to encourage industry to settle here and create jobs in the province. We've been working very hard to get to that end. I want to say again to the member opposite — they've asked the question before — that this government is not going to sell the core assets of B.C. Hydro. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J.

Kwan: For months the government's been sitting on the energy policy task force recommendations, and British Columbians are very worried about what they may contain. They don't want to see the Premier do to Hydro what they have done to the health care system. We understand the Liberals' plan to release the report and act on its recommendations in the middle of the summer. To the minister, once again: will the min- ister commit, when the report is finally released, to ordering a full public consultation process before any changes are made to B.C. Hydro? Hon. R.

Neufeld: We will be releasing the energy task force report at the same time as we put forward our views on how we'll continue to keep B.C. Hydro at a competitive advantage in British Columbia, to con- tinue to supply the lowest-cost electricity we can to all British Columbians, whether they live in northeast B.C., southeast B.C. or Vancouver Island. We will con- tinue to work to that end. What we plan to bring for- ward will benefit the province immensely. RESOLUTION OF PHYSICIANS' DISPUTE K. Krueger: I have a constituent, Mr. Alan Parkes, who has cancer.

He knows he has cancer — that's been confirmed — but he needs diagnostic procedures which have several times been delayed because of the doctors' failure over recent weeks to put their patients' interests first. Mr. Parkes and his family are afraid for his life. We want to see these procedures done. Can the Minister of Health Services give us an update on the doctors situa- tion? [1435] Hon. C. Hansen: I had a conversation with Dr. Heidi Oetter immediately prior to coming into the chamber at 2 o'clock.

The BCMA executive met this morning to give consideration to a proposal that had been reached yesterday between the government nego- tiator and the BCMA negotiator. I am pleased to advise the House that the BCMA executive is recommending approval of that proposal. I think it's unfortunate that thousands of British Columbians, like the member's constituent, have been denied access to care over this last number of weeks. Throughout this, we as a government have always put the interests of patients first.

I also believe that most d o c t o r s i n t h i s p r o v i n c e a l s o w a n t t o m a k e s u r e t h e interests of patients are put first. We recognize that most doctors are frustrated by problems in our health care system. This being close to the first anniversary of the swearing-in of this govern- ment, I can say we have made considerable progress toward putting our health care system back on track. Much of the work we're doing actually reflects recom- mendations coming from the BCMA through their pol- icy document called Turning the Tide.

I am very anxious that we can move forward, that we can begin to work with doctors to fix the system to make sure that individuals like the member's constitu- ent can once again count on the health care system to be there for them when they need it. Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has a supplementary question. K. Krueger: Mr. Parkes was a rancher throughout his working life, a very hard-working rancher in the Cache

3754 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 Creek area. He has a beautiful family, and they're very successful. Everyone has been hurt terribly by what he's going through. Can the Minister of Health Services tell us whether this means a full and immediate resumption of services to patients, and whether the doctors will do something to try and catch up on the problems that have arisen? What exactly does this mean in the very short term for people like Mr. Parkes who are suffering? Hon. C. Hansen: The BCMA will be recommending to their members throughout the province to discon- tinue the job actions.

Clearly, there is going to be a backlog of surgical procedures that had been cancelled during this time. The health authorities throughout the province, working with the doctors, will be trying to do everything possible to ensure that those individuals get access as quickly as possible to the care they were counting on. PNWER CONFERENCE AND U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER DUTY P. Bell: In two weeks, B.C. will be participating in the annual meeting of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region in Oregon.

This conference will provide an op- portunity for B.C. to have its voice heard amongst the American community with similar issues and concerns. Goodness knows, we have enough issues and concerns right now with the Americans. Can the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations tell us what he hopes to accomplish at this meeting? Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Indeed, British Columbia will be well represented at the conference. We'll have four MLAs representing us, along with the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who is the incoming president of PNWER for the coming year.

The conference will be an important opportunity for us to meet with both legisla- tors and private sector representatives from Alaska, Alberta, Yukon and the northwest states.

Some of the issues they'll be talking about are the 2010 Winter Olympics bid, since a lot in the tourist in- dustry from the Pacific northwest are very interested in collaborating with British Columbia on that; cross- border electrical transmission, both internationally and between states; ensuring the smooth flow of people and goods across the border, preclearance and the Nexus system; and also looking at security after September 11, particularly around the cruise ship industry that is so critical to the tourism industry in British Columbia. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: The member for….

The Chair recog- nizes everybody. [Laughter.] The member for Prince George North has a sup- plementary question. P. Bell: It's tough to get by me sometimes, Mr. Speaker. Last week the crippling duties…. J. MacPhail: I'm just worried about the glare. P. Bell: The glare. Yep. Last week the crippling duties on Canadian soft- wood lumber came into effect. Can the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations tell us whether he'll be using this forum to educate the Americans on the impact of these devastating duties not just on Brit- ish Columbians but also on the American public? Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: It will provide an excellent opportunity. We're expecting over 200 American legis- lators to be there — state Senators, state representatives — who can bring our message to their federal representatives. It not only affects our forest-dependent communities but the Americans who are the homebuy- ers out there and the consumers in America. We have to bring that message to them. [1440] I believe that the 27 percent duties that are going on it will increase the price of a home in the United States by $1,500. That translates into about 450,000 American families that will not qualify for mortgages.

We've got to get that message through to them. FUNDING FOR HERITAGE LANGUAGE PROGRAMS J. MacPhail: School boards across the province are struggling to meet the needs of students in the face of budget cuts imposed by the government. Valued pro- grams are being eliminated because of these cuts, de- spite what any government cabinet minister may say. I have with me here 10,000 cards addressed to the Premier and the minister responsible for the heritage language program, calling on them not to cut this pro- gram. There are 30,000 students studying heritage lan- guage who, as of this fall, will have their program cut.

To the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services: will he stand today and commit to these 10,000 students and parents who have written to him that this valuable program will be restored this autumn and that there will be no funding cut? A sim- ple answer, please. Hon. G. Abbott: I'm really honoured that the Leader of the Opposition has provided me with an opportunity to respond to her last question of the en- tire session.

