2001 Legislative Session: 5th 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, APRIL 10, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 24

[ Page 17757 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

G. Mann Brewin: I have the great honour today to introduce some folks

from my constituency office who I've been very blessed to work with in the last

number of years. I know there are some who weren't able to join us for lunch

today, but there are five or six of them up there who were. I'd like the House

to welcome them: Sharoo Modha, Jo Lawley, Cameron Russell, Stephanie Bamforth,

Amanda Bonella and Jody Yurkowsky. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

B. McKinnon: I am pleased to introduce to the House today two people

who work with me off and on and who are over from the mainland today: Marilyn

Collins and Dave Hawkins. Please make them welcome.

I. Chong: I am very pleased today to ask the House to welcome a good

friend, Mr. Tony Abbott, who is the director of the B.C. Lodging and Campgrounds

Association, and his wife Naomi. They are down here attending some board

meetings. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome as they enjoy

question period.

K. Krueger: I have the pleasure to introduce two constituents this

afternoon: Mr. Greg Scriver and Mr. Glen Stuart from Kamloops. Would the House

please make them welcome.

M. de Jong: A group of grades 7, 8 and 9 students from Pacific

Christian School are visiting the building today with their teacher Mr. Toews

and a group of adults. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Three friends are in the gallery today: Jacki St.

Dennis, Danielle Kelliher and Teresa Coburn. On the days when I look intelligent

and well organized, it's to their credit. Any other days, whenever that's not

true, it's because they had the day off.

Oral Questions

ICBC BUDGET PROJECTIONS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the minister responsible for

the budget. Earlier last month, after more than doubling ICBC's most optimistic

income forecast, the Minister of Finance, the day before the budget was

introduced, wrote a letter to ICBC demanding that they come up with a new plan

to meet his inflated budget targets by March 31. Last week when we asked the

minister to table the plan, he had no plan. So I'm asking the minister again:

can he tell us what plan he has received from ICBC that gives him the confidence

he needs to keep that figure in his budget for this year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The board of directors of ICBC met. They have put

forward a number of proposals that I will now be taking to Treasury Board. The

proposals go from a range of safety initiatives and changing initiatives around

speed enforcement. Certainly some of the initiatives involve further penalizing

drivers who are bad drivers. There is a full range of options that will be

proceeding, and I'm absolutely confident that they'll be meeting their target.

The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader has a supplemental

question.

G. Farrell-Collins: We'll get into the options in a minute. But first

of all, I want to ask my question to the Minister of Finance. We've received an

internal ICBC e-mail that sheds some light on why, despite the assurances of the

minister responsible for ICBC, there is no plan to date, and as well, why it was

not available by March 31. The e-mail from Thom Thompson says: "By April 12

all areas of the corporation will submit revised budgets for this year as well

as their action plans to meet budget reductions." Can the Minister of

Finance admit that now -- two weeks, three weeks, almost four weeks later --

ICBC is still scrambling, trying to cut programs and cut employees in order to

meet his inflated budget target?

[1415]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Last year ICBC made over $350 million. If they achieve

their target of $75 million this year, it will be their lowest result in the

last five years.

Hon. Speaker, occasionally, I will admit to this House, I have gotten budget

projections wrong. You know, last year I predicted we'd have a deficit of $1.3

billion. It turned out we had a surplus of $1.3 billion. I thought the economy

would only grow 2.2 percent last year. It actually grew 3.4 percent. I thought

Crown corporations would lose $179 million. In fact, they made $680 million.

There may be some errors in the forecast this year. I do predict that the Crown

corporations will actually exceed the targets they were given in this budget.

The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader has a supplemental

question.

G. Farrell-Collins: Because I heard from the minister responsible for

ICBC . . . . And I see she now has her briefing note out. She talked

about all the initiatives that the government was planning in order to meet

those budget targets. But the e-mail says this: "What is the most viable

option for sustainability at this time? The answer is a focus on operational

costs. This I define as our own internal fitness, the assurance that we are

operating in the most effective and efficient way possible." ICBC is now in

the process of trying to shed hundreds of employees in order to meet that

target. Can the minister responsible for ICBC tell us what it is? Is ICBC going

to cut back on its programs, or is it going to expand on its programs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Of course, what the Liberal opposition is referring

to is a communication between the president and the thousands of employees, good

employees, who work at ICBC. Even though every single one of these employees is

threatened by the Liberal plan for ICBC, I guess some of them still feel like

they should lobby the Liberals to protect the corporation.

Here's what the memo is about: an efficiently run, productive corporation,

which has turned a surplus, I think, for the last three years. They've frozen

their rates for six years.

[ Page 17758 ]

They've actually returned money to the policyholders. They run the best

safer-roads campaign in all of Canada. Injuries are down. People's lives are

being saved. That's what ICBC is doing.

On top of that, the president is also communicating with his employees,

saying: "You know what? We can do better internally. Every single day we

should become more efficient in our administrative costs to deliver for the

policyholder." My goodness, that's what this memo is about: good, efficient

operations from a publicly owned corporation that actually delivers results.

Isn't that awful?

M. de Jong: It would be really great if it were at all consistent with

what the minister told this House last week. We last raised this issue on Monday

of last week, and on that day the minister responsible for ICBC told us that the

$75 million revenue target would be met through "a wide range of safety

initiatives." In fact, that was right after the Finance minister said that

ICBC was proposing additional road safety initiatives. That's interesting,

because within an hour of both those ministers making that statement in this

House, that communiqu� went from Mr. Thompson, and it says: "We do not

have any new safety programs on the horizon." So my question to the

minister responsible for ICBC is: why did she stand up last Monday and tell this

House one thing at virtually the same time on the same day that the president of

ICBC was telling his staff exactly the opposite?

[1420]

Hon. J. MacPhail: As usual, the Liberal opposition tells, at most,

half-truths. Let me actually read to you what the memo says. I guess they

thought that because it went to thousands of employees, somehow they would be

the only ones who would have it. Let me tell you what a well-run company says to

its employees: "As well, we do not have any new safety programs on the

horizon, which will result in significant short-term reductions in claims costs

and therefore cannot count on continued reductions in claims costs." What

this says is that we need more safety initiatives, Road Sense initiatives.

That's exactly what our government is doing.

In 1996 we brought in a six-point program -- the safer-roads program. It has

had huge returns. Those programs are now reaching maturity. Instead of standing

still, instead of saying, "Oh, you know what? Why don't we privatize ICBC

and make sure that our roads are less safe?" ICBC is actually saying:

"The programs have matured. We need more." That's exactly what our

government's doing, and we'll continue to do so.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: The minister might have read further to the next

paragraph, because that e-mail says that ICBC . . . . The minister

has just said that ICBC's plan is to expand. Well, let's see what the next

paragraph says. Mr. Thompson says: "We now will move into a maintenance

phase. We will assess all current projects with an eye to maintaining only those

critical to achieving business strategies." This is hardly a plan to

expand. Maybe the minister would stand up and tell the people of British

Columbia which of those road safety programs ICBC is planning to get rid of.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Dismay! A Crown corporation has a business plan, and

they're objecting. Oh no! A Crown corporation is successful, and they're upset.

Let me remind the Legislature that this was the Liberal opposition that in

1996, five years ago, said the rate freeze would never be sustainable. That's

what that Liberal opposition said. Let me see. Was the rate freeze sustainable?

Yes, it was. You know what? I'll tell you something. We will travel across the

country . . . . And in fact, ICBC does travel across the country

with the safer-roads program. It's unprecedented, and most importantly, it's

saving lives and reducing crashes.

So the success is there. They're putting them into maintenance. That's

exactly what the corporation should be doing, building on the successes . .

. .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Could the minister wrap up this question,

please?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The problem, actually, is that the Liberals have

absolutely no ability to understand that you complete your successes and then

you move on to improve with new road safety programs, like barriers on the

highways, roundabouts, safer cycling. Those are the new programs. Here we have a

group of successful programs that will be maintained, and then we have new

programs -- but only if this side of the House gets re-elected. If that side of

the House forms government, all safety programs are gone.

E-COMM EMERGENCY

COMMUNICATIONS ORGANIZATION

B. McKinnon: We have been told that E-Comm is an emergency

communications network with voice and dispatch services, ostensibly under the

control of the province. We now discover that E-Comm is a private corporation

with public shareholders tasked with criminal tracking and police record

retrieval services. Investigation into the shareholders reveals they include

participating municipalities and the RCMP. My question is to the Attorney

General. By what legislated authority was it decided to outsource criminal

tracking and police record data services to E-Comm, the private corporation with

an on-line command control and communications centre at 3301 East Pender Street

in Vancouver?

[1425]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The member has a different question?

B. McKinnon: Yes, hon. Speaker. Given that E-Comm and its prime

contractor, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, are both shareholder-owned

corporations, have criminal-records checks been done on their bankers, owners,

lenders, operators and customers? What is E-Comm's mandate, and under what

guidelines do they operate? How can we be sure that innocent citizens are not

criminalized? Who is accountable?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I have no doubt that all rules and procedures will

be followed correctly. I indicated earlier that I'll take the question on

notice, and I'll be happy to answer the member's question when I have all those

details for her.

[ Page 17759 ]

AUXILIARY POLICE PROGRAM

B. Penner: Victoria and the lower mainland got a wakeup call when we

went through that 6.8-magnitude earthquake last February. But according to the

provincial emergency program's 1999 earthquake response plan, one of the vital

first lines of defence in times of crisis is members of the RCMP auxiliary

police program. Will the Premier, who, along with the NDP, led the attack on the

auxiliary program in 1997, admit that our emergency response preparedness has

been hurt by a massive loss of auxiliary police throughout British Columbia?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: No, I would not agree with the member's statement

that there was an attack on the RCMP auxiliary constables, and I would disagree

with the premise of his question that somehow earthquake preparedness has been

compromised in any way.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental question.

B. Penner: Here are some numbers that even the NDP can't fudge. Back

in 1997, before the Premier launched his attack on the auxiliary police, there

were 1,100 auxiliary police officers throughout British Columbia. According to

documents just received by the B.C. Liberal opposition, by December 2000 that

number had dropped to just 417. We've lost two-thirds of our auxiliary police in

three years. That's another example of the NDP's success, I suppose.

