1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 16, Number 3

[ Page 13631 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today are as many as 65 grades 4 and 5 students from Herbert Spencer Elementary School in the Queens Park area, New Westminster. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. O'Brien, and five adults. I'd ask that all members of this House join me in making them welcome.

J. Cashore: In the gallery today is Mary Billick. She's a constituent in Coquitlam-Maillardville who has served the people of the lower mainland for more than 20 years through her volunteerism. She operates the non-profit Lower Mainland Community Housing Registry, which assists tenants to find accommodation and works with landlords to create a base of available housing. She's also an active advocate on a wide variety of social issues, especially in the housing area, and she demonstrates every day the kind of service to community that we all need in a caring society. Would the House please make Mary Billick welcome.

C. Clark: Joining us today we have three of the executive of the Malaspina Young Liberals Club, led by Brian Millward, who started up the club there for the first time in Malaspina's history. I hope the House will make them welcome.

L. Reid: We're joined in the gallery today by a dear friend, Karen Legeer, who resides in White Rock. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

W. Hartley: Joining us today are some 25 grade 6 students, some adults and a teacher, Mrs. Sarah White, from Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. Would members please welcome them.

[1410]

G. Janssen: Joining us today are some very dear friends that I haven't seen for quite a while: Hans Wolfler, Johanna Wolfler, Gabriele Wolfler and Andi Loiperdinger, who are visiting us from Oberndorf, Austria. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my Member of Parliament, Vancouver East MP Libby Davies, who is joining us today. She was actually on the front steps of the Legislature advising our government on certain issues. She is a tireless champion of the most vulnerable. She is a committed social democrat and a committed British Columbian working in Ottawa on behalf of all of us. I would ask the House to please make her most welcome.

B. Penner: Seated in the gallery is the mayor of Chilliwack, John Les. He is a gentleman who is no stranger to this place as he makes regular pilgrimages to Victoria.

Introduction of Bills

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Private Post-Secondary Education Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that Bill 73 be introduced and read for a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Petter: The amendments to the Private Post-Secondary Education Act will establish an industry-funded tuition assurance fund and provide the framework for its administration. The tuition assurance fund will be administered by the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, which is responsible for regulating private post-secondary institutions in British Columbia.

On registration with the commission, private post-secondary institutions will be required to make payments into the tuition assurance fund. This fund will replace the current bonding and security requirements which have been problematic for institutions and have provided inadequate protection for students. The tuition assurance fund will improve consumer protection for students by ensuring they receive a 100 percent refund of tuition fees they are owed, should an institution close or cease to provide a program.

In addition to improving consumer protection for students, these amendments will also implement the recommendation of a task force, which included representatives of the private post-secondary education industry, and address industry concerns about current security requirements. Industry, including the British Columbia Career Colleges Association, has urged government to put a tuition assurance fund in place. I'm pleased that we have taken the step, in introducing this legislation today, to do so.

A regulatory impact statement has been prepared for the establishment of the tuition assurance fund, consistent with the recommendations made to government by the Business Task Force. I move that Bill 73 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 73 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.

AGRIFOOD CHOICE AND QUALITY ACT

Hon. C. Evans presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agrifood Choice and Quality Act.

Hon. C. Evans: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Evans: This bill enables the agrifood industry to establish programs to certify that quality and production practice standards relating to any agriculture or food product are being met. It incorporates provisions of three existing statutes -- the Agricultural Produce Grading Act, the Food Choice and Disclosure Act and the Food Products Standards Act -- and it repeals the Food Choice and Disclosure Act.

Currently, mandatory quality and grading standards are set for eggs, poultry, beef, hogs, honey, fruit and vegetables. There are also reporting and licensing requirements which impose a considerable administrative burden on the industry and, unfortunately, add to production costs. This bill enables

[ Page 13632 ]

industry to move to voluntary industry-initiated programs that set standards -- instead of the mandatory standards now in place. Participation in quality programs will be voluntary; however, B.C.'s agrifood products must continue to meet high standards for food safety. This bill enables industry to develop and implement programs which it needs to remain competitive and meet the changing expectations of producers, processors, retailers, consumers and our trade partners.

[1415]

Quality programs can be established for any agriculture product, enabling industry to develop specialty markets. A regulatory impact statement has been prepared for this legislation in accordance with the regulatory streamlining initiative. This statement outlines the economic impact and public interest benefits of the legislation.

Growing consumer interest in environmental sustainability, environmental best practices, and more natural food products have created niche market opportunities for producers and processors willing to meet those demands. Certifying for these characteristics can give B.C. food products a competitive advantage in the marketplace. This bill will enable certification of these characteristics. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 77 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.

Oral Questions

EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT TAXATION POLICY ON HIGH-TECH INDUSTRY

G. Campbell: Last week the government received a failing report card from the business summit. Today the Technology Industries Association released its second annual report on what it calls the perils that this government has put in front of its growth. In short, the government has failed again. B.C.'s high taxes are stifling an industry with great potential.

My question to the minister responsible for technology is: will he explain why his government continues an onerous taxation policy which is clearly stifling the potential growth and future prosperity of this province?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

Hon. A. Petter: Only the Leader of the Opposition could characterize a report card survey which projects 16 percent employment growth in the coming year within British Columbia as some kind of a failure.

The fact is that this government has been very aggressively pursuing a strategy in conjunction with the high-tech sector. This sector is growing at twice the rate in British Columbia as it is for the Canadian average. It's a sector which feeds off of and grows in relationship to the investment that is made in education in this province and the very high calibre of students we turn out and are increasingly going to turn out because of our commitment to continue to invest in education, contrary to the desires of the Leader of the Opposition.

While I agree that it has criticisms in respect of taxation rates for individuals, the survey was done last fall, prior to some of the most recent reductions in those taxation rates -- in particular, prior to the announced reduction in the small business tax rate to 5.5 percent, bringing that rate below Alberta's, the second-lowest in the country, for a sector that is dominated over 90 percent by small business.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order, members.

First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, order.

G. Campbell: I think the problem for the minister is that he simply doesn't listen to the people in the industry. Eighty percent of the industry leaders who are involved in this survey have said that this government is "ineffective in creating a supportive environment for the technology industry" -- ineffective, hon. Speaker. The NDP's high taxation policies are driving some of B.C.'s brightest and best people out of the province -- for good, hon. Speaker. The most critical . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Campbell: We know that the most critical component of a technology industry is brainpower; it's people. Industry leaders are telling this minister time and time again, in meeting after meeting -- and this government, if they would just listen -- that right now the NDP's onerous taxation policy is driving their best employees out, and it's prohibiting them from attracting the right kinds of people to the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, order.

G. Campbell: My question to the minister is: why doesn't he stand up for the technology industry, the workers there and the people who want to invest in this province's future, and have a dramatic cut in personal income tax so we can move forward with this industry?

[1420]

Hon. A. Petter: You know, hon. Speaker, it's kind of sad that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't seem to understand that the thing that supports and grows an important sector of our economy -- the high-tech sector -- is not only the taxation rates, which, yes, are important, but also the benefits that flow from that taxation in the form of educational services, health care services and the programs that contribute to a quality of life that make people want to live here in British Columbia.

The factual data that were released yesterday and confirmed today in this report indicate that since 1991, industry revenues in this sector have grown by 95 percent, employment has increased by 61 percent, and exports last year alone

[ Page 13633 ]

increased by 26 percent in the high-tech sector. That's a sign of a pretty dynamic sector. It is one of the sectors that has the lowest costs, in terms of business costs, and we're going to continue to work with that sector, as we have, to make modifications . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. A. Petter: . . . and continue to help it to grow by supporting it in every way, not in the one single-minded way that the Leader of the Opposition would like to help -- and undermine all the other efforts that we have made in this regard.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Campbell: I want the minister to listen to this carefully. I'd like the entire government to listen to this: a cut in personal taxes means more revenue for government, not less revenue for government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

G. Campbell: Dozens and dozens and dozens of industry leaders have told this minister . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The member has been recognized and has the floor.

G. Campbell: Day in and day out, week in and week out, this minister is told by industry leaders -- by people who are trying to build the industry -- that you have to cut personal income taxes to keep the most important resource for the technology industry: people. One out of every two employees who leaves a B.C. company leaves British Columbia altogether. Today B.C.-based companies are creating 40 percent of their jobs outside of this province because of this NDP government's policies.

Why doesn't the minister listen to the people from the industry, listen to the workers in the industry, who are demanding and pleading for a personal income tax cut so they can build the industry in British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. A. Petter: I know that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues over there engage in a new form of alchemy, in which they believe that increasing tuition fees is good in terms of promoting access to education, that cutting funding for health care will increase access to health care services and that cutting taxes will increase tax revenues. I guess, if one believes in Alice in Wonderland voodoo economics, it all kind of makes sense. The fact of the matter is . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Members, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Members, come to order.

G. Farrell-Collins: We want to listen to the Mad Hatter.

The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, come to order.

Hon. A. Petter: The fact is that the high-tech sector in this province has been growing at an incredible rate -- much faster than the national average -- with comparable rates of growth to those in Oregon, which is often held up as an exemplary high-tech jurisdiction. We've seen organizations like Ericsson move their offices from Calgary to Burnaby. We've seen Telus decide to put its head office in Vancouver, not Edmonton. In the last year we've seen high-tech companies like ISM-BC open the largest data-processing centre west of Toronto, right here in greater Victoria.

Yes, there's a survey of 200 CEOs who said they would like their taxes to be cut, and the Leader of the Opposition jumps up and down and says: "Oh, my goodness. That's the solution to everything." Well, if that's what the Leader of the Opposition believes is the solution to everything, that's fine. But British Columbians know that it's investing in education, working to improve our quality of life and partnering with the sector that will help it to grow -- including addressing taxation issues.

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, enough. Order, members.

J. Weisbeck: The fact of the matter is that we have the slowest growth rate in four years, and we have only half the growth rate of Oregon and Washington. The people on the front lines of creating jobs in the high-tech sector say that the NDP government is putting all of their effort and ingenuity at risk. Again and again they say that our taxes are too high and that they "fear for their ability to compete for key talent." Will the minister tell us how he thinks we can win this race to create a thriving high-tech sector in B.C., when his government is preventing high-tech companies from attracting and keeping skilled workers here in B.C.?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I don't know what the member is talking about. In 1997 . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Okay, I'll correct that. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

[ Page 13634 ]

In 1997, which is the most recent number available in GDP growth, the growth in the high-tech sector was almost 9 percent -- up substantially from the previous year's growth. In fact, it has averaged close to 9 or 10 percent in each of the last four years -- save 1996, when there was a slight downturn; and the industry completely rebounded in 1997. The value of exports is up over 25 percent in the last year. We see this sector growing and continuing to grow.