It's an honour, particularly given that the information with respect to the heritage language pro- gram has been up on the website since January 17, when our service plans were announced. I was disappointed that during 23 hours of esti- mates on my ministry, this issue never came up. Cer- tainly it was one I was looking forward to talking to, but I'm pleased that at the last moment this has come up on the opposition leader's radar screen as an issue. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3755 Hon. G. Abbott: The issue is around the program. It's a $170,000-a-year program. What we do with that is provide grants up to $1,000 a year per school. The pro- gram will run through to '03. We have had to make some difficult decisions. Again, to recall, it took 120 years for this province to get $16 billion in debt. The last government in ten years in office more than doubled the debt in this prov- ince to $37 billion. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G.

Abbott: We've had to make some difficult decisions as a consequence of the spendthrift ways of the former government. This is one area where we have had to make some difficult choices. We have, and we look forward to a brighter day and continuing pro- grams like English as a second language. [End of question period.] Petitions J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition. This petition has been signed by 723 parents in Vancouver. These par- ents, along with 13,000 others, have written to the Pre- mier, have banded together to form SOS, which stands for Save Our Schools.

They are deeply concerned by the devastating and unprecedented budget cuts the Vancouver schools are faced with over the next three years, and they're calling on the government to restore education programs. Tabling Documents Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to table with the Legis- lature today the annual performance report for the year 2001 and a report on the creation of the 2002 assess- ment roll and the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001, for B.C. Assessment. Petitions R. Sultan: I present to the House a second petition, opposed to the closing of Capilano Care Centre.

There are 1,553 signatures on this petition. Tabling Documents Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the office of the informa- tion and privacy commissioner for the period April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002. [1445] Point of Privilege J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. I gave notice earlier today. The point of privi- lege is with respect to the premature disclosure of the draft report of the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process. On Tuesday, May 28, 2002, members were first made aware of the premature dis- closure when an

article appeared in the Vancouver Sun quoting the Chair of the committee providing the in- formation that the committee had decided to provide severance to the former police complaint commis- sioner. Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when I learned today that this was exactly the recommendation of the committee to the House as tabled this morning at 10 a.m.

I have conferred with the opposition member, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, for the committee, who had a number of telephone discus- sions with the Chair of the committee in the days lead- ing up to the disclosure, and at no time was there a discussion of providing the Chair the latitude to make this statement to the media prior to reporting to this House. Common practice would dictate that I, as a member of the House, have a right of privilege to expect that such reports not be disclosed until tabled in the House.

I know that the Speaker will rely upon the much- reviewed authorities of Erskine May and Maingot, and I expect that the second report from the Committee of Privileges, session 1984-85, entitled Premature Disclosure of Proceedings of Select Committee, would be examined. T h i s i s s e p a r a t e a n d a p a r t f r o m m y c o n c e r n s e x - pressed earlier, on May 28, that disbursements had already been made prior to these recommendations having been adopted by the House. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, your ruling, which you made yesterday on that matter, of May 29.

In keeping with the procedure on raising a matter of privilege, I am tabling a copy of the Vancouver Sun

article and a copy of the report, as well as a copy of the motion which I intend to move should you find that a prima facie case has been established. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I will take that under advisement and rule on your point of privi- lege in due course. Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I just reserve my right to provide input on that as well. Mr. Speaker: So noted. Reports from Committees B.

Penner: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamen- tary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received. Motion approved. B. Penner: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

3756 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 Leave granted. B. Penner: I move that the report be adopted. Mr. Speaker: You've heard the motion. On the motion, the Leader of the Opposition. J. MacPhail: I understand that this is a debatable motion. My remarks in opposition to this report will be brief. Those who are interested in the detail of my con- cerns expressed here may view the Hansard of various meetings of the committee. I suffer under no misunderstandings of the process. I know that at the end of the day, this report will be adopted by this House.

My concern about this report, separate and apart from my concerns about the con- duct of this matter in committee, here in the House and in the newspapers, is focused upon the deficiencies of this report before us. Specifically, the report makes no finding of fact. It does not establish that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was the leak. It does not establish that she indeed did breach privilege. [1450] As well, the report fails to respond to the precedent that Ms.

Kwan has laid out in her attached submission, including the following, which I quote from the second report of the British House of Commons Committee of Privilege, 1984-85: "One probable source of some leaks is inadvertent disclosure by a member.

Some members naturally discuss the work of their committees with other members, with their own staff or with others who may have relevant advice or experience, without intending publication, but others may not have the appropriate respect for information of this kind that they have been given in confidence, and published leaks result." Nor does this report address the findings of that v e ry s am e c o m m i t t e e f ro m whi c h I ju s t q u o t e d t hat i t would be unjust to punish a person who was the inad- vertent source of information that was subsequently published without that person's knowledge or intent.

Instead, the committee finds that the member for Van- couver–Mount Pleasant, without finding of fact, is guilty and should therefore be penalized. It's a penalty that, if one reads the Hansard, she has already voluntar- ily submitted to. It is a pity that the report proves that the matter has been an enormous waste of all of our time. Mr. Speaker: Further comment? The matter is de- batable. The member for Chilliwack-Kent. B. Penner: I would just like to note for the record that the matters raised by the member opposite were presented to the committee. The committee took those comments into consideration.

The report has been pre- sented to the House, and that reflects the view of the committee. Mr. Speaker: Further comment? Question is adop- tion of the report. Motion approved on division. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call continued committee stage debate of Bill 48. Committee of the Whole House EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 48; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:54 p.m. On

section 11. [1455] J. MacPhail: Just before we left the debate and ad- journed for lunch, the minister was expressing his views on how serious he thought the situation was around farm labour contractors. I had a chance to think about those comments, and I want to give the minister an opportunity to correct what could be a misappre- hension on others' parts: that in no way was he target- ing any particular part of the farm labour community — was he? — in his comments. Hon. G. Bruce: No. I'm just recalling that conversa- tion.

I think you had spoken about the agricultural community and some of the problems therein and the concern that those people, as the agricultural sector, wouldn't be left with any less protection as a result of the direction that we're taking here. The point I was trying to make, clearly and loudly, was: no, just the opposite. I intend to make sure that in the agricultural sector, where there have been concerns, they fully un- derstand the employment standards they need to work and live to and that the people working in the agricul- tural sector know what their rights are.