Can the Premier explain how emergency response preparedness in B.C. has been

helped by alienating our volunteers to the point where they've quit the program

altogether?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, member.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If there is one body in British Columbia that's more

concerned, perhaps, than all of us about emergency preparedness in British

Columbia, that's the police force. I want the opposition to know, and I want to

remind them, that it was the police force in British Columbia that requested the

Attorney General to do a review. The recommendations of that review were

adopted, and all of the police forces, the Vancouver police and the RCMP agreed

with the recommendations of the review.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have the honour to present the annual report for

the Workers Compensation Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call report on Bill M202.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

S. Orcherton: I take it we're passing third reading of Bill M202. I

just wanted to make some very brief comments. Firstly, I wanted to thank the .

. . .

The Speaker: Make the motion first.

S. Orcherton: I move third reading of Bill M202, Medical Practitioners

Amendment Act, 2001.

[1430]

Bill M202, Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G. Janssen: I call continued second reading on Bill 17.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading continued)

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm pleased to rise in support of the amendment to

the Human Rights Code. What I'd like to do is frame my comments in this way: I'd

like to speak briefly about the history of the journey women have undertaken,

both in this province and much further afield, to get us to this point in

history, and I'd like to frame that on the comments from the member for

Richmond-Steveston, who says that this is a goofball idea. It's pretty clear

that dinosaurs way back in 1915 were raising the same kind of concerns, and I

would be surprised if they were not using the same language. While it has been a

long journey, there have been some improvements. But it's very clear that there

has to be the political will to bring about the real changes that women need to

be able to stand as equals in our society.

Back in 1915 Helena Gutteridge convinced the Vancouver Labour Council that

they should include in their constitution a reference to equal pay for work of

equal value. Helena continued to work and in 1919 brought women in labour

together with women's groups. That culminated in the very first minimum wage act

in British Columbia. In 1917 Caucasians and British subjects -- women -- got the

vote. In 1945 aboriginal and Japanese Canadians, including women, were allowed

for the first time to vote in the provincial election. In 1947 Chinese Canadians

-- women, South Asians -- got the vote.

[1435]

I raise those mileposts in this province's history to put in context the

influence that women have fought for and achieved and how they've been able to

use their ability in gaining the vote to begin to influence governments --

provincial, national and international. The International Labour Organization in

1951 had a convention on pay equity, one that Canada signed. In 1977 Canada

enshrined the principle in our Human Rights Code. It's striking to think that it

was 1977. For many of us that have watched this particular issue, it has taken a

long, long time for people that are covered by the Canadian Human Rights Code to

be able to begin to see some satisfaction. But I'll speak more directly about

that later on.

The law in Quebec in 1977, in Ontario in 1987, Manitoba in 1985, New

Brunswick in 1989, P.E.I. in 1988, Nova Scotia in 1989 and the Yukon in 1987 .

. . . So when the opposition calls this a goofball idea and says that we

have to study it some more, the only thing that comes to mind is that either

they've been totally oblivious to the struggle and the fact that other

jurisdictions have done the right thing much earlier on or they are simply

against the rights of women to be ensured so that they have an ability to

support themselves and their children.

The member for Richmond-Steveston also said that pay equity doesn't work. He

quoted studies out of Ontario to that

[ Page 17760 ]

effect and has referenced his concern about the schemes that are in place in

other jurisdictions. Well, I'd like him to say that to the people that have

actually had pay equity adjustments affecting their paycheques. In Ontario, as

an example, there was a settlement where library workers received $31 million in

pay adjustments going back to 1990. These adjustments ranged from $2.17 an hour

to $4.90. When this member says that pay equity doesn't work, tell those women

who now can support themselves and provide for their children with some dignity.

We don't have to go to Ontario to know that it works. Here in British

Columbia we as a government decided to lead by example. In the last ten years we

have put in place pay equity provisions in all of the contracts in the direct

public service and about three-quarters in the extended public service. There's

still some work to be done.

What that has meant for women working for government is quite striking. Take

one example: the biweekly wage for clerk-steno 5 workers increased by $400.

College instructors also received significant increases; food services workers

received increases of $221 a month; day care supervisors received increases of

$345 a month when pay equity was implemented in the year 2000. For community

social service workers, the BCGEU was able to bargain with their employer --

with the commitment and leadership of this government -- for significant

increases in salaries in the community social service sector of up to $4,600 per

year.

When we're talking about the lowest-paid workers in government, that is the

kind of leadership that I'm proud of. This government did not put its head in

the sand. This government acted and provided leadership, and this legislation

brings that leadership to the forefront.

Through this legislation not only are we requiring that benchmark for the

whole province -- equal work for equal value -- to be recognized as a

fundamental human right, but we're also going the next step by enhancing the

resources of the Women's Equality ministry so that we can provide the kind of

support that is necessary so that people don't have to reinvent the wheel.

[1440]

Across Canada and here in British Columbia we've learned a lot. We've learned

a lot because of the leadership that women have provided in these jurisdictions.

We can bring what we've learned to the table so that employers across British

Columbia can learn from those experiences. They don't have to reinvent the

wheel. We can get on with the task that has been waiting far, far too long.

It's pretty clear to me that the Liberal opposition needs more convincing.

What we've seen in this House -- when we have dealt as a government with the

most progressive, the most pro-women agenda that we have seen in this House for

some time -- is a complete denial and a complete lack of recognition that it

will take a comprehensive approach to be able to address the realities that

women face in British Columbia.

When we brought in the day care legislation that provides for quality,

accessible day care for women and children, for families in this province, what

we heard from the other side was a denial that there was a need. We heard the

other side talk about their experiences with nannies -- a recognition that they

are so out of touch with the average woman in this province and a total lack of

understanding that there is a need for that comprehensive approach.

Day care is one piece; pay equity is one piece; choice is one piece, because

women must have the ability and the right to control their own reproductive

destiny. All of those initiatives that have been brought in with this budget and

this throne speech, as I said, are only a recognition of the reality that women

face.

The statistics are pretty clear. Here in British Columbia -- and it's

reflected in other jurisdictions as well -- 52 percent of single-parent families

are headed by women and live below the StatsCan low-income cutoff.

Following separation or divorce, Canadian women face a 23 percent loss in

income where men lose only 10 percent. That family income statistic is striking,

but it's even more striking when you realize that only 35 percent of women that

are separated or divorced receive support payments from their former spouses.

When we talk about poverty amongst women and the children that they support,

those figures only tell half the story. It's pretty clear, when you look at the

reality, that 36 percent of women working full time make less than $25,000 a

year.

Those low-income statistics for women that are trying to make ends meet talk

about what's happening today. But when women are able to make only a fraction of

the wage that men earn, what that means is a guaranteed life of poverty as they

get older. For the women in B.C. that are over 65, their average income is

approximately $10,000 per year less than the average that men make. So when we

talk about 73 cents on the dollar for women in the workplace, it's clear that

women that are retired, that are over the age of 65, are making less than

two-thirds of the income that men are. And that has everything to do with the

fact that women, when they are in the workplace, make less money and that their

obligations to families and to their communities weigh heavily on them

personally.

When we were touring the province and talking to women, at almost every

meeting we went into there was a woman that would say: "I thought we had

made progress. I thought that things had changed. Well, I've now retired, and

I'm poor." For all of that work, for everything that those women have done

to contribute to this province, to contribute to their families, they are now

paying a very steep personal price. That has to change.

[1445]

The initiatives that we are bringing in through this comprehensive approach,

through this particular piece of legislation, recognize the reality that women

face and make a commitment not only to the women of today, to the young women

that are entering the workplace, the young women that are in universities and

colleges and have a future of paying back student loans at 73 cents on the

dollar . . . . They make a commitment not only to those individuals

but a commitment to them for the future, a commitment that recognizes that

without the comprehensive support that is only available through this kind of

progressive agenda, those women would relive the history of their mothers who

went before them. It's more than just pay equity legislation. It is a number; it

is an analysis that is brought to bear and programs in support of change.

Let me deal with another couple of issues. In our commitment to our direct

employees and the extended public service, what we learned was that pay equity

in and of itself would close the gap only a certain percentage and that we also

had to

[ Page 17761 ]

deal with low-wage redress. In the direct public service as an employer, it's

pretty easy to do that if you have the political commitment. What you do is

identify the lowest-paid workers. You recognize and honour the work that they do

for the people of British Columbia, and you pay them appropriately. And we've

done that over time by increasing the lowest-paid workers.

What are the tools we can bring to bear when it comes to the private sector

and the role of government? It's pretty clear that the lever there, the

initiatives that government can engage in low-wage redress, is through minimum

wage. So our government again has shown leadership, again has recognized, as way

back in 1917, the first minimum-wage legislation that was ever brought forward

in British Columbia. We recognized the importance of low-wage redress, in

particular for women, and we have moved our minimum wage so that we are now not

only one of the highest cost-of-living provinces but the highest minimum-wage

jurisdiction as well. I am very proud of that.

We made a commitment to raise the minimum wage to $7.60 in November of last

year. We went further. We served notice that in the following year, we would

increase the minimum wage in November 2001 to $8 an hour. It's the right thing

to do. It's the right thing for women who are disproportionately living on

minimum wage. For all of the workers that are over the age of 25, a full 74

percent are women. That's not an entry-level wage. Those are people that have

been in the workplace, that have skills and resources to bring to their

employers, and a full 74 percent of those are women, many of whom are supporting

children.

What did the opposition do? Well, it's been consistent. It's been consistent

with comments with respect to day care, with respect to pay equity, where the

member for Richmond-Steveston indicated that the ideas were goofy and needed

more study. What did they say about minimum wage? Well, they're going to take a

look at it. They're not going to make a commitment to raise it to $8 an hour.

Hon. Speaker, they objected when we raised it to $7.60.

[1450]

Shame on them. On every single initiative this government has brought in on

behalf of women and children, they've either spoken against it, said they needed

to study it some more or were fundamentally patronizing and insulting to the

women that need it most.

We've had some experience with governments like that in British Columbia, and

they were turfed out. The people of this province wanted the recognition of the

work that they did -- the majority of them not the elite, not the privileged,

not those that could afford to have nannies looking after their children. But

they wanted a government that understood their reality, that stood beside them

and brought in the kinds of progressive changes that are reflected in the work

of this particular budget and the work of the past ten years.

I want to sum up by making a few short comments. The dinosaur from Richmond-Steveston

says that pay equity is goofy, and he wants to study it. We saw the Canadian

amendment to the Human Rights Code brought in in 1977. People have been trying

to use that amendment -- not only through the Human Rights Code, but through the

courts -- for a long, long time. Back in October of '99 there was a settlement.

It took 15 years for governments to finally recognize that the members of the

Public Service Alliance of Canada had a claim. And the federal government was in

a situation of having to pay those women, to recognize the work that they have

provided and are providing for the citizens of Canada, and having to pay them

retroactively from the date of the claim.