We're making changes in employment standards. We're reducing small business taxes. We're lowering the high marginal and general income tax rate, as well, in a balanced approach -- not an extreme approach that is fixated on one issue and one issue alone, but an approach that will guarantee a high quality of life for all British Columbians, not a select few.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

J. Weisbeck: We're losing the race to attain that critical mass. But here's what one B.C. company had to say about the NDP's commitment to high-tech: "Resign and call an election." The quote continues . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members. Member for Okanagan East, please take your seat for a moment.

I appreciate the interest in this topic. I ask all members to come to order. One person is recognized and one person only -- no other voices, please. Member for Okanagan East, continue.

J. Weisbeck: Here's what one B.C. company has to say about the NDP's . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

J. Weisbeck: . . . commitment to high-tech: "Resign and call an election." The quote continues: "The current government isn't able to conceive . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

J. Weisbeck: . . . of the kinds of changes necessary to turn this province around. Their mind-set doesn't allow it." Will the minister tell us how he thinks he can convince any high-tech innovators and entrepreneurs to stay in B.C. when they believe you don't have the mind-set to turn this province around?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. A. Petter: What is particularly sad is that this opposition does not seem to understand that the way you build a high-tech sector is through investments in education, through investments in quality of life and, yes, by dealing with cost issues as well. B.C. has a much lower business cost than most of our American competitors.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. A. Petter: B.C. has a much better educational infrastructure. As a result of an announcement today . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. A. Petter: . . . which the opposition should be celebrating, we introduced, in conjunction with the federal government, an expansion of our student grant policy, which means that more B.C. students will get to attend post-secondary institutions. Their average debt level will be reduced by over $7,000, to the lowest level in the country. That's how you build . . .

The Speaker: Minister, finish up, please.

Hon. A. Petter: . . . a high-tech industry: by supporting education, by supporting students.

If you want quotes from companies, I'll leave you with a quote from Trillium, an American high-tech company that announced today that 50 jobs are to be introduced here into B.C. and said that B.C. was second to none in terms of other jurisdictions. They believe that they could attract employees here better than they could anywhere else around the world.

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, order.

C. Clark: The Technology Industries Association surveyed their members and asked them for the three top pieces of advice they'd give to the government if they could. The responses, surprisingly, were remarkably similar. They said things like this: "The current government should get lost. The current government should go away. The current government should resign, call an election and let a real government take over." Can the minister tell us, if that is the response he is getting from the CEOs who've decided to stick around, tough it out and stay in British Columbia, what does that say about the hundreds of high-tech companies who've left B.C. and abandoned this province altogether?

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, what the CEOs of many companies are saying to me is that they're here not only to stay but to grow in British Columbia, despite the negativity of the opposition and the fearmongering that goes on. That's why Trillium has announced 50 jobs today. That's why Ericsson has moved its head office here. That's why EDS Systemshouse has opened its regional office here. That's why Agresso, a European company, has made B.C. its North American headquarters. That's why IBM has located a software development centre here. That's why MacDonald Dettwiler has expanded its operation and taken over the B.C. OnLine operation.

[ Page 13635 ]

And despite the naysaying and the catcalls from the members opposite and their attempt to try to whip this into a partisan issue, British Columbians know -- and you can't argue with the facts . . . . The report itself says: "The B.C. technology industry is large, fast-growing and export-focused." That tells the story. We're going to build on that story, and with one of the fastest-growing sectors of our economy, and it would be nice to have the opposition support us for a change. But I won't hold my breath.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Petitions

L. Stephens: I rise to present a petition. This petition has been signed by 300 individuals in Langley on behalf of grade 6 and 7 students of division 1, Bradshaw Elementary School, and their teacher, vice-principal Pat Macdonald. These young people went out and decided that laser pointers were not appropriate for children under the age of 18, and they would like to see legislation passed that would limit the sale of laser pointers to people over 18 years of age.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 58. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 58; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 48 as amended (continued).

[1435]

J. Wilson: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Wilson: Today in the House we have 52 grade 7 students from Bouchie Lake Elementary accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Winthrope, and several parents. I would ask that the House make them welcome.

C. Hansen: Just before we adjourned last night at 9 o'clock, I gave the minister an example of an individual who came to see me. In response to that, he talked about how there were two sides to the story. There were the anecdotal sides, and then there was the integrity of the plan. Again, I tried to pick up on that theme just before we broke for lunch. I'm now going to take my third try at completing that approach.

I gave the example last night of this individual who was in his mid-to-late sixties. He took early retirement based on his understanding of what he would need to continue to put food on his table. Part of that was this pension that he would be entitled to of less than $450 a month, knowing at the time -- and he factored this in -- that he would be able to find other work to supplement that very small pension.

Last night, in response to that, the minister talked about how there are two sides to this story. On one side, there are the individual anecdotes. The minister was rather dismissive, I felt, of the story that I told. I can't remember his exact words, but certainly he talked about this as if it were some kind of an isolated incident, and I contend that it's not an isolated incident. But the minister then went on to talk about how there is another side to this story, and that's the integrity of the plans: that the reason for this rather draconian measure that's contained in

section 48 is to preserve the integrity of the plans.

Well, this morning, just before we broke for lunch, I was asking the minister about the options and choices that the plan trustees have to make when they're trying to protect the integrity of a plan. One of the obligations of a trustee is to look at the benefits that are paid out and at how the fund remains viable, based on the funds that are paid out. For example, if a plan were to move to a scheme of early retirement, there's an obligation on the part of the trustees to ensure that the plan is still viable, given the early retirement benefits that are going to be paid out.

The minister assured me that when those kinds of changes are made to plans, they have to come to the government and get the government's concurrence that those changes to a plan are appropriate.

The question that I'd like to put to the minister is: given that trustees have the choice of balancing the benefits from a plan in order to ensure the ongoing viability of a plan versus the very radical move -- which is the one that's contained in

section 48 -- of going in and cutting off and suspending the pension benefits of those who are receiving early retirement benefits as a way to protect the viability of the plan, why did this government make that choice? Why did this government choose to go in and take the route of suspending pension benefits from those who opted for early retirement, rather than going back to the trustees of the plan and asking them to structure their plan in a way that ensures the continued viability of the plan?

[1440]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to answer the question, and indeed I will. But before I do so, I want to ask for a little guidance from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, the member is making substantially the same speech -- if I can put it that way -- that we heard last night. The subject at that time was an amendment that was on the floor. We dealt with the amendment. We have indeed passed second reading debate of this bill. We, by the rules of this chamber, ought to be beyond the speech-making. The larger questions about why we are doing this . . . . We've already voted on the principle of the bill. The committee stage of the debate, it would seem to me, suggests that we ought to be focusing much more precisely on specific questions. As I say, I'm just asking for a little guidance, Mr. Chairman.

I have already spelled out why this particular approach was taken, why it was deemed to be necessary. The entire argument in terms of protecting the integrity of the plan, as I have said on numerous occasions already, isn't so much for the immediate present or for the short term; rather, it's for the longer-term future. We were given advice by one of the fore-

[ Page 13636 ]

most authorities in the actuarial field, and his presentation to the pension council won the day. He argued the case that this particular plan, the multi-employer pension plan -- the negotiated-cost, multi-employer plan, to use the technical terminology -- needed this kind of protection in order to ensure its longevity and also to enable the plan to do the kinds of things and provide the kinds of services to its members that the plan had been able to do with some pride: namely, to provide subsidized benefits for those members who wanted to take early retirement -- to give them that opportunity, which they might otherwise not have been able to do.

I've explained that. I can't think of explaining it any more. It seems to me that the member is really asking me for just the same explanation over again, and it seems to me that we've already covered that ground. I apologize if I've missed something else in the question, but it seems to me that we have indeed covered this already. I will listen again and see if there is a new question or a different question. Otherwise, as I say, I think I've answered it.

The Chair: The Chair just reminds members that under standing order 61, we are dealing with the

section that is before us, and all input should be relevant to that section.

C. Hansen: I will certainly heed that advice, and I apologize to the minister, because perhaps I didn't phrase my question clearly enough. This is ground that has not been covered. What we've talked about up until now is the rationale behind this particular move of allowing this suspension to be put in place. My question to the minister -- and maybe I'll word it more specifically -- is: was there consideration given . . . ? Given that the viability of the plan was being questioned, did they consider amending the benefits of the plan rather than giving the power to the trustees to suspend benefits? I guess that's probably a more specific way of wording my question.

Hon. D. Lovick: The pronoun reference "they" -- I assume the member means by that the trustees of the plan. Obviously they're the ones who make that adjudication and judgment. The answer to the question is yes indeed. They considered: what do we need to do to protect the integrity of the plan and to serve the members to the best of our abilities? The conclusion they came up with -- based largely on the advice of their actuarial expert, Mr. Allan Brown -- was that this is the measure we need to take. That's the argument they present. As I say, I and my colleagues are persuaded by that argument. We think it's a valid one.

[1445]

C. Hansen: My concern, which flows from the minister's answer, is the kind of precedent that might be set. Certainly the building trades plans are not the first plans whose viability has been challenged. I'll try to use words that aren't as threatening, I guess. Certainly there are other plans whose viability has been challenged. Does the minister not see that this is a precedent that would be set? Other plans would come to government and ask for the power to suspend those receiving early retirement, as a means of restoring viability to plans outside of the 16 that we're talking about today.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think an honest appraisal and evaluation of this matter could lead one to the conclusion that other plans might be affected as well. We're talking about a very unique collection of plans -- multi-employer pension plans -- particularly dealing with the construction industry. That's what the case presented by Mr. Brown was ultimately about. He argued the case very persuasively. I've quoted only a small piece of it thus far -- what I've referred to as the quintessential argument. I'm prepared to quote more if that's helpful to the member. But the argument . . . .

If the member is asking in his question about multi-employer plans in the construction industry today -- who knows what's on the horizon tomorrow? -- I can give him assurances that the nature of these plans is indeed unique. These plans are unique; that industry is unique. I can't conceptualize or conceive of another set of plans or another industry that is in any way analogous and that would present similar problems and perceived difficulties in the future. That's why, again, I stressed the fact that this is unique; it's very specific to these particular kinds of plans.

Indeed, that is the essential argument presented by Mr. Brown and the argument that obviously persuaded the pension council.