I did also ac- knowledge, in that aspect of things, the educational side that would go along with that. J. MacPhail: This is the

section that deals with the issue that no longer is there the same level of protec- tion for farmworkers to get their wages. The part of the act that tied responsibility for the payment of wages to farmworkers to, both jointly and separately, the pro- ducer and the farm labour contractor is now gone or greatly weakened. As long as the producer, or farmer, can show that he or she paid the farm labour contrac- tor, then the farmer, producer, is off the hook. The only reason why I raise this is that it is one of the roles that was so wonderfully performed by the employment standards branch — to take on this issue.

They have a stellar record in this province about ensur- ing that farm labourers have every benefit paid to them, even where there may be widespread abuse. The

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3757 employment standards branch did an excellent job of that. I am very concerned about the fact that with the culmination of both the repeal of these two sections and the huge cuts in the ministry of employment stan- dards, that protection will no longer be there.

The reason why I asked the minister that he wasn't targeting any particular aspect — or any particular group of farm labour or producers, for that matter — was because we have to protect so carefully against any other aspects creeping in around tackling this issue, when there's now no longer legislative protection and when it's only going to be up to the government to protect against this. I'll be clear. One has to protect very carefully so that any vigilance against this matter, to protect against abuse, has to be vigilance across the whole sector and not just target one community. Hon. G.

Bruce: Point well taken. There are a couple of things I want to be clear on. It's understandable that we would have a differing of opinion. I happen to think that what we're doing here will strengthen the issue. I'm not sure if you're still talking about

section 10 or 11, but the two of them must be taken into consid- eration as both. One is a paper process, and one is re- sults-based. More important, though, as I had mentioned before in regards to my comments prior to lunch, is the fact that the penalty

section is greatly strengthened in what we are attempting to do in this instance. The educa- tional side, as I have mentioned, we are going to con- tinue and enhance upon. [1500] I'm not sure that one could say we were…. Actu- ally, you couldn't. We haven't been, in the past years, as successful at dealing with this problem as one could have. As I was mentioning earlier, I think that's how one approaches things. I see us currently dealing with symptoms rather than the problem. Clearly, we intend to deal with the problem.

As I had mentioned, my Deputy Minister of Labour, along with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who has already met with one group…. Well, groups — the farm labour contractors and producers. Also, the Minister of Agriculture and myself have been in discussion with federal officials, as well, on the other two parts in respect to HRDC and Revenue Canada.

This is an issue of great concern, but there could very well be — and I suspect there are — concerns of other sectors where we will be watching closely in re- spect to making sure that vulnerable people in the workplace are adequately and well looked after in re- spect to protection, not subject to abuse by employers. Excuse me. I should have mentioned earlier on, as an introduction, that I have with me this afternoon Mr. Ed Wall, who is an industrial relations officer. He's in the office in Nelson and has 15 years with the ministry.

He's a former director of communications for the min- istry, and the last ten years with the employment stan- dards branch. He, too, has been here and been instruc- tive in helping to reshape employment standards as we attempt to go about rebuilding the economy in the province of British Columbia.

Section 11 approved on division. On

section 12. J. MacPhail:

Section 12 amends the provision for hours of work that currently exists. It repeals, actually, the requirement for hours of work notices to be posted. That section, which is now gone, required employers to post a work

schedule for the employees and required them to give 24 hours' notice of a change in shift. Fail- ure to do so meant that the employee was entitled to overtime pay for the changed hours worked. So this gave employees some abilities to plan their lives. It was a straightforward and very easily enforced provision. Well, let me try not to prejudge. What rea- son was there for completely eradicating this? Hon. G. Bruce: This is a seldom a central issue in an investigation and rarely, if ever, is it the subject of en- forcement. It's just one more way for us and the changes we're making here to increase flexibility.

It clearly wasn't an issue where one is looking at it from an enforcement standpoint. Some of it is problematic in regards to shifting and posting of shifts. Again, as I say, it was rarely a main issue in regards to the workload and the investigations in the past. [T. Christensen in the chair.] J. MacPhail: Pieces of legislation are more than just legal documents about breaches. They're about ensur- ing that people understand what they can expect in terms of rights and in terms of standards.

Every single change that's taken place in this legislation is to keep working people further in the dark, under the guise of: "Oh well, nothing ever happened with it." Nothing was ever…. I guess the minister is saying, although my in- formation is not that, that we didn't have complaints, so why bother? It's a bit of a piling-on effect here, I must say. We're not going to require that the terms of the employment standards have to be posted at the work site. We're not going to require the employer to post a work schedule. We're not going to require them to give 24 hours' notice of a change.

All of this is changing fundamentally the ability for working people to plan their lives. [1505] I know this is such a small piece. You'd think you can just flick it away. One might think it's just easy to flick away, because it seems so unimportant to some of us. But I also happen to know that there are people that have not one, not two, not three but four jobs that re- quire them to juggle their lives. Those jobs are non- union jobs. They're jobs that are regulated by the em- ployment standards. It's a nightmare sometimes for them to have to plan. Do they need the four jobs?

Un- fortunately, yes, they do, because the four jobs add up to a decent wage.

3758 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 All this means is — it's not one to spend a lot of time on — that, once again, those at the bottom end of the income scale are going to have to just work that much harder at managing their lives and making a d e c e n t w a g e . T h a t ' s w h a t t h e r e p e a l o f t h i s s e c t i o n means. Hon. G. Bruce: Not at all. It's got nothing to do with that. We definitely have two different philosophi- cal views as to how you build a healthy and vibrant workplace.

We come from the perspective that 95 percent or more of the employers in the province of British Co- lumbia are good employers and that they understand the need to have a healthy and vibrant workplace. With that, you need to treat your employees fairly and as part of the team. Any successful operation will attest to that. Because of that particular process or philoso- phical view, we also have the other view that you go and deal with those that would be the so-called bad apples. You deal with them pointedly and strongly. I come back to that whole aspect of things.

An em- ployer who wants to hold their employees and keep them in their operation — and, as we talked about ear- lier on, simply the most important aspect of a business is keeping your employees and keeping a happy workplace — is not going to allow for the abuse rela- tive to scheduling. They will post their schedules. This doesn't stop anybody from posting a schedule. It does- n't stop anybody from posting the employment stan- dards. They'll continue to do that. Where we intend to concentrate with respect to the enforcement side…. Legislation and law is just that. There are laws there, and they're made.