It's not a matter of if; it's simply a matter of when. Women are not going to

give up. We've been fighting too long. We will continue to fight. This is a very

significant step here in British Columbia, and I am optimistic that we will

continue to see progress, but not if that opposition is elected, not if they

become government after the next election.

Let me speak to the issue of the economy and business. As we were speaking to

women throughout this province, many of those women were small business owners

themselves. I made a point of speaking to business about the issue of pay

equity. If you asked them whether they supported legislated pay equity, there

was not a one that would say: "Yeah. Bring in the legislation." But

what they would say to you if you then questioned, first, their commitment to

ensuring that women's work was recognized . . . . I did not find one

that said no. They said: "Yes, absolutely, we support the concept."

So I followed that by saying: "Do you have any trust that voluntary

initiatives will close the gap and meet the commitment that you have just

expressed?" There was not a one that said that they believed a voluntary

initiative would do that. They went on then to tell me that even though they

were personally committed to recognizing and to closing the gap for women, they

couldn't do that with a voluntary program, because their competitor next door

would not do the right thing and they would be constantly undercut by their

competitor paying women less and prospering on the backs of those workers.

[1455]

So at the end of the day, they themselves said that they recognized that the

time for talking was over, that we'd waited too long, that there was not only a

direct benefit to their employees in recognizing their worth and their value to

their businesses but a direct benefit in communities all over this province. If

workers are paid decent wages, they shop and support their families in those

same communities, which provides for their ongoing prosperity.

I'm going to leave it at that. My final comment is simply to quote one member

in the earlier debate. I'm sorry that I actually can't attribute the quote, but

I wrote it down at the time when I was listening to other speakers. It was a

male speaker in the House, and the man said that men wouldn't have stood for it.

That really rings in my ears.

We have made real progress as women, but the length of time -- and we need to

think of this, all of us in this House -- that it has taken to recognize this

basic and fundamental human right has been because of dinosaurs that have

blocked it and studied it and called it a goofball idea. The length of time that

it has taken for women to be recognized as equals, to be able to stand as equals

and support themselves and their children, has been because of dinosaurs that

have said that it was a goofball idea. It's time now; it is past time. We need

to pass this legislation, and we need to welcome women as equals in British

Columbia.

D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of my colleagues have

spoken to this measure before us and, it seems to me, have done a superb job.

Indeed, I would suggest to anybody who remains unconvinced of the need for pay

[ Page 17762 ]

equity legislation that they ought to review the transcripts of the debate in

this chamber. I think my colleague the Minister of Labour and a number of

others, notably the women who have spoken, have presented an incredibly powerful

and convincing case.

As a man, I feel honour bound, if you will, to stand up and say just a little

about this, because I'm one of those who has embraced this issue in my small way

for about 20 years. I first became aware of the issue of pay equity as an

academic when I was teaching a Canadian studies course at Malaspina University

College. One of the things we did was talk about social justice issues as a

theme. That's where we looked at issues like aboriginal matters and so forth.

One of the broader issues that came before us, of course, was the whole

question of equality and the treatment that women were afforded and accorded in

our society. Part of that discussion involved, inevitably, a consideration of

the issue of pay equity. At that point I first became aware of people like Jean

Erington and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who produced position

papers -- and I'm talking now about 20 years ago, Mr. Speaker -- that were

absolutely superb in terms of providing detailed, concrete evidence of why we

had to do something about pay equity. As I say, those materials were wonderfully

articulate and wonderfully helpful. And after going through that discussion,

albeit in an academic setting, I came to the clear conclusion that we, the

dominant culture -- "the boys," if you like -- were indeed guilty. We

had turned a blind eye, or otherwise, to the problem that was standing there

staring us in the face.

And the problem, let me just remind everybody, is pretty simple. The problem,

essentially, is that women, for work of essentially the same value, even today

-- although, to be sure, we have made some progress -- earn roughly 73 cents on

the dollar. What that means, of course, is that we have that phenomenon in

Canadian society of the poverty of older women, which I suspect makes us all

embarrassed.

[1500]

The one quintile that hasn't changed one bit in Canadian society is older

women and the incidence of poverty. It's a problem that we simply haven't begun

to solve in this country. And the reason for that -- one of the most predominant

and obvious reasons -- is that if women don't earn the same amount of money,

then when they retire, they don't have the same kinds of pension entitlements.

So if we truly believe in equality, clearly this is a kind of measure.

The second point I wanted to make about that, though, is just this. We have

heard for generations: "Don't worry; you're getting there." Now, it

used to be that women earned 40 percent, and then it crept up to 60 percent. And

of course, the argument is that if you do a mathematical extrapolation and

projection, probably by the year 2098 women will be earning 100 percent of what

men do. But my gosh, how can anybody expect women, fairly, to accept that

proposition?

The conclusion, it seems very clear to me, is that this is a time when we

need legislation. You can't leave it to the market forces, because the market

forces, quite frankly, have not done anything much so far. And if they do, it's

so painfully slow that we will see Lord knows how many other generations of

older women living in poverty. Therefore it seems clear to me that we have no

choice but to say that it's up to the state, that it's up to government, in

fact, to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I'm 57 years old.

Interjection.

D. Lovick: I know, you're all surprised. When I was considerably

younger, growing up in a time of abundant opportunity, it was interesting,

because all of us going to university could go and work in the bush or at

fishing or in construction or things like that and make a bundle and pay,

effectively, for our university education. Women? Guess what. Very few could.

Very few could, because there simply were not the opportunities there for them.

The only exception worth noting was in the unionized sector, because the IWA

and the PPWC and the CPU and various other trade unions long ago made a point of

saying that workers who worked in their industry, whether they were men or

women, would get the same wage. That was the result of bargaining. That was the

result of workers working to protect and enhance their own lives and their own

security.

Unless a young woman happened to get lucky -- and there weren't many who were

lucky -- and get a job in a mill, the odds of their making as much as their male

counterparts were just about nil. Boys, unfortunately, took that for granted. We

assumed -- because I was working, say, setting chokers for MacMillan Bloedel or

my buddy was working as a grader operator on a highway project or somebody else

was pounding nails in construction -- that we worked harder, and therefore we

deserved more money. Nonsense. The jobs that the women did in all likelihood

were less challenging, less interesting and certainly a lot lower paid. Clearly,

then, we have to do something. This measure, I think, is on the right track.

My patience, I'm afraid, is stretched to the limit when I hear my friends

opposite say, and I think I can almost quote what the critic said: "We

believe in the principle of the legislation, and we also believe in the practice

of the legislation, but not this bill." Sound familiar? It's exactly what

they said about Nisga'a after 111 years of negotiating: "Oh yeah, we

believe in settling aboriginal land claims. We believe in all that stuff, but

not this treaty." And I'm struggling with that, because it seems to me that

this has been the product of huge study, huge labour, huge deliberation, and we

have a bill that they believe in theory but, alas, not in practice.

I would just put this question for everybody who is paying any attention to

this debate. Think about this: what if it were a category other than women, and

we had the same problem? What if we could say, as we used to be able to say in

this province: "If you're Chinese, or aboriginal, or Indo-Canadian,

therefore we can pay you 73 cents, and white guys get paid $1"? Would any

of us stand for that? We would be outraged. We would say there is absolutely no

way that you can do that. But, alas, what we have in this instance is the fact

that, apparently, it's okay with women. Now, how can anybody justify that? I

certainly can't. I don't believe that anybody who is in any way honest about the

issue and thinks about its complexity could possibly justify doing that.

[1505]

The only explanation I can see is that some are apparently afraid that this

is bad for business. But do you know what? That's exactly the argument we used

to use in the mines on Vancouver Island when we used to pay Chinese workers 50

percent less than the white guys. We said that business couldn't afford to pay

everybody the same rate as the white guys. But we got over that; we outgrew

that. We said that's outrageous. We said it's not acceptable. Indeed, in this

coun-

[ Page 17763 ]

try, let alone this province, we said some years ago, thanks to the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms, that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual

preference, religion, creed or culture was not allowed. Nevertheless, we

continue to have this anomaly of women being paid 73 percent of what men earn

for work of equal value.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for us in this province to

send a very clear statement that this situation is absolutely intolerable. It's

not acceptable. I'm very proud of my colleagues on this side of the House for

standing absolutely in solidarity, all of us onside together, saying that we

don't accept that proposition. I'm especially grateful to my female colleagues

for doing such a superb job of making sure that everybody understood the very

compelling, specific and personal reasons for changing this as well.

If we believe in doing something about poverty in this country, and if we

really care about child poverty and about older women living in poverty, let me

suggest that probably the best and most effective single thing we could do is to

pass pay equity legislation so that women will not be put into a position where

they can't take care of their children or, when they retire, can't take care of

themselves.

This legislation is long overdue. I'm very pleased this government is

introducing it. I'm very, very pleased to have my opportunity to offer my

support.

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

Leave granted.

J. Reid: I would like to welcome the grades 4 and 5 students from

French Creek Elementary School. They are here with us today to learn about

making laws. They are here with their teacher, Ms. Lucas, and some parents who

are accompanying them. I ask the House to make them welcome.

E. Walsh: I rise with great pride supporting Bill 17. I want to just

talk a little bit about what equal pay for work of equal value really means. But

also at this time I want to share a letter in a column by a sister of mine from

CUPE B.C.

What Colleen Jordan writes is:

"My first 'real' job was as a dispatcher for appliance repairmen. I

dispatched household appliances and TVs. My workmate dispatched commercial air

conditioners. I got $6 an hour; he got $9 an hour. That was my first experience

of pay inequity. That was in the sixties, and there were no laws or unions, at

least for the office workers, that could help. So I decided I'd better get an

education if I wanted to make a decent living.

"My next real job was with the Burnaby school board, in a job that

required college-level training. But even there, I soon found out that my job

paid the same $3 an hour less than a labourer's position. But at least now I had

a union, so we started on a path to try to achieve pay equity. By the end of

this year, my old job at the school board will finally be fully funded at almost

$2 per hour more than a labourer position.

"It was therefore with rather mixed emotions that I heard the Attorney

General introduce the legislation that will finally include 'equal pay for work

of equal value' as part of the Human Rights Code. I was happy that after 25

years, our issue would be recognized in law and that thousands of women will

have the opportunity to redress wage discrimination in their workplace. I was

sad to think that this legislation is not as extensive as we hoped and will

leave some CUPE members without redress and take a long time to achieve for

others.