C. Hansen: I'll wrap up. I don't have a further question, but I did want to put a comment on the floor. Given the questions that we've asked and the answers that we've had about whether or not this has to do with the viability of plans of that nature and why this particular route was chosen, I must say that I am not persuaded by the minister's arguments.

The only thing I see that is unique about the situation that the building trades find themselves in today is a battle that is going on between a unionized sector that has diminishing work available to it and a non-unionized sector that has diminishing work available to it. We've wound up with a major confrontation between those two sectors, the unionized and non-unionized sectors.

The only conclusion that I can come to, given the minister's answers to our various questions so far, is that this is all about punishing workers who go from the union sector into the non-union sector to work and really has very little to do with the viability of the plans in the future. I believe there are other ways that government could have addressed the issues of the viability of the plans, without going to this very draconian measure of trying to take away -- suspending -- the pensions of individuals in this province, which I think is something that is truly unfortunate. With that, I will turn it over to my colleague.

B. Penner: This is my first opportunity to participate in debate on

section 48 of the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 1999. I share some of the concerns expressed by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. However, I want to begin by addressing an issue that was raised by another colleague of mine, the member for Richmond-Steveston, shortly before lunch. He made the point very effectively that

section 48 gives the government broader powers than what the minister says the government intends to use. I think that even the minister will have to agree with my colleague's legal assessment and legal

interpretation of the

section that is before us,

section 48.

[1450]

I attended the University of Victoria and the law school there not that long ago. The minister knows that I did that. It's a common matter of discussion in law schools everywhere, probably, that governments in Canada are increasingly seeking to expand their authority through regulation, rather than

[ Page 13637 ]

having to bother with coming to the Legislature to seek approval for whatever actions they wish to undertake. I recall various professors at the University of Victoria making that point -- including, I believe, former professor Murray Rankin, who now frequently works for this government on contract, pursuing various projects.

I also recall that there were other people closely associated with this government . . . . Maureen Maloney, who is now a deputy minister in this government, was the dean of that law school. As well, the member for Saanich South was a professor in constitutional law. Although I did not have him as a professor in constitutional law, I would be very surprised if he at no time made a reference to and criticism of governments seeking to put more and more authority in regulations and regulation-making power, as opposed to the statute books of British Columbia.

Here's the argument: it is only through debate in this Legislature that the public has a chance to participate in the formation of the laws that govern us. If it's left to cabinet -- that is, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- to make regulations, that takes place with far less scrutiny and public debate than what takes place here in the Legislature. I think we could make the case that there's far too little public scrutiny of what actually happens here in the Legislature, notwithstanding the press gallery and Hansard television, as well as the written Hansard .

I say all of this by way of a

preamble to my next comment, which is that I recall meeting with the Minister of Labour back in 1987 at Simon Fraser University in the student union building. I recall that he was good enough to meet with a number of students; I think he had come to a political science class and met with some students afterwards at the student union building. I was there. It seems to me that the NDP, when they were in opposition, had one view of governments putting a lot of authority into regulation-making power and has since changed that view after winning the election of 1991.

I wonder if the minister can try to rationalize the difference in approach between what we're hearing today and what I recall hearing from that member back in 1987 at Simon Fraser University. I hope it's something more than simply: "That was then, when we were in opposition, and this is now, when we're in government, and we don't like it." I invite the minister to enlighten us.

The Chair: Minister, insofar as we're strictly relevant to this section.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you for that cautionary note, Mr. Chairman. As an ex-academic, of course, I am more than eager to offer my wisdom in terms of a theoretical construct about legislative versus regulatory authority. It's been a debate that has gone on in constitutional, legal and political science curricula for a number of years.

But as the Chair correctly points out, my job here is to deal with the specific. I did talk about the question that the member posed; I did answer the question at some length -- the similar question posed by his colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston. Let me summarize very briefly what I have said and just point out that I'm not going to talk about what I am alleged to have said or not said in '87. I won't bite on that particular forbidden fruit. Rather, I will just say that I read into the record the existing regulations.

If he takes a look at that, the member will discover that those powers already reside with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There is nothing new here; there is nothing different. There isn't a shift in course or a shift in emphasis. Rather, that's a basic power that resides with the L-G-in-C.

Second, I would make the point that we have done something a little unusual here in response to the legitimate questions of the opposition. What we have done is say that the principles that will govern the development of regulations will be shared. People will have an opportunity to look at those, and they will have an opportunity to pose questions. Moreover, we will do the same thing with the draft regulations so that people can indeed see what those are about and have an opportunity to comment.

So it isn't the case that something is going to happen in secret and all these unheard-of powers are going to be arrogated into the hands of a group of conspirators sitting around the table or something and that nobody will know about them -- or anything like that. Far from it. Rather, it is the intention -- and indeed to our interest, I think, in legislation such as this, which is ostensibly controversial -- to make it as open as we possibly can. That is certainly our intention. Mr. Chairman, I think I have now answered that question, and I ask your forgiveness if I have indeed pushed the envelope of going beyond what committee allows me.

[1455]

B. Penner: I'd like to be able to say that I was comforted by the minister's assurance that there will be meaningful public consultation before any regulations are changed. However, we've heard extensively already in this debate that the pension industry in Canada feel that they were left out in a substantial way in the consideration of the proposed amendments contained in this bill and that they weren't consulted effectively ahead of time. I think our critic, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, has effectively made suggestions throughout this debate on how the bill could have been improved if an exposure draft had been made available to the pension industry beforehand.

If the minister is truly sincere in his commitment to making sure that the public is consulted prior to any new regulations going forward, the minister could contemplate an amendment to this

section requiring public consultation before any regulations are enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and effectively imposed on the people of British Columbia.

I know that regulations eventually become public knowledge, because they have to be published in the Gazette , but it's not until they become law that British Columbians have a right to know about them. That's what's wrong and that's what's dangerous about allowing so many powers to be contained within the L-G-in-C formula -- the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That is why academics in university, as well as the NDP when they were in opposition, criticized the former government for trying to shift as much power as possible away from the Legislature to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet of the day.

If the minister really wanted to give us some assurance, he could do that by writing an explicit amendment to this

section and requiring the government to consult with the public before imposing new regulations or changing the regulations pertaining to people's pensions. I understand why

[ Page 13638 ]

the people are so sensitive about their pensions, because it's something they've worked for and count on to support them in their senior years.

Before I conclude my participation on

section 48, I'd like to speak on behalf of someone in Chilliwack and just read into the record a letter I received in my office yesterday from a constituent. It's actually a letter addressed to both the Premier and the Ministry of Labour, but it was copied to me. I'll do everyone here the benefit of reading it into the record:

"Dear Sirs:

"I'm writing this letter to you to voice my objection to Bill 58. I object to this proposed law as both a citizen of British Columbia and a unionized worker in this province. I cannot believe that a political party that prides itself on being the representatives of the working people would dare to interfere with a person's right to collect a pension that he or she has rightfully earned.

"I understand that there are some MLAs that currently collect pensions while they are collecting salaries as MLAs. Would your government find it fair to prevent those MLAs from collecting their pensions? I doubt it!

"My understanding is that this legislation is about some retired, unionized construction workers that have decided for one reason or another to go back to work for non-unionized contractors that are competing for the same work as unionized workers. The mere fact that the unionized companies admit that they cannot compete with these non-unionized companies should be your first clue that there lies the problem.

"I see this is forcing out the cheaper and equally qualified worker from the ability of competing for work. No wonder businesses are shy to invest in this province. Your policies force them to accept higher-priced workers instead of allowing free enterprise and competition to rule their choice. I and many like me see this legislation as pure pandering to those unions that have continuously supported your backward policies. Have you forgotten that the union represents all of its members and not just the ones in power that have been greasing your palms?

"As a member of a union, I resent what this legislation proposes to do, and I personally hold each of you responsible for the damage that you have caused to this province.

"By way of copying this correspondence to the Leader of the Official Opposition and to my MLA, the member for Chilliwack, I am requesting them to do everything in their power to shut down the debate on Bill 58, and I further request them to go on the record publicly and commit to cancelling the law retroactive to its date of impending passage once they win the next provincial election.

"Give back some peace of mind for our futures to the regular working people!"

[1500]

This comment is to the Premier and the Minister of Labour:

"If you proceed with this legislation, it will be but another shining example of the hypocrisy that plagues your government. Have you not been paying attention to what's been happening lately? The regular people of this province are sick to death of your policies and how invasive you have become in our lives. Go ahead, pass Bill 58 and give me another reason to not vote for your party."

That's signed by someone in Chilliwack whom I have never spoken to before, but to whom I intend to send a copy of this Hansard , because it's our responsibility as individual MLAs to represent our constituents. That's what we're doing here today. I suggest that if the members of the government bother to check their phone messages, they too will be hearing from people in their constituency who are upset by this bill -- this section, particularly.

It's interesting to note that the person whose letter I just read is a member of the unionized construction industry, and that person is very concerned.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Read the name.

B. Penner: I know that the Minister of Labour wants me to read the name, probably so somebody in the union movement can go and punish this person. I'm not going to afford them that opportunity.

I've also heard from other people in the electrical industry who are concerned that when it comes to their retirement years and their plans to set up perhaps a private contracting business in the electrical field, they too will be caught by this legislation.

That's why it's important to narrow the effect of this

section as much as possible or, better yet, scrap it all together. Clearly, for the record, that is what I support doing. If the B.C. Liberals form the next government, we will immediately scrap the retroactive and the punitive provisions of Bill 58.

The Chair: Oh, the minister wants to respond?

Hon. D. Lovick: Actually, I wasn't going to answer. Let's deal with the section.

The Chair: The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head -- on this section, please.

I. Chong: I do have some questions on

section 48. As the minister will recall, I was concerned about

section 48, and I stated so in my comments in second reading debate. I do want to clarify, and I apologize to the minister, that when I made reference to the pension plans that would be affected, I erroneously stated why this would not cover -- and I had at that time said -- private sector plans. I meant to say public sector funds. I know from later Hansard s that I did in fact clarify that. But I didn't realize it at the time, so I understand why the minister was confused at the time.

During second reading debate I did make about comments about the issue of someone who restarts work or service in a trade or industry covered by a plan with an employer who's not a participant in the plan, which is what this

section 48(c)(g)(ii) refers to. What I would like clarification on at this time is the definition, if possible, of an employer. There have been many comments made about the ability to go to work, to be self-employed. I think, for the benefit of all of us, that if we can get an understanding or clarification as to what is referred to here as an employer, that may help us understand what the intent is.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would just draw the member's attention to two points. First, in (g)(ii) the member will note that it refers to "in a trade." We originally said "trade or industry"; we accepted the amendment, after some discussion with her colleagues, because we think that by saying "trade and industry" it solves some of the problem that she perhaps refers to. The key point is: " . . . with an employer who is not . . . . " That does not refer to an individual who starts his or her own company; that's not the issue we're talking about.