We want to strengthen the important parts of that. That is what I was mentioning earlier on in regards to the payment of wages and stat holidays — that where there are those employers who have taken advantage of employees by non-payment of wages, they will be dealt with in a stringent and severe manner, considerably differently than what was in the Employment Standards Act prior to the changes to this legislation that we're bringing forward. J. MacPhail: What this government believes in is cutting all sorts of slack for employers and none for employees. The minister says: "Don't worry.

We're go- ing to enforce this in a way, because there's the tough- est penalties on record." First of all, now the penalties will only arise where there's a complaint, after the self- help kit is exhausted and there's an investigation. Then a penalty may be awarded. [1510] This

section had a built-in penalty for non- compliance that actually said to the worker…. It was a penalty that made perfect sense. The benefit of the penalty went to the worker, not into the government coffers, which is what these penalties now do — the enforcement penalties that the government keeps laud- ing as being wonderful. What this

section said is: what's the problem? Post the schedule. Post the hours of work, and give 24 hours' notice of a shift change. Is that so unreasonable? Doesn't that kind of make good sense for people who are juggling their lives? Then, if the employer didn't do that, the employee was entitled to overtime pay for the changed hours. That's what it was. The reason why it probably rarely needed attention is because that pen- alty was enough to say to employers: "Oh God, I guess I'd better give proper notice to my workers." Now what we have gone is any sort of balance, in a way.

All of that is taken away — the impediment to employers, the cautionary note to say, "You know, be- ing a good employer means that you post notices, and gosh, if you don't, then the penalty isn't going to be on the employee; it's going to be on you, Mr. Employer," because there are consequences to this. People have to arrange their lives. If they don't have four part-time jobs that they're juggling, perhaps people have children that they have to attend to in terms of proper notice. Lack of proper notice from the paymaster, the em- ployer, has all sorts of consequences flowing from it for the worker herself.

Now all of that is gone. Hon. G. Bruce: Well, absolutely not. There are sev- eral consequences. The first of which is the fact that employers today will tell you one of the difficult challenges they have is hiring and keeping employees. An employer who is not going to treat them fairly and give adequate notice in respect to scheduling is going to soon find they don't have employees working for them, which is going to be an incredible challenge.

We've heard that — and I know the member oppo- site has mentioned the whole aspect of skill shortages in the economy and the challenge with that — with even the simple demographics of what people are pro- jecting, as people start to retire through this baby boom, the vacancies in regard to jobs in the province will be some 700,000 over the course of the next ten years. As I was mentioning earlier, clearly a balance is starting to come back in regards to the fact of that, be- tween the issue of jobs and supply and demand of such.

That is one of the strongest ways of balancing and trying to give more leverage in respect to employ- ees: by them having an adequate supply of jobs that they can choose to go to. The very person that the member opposite was talking about, who may be working at four different jobs, could have not just one job to work with but could have a choice of maybe three or four other jobs — full- time jobs. That is a result of a strong economy. That is the result of British Columbians investing in their busi- nesses and their community. That is the result of out- side investment returning to the province.

That is ex- traordinarily, incredibly important from the aspect of balancing up on the issue of jobs and the issue of lever- age for employees. Where we will go to relative to this bill, as we move through it…. The member opposite has mentioned several times that one must take all of this in the en-

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3759 tirety and reference it to Labour Code changes in WCB and also in changes here, relative to the rest of the bill. We will talk in

section 37 about flexibility for these very people who have the opportunity for greater flexibility in scheduling to meet the needs of their own personal life situations. We'll come to that in

section 37. But you know, the whole aspect of these changes we're making and the issue of balance in there for em- ployees…. We see that as the economy strengthens, it certainly helps in strengthening the leverage from the standpoint of employees. [1515] J. MacPhail: My only concluding comment is that there is a fundamental difference between how this government views flexibility and who gains from flexi- bility.

The mere fact of referring that, "We don't need to worry about this, because later on there's greater flexi- bility," because an employer can cut individual deals with individual employees about outrageous hours of work, isn't nearly an answer to the protection that's lost under this one. Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear on this. This is about the posting of a work schedule. Interjection. Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, I guess I would prefer — not "I guess"; that's what we're doing — that we spend our resources on challenging and correcting those employ- ers that are taking advantage of employees by non- payment of wages — the real, central issue — and making sure that they're properly looked after. That's what we're intending to do. In respect to posting a schedule, a good employer will be posting those schedules. We don't happen to believe that needs to be enshrined in legislation.

We t h i n k , j u s t b y v i r t u e o f w h a t ' s g o i n g o n i n t h e w o r k - place, that employers will be posting their schedules so they can keep their people and give them adequate notice in the aspect of their schedule.

Section 12 approved on division.

Section 13 approved. On

section 14. J. Kwan:

Section 14 deals with the reduction of daily minimum hours of work from four hours to two. Employees will now only be guaranteed two hours of s a l a r y f o r c o m i n g i n t o w o r k . O f c o u r s e , t h i s i s e s p e - cially harmful, in view, for younger workers and those who are in the food service industry, who will un- doubtedly be called in to work two-hour shifts at peak times only. At minimum wage, an individual can ex- pect to receive $12 for coming to work, after they've paid for their transportation costs. Could the minister explain why this change was made?

How is this change meant to benefit employees? Hon. G. Bruce: We looked at cross-comparisons in Canada and found they varied between one and three hours. There were a number of different call-outs. Brit- ish Columbia was clearly the highest at four. We had also heard, in respect to the restaurant in- dustry and people that worked there, particularly stu- dents, that the four-hour minimum meant that they usually worked a split — some.

Where they would be quite happy to work the two hours at noontime, like 11 to 1, they weren't particularly fond of looking to come back for the 5-to-7 shift because they were studying. We looked at that and thought there was good reason in that respect. The other point that I'd like to make is in regards to

section 37, which will flow to the flexibility agreement. Where one was to sign a flexibility agreement that would be beyond eight hours, their minimum call-out would be four. In the standard employment arrange- ments right now, the minimum call-out would be two hours. If you were in a flexibility agreement and scheduled for more than eight hours, then your mini- mum call-out would be four. J. Kwan: The minister doesn't have to go out into the workforce and be called in to work at peak times only for two hours and have to incur all the transporta- tion costs to go in there and make only 12 bucks after that.