"I was angry to read the next day that the Liberals' position, according

to their spokesperson" -- and that would be the member for Richmond-Steveston

-- "is that 'If we need to suspend this, to amend this or to repeal this,

we will.'

"We have made a great leap forward, but it looks like the battle is far

from over."

[1510]

That is going to be in the CUPE B.C. newsletter this month.

I want to talk about what equal pay for work of equal value actually means

for women. It means that men also are going to be included in this. It means

that women that are doing the work of equal value should be paid equally. What a

novel idea: that they should be paid equally for work of equal value.

What this means is addressing and correcting wage discriminations. Many of

these discriminations actually have been ingrained over the years. At one time

it was recognized that women stayed at home and looked after the children, and

men went out to work. So they were paid a higher wage. Fortunately, that has

changed through the years. But what hasn't changed is that discrimination.

Unfortunately, that discrimination, that perception, has almost always affected

women in the workplace.

As was previously stated by many of my colleagues, the concept of equal pay

for equal value definitely isn't new. This has been coming for a long, long

time. It's been an old battle. It's really unfortunate that as we enter into the

new millennium, we continue to fight this really old battle.

What this legislation is about and what it does is require an employer to

compare the value of work of one employee, which may traditionally and probably

be the female job, to the value of the work that would traditionally and

probably be the job of a male employee. Now, if in fact this were to be the case

-- if the value to the organization is equal or comparable -- then the female

job is to be paid at least the same amount as the male job. What is wrong with

that? I can't understand where the concern would be to pay people equal value

for the jobs they do. This may very well mean raising the wages of the female to

that of the male. And as I said a little bit earlier, it also affects men, so it

could be vice versa.

In 1970 at the CLC convention in Edmonton, Tommy Douglas said:

"Certainly it is of mutual benefit to all of us to strive for the all-round

well-being of our workforce and of our society as a whole." And then he

goes on to say: "In the broadest sense the advancement of the human family

-- women, men and children -- is what our concern for human rights is all about.

Equality, social justice and dignity for all are the underpinnings of this

concern."

Equality, social justice and dignity -- these concepts aren't too difficult

to understand, nor are they difficult to grasp. Unfortunately, I cannot

understand why the opposition Liberals would have such difficulty in grasping

these concepts for women who are being paid less than their counterparts. Is it

too difficult to grasp that pay inequities, as my colleague previously spoke

about, do lead to poverty amongst families and women and that this affects their

children; that pay inequities continue to build the barriers that would

otherwise allow women to advance, that would allow women to move forward into

more of the male-dominated jobs? And is it too difficult to grasp the importance

of paying a value that reflects the real value of the work that's done primarily

by women?

[ Page 17764 ]

And women today, as we've heard many times in previous submissions -- 73

cents for every dollar earned is what a woman makes compared to the man.

J. Pullinger: Up to 62 cents ten years ago.

[1515]

E. Walsh: Yeah, 62 cents ten years ago, 73 cents now.

The difference in female wages compared to male earnings is unbelievable.

What this means is that families have $27 less in every $100 earned to spend on

groceries, on housing, on child care, on food, whatever it is that you're

looking for -- $27 less for every $100. Now, just because you get paid less

doesn't mean that your groceries cost less and your houses cost less and your

clothing costs less. In fact, you're paying exactly the same but with less

money. Over a lifetime, for the 27 cents on the dollar that women will lose, the

amount of money an average 25-year-old working woman will lose over her lifetime

is $523,000 in lost wages. That is due to the unequal pay during her working

life -- over half a million dollars for a woman compared to a man's working

wage.

What this also means is that in the long run, women are going to be paid less

in pensions. They will be paid less in every area in which they choose to go. A

huge percentage of women today in fact provide for more than half of their

family income. And when women get equal pay for work of equal value, the family

income rises. And guess what. When the family income rises, the quality of life

also increases. And you know what? The whole family benefits -- not just any one

person, but the whole family.

In fact, just talking about men and this legislation, did you know that men

who work in a predominantly female job will actually lose? Now, if this isn't a

little bit of incentive to get moving on this . . . . They will lose

an average of $6,259 each year.

These figures are taken out of "Equal Pay for Working Families."

It's national and state data on the pay gap and its costs. And over a lifetime,

for women not receiving equal pay for equal value, as I said, it really does

mean poverty. It means that they will be much poorer.

We've talked so much about the wage gap. So I thought, let's talk about what

"wage gap" is here. For many people -- as I said a little bit earlier,

and they agreed -- it was an agreement with employers that men should get paid a

little bit more because they were seen to be supporting families. Like I said,

it's changed. Now more women are supporting their families, and in fact, they're

doing it on their own today. So married women and particularly single women, if

they have children, are more likely to be employed at home. Single women, with

or without children, deserve a fair wage for work of fair value -- of value to a

wage that reflects what they're doing.

Pay equity is really good for the economy. When women are paid their true

value, they have more resources to provide for themselves, their families and

their communities. Employers benefit from a positive and productive work

environment.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Now, this legislation may mean the difference between poverty and making a

decent living. And isn't that what we all want? Isn't that what every one of us

in this House wants: to make a decent living to provide for our families?

Haven't we heard from the opposition Liberals over and over again that tax cuts

are going to put more money into people's pockets -- reckless or however they're

going to be? What about paying people for doing their jobs? What about paying

people value for the work that they do? That puts real money into people's

pockets -- not just in the highest 3 or 4 percentage of wage earners in this

province or country, but in the pockets of those people that need it to raise

their families, in the pockets of those people that spend it in their local

economies. That's where it has to go; that's where it has to be addressed.

Those people in the top 3 or 4 percent high-wage income brackets don't need

to have those reckless or dramatic -- or whatever you want to call them -- tax

cuts. The people that live on the lower end of the scale, those people that are

working every day to try to make ends meet, those people that are not getting

paid for the value of the work they are doing -- they're the ones who need to be

assured that they are in fact going to receive a benefit. The one thing I did

want to mention when they talked about these tax cuts . . . . I say

that the jury is still out on that. As far as I'm concerned, where the money has

to go is to the people who most deserve it and need it.

[1520]

While we're talking about money going into people's pockets and those tax

cuts, let's talk about minimum wage. They voted against minimum wage. They said

that they want to eliminate fair wage, scrap Child Care B.C., bring in flexible

labour legislation and amend the Labour Code. These do not benefit . . . .

These promises that they've made, for those people who live in poverty or those

people who don't make those high wages . . . . What kind of future

is that for these people?

In the Vancouver Sun on March 8, the Liberal member for Richmond-Steveston

said that this plan, the pay equity plan, was irresponsible -- dangerously

irresponsible. Is it dangerously irresponsible to pay women -- the gender which

makes up 52 percent of this province, amongst the lowest-income earners of the

province . . . ? Well, the only dangerously irresponsible thing that

I could understand or read or see about this is their remark that it is

dangerously irresponsible, and it is the opposition Liberals making those kinds

of comments. I'll tell you, that is irresponsible.

They sit on this picket fence and say: "Oh, we support it; we support

the merits of it." But you know, this is sitting on a fence. Do you know

what happens to people who sit on picket fences? They begin to hurt after

awhile. You're going to have to get off sooner or later. That same member says

that his party . . . . It's right here: "Regardless of what the

results are in the House, we will appoint a task force headed by a respected

judicial official, a judge, following the election should we earn the support of

the people of B.C. We will ask that task force to look at the effectiveness of

pay equity legislation, what the options are, where it's working." What the

options are? Where it's working? A task force? Why not take that money the

you're going to put into something like that and put it toward those people for

pay equity? Why waste that money? Put it where it's going to work.

As I've said, they talk about us bringing this forward within 13 days. It

hasn't been 13 days; it's been many, many, years. In fact, it's been more years

than the opposition Liberals

[ Page 17765 ]

would ever agree on or even acknowledge. They don't feel that this is a matter

of importance for the people -- the women -- of British Columbia.

When I quote where he was talking about earning the support . . . .

Well, earning the support doesn't mean voting against people's fundamental

rights. Earning support doesn't mean that you're going to place less value on

the work that's being done by women just because they're women. It's a disgrace

that the same Liberal opposition member for Richmond-Steveston called it a

goofball idea. You heard my hon. colleague, just prior to our discussions here

and her submission, also call it a goofball idea. Pay equity for women a

goofball idea? It's really unfortunate. I just wanted to read a quote out of the

Province on March 7: "Business groups and the Liberal opposition

were quick to oppose the changes, with Liberal MLA Geoff Plant calling it a

'goofball idea.' " What a tragedy when they call it a goofball idea.

Well, I've got news for that member and also for their other caucus members.

Poverty, families, decent wages, value -- actually putting more money into the

pockets of women . . . . These aren't goofball ideas. These are

moves to actually address the poverty, those family issues that we are committed

to on this side. They are not dangerously irresponsible; these are good ideas.

They've been brought forward by people who have lived out there without the

support that's needed by them to live decent lives.

It is the right thing to do. All these other arguments that the opposition

may have about "oh, it's only been 13 days . . . . " Pick a

number out of the hat; it's been longer than 13 days. It's been 13-plus years.

Every argument they may have points to the fact that this is the right thing to

do.

[1525]

What is so difficult about paying someone for doing equal work of equal

value? What's so hard to understand? What's really interesting is that Mark

Milke, who's a director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, states in fact:

"Those who argue gender wage gaps exist because of hidden discrimination

ignore personal choices made by millions of people over decades and the tendency

of women and men to make very different lifestyle choices." Choices to live

in poverty? Choices for a reduced pension? Choices for a different lifestyle?

Give me a break.

People don't choose to live in poverty. People don't necessarily always

choose what their lifestyle is going to be. People will make those choices given

the opportunity to do so. Women want to have access to good-paying jobs. They

want to have access to child care, and they want to have safe housing for their

children. They want to give their children better nutrition. They want to have

better pensions. They want everything the same as everybody else does. But

unfortunately, they still get paid 73 cents on the dollar -- 27 cents an hour

less than their male counterparts. And many of these women are the main provider

for the families, or they do bring in those other . . . .

Interjection.

E. Walsh: But they do. Well, even if they're not, they still only make

73 cents on the dollar.

I've heard the opposition call it mischief-making, but this legislation isn't

about mischief-making. I repeat again: this legislation definitely isn't a

goofball idea. It's not dangerously irresponsible. This legislation is needed,

and as I said, it is a good idea. It's about addressing the inequities. It's

about addressing that shamefully entrenched vision in a society that we've lived

with for so many years -- that is, finally getting paid for work of equal value.