So in other words, somebody who decides, after having been a tradesperson, to carry on doing similar work by starting his or her own company is not prohibited by this in any way.

I. Chong: I suppose the difficulty is in one's

interpretation of what self-employment is and what an employer is. The difficulty perhaps rests more with those who would be looking at this as a legal definition. I think the minister is aware that if they check their statutes -- whether they're federal or

[ Page 13639 ]

provincial statutes -- there are three forms of employers: proprietorships, partnerships and legally incorporated businesses. The difficulty is that you can be employed as a self-employed person -- or feel you are self-employed -- but once you incorporate, you in fact are an individual separate from the incorporated company which you are a part of. So there is a problem there.

[1505]

Similarly, if you were to register your self-employment business as a partnership with your cousin or your brother or an uncle, again it is a form of self-employment. But at the same time, one could view that partnership as an employer. So we do have some difficulty with what is referred to as an employer.

I've even seen people register their business names with land titles as a proprietorship and try to treat it as a separate entity for the purpose of letting the business community know that it's not just John Doe, self-employed. It could be John Doe operating as ABC Electric, or XYZ Carpentry, or whatever. The point is that that self-employed proprietorship, that entity, would be considered an employer because they could employ other people; they could be a non-union shop. That is part of the difficulty.

I would like a clear, definitive, specific clarification, if at all possible, before I proceed to my additional questions.

Hon. D. Lovick: We have no intention whatsoever -- and I have said so on a number of occasions -- of capturing the kinds of persons and circumstances the member refers to.

However, I know she wants something specific and by the letter of the law, as it were. I'd refer her to two things. I would refer her to the whole of subsection (g)(ii), where it's made very clear that we're talking about an individual who goes to work for an employer who is not a participant. The relationship is spelled out very clearly. Nobody could stretch that to say: "You went to work for yourself, and because you happen to be a single proprietorship, you're still an employer and therefore that would be allowed." It's very clear there is a very specific other relationship there. That's point one.

Point two is within the

definitions. Employer is a defined term, and indeed it is elaborately defined. I think this is probably fairly standard in other legislation as well. " 'Employer' means a person or organization, whether incorporated or not, from whom an employee receives or received remuneration, and includes any participating employers of a multi-employer plan who have employed that employee." I think that captures it about as clearly as one could possibly do. I don't think there is any other better assurance one could give to deal with the member's question than what I've just read into the record.

I. Chong: Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with the minister. It is not as clear and not as specific, as I listened to him reading that out. Understandably, if the minister wants to agree that any person who accepts an early retirement pension and restarts work through their own partnership or proprietorship would be excluded from having their pension plan suspended, then that I would accept, and that I can understand. That is fine.

[1510]

Then we move onto the broader definition of the employer in the sense of in a corporation. Clearly, a person can incorporate their company. They can be a major or majority shareholder. They therefore come to work as an employee. They will receive remuneration as an employee of that incorporated company -- let's just say XYZ Ltd. Therefore they would then be covered, and if that XYZ company was in the same business or trade or industry as the shareholder-employee was once a part of, his or her limited company would not be a participant of the multi-employer plans, and therefore it would be offside.

What I would like to do, hon. Chair, is seek some assurance, if at all possible, from the minister. If those who would return to work -- now that we've established that proprietorships or partnerships are excluded from this suspension -- start up their own corporations, for financial or legal ramifications, and they do so for their own personal circumstances -- protection of assets or whatever it may be -- they too would be excluded. And in so setting up their incorporated businesses, there would be no restriction to the extent of their share ownership.

The reason why I think that is that it could be possible that the individual might like to work for a cousin or another relative who has a non-union firm and who is not a participant in the plan. To go to work for that firm, he or she would be offside, so the only way to ensure that that does not happen is to then seek legal counsel, to become a minority shareholder -- in whatever fashion -- to ensure that they would not be captured in that particular scenario.

I hope the minister can understand, from the example that I'm giving, that it is to ensure that we are not extending this and discriminating between those who can work for those non-union firms who are . . . or work as a self-employed individuals in a non-incorporated fashion versus an incorporated fashion. I hope I've made myself clear for the minister, so that he can provide some clarification.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think I can give this assurance: namely, the intention here -- and the regulations will certainly mirror that -- is to exclude the bona fide independent owner who may go into that kind of business. That is the intention. If the member is saying to me, however, that the individual proposes to start a company and then ten years from now the company may have 20 former building trades early retirees working for him or her and will be forever exempted from the provision of this, then no, I couldn't give that assurance.

As long as it is somebody starting or carrying out his or her own small business -- and I imagine, given that they've taken early retirement, we're not talking about becoming a brand-new Farmer Construction or something; but rather, something very small-scale -- the individual, it seems to me, has nothing whatsoever to fear in the requirement. We're not, as I say, attempting to in any way deal with individuals who become self-employed and are carrying out their trade and using their old skills from that trade.

I. Chong: The minister makes an interesting comment about the individual having no reason to fear this legislation, which would imply that there is or could be fear from this legislation, in the sense that he's indicated that there has to be a bona fide situation. I suppose that those who would challenge the bona fide situation that existed would be . . . . If in fact the individual is, I guess, caught in this situation, they then have to appear before an appeal board to determine whether this is a bona fide situation.

[1515]

[ Page 13640 ]

I'm clearly trying to establish that what we're seeing here is a somewhat discriminatory practice. On the one hand, the minister is providing . . . . I thank him for the assurance that those who are, in the true sense of the word, in a self-employed partnership or proprietorship will be excluded from the provisions of this section. I'm very glad that we have that for the record.

But an individual who may be in the same situation as the person who decides to be self-employed or who may not have the same initiative to become self-employed and then works for a neighbour or a cousin or a relative -- or even just a stranger -- in a small, non-union, incorporated business would not be given that same opportunity to work. That would somehow be a severe and, I think, unfair and inequitable practice for those who seek early retirement pensions.

As I stated in second reading debate, I feel that whatever the reasons are that a person chooses to take early retirement -- and certainly there are personal circumstances that dictate that -- the factors they have are their own. We should not be challenging that.

Those who decide to exercise their right to an early retirement pension and then need to supplement their income and can continue to supplement it by the choice of self-employment or other opportunities -- they have the initiative to do so -- will be treated as distinct and separate from those who don't have that same drive, that same initiative, and who do go out and work for a non-union shop that is not a participant in the plan. I do feel that there is that difficulty.

That is why I was disappointed that our amendment to grandfather those who have already sought early retirement was not accepted by this government. Clearly this is meant to be future legislation and to let everyone else be aware of what's happening from this point onwards -- fine. But those who are now in those situations are going to have to re-evaluate and leave their employment in these non-union shops -- if there are some, as was in the case of the individual . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: They can stay there.

I. Chong: The minister says that they can stay if they want. But then they'll have their early retirement pension plans suspended.

So what the minister is suggesting is that the individual who . . . . Perhaps this was the individual who took this particular legislation to task by going to the Supreme Court -- through the Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 280, as I understand. Perhaps the particular individual for whom the fight was fought and won would now, if he is working in a non-union shop, have to terminate his employment and then somehow come back into the system as a self-employed contractor, which sets up another set of scenarios and regulations to take place.

I am trying to make the point to the minister . . . . He is trying to provide an answer, I would hope, as to why this

section . . . . When dealing with those who have the ability to be self-employed versus those who do not, why would we be so discriminatory in that way? Why would we not allow for some flexibility, and why would we suggest that people have to find an approach that would allow them to remain offside and excluded, shall we say? I would appreciate it if the minister could provide a little further clarification.

[1520]

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to say with the utmost civility that the minister has indeed provided that clarification on about 15 different occasions in the debate thus far. I take the member's point. The legislation is responsive to protect those individuals who want to work to supplement their pension income, and they are absolutely entitled to do that. They can start their own business. They can work just about anywhere they want. The restriction, as we spelled it out in terms of the regulation, is simply that they can't go back and do the same work they did before -- work that is covered by the plan.

That's the nub of this thing. The reason, essentially, is because the plan trustees and the pension council of British Columbia have advised us very clearly that the plan itself would be in jeopardy if that were to happen, and therefore they need that power to protect themselves.

The only other point I would make for the member's benefit is that, ironically enough, the individual whose case went to court is protected by this plan. This individual was not technically an early retirement person. Indeed, he went back to work past the age of normal retirement and therefore would have been protected. His pension couldn't have been touched, because he was in fact protected. Today that individual is 62 or 63 and therefore is, of course, automatically excluded as well.

We're talking about early retirement people; we're talking about individuals whose pensions are subsidized by those who are still participating. In other words, they're getting more out of the plan than they put in because the people still paying into the plan wanted to encourage those people who are maybe getting a little old for the trade -- in some cases, it's heavy and demanding work -- to take early retirement and also, and probably as important, to encourage new people to enter the trade and the industry. The problem with the industry is that alas, we have fewer and fewer young people learning these skilled trades, which, as we know, have so much to do with building this province.

I hope I've answered the member's questions, and I appreciate the tone in which they were offered.

I. Chong: I would still have to state to the minister . . . . I know from our debates to this point that certainly we're going to agree to disagree in terms of the

interpretation of those who would be protected and those who would not.

I would like to read into the record a very brief letter that I received. This is from a constituent -- not mine but, I think, from one of the other MLAs here in Victoria -- regarding Bill 58. He wrote this on June 10. I know the minister has this letter, because it was faxed or sent to him originally. It states:

"Dear Sir:

"I opted to receive a reduced union pension at age 57. As a union member for almost 40 years, my employment terminated at about the time my employer of 25 years went into receivership. I started my own business three years ago as an independent contractor. There are no union firms engaged in commercial mechanical insulation on southern Vancouver Island. Implementation of Bill 58 will leave me but three choices: (1) certify with my union -- I have not got a prayer to compete and am virtually prohibited to work the tools; (2) shut down my company and live on an income of $1,200 per month until age 65; (3) sell vacuum cleaners.

"I cannot afford to forfeit my union pension, as it is essential for our golden years. You are effectively forcing my retirement at age 60, preventing me to work my trade and leaving me in a precarious financial situation. I had naïvely thought that pensions were as sacred as motherhood. Your pension, sir, is cast in stone. What a democratic and brilliant piece of legislation."