The minister doesn't have to do that, but young people today have to do that. Real workers today would have to do that as a result of this change. In my view this does not actually benefit young people. The kinds of analyses that the minister talks about. I wonder what kind of specific analysis the minister has to determine how this amendment and other changes to the labour policy, like the introduction of the $6 minimum training wage, would actually help low-income earners. Or does it actually hurt low- income earners? Hon. G.

Bruce: First of all, I want to be very clear: the $6 an hour was not meant to be a training wage. It was meant to be a first-job entry wage level. That's what that was meant to be. Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: Well, it's not a training wage. Interjection. [1520] Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's not being used as a training wage. It's a first-job entry wage level. It was focused in respect to grade 10, 11 and 12 students as a way of try- ing to encourage small business employers to try and make some jobs available.

Now, I'm not going to revisit ten years of disastrous economic policy in the province, but I will point out, just if the member opposite did happen to forget, that small business through the past ten years, particularly in the last seven or eight, went through the most disas-

3760 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 trous period that they've ever faced in British Colum- bia. They weren't actually robust and vital. They were- n't actually investing and expanding. Of those busi- nesses — and keep in mind there are 360,000 busi- nesses in the province — 98 percent of them have 50 or fewer employees, and a very, very large percentage of that have 20 or less. These are small operations that are trying to survive. By the policies of the hon. member's former government, the NDP government, these were businesses trying to survive.

In fact, they provide vir- tually the economic backbone of the province. It's about a million jobs that they represent. Just think. If they'd had enough confidence and inspiration to be able to invest and expand in their businesses and create not hundreds of jobs but one or two jobs in regards to their operations, you'd have had another 700,000 jobs in British Columbia.

But after the policies, not only the business policies but the Forest Practices Code and a whole host of things, that the former administration, the NDP government, brought into effect in this province absolutely thrashed the economy, absolutely thrashed small business…. I could go on at length on the other sectors that you thrashed. Now we're paying for those very poor policies of the past. We've had to make some changes. What we're do- ing here in this aspect is trying to inspire small busi- ness to find a way to regain some confidence and to invest in jobs.

By virtue of allowing a first-job entry- level wage, we are hopeful they'll take advantage of that and provide some first-time employment for young people.

It's ironic that we would have government, through our school system, develop a program and have coun- sellors, through the courses in K-to-12, go out and speak to employers, asking employers to take on young people for job experience, which is a great and noble thing to do, and then not pay them, when in fact it was in the past that small business employers actu- ally provided that whole realm of career opportunity, if you like, or job experience not for free but for payment of wages to those very young people. The policies of the last ten years simply took all that away.

Instead of having the small business employers contribute in such a way that they paid full wages to those young people coming to work, we now put it back to the taxpayer to actually pay that program and not pay the young people any wages but then pay somebody — a counsellor or somebody within the local school district — to go out and try and arrange all that when it was happening very nicely, quite frankly, within the small business sector — part of their contribution. Small business makes a huge contribution to the development of communities and the economy of Brit- ish Columbia.

This was very much a focus during what we're coming from — a very difficult economic time — to find ways to inspire the small business community to hire some people. J. Kwan: You know, the minister's just trying to run the clock with his rhetoric. What we know is that this is a gift to the Liberal government's financial backers, a gift to the service industry people, a gift to the hospital- ity industry people. You know what?

Just this week it was broadcast on television on the News Hour that 12 percent of busi- nesses are not going to be hiring this summer, 25 per- cent of businesses will be laying off this summer in this new era of prosperity, 50 percent said it was going to be status quo, and 13 percent said they didn't know w h a t t h e y w e r e g o i n g t o d o .

T h i s i s u n d e r t h i s g o v - ernment's policy, and this is the result this summer for young people. [1525] For the minister to say, "Oh, it's all the bad NDP's fault," and that what we must do now is to take wages a w a y f r o m y o u n g p e o p l e a n d g i v e i t t o i n d u s t r y i s somehow the right thing to do…. Well, if that was supposed to work, how come the numbers are not re- ducing? There have been tons of studies — and I don't want to spend the time to go into all of the studies — sug- gesting that reducing employment standards does not help the economy.

We haven't got the time because the government has decided to bring in closure on this bill and on all the bills that were before the House this week. We haven't got that much time to debate each and every single

section in detail already, as it were, and I'm not going to spend all of the time bringing forward all the studies. The fact of the matter is: this minister is providing a gift to his financial backers, and he's taking it out of the pockets of low-income earners. Hon. G. Bruce: You know, that's…. I'm not sure. Is "balderdash" parliamentary — or whatever? That is just simply not the case. An Hon. Member: Nonsense. Hon. G. Bruce: It is nonsense. Thank you. The fact of the matter is the former administration did thrash the economy.

I would love to be able to snap my fingers, as would this government, and not just have it turn around tomorrow at the snap of the fin- gers, but it would be nice to just be able to forget that past ten years. Unfortunately, we can't. Unfortunately, with that past ten years, when you have a situation where you have had policies that came from the former NDP government that were actually not just neutral but were actually anti-business, anti-investment and drove business out of British Columbia…. Now, let's get that straight. When you drive busi- ness out of the province, you drive jobs out of the gov- ernment.

They're actually one and the same. I'd like to just make that equation: business and jobs. They're actually one and the same. They're extremely impor- tant. When you chase a business out of British Colum- bia, guess what goes with that business when it leaves. Jobs. Guess what else goes with that. Taxes. Guess what else goes with that. People. What virtually hap- pened in the province was that through the policies of the former NDP administration, the policies were such

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3761 that you were just thrashing the economy in the prov- ince. We came back after that election and had to then start dealing with one problem after another left over by the former administration. What we're having to do is do things to try and inspire and instil confidence in the investment community and in the small business community, so that they can once again look to have the confidence to expand their businesses and to get on with providing jobs in British Columbia.

These steps we've taken here provide the flexibility that's necessary, both from the employers' and the em- ployees' standpoint. I will give you this: it is a total and complete philosophically different approach to the workplace from what the former NDP government did in the past ten years. We know we had to do that, be- cause we know what you did, what the former admini- stration's policies did to the economy of British Colum- b i a . T h e y t h r a s h e d i t .

I f w e c a r r i e d o n s i m p l y d o i n g more of what the former administration had done, we would continue to drive the economy into the ground. I will give the opposition this. These are fundamen- tal philosophical changes in how the workplace will work in the province, because we know that the past ten years didn't work, and we're confident that this type of flexibility and the changes that we're making, in its entirety, will once again instil confidence in the business community that provides jobs for everybody in British Columbia. J. Kwan: You know, Mr.