In fact, I wonder how many people across the way would work for 73 cents on the

dollar while their counterparts made a dollar on the dollar for doing exactly

the same work.

I want to end by saying that over the years, I have worked very hard with

many of my brothers and sisters in the labour movement. I've attended many

conventions, and I've talked to many of them out there throughout the years

about the need for pay equity and also about being paid for work of equal value.

I have to commend each and every one of them. They're too numerous for me to

mention or even to name today, but I will commend every one of them for the

dedication that they have shown. The dedication that they have worked towards

and moved towards in order to see this legislation come forward is commendable.

I know that the amount of time and effort -- no, I can only imagine the time and

effort -- they have put into it has been phenomenal.

I would say to the opposition Liberals: vote in favour of this legislation.

End the discrimination against women. It has been going on for a long, long

time, and it is about time we do this. As I said, it's the right thing. It's

also about time the Liberal opposition members come out of that dinosaur era and

actually support this very fundamental right for working women in the province

today.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the hon.

Attorney General to close debate on Bill 17.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: A few speakers ago the member for Nanaimo was up and

said that he was 57 and referred to the jobs that were available when he was

younger -- jobs available to men predominantly versus those for women. Certainly

I reflect upon this from a generational prospective. I'm 35, and the experience

of my generation is quite different in terms of having those well-paid jobs

available, particularly in the younger years.

[1530]

But I think it's important, in terms of the context within which this debate

takes place, to recognize where we have moved forward. I was reading an

article

last week that indicated that the UBC law school now has 56 percent women, which

I think is an important accomplishment. Certainly when I was going to law school

from 1989 to 1992, I think it was about 50-50 at that time. The difficulty is

that too often in the context of the pay equity debate, those who oppose pay

equity point to those accomplishments as evidence of the fact that we don't need

to do anything around pay equity now. The truth is that we've done a great deal,

especially in this province, to make access to higher education readily

available regardless of your income or your gender, of course. That has meant

that we have more women going into the professions, and that's an important

accomplishment. But it doesn't take away from the fact that inequities still

exist within our society. There are still women-dominated jobs where they are

paid less than men in jobs of equal value.

I want to take a few moments now to respond to some of the points that have

been raised in this debate. First, in this whole debate both within this House

and outside, there's been

[ Page 17766 ]

a great deal of criticism around process. The argument is that there hasn't

been enough consultation, that the process is flawed and that we're not ready to

go ahead with this.

Well, with all due respect to those making those arguments, I think it's fair

to say -- this isn't always the case, but I think it's the case in this case and

in many other cases where process arguments are used -- that process arguments

really are the last refuge of those who don't want to argue against something on

a substantive basis but who do oppose it. So instead of coming out and saying

that they're opposed to the principle or the substance of what's being argued

for, they say the process has been flawed. This hasn't just happened in the

context of pay equity discussions or debates; it happens on every level, in

every community, in every possible forum. People who are opposed to something

but don't want to say that they're really opposed to it seek refuge in the

consultation or lack of consultation or process arguments.

I believe that's what's happening here. The process arguments are the last

refuge of those who truly oppose doing something now about pay equity. I think

what they should do is come out and say they're opposed to doing it now --

period. That would be an honest thing to do.

I'll move on now to talk about some of the substantive arguments that have

been raised in opposition to this bill. The first is that this bill will do

nothing to help women, that it will not result in pay equity. To quote the

opposition critic: "In the final analysis, this bill will do nothing to

help women who work for low wages in single-sex jobs -- women who work as

domestics or piece workers in the garment industry. Bill 17 won't help them. In

short, the goal of pay equity will not be met by Bill 17." He goes on to

refer to the Bell Canada decision at the federal level, where Bell Canada, in

order to avoid the pay equity complaint, simply went and contracted out those

services to avoid the pay equity statute.

Well, the difficulty with the argument is this: there's no question that if

the member is saying that this bill will not result in complete pay equity, I

would concede the point. I would dispute the argument that this will do nothing.

I don't believe that to be the case at all. There will clearly be women who will

benefit from this being the law of the province.

The difficulty with the basic argument that this won't do anything or it

won't do enough or it won't eliminate pay inequity, and therefore we shouldn't

do it -- that's one of the reasons not to do this -- is this: we could use that

argument to argue against all kinds of changes to the law and steps forward

we've made over the years to say: "Well, we're not going to accomplish this

in a perfect way. We're not going to eliminate discrimination; therefore we

shouldn't try."

I want to read something: "Every individual is equal before and under

the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law

without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race,

national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical

disability." That is subsection (1) of

section 15 of our Canadian Charter

of Rights and Freedoms.

[1535]

I have no doubt that when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being

debated in this country back around 1980, there was debate about doing a Charter

of Rights at all. Certainly the argument could have been made at that time:

"Well, if we enact

section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we're

not going to eliminate discrimination." Of course that argument can be

made. Discrimination still exists today, but that doesn't mean we don't try. It

didn't mean you don't, in that case, pass that

section of the charter. It

doesn't mean that in this case, we don't pass the pay equity law just because

it's not going to eliminate that form of discrimination. It will result,

incrementally, in steps in the right direction. That's what this bill will do.

Now, the point was also made that this bill could undermine the process of

collective bargaining in British Columbia. I think the member referred to it

being undermined because collective agreements would be attacked by complainants

who would be entitled to invoke the whole of the human rights investigation

process to raise issues that could have been resolved at the bargaining table.

Well, it is the law of British Columbia today that you can't have collective

agreements that violate the Human Rights Code. So I guess the answer is yes,

this amendment could have an impact on collective bargaining and on collective

agreements. But I think the response is also to say that we already have that in

this province. The law is that the Human Rights Code can't be violated by

collective bargaining and, ultimately, collective agreements.

There was also a criticism raised that the focus of this amendment is not

exclusively on women. I think what it comes down to is that the amendments are

gender neutral. That is quite deliberate. That is certainly not an argument not

to proceed with this amendment, but it does recognize that while there is the

reality for the vast majority of cases, women are the ones who are discriminated

against in this forum and will have the right to bring a complaint on that

basis.

There may be men who work in occupations which are traditionally considered

women's work, who may have an argument. I think it's unlikely, but if there are

some cases out there of men who can say that they're being discriminated against

in this way, they'll be able to avail themselves of this statute as well. So

that's quite deliberate, to ensure that the provision is in fact gender neutral

in its language.

There was also some concern raised about no guidance being offered with

regard to what constitutes discrimination. "It's not defined well

enough," was the criticism. No, the code doesn't define discrimination. The

concept of discrimination, I would argue, however, is clearly established and

understood in jurisprudence. Certainly the concept of discrimination under the

code is already well established. But I think it's also important to note that

the proposed amendment makes it very clear that the concepts of skill, effort,

working conditions, knowledge and responsibility will be used to aid in

determining work of equal value. And by implication, at least, it's very clear

that differences in pay which are not related to sex are not discriminatory and

therefore would not be captured by this legislation.

[1540]

Finally, there was a concern raised about the 1 percent cap we've had some

discussion about during second reading and whether it is in fact a cap or

whether it can be exceeded over the objection of the employer. It is the case

that it is theoretically possible that the 1 percent cap could be exceeded in a

few instances. One is where a voluntary plan is entered into by the employer,

and a voluntary plan is defined in these amendments. So that's one instance.

It's also possible, as I think the critic raised the possibility, if there

are multiple complaints. But the critic also went on to

[ Page 17767 ]

say that there's nothing in this bill that says the complaints can be merged

or amalgamated, and that's not the case. In fact, multiple complaints can be one

of the reasons why the tribunal would move to order a companywide plan. The

tribunal has to take into account the interests of the employer, and it would be

one reason why the tribunal could order a companywide plan.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I'm sure we will get into some of these in more detail when we get into

committee debate, but those were just a few of the brief remarks I wanted to

make in closing second reading. I think when we get back, ultimately, to the

point of principle here, it is the time to move forward with these amendments. I

think arguments around process are founded in a fundamental objection to

legislating at all. I think, as well, that these amendments will not create a

perfect world in which pay inequity ceases to exist. Again, those are not

arguments that we should accept as being the foundation for rejecting

legislative action on this important issue.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading now.

[1545]

Second reading of Bill 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38

Zirnhelt

Doyle

Gillespie

Kwan

Waddell

Hammell

McGregor

Giesbrecht

Farnworth

Lovick

Petter

Mann Brewin

Pullinger

Randall

Sawicki

Priddy

Cashore

Orcherton

Stevenson

Robertson

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Bowbrick

Janssen

Evans

Ramsey

Smallwood

G. Wilson

Streifel

Miller

Sihota

Calendino

Walsh

Boone

G. Clark

Lali

Kasper

Goodacre

NAYS -- 32

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

J. Reid

Krueger

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

J. Wilson

Roddick

Masi

Bill 17, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2001, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 24.

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that Bill 24, the Homeowner Protection

Amendment Act, 2001, be read a second time.

[1550]

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's great to hear such enthusiasm from the other

side of the House. For a brief explanation to the many thousands of people who I

know are glued to their television sets watching our proceedings, I'll briefly

describe the bill and what is taking place.

The amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act will provide for the licensing

and regulation of strata property managers in British Columbia. There are

approximately 18,000 strata corporations in B.C. They administer hundreds of

thousands of units in strata title buildings such as condominiums and

townhouses; a few are even single-family dwellings. The companies and

individuals who manage these buildings professionally do an excellent job, on

the whole, of protecting people's investments. However, the area lacks

regulatory safeguards for the millions of dollars that are being handled by

strata management companies.

Moreover, there are no standards of qualification for the managers who carry

out their day-to-day work in this area. Regrettably, there have been situations

and incidents where a few managers have abused the trust of strata homeowners.

One of the more high profile cases was the story of the failure of a property

management company in the Okanagan in 1999. The strata corporations and the

strata property owners in this situation were out of luck, as the money in the

account was removed and they found it unavailable to them. The legislation will

go a long way in preventing similar situations from happening again.

Licensed strata property managers collect strata fees from property owners

and manage the funds of strata corporations. They are responsible for large sums

of money. Those who manage rental properties are already required to be licensed

and regulated by the Real Estate Council of B.C. In 1998 the Barrett commission

listened to a number of submissions from homeowners on this subject. The

commissioner recommended that strata property managers be licensed and regulated

through the homeowner protection office.