I presume this is somewhat sarcastic. I only read that very quickly into the record so that perhaps the minister's staff can

[ Page 13641 ]

at least respond to Mr. Luetzen to assure him, as an independent contractor -- and I don't know in what form his self-employment structure is; he just says "an independent contractor" -- whether or not he is secure in the way that he has chosen to supplement his income.

That leaves me, on this section, in terms of the definition of an employer . . . . I do have a further question on

section 48.

I just want to acknowledge for the record that I did see the minister nodding, which I would assume means he is prepared to have a staff member look into that letter. It was a very recent letter. I would appreciate that, on behalf of Mr. Luetzen. That would be good. The minister would like to respond, so I will yield.

[1525]

Hon. D. Lovick: Just very, very briefly to the letter. I appreciate the fact that the member was prepared to acknowledge the name of the individual who had written. Yes, indeed, I have the letter. Mr. Luetzen is wrong, but he is not to be faulted for that, because there has been, I'm sorry to say, a campaign that has scared people like Mr. Luetzen. He can be forgiven for believing that he couldn't start his own independent business without having to forfeit his early retirement pension benefits.

The member wanted this on the record, so let me put it on the record as well. For the record, please note that the ability to suspend benefits will not apply to those who work in a supervisory capacity or go to work for themselves or start their own business or work in employment not specifically covered by the plan. That's as clear as I can be, and I hope that's helpful to the member opposite, as well as to the individual whose letter she quotes.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister making those comments, because as I read this letter . . . . I don't believe that Mr. Luetzen was inappropriately alarmed. The difficulty being, of course, that not yet having had the opportunity to canvass fully what the definition of employer is would have made it difficult for this individual to know. As I read this section, certainly that jumped out at me. What are we referring to as an employer? As I say, there are those three forms of legal entities that are established. As a person who has come from a financial background, we often advise people as to what their best forms are of determining how to structure their self-employment.

I don't think -- and I want to say this for the record -- that Mr. Luetzen was trying to not bring this to the attention of the minister. That's why he wrote, and that's why he sent copies to members on this side of the House. That's why I think that it is important that this clarification was made at this time in canvassing the word "employer." The minister, having felt satisfied that from what I read to him -- and it would appear that Mr. Luetzen would be excluded from

section 48 -- can comfortably write a personal letter back to Mr. Luetzen expressing that to him.

So on that section, I thank the minister for his help and indulgence. I would also like to look at

section 48(c), subsection (g)(iii), where it mentions "the reinstatement of benefits of a former member referred to in subparagraph (ii)." Can the minister advise on this reinstatement? I would presume that the reinstatement is as a result, perhaps, of an appeal process that the minister has indicated would take place. How soon would the reinstatement occur? Would it be immediately and retroactive to the date that the appeal began, or would it be after the conclusion of a determination to allow a reinstatement? Can the minister provide some clarification in that area?

Hon. D. Lovick: We anticipate that most of those reinstatements will be as a result of the individual no longer doing the same work for an employer who isn't a contributor to the plan: in other words, going back to work, ceasing to work and then having their pension benefits restored, rather than as a result of an appeal. The member said "appeal." We think it is, rather, a return to work, essentially -- or ceasing to work, as it happens. I'm sorry; it gets confusing. Ceasing to work is the explanation. The regulation will specify that the period of time that we're talking about will be 30 days.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's efforts in trying to clarify that.

Yes, there are two circumstances. One is where it's very clear that an individual, immediately upon notification that his benefits could be suspended, could in fact cease work to ensure that there would be no suspension. If he had to, he could conclude his term of work, and if he does have his benefits suspended for a short time -- for a month or so -- upon cessation of that, he would have reinstatement of benefits.

[1530]

But the other scenario, which is different, is that of an appeal. As the minister stated earlier, if there's a bona fide situation that would allow a person to be employed through an incorporated entity or whatever, the person would be excluded. But if for some reason that individual were deemed not to be excluded and his pension benefits were suspended, then he could approach an appeal tribunal or commission -- however it's going to be set up. During that time of appeal, that individual would have to provide documentation and evidence as to his bona fide situation.

I am trying to determine when the reinstatement would start if that individual then wins his appeal and it is established that he's bona fide. Would it be retroactive to the beginning of the appeal?

If it were to take six months for that individual to establish his or her bona fide situation to allow the exclusion of the suspension of benefits, then I would expect that the moneys from the period of the suspension would be retroactively reimbursed to the individual. If the minister can provide that confirmation, that would be most helpful.

Hon. D. Lovick: I was about to give a long answer, and then the member wrapped up her question in a nice succinct way. So let me simply say that I am pleased to provide her with that confirmation.

K. Krueger: One of the reasons that many people find

section 48 offensive is that as drafted, it will prevent former union members, pensioners, from collecting their pension entitlement if they're employed in a trade and industry -- as it's worded now -- covered by the pension with an employer outside the pension. In this province people have been free to join the trade unions of their choice. This

section is seen to represent an unnecessary impediment to the exercise of that legal right and, accordingly, seems totally contrary to a central

[ Page 13642 ]

tenet of the entire B.C. labour relations scheme. That's a point we haven't really covered in committee debate thus far. I ask the minister to comment on it, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member's question takes us more to the thrust, the philosophy, the purpose of the bill, rather than the specifics of the section. But let me offer a brief response as a courtesy.

The individual can go and work for a non-union company and can go and join another union outside the building trades -- or outside the house of labour for that matter. They are free to do all of that. What's at issue is simply whether the individual is going to be able, in doing those sorts of things, to continue to collect the union pension. Let's call it a union pension, because that's what it is. The assumption made, above all, is simply that to protect that union pension, the trustees need to have the power, as they perceive the necessity, to suspend benefits.

But in terms of interfering with a member's right to go and do other work, to join another union, to work both union and non-union, that isn't what's at issue. It's, rather, only the fact that to protect the pension, one will not be able to go and be subsidized by the union pension plan while one is working for a competitor non-union company. That's the thrust of it. I don't think that, by any stretch, could be seen as somehow antipathetic to or inconsonant with the Labour Code. I appreciate the member's question, but I say that with some confidence. I see nothing that would lead me to believe otherwise.

[1535]

K. Krueger: And yet when this provision is enacted, if it is, there is certainly pressure on that pensioner -- that former member -- or even a present member who's considering taking his or her pension and then doing whatever they choose to do for a while and perhaps then going back to work. There's pressure on that pensioner not to join a different union where they wouldn't be paying into the pension plan from which they are drawing retirement benefits. There's an economic pressure against joining another union, which seems to us to fly in the face of that freedom to join any union that a person chooses. Can the minister concede that there is an economic pressure against that?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think it's a case of joining another union. I suspect, rather, that most of the plans of non-contributory employees, in competing with those contributory employees -- in particular, building trades -- are for the most part, I think, non-union rather than another union. So I don't think that is an issue, frankly, at least in the majority of cases.

K. Krueger: Well, I'll offer the minister an example, which I expect would be an example that's already in his mind. That is the Christian Labour Association of Canada, which does have a very large membership in British Columbia and is certainly a union. I ask the minister if he wouldn't agree that this provision will be a pressure against current members of the building trades unions taking their pension and joining CLAC.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, I'm not sure I do agree with the member, because members could certainly decide to join CLAC. They certainly have every right to do that, and indeed I suspect some do. The prohibition, such as it is, is simply against doing the same work in that same trade and industry. CLAC contracts, as the member knows, are frequently an industrial model rather than, you know, a building trades model or a craft model. Therefore, frankly, I wouldn't necessarily see that that would be very much of a problem in that particular case.

K. Krueger: I think that'll probably be welcome news to CLAC and other unions of its type -- wall-to-wall unions, as they're frequently referred to. Will the minister confirm, then, that in his view,

section 48(

c) will not come to bear on workers who move to a wall-to-wall union? Is that what the minister just said?

Hon. D. Lovick: No, the minister didn't say that, nor would he say that. The member's asking me, frankly, to speculate about the nature of one's affiliation with one kind of union versus another and whether that's good for one group or good for another group, and so forth. I think that takes me rather beyond the bounds of the discussion at this point. So no, I won't speculate. I can't.

K. Krueger: The trouble with that argument about the bounds of the discussion, of course, is that this bill is very limited in what it spells out as far as the application of this

section that we and many people in British Columbia find so offensive. We do have the one-page draft of what has been referred to as regulations, but it is more points of principle rather than actual regulations. It should be perfectly in order for the opposition to try and flesh out some of the effects that the minister foresees of this very controversial provision of Bill 58.

I want to go back briefly to a discussion that the Leader of the Official Opposition raised with the minister with regard to restrictive covenants in employment contracts. The Leader of the Official Opposition had referred to the case of Maguire v. Northland Drug Co., which was a 1935 case. There was a 1971 case along the same lines, and the style of cause was Cameron v. Canadian Factors Corp. Ltd. in the Supreme Court of Canada. This is a very brief segment of what the Supreme Court ruled:

"It is the case both under the Civil Code and under the common law that employee restraint covenants may be held invalid because of their unreasonable duration or because of their unreasonable territorial ambit, having regard in each respect to the range of businesses or activities covered by the restraining covenants . . . . The present case . . . raises simply the principle on which courts act against contractual undertakings by an employee not to compete . . . .

That principle . . . is the application of a rule of reason to a balancing of the interests of the employer and the erstwhile employee in respect of the need of the former for protection . . . and of the latter for economic mobility, in the light of a policy that discourages limitations on personal freedom, and, specifically, on freedom of economic or employment opportunity."

[1540]

Noting those comments from the Supreme Court of Canada, as I understand it, many of these people who have taken . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Was it 1935 or '71?

K. Krueger: This was 1971, in answer to the minister's question.

As I understand it, many of the people who will be captured by this regulation didn't sign any covenant that they

[ Page 13643 ]

wouldn't take other employment in their retirement. That likely was not a provision of their pension plans at all when they opted for earlier retirement.

Can the minister confirm whether that's the case?

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, The member is asking me to comment on something about which I frankly don't have any particular knowledge. But I would point out this. The Leader of the Opposition did indeed raise this question about conspiracy and restraint of trade -- or whatever the old language used to be that prohibited trade unions from forming in the first place. I answered his question. Then the member for Richmond-Steveston -- the trained lawyer on the other side -- spent about 20 minutes or so on this question as well. I dealt with those questions at some length, and it seems to me that we have canvassed that particular area.