Chair, I wasn't going to drag up all of the studies that proved the minister wrong, but I will bring up one. He's full of rhetoric, and he does not know his facts. Let me just share some factual information with this minister. [1530] This is an

article written by David Fairey: "Six Bucks Really Does Suck, According to Youth Employ- ment Statistics." Here's what the

article itself says. I'll quote some parts of it. The facts only — not just the opinions, but the facts as they stand. Maybe it will enlighten the minister just a little bit. "Statistics Canada publishes monthly estimates of youth employment and unemployment based on their labour force survey. According to Statistics Canada, B.C. youth, 15 to 24 years of age, unemployment rates over the six months November 2001 to April 2002 were significantly higher than over the same six months in 1999-2000 and 2000-01" — when the previous administration was in government.

"In fact, the B.C. youth unemployment rate in every month since November 2001 has been higher [in the last six months] than in the…previous two years before the $6 minimum wage. The average monthly youth unemployment rate over that six-month period was 13 percent in 1999-2000, 13.7 percent in 2000-01 and 14.8 percent in 2001-02. At the same time, B.C. youth employment levels have been lower on an average monthly basis since November 2001 — 268,600 — than in the same period in 2000-01 — 271,500.

"These higher B.C. youth unemployment rates since November 2001 are not explained away by increases in the proportion of youth looking for work; i.e., higher participation rates. In fact, over the same six-month period since November 2001, monthly youth participation rates at 58.5 percent on average were lower than in the previous year, 2000-01, and the year before that, 1998-99. Compared to the same six months in 1999- 2000, youth participation rates since November 2001 have been the same.

"Also, to the extent that youths tend to find their first jobs in service industries, the higher rates of youth unemployment in B.C. since November 2001 are not explained by declining employment in the services sector because services sector employment overall for all age groups has remained fairly constant. "It is generally acknowledged that in October and early November 2001 when the new, first job, entry-level minimum wage was about to be introduced, many employers delayed hiring new employees or laid off young workers so that others could be rehired at the lower minimum wage.

Statistics for November 2001 in fact show a significant drop in youth employment. As a consequence, a higher youth unemployment rate occurred in November 2001 — 15.3 percent — than in every previous November since 1997. "Therefore, the preliminary verdict must be that the new $6 minimum wage for first-time job holders has failed B.C.'s youth and not increased youth employment levels or reduced youth unemployment rates. Six bucks really does suck because wages have fallen without a rise in employment." Hon. G. Bruce: That's great fodder. I appreciate that very much, but…. J. Kwan: That's the facts. Hon. G.

Bruce: I would love to see the substantia- tion of those facts — of how many jobs and how many people weren't hired because of the fact that the $6 was coming in. It would be really interesting to see the evi- dence. Is this that somebody walked down the street and sort of thought about maybe they were going to get a job and didn't get a job? The factual evidence of that…. Interjections. The Chair: Order, members. Member, the minister has the floor. Hon. G. Bruce: We do know that British Columbia had one-third of the jobs created in Canada right here in British Columbia in this past year.

Little things are going in the right direction. After ten years of being thrashed, there are some lights that are starting to shine once again in British Columbia. Instead of people turn- ing the lights out as they left, people are actually com- ing back and starting to turn the lights on again. There are some positive things. Of course, earlier this afternoon we heard the top-ten list there by the member from Prince George. They were good-news items indeed, so things are looking up. [1535] In respect to this

section — and I'm sure you'd like to get back to it — in regard to the two-hour call-out

3762 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 for the four-hour call-out, the employment standards b r a n c h i n t h e p a s t … . I n f a c t , I ' v e g o t s o m e v a r i a n c e notices here from March 28, 2000: minimum daily hours paid will be no less than the actual time worked or one hour, whichever is greater. That was a variance that came out of the employ- ment standards branch prior to our administration taking over. There were practices of below the average of the four hours or the two. There was another one on December 4, 2000. I mean, these are examples.

You were probably wondering about changes we were looking at making, of why we were changing the vari- ance or why we were changing the minimum call-out from four to two. The fact is that there were variances that were is- sued prior to us taking over. There's another one here. It was two and a half hours. Another one was three and a half hours, so there is some history to that. As I had mentioned earlier on, we were looking to be in a posi- tion where we would be more reflective of what was taking place across Canada.

I do want to point out to the hon. member that if you're on a flexibility shift and you work more than eight hours, your minimum call- out, in fact, is four. Of course, as you move through this in regard to overtime, overtime will still continue to be paid. I'm sure the opposition would like to canvass that issue in detail in regard to overtime. If you are not on a flexibil- ity agreement and you work over eight hours, just as the case is right now, you're paid time and a half. You w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o b e p a i d t i m e a n d a h a l f f o r a n y hours after that. There is a change.

Currently, when one got to their eleventh hour, after eleven they would then be paid double time. Because of our flexibility agreements…. Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: No, not on top of the time and a half. They'd be paid double time. Now, because of the flexibility agreements we have, and we're basing them on a 40-hour work week and then 12 hours that one can sign on, we've said that double time kicks in for everybody after 12 hours. I know that these other aspects all fit together.

They're all part of a package, as the members opposite have mentioned — when we look at all three parts and at these parts here relative to employment standards — of trying to inspire again and build confidence within the workplace so there can be jobs for lots of people, and not just one job each but a job that they can pick and choose. Alberta has been a very prime example of that. You want to talk there, again, about minimum wage. They don't pay minimum wage in Alberta. Do you know why they don't pay minimum wage in Alberta? It's because they have to pay more than that.

The economy is hot, and there are lots of jobs. In fact, I know one employer there who's a friend of mine, who actually pays a bonus per hour for people just to show up in the workplace there in Alberta. All of these things tie together, and I'm replying to your question of two to four. They all come together in trying to inspire and improve the economic perform- ance here in the province. J. Kwan: The opposition will not be supporting this

section of the bill. The minister can close his eyes, close his ears and not look at reality. The facts are before him, but in spite of that, he refuses to acknowledge that the opposition will not be supporting a

section of a government bill that takes away money from the low- income earners, particularly hurting people who are in the hospitality industry, in the food service industry, by requiring them to go to work for two hours and making potentially as much as $12 for that day's work. Hon. G. Bruce: I w a n t t o b e c l e a r . I t ' s n o t t a k i n g away money from anybody. I mean, this is the differ- ence of a call-out, and in most instances employers will be scheduling more than the four hours. They're look- ing to have continuity in employees.