Last October the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security and the

Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations jointly issued a White Paper on

strata manager licensing. Through the month-long consultation more than 120

written responses were received from homeowners, groups of homeowners, the

property management industry and others. There was very strong support for the

principle of regulating strata managers, and while some advocated for regulation

through the Real Estate Council, there was considerable support for regulating

through the homeowner protection office, in particular from homeowners and

strata councils as well as some property managers.

The idea of strata manager licensing through the homeowner protection office

has won strong support from the Condominium Home Owners Association of B.C. The

amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act in this bill are

[ Page 17768 ]

intended to provide safeguards to owners of strata properties and are part of

our commitment to increase consumer protection for B.C. homeowners.

This legislation will require disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

between strata managers and the owners, contractors, developers, real estate

agents and others with whom they deal. Under this legislation the HPO will

develop regulations in consultation with homeowners, managers and others to

settle on standards for audit and reporting, protection of assets and

educational requirements. Then these regulations will be phased in, giving

strata managers a reasonable amount of transition time. Strata corporations that

manage themselves and solely commercial strata corporations will not be covered

under this legislation.

To sum up, this legislation is designed to help consumers while minimizing

red tape for reputable strata managers. It is about peace of mind for strata

homeowners and the renewal of confidence in the B.C. housing industry. This will

build upon our earlier efforts to restore confidence of homeowners and those who

want to become homeowners in our province's housing stock.

Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce second reading for this bill.

R. Coleman: We on this side of the House also support the licensing of

strata managers in British Columbia, but there's going to be a number of issues

I'm going to want to discuss in my remarks today and also in committee relative

to this debate on this particular issue.

It's important that we look at the licensing of strata managers because of a

number of things that have affected this industry over the last number of years.

As the minister mentioned a minute ago, in this province you require a real

estate licence in order to collect rents but require no real estate licence, or

any licence, to collect strata fees and manage them on behalf of a strata

corporation. But this legislation has to go a little further. It also has to be

discussed relative to how we would implement it and how we would measure its

performance.

[1555]

The real reasons we need to license strata managers is so we can put them

into a model where we can reduce the risk to the strata property, reduce the

risk to the strata council and, at the same time, increase their education and

their ability to actually manage strata properties in British Columbia. That's

covered in two particular areas, one being financial and the other one being in

the area of advice.

First of all, I want to talk about the financial just for a second. If you

take a strata property of 100 or 150 units, every single month the people who

live in that strata corporation send a cheque to the strata council. That money

is banked and goes into a variety of uses. A proportion of it is set aside so

there is a capital reserve to do expensive repairs to the building in the long

term. On the other side of it you can have anything from a landscaping contract

to heating that could be in the common areas of the building -- hot water tanks,

that sort of thing -- underground parking, cleaning and all the maintenance of

the structure of the building. Those funds are often, by advice of a strata

manager, disbursed in certain ways. They're disbursed because that is what the

financial side of the operation is.

The difficulty we've had in this particular field is the number of people

that really don't understand the long-term impacts of things like replacement

reserves and good maintenance schedules so that things like gutters and drains

are cleaned so we don't get backup of water and egress of water -- or ingress of

water relative to some older properties -- and also long-term maintenance and

how we're going to deal with giving advice to the strata council.

On the advice side of the equation, strata corporations are basically like

any other organization of people in our community. They're usually volunteers

from within the building. They often have limited knowledge of things as simple

as rules of order and parliamentary procedure, how they're going to deal with a

motion relative to changes in their operation. They get advice from the strata

manager in this regard as well.

Then of course, in British Columbia today we also have the issue of the

leaky-condo situation. We have people out there in strata management positions

that are being asked to give advice on repairing or not repairing, on the

engineering reports or on what consultant to hire relative to making a decision

in the leaky-condo issue. All of this is a great deal of responsibility to be on

somebody that is not licensed, bonded or required to have any errors and

omission insurance.

On the training side, these people need training. It's not something that you

can just pass a piece of legislation on; you need the infrastructure to back it

up to make it work. That infrastructure would then be the understanding of the

bylaws, it would be the maintenance of the buildings, and it would be the

measurements of how the performance of the funds being collected by the strata

council can best be spent and what the long-term needs of that particular

building are.

That brings us to a number of things: trust funds, replacement reserves, the

ability to give advice, tendering for contracts to actually maintain the

building -- anything from something as simple as a landscape contract to a major

repair. And if they don't know how to structure those tendering contracts or how

to even go out and get the proper bids and they're in a management position,

they're going to be letting down that volunteer group of people we call the

strata council. And that group are the people who ultimately have the

responsibility to the members that are paying dues every month.

There's also a weakness in the area of audit provisions relative to strata

management, which is a huge concern, given the example that the minister gave,

in the Okanagan Valley, where a substantial amount of funds disappeared. They

disappeared simply because there was no structure in and around that like we

have somewhere in the Real Estate Act relative to agents and how their trust

funds have been managed and how they could be audited under the act for these

type of funds. By not having that we put, in this case, 18,000 homeowners at

risk by not having something in structure and performance.

There are some concerns I have relative to the act, because on the

self-managed side of strata it's not clear how or what will be defined as a

self-managed strata and, if it's a self-managed strata, what licensing would be

required. It's not clear whether a caretaker that lives on site that's paid for

by a strata council is going to be called a strata manager. I'm sure we'll deal

with those issues in committee.

[1600]

You know, the huge concern for me with this legislation is on the education,

which is how the education will take place,

[ Page 17769 ]

where it will take place, when it will take place, and the timing, standards

and measurements for licensing so that they actually have to pass something to

qualify to be a strata manager, similar to what it would be if they were going

to become a real estate agent in British Columbia.

The other concern I have is how to implement it. Those questions will be

dealt with in committee, because we can't deal with them in a second reading

debate. I think those are discussions that go back to submissions to the White

Paper by people like the B.C. Real Estate Association, which we will canvass in

committee -- those concerns and that sort of situation.

I have a concern about duplication. We may actually have people in the real

estate market who are trained and licensed real estate agents under the guise of

the Real Estate Council -- already carrying errors and omission insurance,

already having to have worked for bonded agents, already having audit provisions

relative to the collection of rents -- who will now have a duplicate licensing

provision in another body of government relative to that. And then there's the

requirement or the need to have some educational body to back up that licensing,

which may be a function that could be performed by the 40-year-old B.C. Real

Estate Association. I'm sure we'll discuss that in committee and those details,

as well, with the minister.

My concern about this, more so, is a long-term strategy. We need a long-term

strategy for housing in British Columbia that includes all these factors in one

place so that we can actually streamline it and make it work for the consumer

who lives in the home -- that is, to make sure that we have the licensing in

place, the bonding in place, the errors and omission in place and the training

in place so that these people can actually perform their jobs and do it in a

proper way.

We will work toward improvement of this act; we will work toward improvement

of the licence system. We will deal with public consultation and education

delivery and work with the community for a long-term solution, particularly in

this area.

The challenge is that we deal with the licensing, education and delivery of

qualified, licensed strata managers in British Columbia without a bunch of

duplication and red tape to make it so it doesn't work for the consumer. I

believe we can come to those solutions. I believe some of those solutions were

presented to us in different submissions for the White Paper, which we will

discuss -- not just from the BCREA but from other organizations. And we will

deal with those, because I think it's important that we understand these

particular bodies and their offices have something to contribute to the

long-term success of licensing of strata managers.

My biggest concern is that we do it right, because if we do it right, we will

start to bring back the consumer confidence in the maintenance and management of

our stratas in British Columbia, and strata will once again become a viable and

likeable source of home-ownership in B.C. And while we're doing that and we're

working towards that long-term solution, we will find long-term solutions to the

other problems that face this industry today.

It's my pleasure to support this move towards licensing of strata property

managers in British Columbia. It is my pleasure to look forward to the committee

debate on this bill, where we'll discuss some of the options that may be

available to British Columbians on this -- and also to make it clear that this

is not a "today" solution. This will take some time. We will work with

the right agencies, we'll come up with the right solutions, and we'll come up

with the right formulas to properly license, train and educate strata property

managers in the future for British Columbians.

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm pleased to get up and support Bill 24 in second

reading. This bill, the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2001, is very, very

important legislation. We've all heard of the horror stories over the last years

and the problems there have been without good legislation to deal with the

problems. The legislation safeguards strata property management through the

homeowner protection office. This was introduced by the minister a couple of

days ago. "We are following the recommendation of the Barrett commission to

build consumer confidence and ensure that strata property managers have the

skills and knowledge their jobs require," says the minister. "This

amendment will enable government to license and regulate strata property

managers."

This change to the Homeowner Protection Act has been introduced following a

White Paper and a month-long consultation process on strata property management

regulations that took place last fall. Currently managers of rental properties

are required to be licensed but managers of strata properties are not. There are

about 18,000 strata corporations in British Columbia overseeing hundreds of

thousands of strata units. Most are apartment-style condominiums, but many

strata properties are semi-detached townhouse-type homes, and some are detached

houses.

[1605]

Problems with the present legislation. The Barrett inquiry into the quality

of condominium construction found that strata corporations may be put at risk by

hiring managers who are unregulated. Individual managers handle many, many

thousands of dollars in strata fees, reserve funds, repair contracts, etc., and

there are currently no prescribed standards for competence or conduct that

managers have to meet or any system of monitoring their activities.

Some examples. Strata managers may be free to keep some or all of the

interest earned on a strata corporation's funds or to mingle those funds with

those of other corporations they may be managing. A strata manager may be in

conflict of interest if he or she is also a rental property manager or a real

estate salesperson for some of the units in the same building they are managing.

New costs may include licensing fees, which will be set up by regulations and

may be close to those for residential builders; year-end accounting costs,

depending on the strata corporation; insurance or bonding costs; about $2,000

for a yearly trust account audit when required; and up to $1,500 in one-time

education costs for managers who do not have the necessary qualifications.

Costs that condominium owners will have to pay. Strata managers may pass on

the new costs that will be imposed by licensing. These include the costs of the

licence, insurance or bonding, required course work and audit costs. Costs will

vary according to individual circumstances and will be spread out over the many

units that most strata managers manage. Strata corporations that choose to

manage their own affairs will not be affected by this legislation.

Benefits to condominium managers through these fees. Owners of strata

corporations will gain the assurance that the

[ Page 17770 ]

managers they hire meet standards of competence and conduct, that potential

conflict of interest will be disclosed and that the corporation's funds will be

properly managed and accounted for.

The homeowner protection office will investigate and take appropriate action

on any possible violations of the Homeowner Protection Act and regulations.

Strata managers will also be required to provide a form of security, such as

insurance or bonding, for the benefit of the strata owners.