Now, if there is something more particular and more specific, rather than the jurisprudence of 1971 that the member has to raise, I'd be happy to deal with it. It seems to me that we're rather far afield -- given, as I say, that I've already covered this area.

K. Krueger: The question specifically is: this

section acts in restraint of trade as I see it, in that it discourages the exercise of -- or at least limits -- personal freedom of economic and employment opportunity without reasonable explanation, other than, apparently, protection of building trades unions pension funds and preservation of the numbers on their membership rolls. Would the minister comment on that?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't believe that this is an unreasonable restraint, and indeed, any court of law would probably agree with that. I would remind the member again of what I've already quoted into the record from the B.C. Supreme Court judgment in terms of the sheet metal workers. The judgment spelled out very, very clearly at that time that there is a fiduciary obligation on the part of the trustees that remains to ensure that suspension of any kind is in the interests of all the members as well as the interests of the individual member.

That's much more contemporary jurisprudence and case law on this matter than anything from 1935 or 1971. I think it's a very good statement made in the court decision, reminding the trustees that they do indeed have an obligation to look out for the collective interests of the pension plan as well as the individual interests of the individual members who are in the plan. Our conclusion is essentially that

section 48 of this bill does indeed meet that test -- that it satisfies both requirements.

K. Krueger: In an interview with Kamloops This Week newspaper, my colleague the member for Kamloops, the Environment minister, is quoted directly as having said this -- apparently her synopsis of the thrust of

section 48: "You can either choose to work for a wage or take your retirement." Would the minister confirm whether that is a valid, succinct statement of the thrust of this government in bringing in

section 48(c): you can either choose to work for a wage or take your retirement?

[1545]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not going to offer any comment on what other members on either side of the House may have had to say in terms of why they think the legislation . . . . I have explained our purposes in some detail. I have explained in some detail what the advice we received was and why we found that advice compelling. I've also had enough experience over the years, in my time as an MLA, to know that what is allegedly a quotation that appears in the local press is not necessarily always an accurate rendition of what a person actually said. Therefore I wouldn't presume to comment on what is alleged to have been said either by that member or by his colleague, as he puts it, from Kamloops.

K. Krueger: I was actually asking the minister whether or not he agreed with that as a nugget of information that summarizes this government's point of view and the reason that 48(

c) is before us: you can either choose to work for a wage or take your retirement. Yes or no? And I'm not asking the minister to comment on another minister's point of view, but on his government's.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't see this as committee stage of this particular bill. I don't see this as having anything to do with the particular sections we are looking at in

section 48 of the measure. The member's asking me to offer my belief of why we are doing this, and he's going to give me, apparently, 20 questions and ask me whether I agree or disagree with them. That is not what committee stage is about. We've had the debate; I have explained ad nauseam why we're doing it. I don't think he would find in any of my comments anything that resembles the conclusion that he has just drawn. Let's get on with the debate.

K. Krueger: If the minister's looking for another debate, he's going to get it. If we're going to have difficulties in committee, then that's coming.

I continue to receive input from the public, who are very concerned about this, and from the experts in industry who are watching this debate. Some of the opinions that are coming to me from those experts are that they are very frustrated with the nature of the debate, that the minister doesn't seem to be well informed, that his arguments are weak and that he seems to have the opinion that not many people will be affected by this provision, when obviously many will.

The Chair: Member -- relevance to the section.

K. Krueger: Hon. Chair, one of the questions these people put to me is: has anyone actually examined the consequences to union pension plans -- for example, the human rights complaints that will surely flow? Has anyone attempted to involve Revenue Canada and really engage them on the questions that will be raised by those who will present the downsides of this legislation to them? This is indeed precedent-setting legislation -- this particular section,

section 48 of Bill 58. What are the prospects for trustees of pension plans being able to defend these provisions when they're challenged for breach of fiduciary duty? What if they are challenged on a class action basis, which is a very likely thing? You can pick any potential victim and proceed with a class action now in B.C., and once you do that, the pension funds will have to foot the bill for all those legal proceedings. That being the case, there's a very legitimate question about whether this provision will help with the unfunded liability difficulties of the pension funds at all, because that will be a

[ Page 13644 ]

very significant expense. Has the minister considered those consequences? Has he had any experts review those prospects and estimate what the costs to the pension funds will be?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think I've answered these questions before, but let me now simply say yes.

K. Krueger: Well, that's good to hear. What were the predicted costs?

[1550]

Hon. D. Lovick: We don't anticipate any costs on this.

K. Krueger: Well, that could only be because of the slipshod approach that was used in getting ready for this legislation -- the lack of an exposure bill, the lack of a White Paper. How could anyone think that it's not going to be expensive for pension funds to defend themselves against class action suits? That is preposterous and is another indication of the negligence of this government in bringing forward this legislation and another reason to question this government's motives.

I believe that if the unions understood the risks that I've just outlined, they wouldn't want this legislation, and that the whole matter will end up tied up in expensive class action suits. Up until now, if the superintendent got involved in a problem such as she was involved with -- involving the Sheet Metal Workers Union pension plan; resolved last summer by the Supreme court of British Columbia -- she was not required to look for other complainants, only to deal with the one that she knew about.

Hence, when the Lord case ended, the matter ended for the time being, although this government has now chosen to resurrect it and disable the superintendent from having the same toolkit she had at that time.

But now, if this suspension of pensions is permissible under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, it will no longer be a matter in the superintendent's purview, so it will be open for plan members to take their grievance to court through the class action process. Does the minister not understand that that will be a cost to pension funds?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: Alas, the minister understands what the legislation is about and has to continue dealing with those who apparently don't.

Let me remind the member again that there was a council resolution in 1995 recommending that this particular power to suspend benefits should be formalized -- should be made part of the legal framework. That was 1995 -- before the court case, hon. member. That was considerably before the court case. That's point one.

Number two, let me remind the member, as well -- I thought I'd made the point, but if I haven't, it's my error -- that the practice of suspending benefits has gone on in this province in union pension plans for a very long time. It has been the norm, indeed. It's commonplace; it's done. There have been no challenges that I am familiar with, in terms of human rights or restraint of trade or anything of that sort. The primary reason is essentially the one that I offered to the members opposite -- to the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, or perhaps his colleague from Richmond-Steveston.

The Charter of Rights, when we talk about those important rights -- more particularly, we were talking about mobility rights, for instance -- says very clearly that all of those important rights that we cherish and believe in that are enunciated in the Charter are nevertheless subject to such reasonable restraints as can be imposed legitimately in a free and democratic society. We do that all the time in this country.

For the member opposite to suggest that because we have in fact given a legal framework to a practice that's gone on in this province for probably 30 years and in the country for probably 50 years or more -- widespread, commonplace . . . . We're doing what any responsible government ought to do -- namely, giving it the legal framework so we don't put people in that awkward position of not being sure just what their rights and their responsibilities are.

To suggest that that is somehow draconian and is somehow putting us on a collision course that will get us into difficulty with the courts, and so forth and so on, I think, quite frankly, is a huge leap of imagination. It's a huge stretch in credibility.

K. Krueger: Well, the minister says it has gone on . . . . Apparently it certainly went on before 1993, but this government brought in the existing Pension Benefits Standards Act, which made it illegal as of 1993. The superintendent went to court to prove that and got a judgment in 1998. Demonstrably, from 1993 until now, this practice has been illegal. But the minister keeps saying that it has gone on. Have unions, with the minister's knowledge, been suspending pensioners in spite of the fact that the superintendent won the court case?

[1555]

Hon. D. Lovick: Sorry -- can you try that again?

K. Krueger: The minister asks that I repeat the question. The question was: have unions been suspending pensioners in these circumstances, with the minister's knowledge and without retaliation by the government, in spite of the superintendent's success in court in 1998 and the government's knowledge between '93 and '98 that this practice was illegal?

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to thank the member for repeating the question. I was making a note about another issue.

The answer is that anybody who is acting outside the requirements of the law has been advised. We haven't condoned that or ignored that at all. Once that judgment went against what we perceived to be the normal and the standard practice . . . . Once that happened, obviously we complied with the law, and the superintendent has done so assiduously ever since.

K. Krueger: So when the minister says that anyone identified as indulging in this practice has been advised . . . . Is that as far as it went? There was no further sanction against these pension fund managers for handling their pensioners' benefits illegally.

Hon. D. Lovick: My understanding is that there have been only two cases, and in both instances, the pension plan administrators, trustees -- whatever -- were required to pay back the benefits that they had suspended.

K. Krueger: Well, there's an astounding document published on a B.C. government web site which I referred to in

[ Page 13645 ]

second reading and which I would now like the minister to answer to. I think the document provides additional insight into the motivation behind this section. The document is a submission made to the labour relations review committee by the Carpenters Union. It says that the CWPP has "continued to suspend benefits while changes to the PBSA" -- the Pension Benefits Standards Act -- "were being contemplated." Also it says: "With the shelving of Bill 44, the superintendent of pensions will have to act on complaints and enforce the current laws."

Now, that was on the web site as of December 15, 1997. So there was a union openly stating that it was operating in violation of the law. I can give anyone who wishes it the web site address.

I will read a couple of quotes from that web site:

"As a deterrent to members contemplating employment after retirement, our plan calls for suspension of pension payments during the period of reemployment after retirement."

And another quote:

"We understand that in mid-1996, a subcommittee of the Pension Benefits Standards Advisory Council recommended that the suspension of pension benefits be allowed and that the issue was forwarded to Victoria for new regulations to be drafted. We later discovered that Bill 44 contained wording granting the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to make regulations regarding this issue. However, this legislation was shelved earlier this year with the rest of Bill 44.

"For the past several years, we have continued to suspend benefits while changes to the PBSA were being contemplated. With the shelving of Bill 44, the superintendent of pensions will have to act on complaints and enforce the current laws.

"We are seriously concerned about the implications this will have on our plan and our membership once it becomes public knowledge that pensions may no longer be suspended. It is exceptionally frustrating to us to know that all of the relevant parties are in favour of legislation" -- obviously the pensioners aren't relevant parties to this union -- "that would allow us to suspend pensions, and the only reason it has not been passed is due to various procedural delays.

"Recommendation. This is serious issue for the carpentry workers' pension plan of B.C. and other multi-employer plans within the construction industry. The proposed amendment for the Pension Benefits Standards Act -- formerly the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, Bill 44 -- addressed the concerns of members collecting pension payments while employed after retirement. The amendment was not passed, because Bill 44 was withdrawn. This issue continues to be a real threat to the financial position of the pension plan. Therefore we recommend that this amendment be reintroduced in the Legislature as soon as possible."