We come back to this whole balancing thing of employees and employ- ers and to the whole notion that you've got to build a happy and healthy workplace. You do that by giving hours. The Chair: Shall

section 14 pass? J. Kwan: By division. The Chair: Deferred division on

section 14. Sections 15 and 16 approved. On

section 17. The Chair: I understand the minister has an amendment on the order paper in respect to

section 17. Hon. G. Bruce: I move the amendment to

section 17 standing in my name on orders of the day. [SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed

section 37 (6) and substituting the following:

(6) An employer under this

section who requires, or di- rectly or indirectly allows, an employee to work more than the hours scheduled for a day during the period of the agreement must pay the employee (a) 1 1/2 times the employee's regular wage for, (

i) if fewer than 8 hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over 8 hours, or (ii) if 8 or more hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over the number of hours scheduled, and (

b) double the employee's regular wage for any time worked over 12 hours that day.] [1540] On the amendment. J. Kwan: Speaking to the amendment, the amend- ment that is significant here essentially refers to a sub-

section that is being added, which says that if eight or

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3763 more hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over the number of…. Actually, I should read the whole thing, because you have to put it into context to understand what it means.

Section 17 now reads as follows: "An employer under this

section who requires, or di- rectly or indirectly allows, an employee to work more than the hours scheduled for a day during the period of the agreement must pay the employee (a) 1½ times the employee's regular wage for, (

i) if fewer than 8 hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over 8 hours, or (ii) if 8 or more hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over the number of hours sched- uled, and (

b) double the employee's regular wage for any time worked over 12 hours that day." The substantive piece here that the minister is amending is to say that a person would not actually get 1½ times the regular wage if eight or more hours were scheduled for that day and any time worked over the number of hours scheduled. That's the change that the government is bringing forward. You know, the minister says he's not taking money away from low-income people. He is.

This en- tire bill speaks to the government taking away over- time pay, reducing overtime pay, limiting overtime pay and taking away scheduling that talks about over- time pay — protections for employees in the farm in- dustry and for other industries and for children. All of this adds up to taking away rights for employees and for workers in the field. The only protections that this bill that the government is looking at affords are rights for the employer. Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear.

Currently, if an indi- vidual works more than eight hours they would get time and a half for the ninth hour, time and a half for the tenth hour. They would get double time, then, for the eleventh hour and double time for the twelfth hour. The change that we're making is that under the new legislation, an employee on an eight-hour

schedule would get time and a half starting after the eighth hour worked, but the difference would be they wouldn't get double time until they worked the twelfth hour. That's the only change we're making in that respect. Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: Pardon me? J. Kwan: …that's good? Hon. G. Bruce: Well, because we're building the flexibility schedules, which we happen to think are very good, what we've done in that instance is that if you were…. I'll use me as an example. If I was to be scheduled to work four ten-hour days, I would not receive over- time until I worked my eleventh hour.

If it was a par- ticularly busy day and the employer said to me, "Look, can you work that extra hour," I'd work that extra hour. I'd get time and a half. If it was an extraordinarily busy day, as the economy will bring us here in British Co- lumbia, and I'm now working past my twelfth hour, in the twelfth hour, then, I'll start to get paid double time. Really, what we're talking about is that one-hour change here. More importantly, though, is how that is drawn.

That's drawn because of the fact that we're try- ing to improve and allow the flexibility agreements to be put in the workplace so employees and employers can work out arrangements which are best for them in their lives and their businesses. The Chair: Shall the amendment to

section 17 pass? An Hon. Member: On division. The Chair: Division is deferred on the amendment. On

section 17. J. Kwan: On to the main

section on

Section 17 is the amendment that the minister talks about as creat- ing flexibility. It is now the code word for government in every ministry: "flexibility." Some have coined it as the new "f" word — flexibility. What it does is take away rights from people. Here's what amendment 17 does.

Section 17 allows for the employers to enter into averaging agreements with the employees. As a result of this amendment, the eight-hour work day and 40-hour workweek will no longer exist in British Columbia. Instead, employees can look forward to working ten-hour work days or 16 days in a row without receiving any overtime. [1545] While the minister seems to think that employers and employees will mutually agree to enter into such agreements, I fear that employers will be able to im- pose such agreements upon their employees because there is an imbalance of power within the workplace. That is how it is.

The employer has more power over the employee. Yet the government is bringing this for- ward, saying that somehow this is good for the em- ployee. What safeguards are in place to ensure that em- ployees aren't forced to adopt averaging agreements? What safeguards are in place to ensure that the aca- demic schedules of children and students are not ad- versely affected by averaging agreements? Will chil- dren under 15 be able to enter into averaging agree- ments with employers if the parents of the children consent? If so, isn't this an inappropriate situation for the child? Hon. G.

Bruce: It would probably be good to look a little bit about what's in the workplace today before one climbs all over this particular issue, not under- standing it, perhaps, or not understanding what's go- ing on in the workplace. Under collective agreements, and there are numerous…. These are just a few exam- ples. We've got numerous collective agreements where the eight-hour day was, a long time ago, negotiated to offer flexibility and different shift schedules.

3764 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 Nurses are one. They work and can do under con- tract a maximum of 144 hours in a four-week period. That would be a 7.2-hour work day, but this can be al- tered on mutual agreement. Police work two 12-hour days, two 12-hour nights and then four consecutive days off. That, I would think, would be flexible and different than an eight-hour day. Firefighters have two 12-hour days, two 12-hour nights, then four consecutive days off. They actually average 42 hours per week on that. Here's an interesting one: BCTV employees.

The standard workweek consists of five eight-hour days, but they have an optional workweek that consists of four ten-hour days. In the forest industrial relations they can

schedule as long as the principle of the 40- h o u r w e e k i s m a i n t a i n e d o v e r a n a v e r a g i n g p e r i o d . Fording Coal Ltd. union, United Steelworkers of Amer- ica, has four days on and four days off, a 12-hour shift

schedule and a work cycle of eight or six weeks, with weekly hours averaging 42. Now, those are collective agreements. I'll give you that. They're collective agreements. This would be the question you were going to ask me: what about people that aren't covered under collective agreements? With the high-tech workers, it was known that there needed to be changes in the high-tech industry to build it here in British Columbia. They went to time and a half after 12 hours in a day or 80 hours in two weeks — flexibility.