In short, they will get better, more professional management services with

improved recourse and consumer protection. Strata owners have asked for this

legislation. Many strata corporations are large, independent entities. Strata

corporations will still be free to choose their own managers or to choose to

manage them themselves. This measure will simply ensure that strata managers

meet minimum requirements and standards, remain accountable and have financial

safeguards to protect strata owners.

Overall, we are confident that the effect of licensing will be positive. Our

consultation showed widespread support for licensing within the industry and

among homeowners. It helps everyone if all strata managers are well trained,

responsible and aware of the standards that are expected. Licensing creates a

level playing field for those in the industry and protects strata owners. Strata

managers could lose some of their business if the strata corporations decide to

assume their own management functions. However, the extra cost is not high on a

per-unit basis. We expect that more condominium owners will consider the benefit

of increased consumer protection and more professional services to be worth it.

Cost to the taxpayers. Ongoing administration and enforcement costs will be

totally recovered from licence fees. Some startup costs may be funded or

financed through borrowing by the homeowner protection office from the

provincial government.

"Why shouldn't the industry be self-regulated," some might say,

"like Ontario?" In British Columbia there is a well-established

industry organization of strata managers, and there has been no initiative to

create the voluntary standards. It would take a long time for such an

organization to get established and to gain the trust of condominium owners and

strata managers, especially given some of the negative perceptions and distrust

that seem to currently exist. The Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario

is supportive of our licensing initiative and favours mandatory licensing in

their province.

[1610]

Some would say: "Why shouldn't the Real Estate Council of B.C. be the

regulatory body?" The Barrett commission, two condominium owners

associations, a provincial advisory council to the HPO and a majority of those

who responded to the White Paper all recommended that the responsibility for

regulation be assigned to the HPO rather than the Real Estate Council. The HPO

has established a strong reputation with the homeowner and the building

industry, and it has a great deal of expertise in matters of concern to condo

owners and strata corporations. The Real Estate Council is predominantly made up

of members involved in their own real estate sales.

The HPO also administers a licensing regime for residential builders and

building envelope renovators. HPO staff members have an extensive knowledge of

strata management issues through their own mandates, providing assistance to

leaky-condo owners and strata corporations and research and education for the

building industry and consumers. The HPO has gained the trust of a large number

of condominium owners and does not have any perceived conflicts of interest with

respect to regulating strata managers.

Many owners of condominiums came forward to the Barrett commission to state

their concerns about the strata managers, so the commission called for licensing

of strata managers through the HPO. The confidence of consumers in condos has

been severely shaken by the leaky-condo problem, and the licensing of strata

managers will reinforce earlier government measures to restore that very much

needed confidence.

After the regulation is passed, hon. Speaker, the HPO will consult with

strata property managers, homeowners, people in the insurance industry and other

concerned parties to develop workable regulations that protect consumers and

minimize red tape. Strata managers will also be given reasonable transition time

to comply with the new regulations. Self-managed strata corporations and purely

commercial strata corporations are not affected by this legislation.

I am very, very pleased to speak on Bill 24 in second reading, and at this

time I'll take my seat.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister to

close debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I listened to the comments of my colleagues and the

critic opposite, and I look forward to the debate on this important issue and to

answering further questions in committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 24.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 23.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

The House in committee on Bill 23; D. Streifel in the chair.

[1615]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

C. Hansen: I was debating whether to raise this point under

section 3

section 2, and I guess my questions here actually relate to both of these

sections.

section 3 of this bill we are amending

section 19.5 of the Health

Authorities Act. The current wording in the legislation, prior to this amendment

being brought in, gives the Minister of Labour the power to direct the Labour

Relations Board to consider the continued appropriateness of the bargaining

units referred to in

section 19.4 -- those bargaining units being

[ Page 17771 ]

the five bargaining units that were originally set out. So what this

legislation is doing is going from five bargaining units to four by the

combination of those two. Yet in the act, as it's currently worded, there is the

ability of the Minister of Labour to direct the Labour Relations Board to

consider the continued appropriateness of that structure of five bargaining

units.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain to us why it was chosen to take a

legislative and essentially political route to address that restructuring,

rather than allowing the more non-political consideration of the Labour

Relations Board in determining what is an appropriate bargaining unit in this

sector.

Hon. C. Evans: The earlier wording intended that the Labour Relations

Board would have transitional powers. I think it was probably always assumed

that the legislative route would eventually amend the bill.

C. Hansen: In the legislation, certainly the power was there for the

Minister of Labour to direct the Labour Relations Board to consider the

continued appropriateness of these five bargaining units.

[1620]

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us why that route was not pursued,

why the Labour Relations Board wasn't asked to look at this particular issue in

a way that would be giving opportunity for all of the various parties and some

of the different health care providers that are small employers, for example,

and small unions that are going to be affected by this change. Certainly that

consideration by the Labour Relations Board would have given them a forum in

which to make their views heard before a decision was made to combine these two

bargaining units.

Hon. C. Evans: As I said, the

section that the member refers to was to

give the Minister of Labour the power in that transition period. I think it was

always assumed that the more democratic and appropriate venue for making any

substantive change is the Legislature, and that's what's happening.

C. Hansen: I think we may be talking about different sections here. I

know there are sections in here about transition, which we will come to later on

-- the transitional powers on the implementation of these changes. But the

section I'm referring to is specifically

section 19.5, the existing wording of

the Health Authorities Act. I'll read it. It's under the title of "Review

of Appropriate Bargaining Units," and it says: "The Minister of Labour

may on application or on his or her own motion, and after the investigation

considered necessary or advisable, direct the labour relations board to consider

the continued appropriateness of the bargaining units referred to in

section

19.4." That's not a transitional section; I think the transitional ones are

different sections.

This is an ongoing power that the Minister of Labour has had since the Health

Authorities Act was first introduced in 1995. Yet the government has never

chosen to go that route for this consideration of the amalgamation of the two

bargaining units. I'm wondering if the minister could explain why.

Hon. C. Evans: For the third time, staff are suggesting that the hon.

member does not find

section 19.5(1) to be transitional. In his defence, the

word "transition" isn't in there. But the intent of the

section when

it was created was that it would work for the few years, essentially, as we got

to this point. The hon. member is asking why the government felt that it was

appropriate to use legislation to make this change. The answer to that is that

this is substantive change, not sort of tinkering or asking for a ruling. This

is substantive change, and legislative amendment here is the appropriate venue.

C. Hansen: I won't belabour the point, but I would just say that this

is a change that affects a lot of health care providers around the province, yet

there's never been any kind of formalized process to allow them to have their

say in terms of whether or not this particular move is desirable. I think that

goes not just for the employer side but also for the smaller unions that are

affected by this change. I see that there was a provision there, and my question

was just with regard to why it wasn't used. I don't have a specific question,

but I would just like to say that I think it would have been desirable for some

kind of formalized process to have allowed this change to be considered by those

who are going to be directly impacted by it.

Hon. C. Evans: Well, I accept the hon. member's criticism.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

C. Hansen: This is the amendment to

section 19.5 that I was referring

to earlier, but the change that is being brought in here, in essence, provides

for . . . . The minister was saying that this was a transitional

section, and yet now they're amending it. So it's obviously not transitional

from the sense of when the legislation was first introduced; otherwise, they

wouldn't be amending it. The change they're bringing in is to change it from

being a consideration by the Labour Relations Board that is initiated by the

Minister of Labour, where the Minister of Labour can actually direct the Labour

Relations Board to consider the continued appropriateness of the bargaining

units.

[1625]

Instead, the amendment that he's bringing before us today eliminates the

reference to the Minister of Labour and just says: "The labour relations

board may consider the continued appropriateness of any bargaining unit in the

health sector . . . . " Essentially, it gives the power to the

Labour Relations Board to do this on their own without reference from the

Minister of Labour.

Maybe the minister could explain. If this is transitional or was transitional

for when the legislation was first brought in, then why are we amending it

today?

Hon. C. Evans: Elsewhere, in other industries and the like, labour

relations have the board. The Ministry of Labour had that power for a temporary

period of time. Now, essentially, with this amendment, we're just returning the

labour relations situation to the norm in the other areas of the province's

business.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

C. Hansen: I have a concern with regard to the way this

section is now

going to be set up. What we're doing is amend-

[ Page 17772 ]

ing subsection (2)(

b) to insert "in relation to the bargaining units

referred to in

section 19.4(1)(

a) to (c)." The problem I've got with this

is that in the wording of the Health Authorities Act this subsection (2) reads:

"On a date determined by the labour relations board, but no later than 6

months after the effective date . . . new associations of bargaining

agents must be formed." And then the amendment will be, "In relation

to the bargaining units referred to in

section 19.4(1)(

a) to (c)" in

accordance with the section.

My concern with this, the way it is now going to be worded, is that we have

already passed the six months after the effective date of this section. In fact,

this was proclaimed, I believe, in August of 1997 or '98. I've got that

somewhere here. Certainly it was several years ago that this

section was brought

into effect. My reading of it says that this entire

section becomes inoperative

six months after the effective date, yet now we're amending it. I'm wondering if

the minister can explain how this particular

section remains in effect when the

wording of it seems to indicate otherwise.

Hon. C. Evans: I think I understand the hon. member's question, but

our advice from legislative counsel is that the appropriate way is to amend the

statute rather than using some other method.

C. Hansen: Well, not being a lawyer, I'll have to defer to that sage

advice that the minister's getting.

But what this amendment does, assuming this

section is in effect, is

essentially exempt the bargaining unit that is being created out of this, the

health services and support bargaining unit. It says that this pertains only to

the bargaining units in (

a) to (e), which are your nurses, your paramedics and

your residents. But this

section does not apply to (d), which is in fact the

health services and support bargaining unit. I'm wondering if the minister can

explain why.

[1630]

Hon. C. Evans: The date that subsection (5.1) will come into force

will be six months after the date in which the subsection comes into force. The

hon. member's question is: how come this next

section deals with three of the

bargaining units? At that time, this bargaining unit will be brought into the

same regulatory regime.

C. Hansen: I might need some enlightenment from the minister or from

those assisting him. When it talks about the effective date in

section 2,

"effective date" is defined in the Health Authorities Act as "the

date this

part comes into force." It's not this subsection but this part --

part 3, is it? -- that came into force several years ago. So we're already past

the six-month date. I'm wondering if the minister can explain how he squares

that with the comments he just made.

Hon. C. Evans: Forgive me if my answer has complicated the question.