[1600]

It seems very clear, from this government web site, that the carpenters' pension plan had suspended a number of members and that they were hoping it would not become public knowledge that it was illegal. Clearly the government knew about it, because this is on a government web site. Was the Carpenters Union obliged to pay back those pension benefits to all of the people that they had suspended?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am disturbed that the member continues to insinuate as a matter of course rather than simply make a direct statement.

A couple of points. The superintendent has acted on every complaint ever received. Let's make that clear, first of all. Second, there were two complaints. Only one of those happened to be from a carpenter, so let's get that clear, as well. Number three, the so-called government web site that the member refers to was the report of all the submissions that were made to the independent commission that looked into the nature of the construction industry in the province.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Government, believing that it has an obligation to share information rather than be secretive about it, took all of the submissions made to the commission and put them on the web site. One of those submissions is what the member quotes: the submission made by the Carpenters Union -- the Provincial Council of Carpenters, I guess -- to the Lanyon-Kelleher-Ready commission.

To say that this is part of the government web site . . . . No, this is somebody's submission to a particular commission, and government, believing that it is its duty to share information with the people of this province, put everything on the web site. We don't own this document. Let's be clear about that.

The final point is that if the member's conclusion is simply that, "Aha, the carpenters said they wanted this to happen, and therefore somehow this is tainted," or "My goodness, the carpenters got their way with the government, and isn't that nasty," let him believe so if he wishes.

I have said from the beginning that since 1995, there has been a resolution before the council -- the pension council in British Columbia -- recommending that we should do this. It happened before; it happened before the court case took place. Government have been persuaded by the opinions we have received -- certainly by the opinions and the recommendation we have received from the pension council. The pension council, in turn, apparently was persuaded in large measure by the statements made by Mr. Brown, the actuary who happened to also be acting on behalf of the sheet metal workers.

I don't know if I can be any more clear than that, and I'm not sure if there is anything else the member is asking of me. I can just say this: I have never seen this document, the one that he just began to quote to me, before this moment. Whether this was part of anybody's calculus back in the days of Bill 44, a couple of years ago, I don't know -- nor do I much care, frankly. I'm concerned about the legislation that we're presenting in the House right now and that we're supposed to be debating right now.

K. Krueger: The minister ought to care. He makes this obscure point that because it's somebody else's document on the government web site, it's not government information. Of course it's government information. It's on a government web site. I think the minister's right. There's an obligation for the government to disclose information like this. There it was for all the world to see. Of all the people who should have been paying attention to it, the Ministry of Labour is right at the top, and I think they did know about it.

[1605]

For the minister to say that he doesn't care about my question, which was specifically . . . . It was no insinuation about anything. The question was: did these poor pensioners get paid back the money which had been ripped off from them, and did your ministry make sure that happened? The Carpenters Union says openly on the government web site that it has been suspending members. Apparently it has been

[ Page 13646 ]

doing it all along. Were those members paid back? Did the ministry take the appropriate action and order those members to be paid back their pension benefits?

Hon. D. Lovick: What happened in the case of the individual carpenter who wrote to offer a complaint to the superintendent is that the superintendent responded by saying: "Yes, indeed. The union can't suspend your benefits, according to the law, and therefore you have recourse to go . . . . " The superintendent never heard from that individual again. How that case resolved itself, we don't know.

K. Krueger: The minister has just confirmed, then, that the only person the government bothered to deal with to ensure that he knew his rights was the one that complained. The government has known all along that these people have been ripped off, cheated and had their pensions illegally suspended.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The minister is wincing and moaning. But that's the truth; this has been illegal since 1993. In 1997 a pension plan puts a notice on a government web site that they've been ripping people off. How many of their other members turned down employment because they knew that this union pension plan was ripping members off and suspending their pensions? What sort of damage did that do to those people's livelihoods, their families and their local economies, wherever they lived?

Apparently the government has been turning a blind eye to this and taking the point of view that unless someone complains, having found out his rights independent of government, it will just happily stick its head in the sand and ignore the fact that British Columbians are being ripped off by their pension plans and eventually bring in legislation that will make it legal. Is that the case?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think "ripped off" is exactly the terminology that is in any way accurate. Suspension of benefits in particular circumstances . . . . When those benefits are obviously still guaranteed to the member and will be reinstated entirely at some point is hardly the same as a rip-off, as we normally understand the terminology.

The superintendent advised various pension plans that according to the regulation, suspension was not, as she perceived it, legal. What happened was that we ended up in a court case. People took the superintendent to court, saying that they thought it was legal. Therefore we went to court, and the superintendent's opinion was upheld. Indeed, according to the law of the day and of the time, they were not allowed to suspend those benefits. The superintendent, it seems to me, has acted with integrity throughout, obviously responding to complaints whenever they arose.

To suggest that somehow the government has done some terrible thing by deliberately looking away while this outrage was perpetrated is, I think, quite frankly ludicrous in the extreme as well as offensive.

K. Krueger: Nobody is questioning the superintendent's integrity.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The superintendent did the right thing.

And no, hon. minister, when you say, "Sure you are," we are not. We're challenging your integrity as a government -- that you would have allowed this garbage to go on. You knew it was illegal. You brought in the Pension Benefits Standards Act in 1993, and this has been illegal ever since. When you say government has a responsibility to act on complaints . . . . Government has a responsibility to enforce the law and not to allow people to abuse individuals just because they don't know that they're being abused.

There are all kinds of laws in this province that protect people, that people don't even know about. In other branches of government, when it is discovered that violations of those laws are occurring, then people's rights are protected. For example, I stopped a man from beating his wife two weekends ago, and I don't think she wants to lay charges. But it's the law in this province that charges are going to be laid, and I'm going to make sure of that, because that's my responsibility as a knowledgable witness.

[1610]

This government has known that this practice is illegal. It's got a pension plan posting on the government web site saying that it's been doing this all along, and: "Shucks, now maybe the superintendent is going to have to enforce this law, because the government didn't get Bill 44 through for us in 1997. Woe is us." Sure enough, the superintendent does it. But the minister seems to be saying that we only went to court for the victory that the superintendent won in 1998 because they sued us.

Is that what the minister is saying -- that all this government wanted the superintendent to do was advise pension plans that they can't do this, and we only ended up in court proving the superintendent right, proving the action illegal, because those dummies sued us before we could change the law and make it legal for them to rip pensioners off? If the minister doesn't like the term "ripoff," how about the term "fraud"? This was a stinking fraud. These are pensioners who were counting on their pension income in their retirement years.

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat. please.

May I remind the member to use language that is respectful of this chamber. The member knows that certain words are not permitted to be used in this chamber. May I remind him, as well, that we are dealing with

section 48 of this bill. I remind him to stay with that section.

K. Krueger: I am on this section. And the fraud was perpetrated by a pension plan. I am asking the government if it deliberately tied the superintendent's hands behind her back and only let her finally act on this issue because the Sheet Metal Workers Union sued the government. Is that what's really been going on since 1993 -- that this government's been just turning a blind eye, winking at this abuse of pensioners, knowing full well that it's going on, certainly with this union and maybe with lots of them? Is that what's been going on -- the government has deliberately allowed pension plans to break the law for over six years? Will the minister say yes or no?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that the superintendent, based on the law, advised many, many plans that they were indeed carrying out activities that were not legal and that many plans were forced to change their practice as a result of that intervention. In short, what was done was responsible and absolutely in compliance with the law. I am also advised by the superintendent -- whose integrity or professionalism I

[ Page 13647 ]

think is implicitly being challenged, whether the member wants to deny it or otherwise -- that she had not seen this same document that the member quotes, from the Carpenters Union, before this time either.

Mr. Chairman, given that this is a little hot, and given that we have been at this now for a couple of hours, my suggestion would be that we take a brief recess. If that's agreeable, then we can come back, pick it up and perhaps be more relevant to the

section under discussion.

The Chair: Does the committee agree to a short recess?

Okay, we will reconvene in about five minutes. But before we go, may I remind both sides to use parliamentary language in this chamber.

The committee recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

The Chair: We're still on Bill 58,

section 48.

K. Krueger: We are indeed on

section 48 of Bill 58. I want to ask the minister to stop raising the question of the superintendent's integrity, because this side has never disputed or challenged the superintendent's integrity. Indeed, I think a lot of the superintendent.

I don't think much of the government. I think that the government has been deliberately shielding its union buddies from the appropriate response from government with full knowledge that this practice has been going on illegally for six years. This government has a predisposition to bend over backwards for the Premier's buddies, the building trades unions -- the only real job that the Premier ever had. That's what we see in practice here.

The minister appears to have said that the only time the government would allow the superintendent to respond -- or at least the only time the government bothered to respond to this illegal practice -- was when complaints came forward. Presumably, then, and judging by the carpentry workers' pension plan submission on the government web site, which I submit the government had a responsibility to read and know about and act on, there may be thousands of pensioners who have been defrauded of their legal entitlements in this province over the past six years.

If the minister needs a complaint before he'll act on that, consider it filed right now. I'm filing it on their behalf. I want those pensioners repaid the amounts that they've been ripped off. The official opposition will make sure they find out that they've been ripped off if it needs to.

But the minister can save a potential class action suit by them -- certainly a lot of expense -- by making a commitment right here, right now, that he'll fulfil his responsibilities as the Minister of Labour in charge of a ministry that has had formal notice on its own web site since 1997 that the carpentry workers' pension plan was ripping members off and has only acted on one complaint -- and apparently didn't get any money back there. This ministry had an obligation to act on that knowledge and to find out who has been ripped off and get the money back to them.

If the minister will commit to do that, then we'll move on. Will he?

Hon. D. Lovick: If the member has any particular complaints, or if I receive any complaints, of course we will investigate. I have no hesitation whatsoever in doing that.

[1625]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the member, and I say so in as quiet a way as I can, that I don't make up a comment when the superintendent says that she feels that her integrity is being called into question. That's a comment volunteered to me by the superintendent; I didn't make that up. The superintendent felt the need to say to me, as a matter of public record, that she has never, ever felt that this government has attempted to fetter her discretion or to interfere with her duties in carrying out her responsibilities as superintendent. That information is volunteered.

It's volunteered by the person sitting next to me in this chamber because she feels that she has indeed been tainted, intentionally or otherwise, by the discussion we have heard. So let's put that on the record.

Again, to the member's point, I think I've answered his question. I have said that if indeed we had particular complaints, of course I would look at them.

I was about to sit down, but I think I need to state something else very clearly. It's a point that apparently went by the member opposite. When we became aware of the fact that particular pension plans were contemplating trying to suspend benefits -- which, because of our legislation of 1993, we perceived then would be not allowed; in short, it would be illegal -- the superintendent responded to each and every concern that was raised with her. She also advised pension plans that they were not, by our reading of the law, able to do so.

Most pension plans, as far as we know, were in compliance. We learned only very recently that the carpenters may not have been, based on the material that the member read into the record. But I would remind the member that it was the efforts of the superintendent to deal with the letter of the law, to advise all the pension plans that they were not allowed to suspend benefits -- and to be challenged on that . . . . It was, indeed, the sheet metal workers who challenged the superintendent and said: "We refuse to do what you're telling us to do.

We believe it is our right, and therefore we'll see you in court." It was, in short, the activities of the superintendent acting on behalf of government, acting on behalf of the letter of the law, that provoked the court case.

Now, how anybody can suggest that government is somehow participating knowingly in what the member refers to as fraud, given that fact pattern, amazes me. It seems to me the superintendent has done all she should have done. The record is absolutely spotless. The final assurance then: if there are instances where people have indeed been deprived of benefits they were legally entitled to for a particular period, then of course I'll be happy to look at those individual cases.

K. Krueger: That's good. For the record, nobody is challenging the superintendent's integrity, but I have all sorts of concerns about the integrity of this government and the competence of this government. We always suspected -- everybody does, I think, in B.C. -- that all of the NDP consultation processes are phony and that they don't pay any attention to the input that they get. This appears to be a minister telling us that the government didn't read its web site. The government posted all this input on the web site, solicited the input to Messrs.

Kelleher and Lanyon, but didn't read it -- didn't read the startling revelation that here's a carpentry workers' pension plan openly stating, on the government web site, that it has been breaking the law since 1993. The government is saying it didn't know about it.

[ Page 13648 ]

[1630]

Well, the government's at least negligent, if not guilty of turning a blind eye, as I said earlier. I think the superintendent and every other civil servant in this province is horribly compromised, working for this government, when its friendships with certain segments of society are so well known and it bends so far over backwards to advance the causes of those segments.

The minister at least made a commitment that he would act on complaints. If the minister will listen to my question -- since I've had to repeat a number of them this afternoon . . . .

The pensioners obviously wouldn't have known that this is an illegal situation. The government wasn't telling them. The pensioners didn't know that they were being ripped off. Now the minister has committed to act on complaints from those pensioners, and that's well and good. How are we going to make sure that they know that they have an opportunity to gain back benefits they were ripped off for? I think it's the government's obligation to make sure that they know that. This government's not at all shy about spending money on advertising.

It's constantly spending money on blowing its own horn -- every little excuse of an announcement, radio ads, newspaper ads, television ads. So let's advertise this.

Will the minister commit to putting out a strenuous, zealous advertising campaign that alerts pensioners that this practice that this government is now making legal in Bill 58,

section 48, was illegal until now: "Pensioners, if any of you were suspended by your pension plans for working, that was illegal. We've got an obligation to help you collect your money back. We've done it for the ones who have complained. We invite you to complain because you've been ripped off, you've been defrauded, and the government's going to be your advocate and get your money back"? Will the minister commit to an advertising campaign to make sure that these pensioners know that they've been ripped off and that the government's committed to helping them?

Interjection.

The Chair: The hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville rises on a point of order.

J. Cashore: The member knows that unparliamentary language is not acceptable, and I ask that he withdraw that.

The Chair: May I remind all members to please maintain language that is respectful of this place.

Hon. D. Lovick: For the record, the carpenters were told to comply, along with other unions. They apparently decided to disregard that advice. When the superintendent learned that they hadn't complied, via this particular information on the web site, then they were advised again that what they were doing was illegal. I believe that they were also told to make sure that those people whose pensions had been suspended were given the money that they should have received. Again, emphasizing that this information . . . . The superintendent reminds me that she has only just received this and so has taken that action immediately upon receipt of the information.

To the member's particular question: no, I won't commit to some kind of paid advertising campaign to do this. I believe that probably the great majority of those pension trustees have indeed responded to the directive they were given by the superintendent of pensions when the legislation was in fact proclaimed in 1993. I suspect we're talking about relatively few. I don't know that. As I say, certainly the superintendent has made very clear to those persons who are apparently acting in contravention of the legislation that they must not do that.

K. Krueger: This government will spend advertising money on its phony budget, on ICBC premiums, on all and sundry. This government had a responsibility to these workers. This government had a responsibility to know what was on its web site and act on it. This government failed in its responsibility and was negligent. It is perfectly obvious from the carpenters' own submission that a number of people have been ripped off. When the minister says that he believes that the numbers were small -- or few or none, or whatever he said -- that's wilful ignorance.

This government web site included a guilty plea by the carpentry workers' pension plan: "We've been doing this. The silly old NDP haven't got our law through, so now we're going to have to stop or the superintendent's liable to come after us." The minister, I suspect, didn't really want the superintendent going after anybody. That's why it took the Sheet Metal Workers Union suing the government to put this law to the test. However unwilling the NDP was to stand up for workers and to have their rights not be ripped off of their pensions, under

an act that the NDP brought in themselves in 1993, the superintendent nevertheless won the day. It was the superintendent alone who bravely stood up for pensioners in this province. It's clear and obvious that this government never meant to do so, and now it's turning around and attacking them.

This minister and this government have an obligation to alert those pensioners who were ripped off by the carpentry workers' pension plan and any of the others that it was illegal up until now. Surely the minister can do something more than shrug his shoulders and say: "We'll deal with any complaints that come forward." People didn't know, or they would have come forward. Pensioners need their benefits. Pensioners may well have passed up work because they thought that this was something that their pension plans could get away with. Will the minister not come up with something better than waiting for complaints to trickle in, when people obviously don't know that they were being ripped off?

[1635]

Hon. D. Lovick: As I have said before, we have advised plans of their responsibility. Of course, we will also undertake to advise plans of their responsibility to pay back any suspended benefits, working on the assumption that perhaps there are some of those. We will continue to act on complaints. That, it seems to me, is a pretty good definition of due diligence in fulfilling one's responsibility.

K. Krueger: I don't think it's good enough, but it's a start. I think the minister, through the superintendent, could certainly ask every pension plan for a list of members whose pension benefits have been suspended, contrary to the Employment Standards Act, between 1993 and the time that this odious

section is proclaimed -- if it ever is. Will the

[ Page 13649 ]

minister commit to asking the superintendent to demand a list from every pension plan that is believed possibly to have been engaging in this practice?

Hon. D. Lovick: The superintendent is, of necessity, granted some considerable independence in the exercise of her duties. I cannot interfere in her judgment in how she might deal with that problem, but she has advised me that she will certainly take that matter under advisement and see if something can be done to ensure that the concerns expressed are indeed dealt with.

K. Krueger: I'll look forward to word from the minister or the superintendent about what has been done in that regard. I think it's perfectly legitimate for her to make that demand of these pension plans, and we'll look forward to word of the result.

Will the minister commit to providing that information to the official opposition -- not necessarily the names of pensioners, but the numbers of pensioners whose situation has been identified and who have been alerted to the fact that this was an illegal practice?

Hon. D. Lovick: Whatever the superintendent in her wisdom decides to do and shares with me, I will certainly ensure that that information is disseminated.

K. Krueger: I want to move to the draft regulations -- or the list of anticipated principles, however the minister chooses to characterize what was provided to us; we've repeatedly asked for a draft of the regulations. I'd like to know, in a matter of this significance, in a matter of reversing itself on a question this important to pensioners and to workers, why the government has chosen to have a "tiny little section" -- as the minister referred to it last week -- in Bill 58, rather than actually spelling out,

chapter and verse, in the legislation how this process will work. It's a reversal of protection that has been there for pensioners in the past. It's a precedent-setting piece of legislation for this country. It's a startling and very unusual development, and I submit that it's wrong to bury the details in regulations. So I'd like the minister to answer the question: why is the detail not spelled out in the legislation?

[1640]

Hon. D. Lovick: Two points. Prior to 1993, the practice that we have been discussing was perfectly legal. We should note that. It's '93 to '99 that is the aberration. For a historical context, I think we should note that.

The member's question is essentially inviting some justification of this particular approach. Suffice it to say, this is more or less standard practice; details are typically spelled out in regulations. I would refer to things that I know the member is familiar with, like workers compensation, for example, or occupational health and safety. We use a regulatory framework as a matter of course. It's not about burying or hiding things.

I don't imagine the member's already forgotten the assurance I gave yesterday that we would indeed have a fairly wide -- what I think can be fairly called wide -- consultative sharing of information in terms of the principles that will animate the regulations. Indeed, we will publish the regulations themselves and give people an opportunity to comment. So it's not anything secretive. As I've said many, many times, it's the intention to make those open and widely accessible.

K. Krueger: I do appreciate the commitment to an exposure draft of the regulations. I think it would have solved a lot of problems with regard to Bill 58 in its entirety if that approach had been followed. I'm counting on those regulations being circulated in that manner, in advance of being implemented, on all sections of Bill 58, not just

section 48, even though it is the most odious and objectionable portion of the bill.

One of the things I intended to ask the minister at this stage of my questioning in committee was the self-employment question. I think the minister, in fairness, has been utterly clear about that: people will not have their pensions suspended -- and the government will ensure that they don't -- for being self-employed.

But I submit to the minister that until this draft regulation, or principles of the regulations-to-be, was given to us yesterday, and until he made those comments on the record, anyone reading this legislation and seeing that it says, "restarts work or service in British Columbia in a trade or industry" -- we amended that to "and industry" yesterday -- "covered by that plan but with an employer who is not a participant in that plan . . . . " Anybody seeing that and thinking, "Well, self-employment . . . .

I have an employer -- myself -- who's not a participant in the plan," would have had good reason to believe that self-employment was one of the situations that would trigger pension suspension. Indeed, the way that legislation is worded, a plumber could be suspended for working on his own sink because he's doing something for himself at the time.

So this is an alarming piece of new legislation for people. There have been very legitimate questions about the self-employment issue, but I think the minister has given a very watertight assurance that self-employment will not trigger suspension; and unless he gives me the nod that he'd like to speak to that, I'll carry on.

A question that has concerned us and that we certainly raised at second reading and that doesn't appear to me to be dealt with in these principles for the regulations is: who will the pension police be? Who will the people be who identify these transgressors -- these people whose motivation the minister deemed in second reading to be greed? How will they be caught? How will th