Silviculture workers have either u p t o n i n e d a y s o f w o r k f o l l o w e d b y t w o d a y s o f f o r t e n d a y s o f w o r k f o l l o w e d b y t e n d a y s o f f . T h a t w a s flexibility. Long-distance truck drivers have double time after 60 hours in a week. That would be different. Taxi drivers have double time after 120 hours in two weeks. Oil and gas field workers have time and a half after 40 hours a week, double time after 80 hours a week. All of these that I've just listed, every single one of those, are examples that were under the former NDP administration.

What in fact are we doing here? We're taking what's happening in the workplace and trying to allow and afford the flexibility within the workplace so that employees and employers can work together and make the arrangements which are best for them. Here's a few variances you might be interested in, which were under the former administration. This par- ticular application was for 14 consecutive days of work. An Hon. Member: Fourteen? Hon. G. Bruce: Fourteen, at 12 hours a day, fol- lowed by 14 days consecutive rest. That would be a flexibility agreement.

That was a variance that was asked for under the former administration and was approved. Here's another one: 28 days of work at ten hours per day. J. Kwan: The branch approved those. Hon. G. Bruce: Absolutely. J. Kwan: That's the point. Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's not. You are absolutely right, hon. member. They were approved…. Interjection. [1550] Hon. G. Bruce: Hon. member, you are helping to support exactly what I'm coming to. When we talk about this one of 28 consecutive days of ten hours per day, that was approved. When we talk about this one here — four full-time employees being permitted to work a

schedule of 13 hours per day for three days, followed by three days off, followed by 13 hours per day for three days, followed by five days off, and re- peating every two weeks — that would be a flexibility agreement. I think the reason they did that is because they wanted to work things out between the employer and the employee. When was that done? It was done under the former administration. Here's another one. Full-time employees may work up to 80 hours in a two-week period, Sunday to Satur- day. The 80 hours in two-week period includes all hours worked in the field or office or combination thereof.

That was flexibility. Here's another one: three 12-hour shifts in the first week, followed by three 12-hour shifts and one eight- hour shift in the second week on a

schedule which re- peats itself every two weeks, averaging — guess what — 40 hours over two weeks. The point being, before we put our hair on fire and all this sort of thing, this is exactly what was going on in the workplace.

Rather than have big government, which is a total philosophical change — and I will give you that in spades; we do not wish to be big govern- ment, like the former administration was big govern- ment — we wish to give the employers and the em- ployees the opportunity to work things out in a way which is best for them, without having to go through three and four and five weeks of bureaucratic process to get a sign-off of the very types of things we're talk- ing about being able to do under the flexibility work weeks. You know what? You know what, hon. member? Before you…. Interjection. Hon. G.

Bruce: I want you to hear all of this. It's extremely important. J. Kwan: Maybe you should listen to your branch staff. Hon. G. Bruce: In fact, I have listened to my branch staff. The point to be made…. Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: Listen, the point to be made of that is I have had…. This morning, during the initial period, there were two other industrial relations officers here

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3765 that have joined me at the floor because of the fact that they have been part of trying, with us, to build an em- ployment standards act that makes sense for the twenty-first century. It's a new era in employment standards in the province of British Columbia, and I don't mean that in any cliché. I mean that in reality.

The point in all of what we're attempting to do here is to simply reflect what, in fact, your administration, the former administration, was putting into practice, only they believe that there be all sorts of bureaucratic government red tape to get it there, and we're saying it's up to the employers and the employees to get on with doing just that. R. Masi: I seek leave from the House to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members R.

Masi: On behalf of the member for Delta South, it's my very great pleasure today to introduce 30 grade 7 students from South Park Elementary School accom- panied by their teacher, Mr. Brown. Would the House please make them welcome. Debate Continued J. Kwan: If the minister wants to visit history, let's visit history accurately and see what is before us. You know what? The minister, I know, likes to think: "Oh, it's just the opposition.

They'll just say no to just about anything, and somehow they've got some strange phi- losophy attached to their brains, and therefore they can't depart from the issues at hand that the govern- ment is introducing." Let me just put on the record here not the opposi- tion's perspective with respect to this change and not the opposition's perspective of what the old act was but, in fact, someone who was part of the branch — an employee of the branch — who quit the branch because this individual could not stomach what this govern- ment is doing and their attacks on employees.

Let me just put this information here for the minis- ter. [1555] "In the old act there were two ways workers could be required work hours beyond these without being paid overtime — that is the eight-hour-a-day, 40-hour-a-week time period. "One was for the employer and the employees to jointly apply to the branch for a variance. These would be investigated by the branch to ensure that the proposal was genuinely supported by both parties and that it was consistent with the purposes of the act.

Variances would usually be issued for a period of a year or two allowing for a built-in review should the parties want to carry on with their special schedule. "The second method was through the adoption of a flexible work schedule. These were the most common special schedules, such as four ten-hour shifts per week or three 12-hour shifts per week, and could be adopted within the workplace so long as there was some record of a democratic decision having been made by the employees affected. "There are three things to note about the new averaging provisions.

First, they allow a far greater range of schedules than the old rules did. In fact, many possible schedules permitted under these provisions would never have been granted had they been submitted under a variance application to the branch. Some examples: two hours per day, six days per week; six hours per day, six days per week; ten hours per day, 16 days in row; etc. "Second, these agreements are designed to operate between an individual employee and the employer. These take away the one strength that the employees had under the old flexible work

schedule provisions — that is, the requirement that there be some democratic process involving all of the employees before a

schedule could be adopted. Individual employees will either agree with the employer's proposal or will be looking for work elsewhere. "Third, the

section is extremely long and complex. It will be difficult to comply with and will be difficult to enforce." This is not made up by the opposition. It's someone who worked within the branch, with long years of ex- perience. They know what "flexible schedule" means. They know the flexibility that is required in the work- place, an

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0530pm-10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0530pm 10
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0cde496db6db7252e3c7208d4335ae8096159a14

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).