It's an esoteric kind of line of questioning which requires a little bit of

legal analysis. I think that the hon. member is missing the fact that in

subsection (5.1), where it says, "but no later than 6 months after the date

on which this subsection comes into force," the exact wording applies to

this subsection. So it's not a

section of the previous bill or something like

that; it's this subsection that we are adding.

C. Hansen: The other thing that this has the effect of doing . .

. . If you come down to the amendment to subsection (3) where it states .

. . . It currently says that "the trade unions in each association

must agree to articles of association that (

a) are consistent with this act and

the code, (

b) provide the association with the exclusive jurisdiction,"

etc. It's all of the provisions that require the bargaining unit to act

cohesively as a unit, without the various member parts being able to act

independently and thereby frustrate the work of the bargaining unit.

The amendment that's being brought in today has the effect of specifically

exempting the health services and support bargaining unit from that. I'm

wondering if the minister could explain why this new, big 60,000-member

bargaining unit is being exempted from the requirements of these articles of

association.

[1635]

Hon. C. Evans: I would refer the hon. member, once again, if I

understand his question, to subsection (5.2), where it says: "subsections

(3), (4) and (5) apply to the association referred to in subsection (5.1)."

Section 3 includes all of the requirements, and I don't understand how come the

hon. member believes that someone is being exempted. If he wants to rephrase his

question and explain where he perceives the exemption, perhaps I could be

assisted to understand his question.

C. Hansen: Well, if you go back up to

section 2(b), which is being

amended, it currently refers to a new association of bargaining agents that must

be formed in accordance with this

section -- right? So it's referring to those

new associations of bargaining agents that must be formed, and now we amend it.

In relation to bargaining units referred to in

section 19.4(1), (

a) to (

c) are

only three of the bargaining units. We've got the paramedics, the residents and

the nurses -- the three bargaining units. Because of the amendment to 2(

b) that

we were referring to earlier, new associations of bargaining units are only

those three, given the amendment that the minister is bringing in.

Now we come down to

section 3, and he says that the trade unions in each

association . . . . And he's adding in the words "referred to

in subsection (2)(b)." So 2(b), which we're now amending, is only three,

not four, bargaining units. I'm wondering if the minister can explain why (d),

that particular bargaining unit, is being exempted from these articles of

association.

Hon. C. Evans: The facilities and community sectors are not being

exempted. They are being carved out of the previous reference that the hon.

member is correct in alluding to. They are brought down into subsections

(5.1) and (5.2). We did not wish to affect the original three, which is precisely why

we carved out those two and moved them down here. But the hon. member's

suggestion that this exempts the community sector and the facilities sector from

the other provisions of the bill is not correct.

C. Hansen: I guess I fail to see how the minister can say that,

because that's exactly the amendment that we're bringing in here. It's talking

only about the trade unions in each association referred to in subsection

(2)(b). That's the amendment that he's making. Well, those associations referred

to in (2)(

b) only include those three bargaining units. They don't include the

fourth bargaining unit, which is what will become known as the health services

and support unit.

[ Page 17773 ]

[1640]

Hon. C. Evans: I don't know how to say it simpler. I understand the

hon. member's confusion and my inability to make it simpler. But I would refer

the hon. member to subsections (5.1) and (5.2). These are tied to earlier

sections of the bill. And by virtue of the fact that these two apply to the

community and the facilities subsector, ergo so do they remain in the rest of

the legislation. He has precisely the opposite

interpretation of the language --

boy, for which I really forgive him, because it's arcane and difficult to

understand.

But rather than removing facilities and communities from the rest of the

bill, what's essentially happening is that they are being removed, brought down

here to (5.1) and (5.2) and explained. And then the provisions of these sections

tie that all back into the rest of the bill. The reason that was done was to

leave the other three bargaining units exempt from having to be captured by all

of this legislation.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Evans: I move we rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 13.

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 13; D. Streifel in the chair.

section 1.

G. Plant: This bill was first introduced as an exposure bill last

summer. I want to take this opportunity to thank the minister's staff and the

members of the Information, Science and Technology Agency for the time they

spent with me then and over the course of the intervening months, answering my

questions and explaining this piece of legislation. I want to do everything

within my power this afternoon to ensure that it becomes law sooner rather than

later.

Sections 1 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that we rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

[1645]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Electronic Transactions Act, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that it be resolved that the order for third

reading on Bill 11, intituled Sex Offender Registry Act, be set aside and the

bill recommitted in respect of sections 1, 5.1, 7, 8, 10, 18 and 21.

The Speaker: That's by leave.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of the Whole to debate

Bill 11.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 11; D. Streifel in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the amendment standing in my name on the

orders of the day for

section 1.

[SECTION 1,

(

a) in the proposed definition of "personal information" by

deleting paragraph (

s) and substituting the following:

(

s) prescribed information that is likely to assist

(

i) in confirming the identity of the offender, or

(ii) in locating the offender for the purpose of maintaining the registry

up to date; ,

(

b) in paragraph (

a) of the proposed definition of "sex offence"

by deleting subparagraph (xi) and substituting the following:

(xi)

section 173 (2) [indecent acts]; , and

(

c) in the proposed definition of "sex offence" by adding the

following paragraph:

(e.1) an offence under

section 173 (1) [indecent acts], 177 [trespassing at

night], or 279 [kidnapping/forcible confinement] of the Criminal Code but only

in relation to a person whose personal information is entered into the

registry in respect of that offence under

section 5.1, .]

G. Plant: I'd just like to take the opportunity to say that with respect

to this amendment and a number of other amendments that are coming, it seems to

me -- with respect, and I'm quite prepared to say this -- that these amendments

do improve the bill. I'm glad that on this occasion there was an opportunity to

take a day or two to see if there were ways in which the bill could be improved.

And while I think there are still some issues and questions that will need to be

dealt with as people work towards the implementation of the sex offender

registry, these particular amendments are a helpful step in the right direction,

and again, I want to try to ensure they become law sooner rather than later.

[1650]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 5.1.

[ Page 17774 ]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the amendments standing in my name on the

orders of the day for

section 5.1.

[SECTION 5.1 , by adding the following section:

Specified sex offences

5.1

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the registrar must enter into the

registry the personal information about a person convicted of or found to be

not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for an offence under

section 173 (1), 177, or 279 of the Criminal Code.

(2) The registrar must not enter the personal information about a person

referred to in subsection (1) into the registry if, after reviewing

information respecting the circumstances of the commission of the offence, the

registrar decides

(

a) in the case of an offence under

section 173 (1) of the Criminal Code,

that the act that forms the basis of the offence

(

i) was a non-sexual indecent act, or

(ii) was a consensual sexual act, or

(

b) in the case of an offence under

section 177 or 279 of the Criminal

Code, that the offence was not committed for a sexual purpose or with a sexual

motive.

(3) If the registrar decides that subsection (2) does not apply with

respect to a person and enters the personal information about that person into

the registry, the registrar must include with the notice to the offender under

section 9, notice of the right of the offender to request a reconsideration of

the registrar's decision under this subsection.

(4) An offender whose personal information has been entered into the

registry under subsection (1), may request, in accordance with the

regulations, the registrar to reconsider the decision made under subsection

(3).

(5) The offender may include with the request under subsection (4) any

written submissions or other documents the offender wishes the registrar to

consider.

(6) The registrar

(

a) must reconsider the decision under subsection (3) if requested to do so

in accordance with subsection (4),

(

b) may confirm that decision, or reverse that decision and remove the

person's personal information from the registry, and

(

c) must advise the person of the decision under paragraph (

b) in

accordance with the regulations.]

Amendment approved.

Section 5.1 as amended approved.

section 7.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the amendment standing in my name on the

orders of the day for

section 7.

[SECTION 7,

(

a) by deleting the proposed subsection (4) and substituting the following:

(4) Despite

section 12, for the purposes of the registry, the registrar may

demand from any public body, corporation, or individual named in the personal

information recorded in the registry about an offender, any personal

information about the offender that is in the possession or control of that

public body, corporation or individual. , and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (6) by deleting "a person or public

body that receives a demand" and substituting "a public body,

corporation or individual that receives a demand".]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the amendment standing in my name on the

orders of the day for

section 8.

[SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the

following:

(2) Despite any other enactment but subject to subsection (3), if satisfied

in accordance with subsection (1), the court may order any public body,

corporation, or individual named in the personal information recorded in the

registry about an offender, to provide to the registrar in the time and manner

the court specifies, any information that

(

a) is in any record in the possession or control of that public body,

corporation or individual, and

(

b) discloses personal information about the offender.

(2.1) For the purpose of an application under subsection (1), a certificate

purporting to have been issued by the registrar certifying the names of the

individuals named in the personal information recorded in the registry about

an offender is admissible without proof of the signature or official character

of the person appearing to have signed the document, and is proof of the

certified facts unless there is evidence to the contrary.]

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 10.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the amendment standing in my name on the

orders of the day for

section 10.

[SECTION 10, by adding the following subsections:

(2.1) An information-sharing agreement or arrangement entered into under

that have the following effects:

(

a) that any use made by a party to the agreement or arrangement of the

personal information collected under the agreement or arrangement will be for

the purpose for which it was obtained or compiled by British Columbia or for a

use consistent with that purpose as defined under

section 34 of the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

(

b) that any disclosure of the personal information collected from British

Columbia by a party to the agreement or arrangement will be in substantial

compliance with

section 12 of this Act.

(2.2) An information-sharing agreement or arrangement entered into under

this

section may not agree to share personal information

(

a) about an offender referred to in paragraph (

d) of the definition of

"offender" in

section 1, or

[ Page 17775 ]

(

b) referred to in paragraph (

l) or (

m) of the definition of "personal

information" in that section.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

section 18.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the amendment standing in the hands of the

Clerk for

section 18.

[SECTION 18, by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the

following:

(2) A person who contravenes

section 7 (6) or 12 (1) or who fails to comply

with an order under

section 8 (2) commits an offence and is liable on

conviction to a fine of not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for a term of

not more than 6 months, or to both.]

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

section 21.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move the amendment standing in my name on orders

of the day for

section 21.

[SECTION 21, in the proposed subsection (2) by adding the following

paragraph:

(b.1) prescribing practices and procedures for a reconsideration under

section 5.1;

information-sharing agreement or arrangement under

section 10; .]

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move this committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[1655]

Bill 11, Sex Offender Registry Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When will the bill be read as reported?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 11, Sex Offender Registry Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Janssen: A fine day's work that we completed today. I move the

House do now adjourn.

Hon. G. Janssen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:56 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright �

2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada