1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 14

[ Page 14709 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Prayers.

Hon. E. Cull: Today we have some very special visitors in the members' gallery. His Excellency Billy Modise is the newly appointed High Commissioner for South Africa to Canada. He's visiting British Columbia from Ottawa for the first time. The high commissioner is accompanied by Patrick Evans, consul general of South Africa at Toronto. We're delighted that South Africa is again a prominent and dynamic member of the Commonwealth, and that South Africans proudly participated last year in the Victoria Commonwealth Games. Would all members please join me in warmly welcoming our visitors to the House.

Hon. D. Miller: Today in the gallery we have a group of 16 people with the Governor General's Canadian Study Conference, and I beg the House's indulgence as I introduce them. They are here in Victoria, and the theme of the 1995 conference is "Redefining the Working Relationship for a Better Canada." They seek to explore our notions of employment and management in the current and future social and economic climates -- which may be apropos of some debates that we'll have later.

In the gallery are Andra Takacs, who is the chair of Big Sisters of Canada; Michel Roy, vice-chair and secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada; Joan-Marie Aylward, Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union; James Bowen, CompEngServ Ltd.; Anders Bruun, Manitoba Pool Elevators; Lenore Burton, Canadian Labour Force Development Board; Jack Cooper, Kingston and District Labour Council; Alex Emile, Pratt and Whitney; Joanne Fletcher, Department of Intergovernmental Affairs; Sandra Ginnish, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Danielle-Maude Gosselin, Syndicat de fonction publique du Quebec; Maurice Hucon, Bank of Montreal; Pierre-Paul Lachapelle, Insitut Raymond Dewar; Michael Monette, Xerox Canada; Pierre Morissette, Les services-consiels Systematix Maison; and Bryan Joseph Neath, United Food and Commercial Workers.

I would ask all members of the House to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Would the House please welcome Bill Sundhu, Satwinder Paul and their young daughter Ellora from Williams Lake. They're friends and visitors. Please make them welcome.

F. Gingell: I would like to introduce to the House the British Columbia Liberal Party candidate in the riding of Chilliwack, Mr. Barry Penner. Barry and his good friend Beth Chipperfield are over here enjoying the sights of our beautiful capital city, and I would ask all members to make them welcome.

F. Garden: Accompanying my wife, Margaret, in the gallery today is my granddaughter. This is her first visit to the Legislature. She's three years old, and she calls this "grandpa's castle." Being king of the castle, I'd like to introduce her. Her name is Bailey Margaret Garden. Would you all make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL SITES ACQUISITION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. A. Charbonneau presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Sites Acquisition Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.

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

The bill before you contains amendments to the Municipal Act and the School Act which will enable the acquisition of lands for school sites, or cash in lieu, at the time of a subdivision of land, by joint agreement of the local government and school board. Currently, local governments may require owners of land being subdivided to provide up to 5 percent of the land, or cash in lieu, for park purposes. This bill will allow land or cash in lieu of up to 5 percent to also be provided for the acquisition of school sites.

These amendments will provide needed savings to the taxpayers of the province in the acquisition of school sites, and will enable better planning for new schools by local governments and school boards when land is being developed for residential expansion. This will also result in school boards being able to acquire school sites in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost and in appropriate locations in order to meet enrolment increases within areas where local development or redevelopment is driving the need for new schools.

Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm pleased to introduce these amendments to the Securities Act. The primary purpose of the amendments, which complement recent budget legislation providing the B.C. Securities Commission financial autonomy, is to implement the major legislative component of the government's response to the Matkin commission report.

[ Page 14710 ]

The amendments increase the size of the commission, provide for a second vice-chair and provide statutory authority for the appointment of the recently established British Columbia Securities Commission Policy Advisory Committee. The commission will have power to pass binding rules that will have the same force and effect as regulations enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Other amendments strengthen the regulation of investor relations activity and the commission's oversight of self-regulatory organizations, exchanges and registrants. As an added deterrent to securities market abuse, the commission will also have the power to seek court-ordered forfeiture of ill-gotten gains.

Finally, the amendments strengthen and update the act to ensure its currency and, where necessary, its uniformity with other jurisdictions. For example, provisions will assist in the effective regulation of mutual funds and of developing and complex securities such as commodity pools and derivatives.

These amendments represent the most comprehensive amendments to the Securities Act since it was proclaimed in 1987. These are significant and necessary steps towards improving the regulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and improving overall public confidence in the regulation of the British Columbia securities market as a whole.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this bill is another step in the government's response to the Matkin commission. This bill amends the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act to require that one-third of the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors be public governors appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and to require the Vancouver Stock Exchange board to elect one of these public governors as its chair. The bill also adds a new provision that in operating as a stock exchange, the purpose of the VSE is to contribute to the provincial economy. The VSE will be required to submit an annual report outlining how it carries out this purpose, which will be tabled in the Legislature.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. A. Petter: Bill 42 makes a number of amendments to the Forest Act to facilitate expansion of the woodlot licence program; to assist the chief forester in determining allowable annual cuts, and extending the time available to the chief forester to make such determinations as requested by the chief forester; to implement the recommendations of the independent review of royalty rates; and to facilitate implementation of the Vancouver Island land use plan. These amendments will improve forest management, increase government efficiency and help protect the economic base of small communities on Vancouver Island.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE

G. Campbell: As a result of the confusion and lack of leadership shown by the NDP, the crisis at Douglas Lake continues. Kids are still unable to get to school, workers are still unable to get to work, and the community of Douglas Lake feels like it is under siege. The confusion shown by this government is clearly escalating the risks for all concerned.

Can the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia, tell the people of B.C. if he has personally contacted the chief of the Upper Nicola band to tell him there will be no discussions until that illegal blockade is removed and access to Douglas Lake is restored?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no confusion. The court on last Friday made it clear -- and an enforcement order was issued subsequent to that -- that this blockade is on a public road. The police, the RCMP in British Columbia, are charged with clearing that public road. They will choose the way and the time in which they will do that, and they are now involved in that issue in a very, very thorough way.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

G. Campbell: I believe most British Columbians would prefer if the police did not have to get involved -- if the blockade wasn't there to begin with. This blockade has ramifications for all British Columbians, and it's time for this government to show strong, decisive and consistent leadership.

The Attorney General clearly has not been hearing the comments of his colleagues, which has sent confusion across the valley. It is time for the Attorney General to make it clear that there is one law for all British Columbians in the province of British Columbia. When will the Attorney General show the leadership, act like the chief law enforcement officer for the province of British Columbia, call the chief of the Upper Nicola band and tell him there will be no discussions until that illegal blockade is removed and legal access to Douglas Lake is restored?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is only one law in British Columbia, and that law applies to every British Columbian equally. On occasion in our society, some people of a variety of persuasions choose to violate the law. When it is clear -- as it is clear in this case -- that the law is being violated, the police then embark upon their lawful obligation, which is to enforce the law. That is what the police are involved in doing at the present time.

[ Page 14711 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Further to the member's question, there are no negotiations between the province and the Lower Nicola band. There have been discussions at a variety of levels in an effort to persuade the band to take their blockade down. That variety of levels includes discussions that the RCMP, the government and private citizens have been involved in. I urge all members of this House to lend their support to an encouragement to the band to withdraw from this illegal activity immediately.

M. de Jong: Contrary to what the minister said, it was the Premier who told us those negotiations were taking place. He'd best speak to the Premier about that.

Yesterday the Attorney General said that he "...does not direct the police as to how to enforce the law." That statement is not only incorrect but, I'd submit, represents a gross abdication of this minister's responsibility as chief law enforcement officer. In the past he has directed the police and prosecutors to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to spousal assault. He has directed that drunk drivers be targeted on the streets. The situation at Douglas Lake Ranch continues to deteriorate. When will the Attorney General direct that the RCMP adopt a zero-tolerance approach to illegal blockades that are being used as a tool of negotiation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member had listened to my answer, I believe yesterday, he would have....

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know how members can listen to the answer when they're talking at the same time.

If the member had listened to my answer yesterday, he would recall that I said the Attorney General gives general policy directions to the RCMP in this province on an annual basis. I have done that, and included in those general policy discussions are policies affecting how blockades are dealt with in this province. They make no distinction among environmental blockades, labour blockades, blockades over abortion issues or blockades by native people. There are no distinctions.

The member suggests that I should participate in directing the RCMP in a specific initiative, in a specific action. I will not do that, because I will not improperly direct the police to take a particular initiative that might endanger their lives. It might endanger ordinary citizens' lives, and it might in fact be the wrong tactical decision for the police to make at a particular time. Only the police on the ground can make the appropriate tactical decision. No one in this province should want politicians to be making policing decisions.

Deputy Speaker: Supplemental.

M. de Jong: The minister won't speak to the police, and he won't speak to the chief. We wonder who he's speaking to, if anyone, to get this matter resolved. The fact of the matter is that the police report having observed individuals from eastern Canada arriving on the scene at the blockade and have openly commented about the potential need for calling upon the military to become involved in this situation. That's what the police are saying. That's a decision the Attorney General will have to make. He can't wish this circumstance away.

British Columbians and this opposition want to know at what point the Attorney General will finally take decisive action to ensure the removal of this illegal blockade and prevent a further escalation of this deplorable situation in Douglas Lake.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member quotes unauthorized comments by a corporal, not by the commanding officer in British Columbia or the chief superintendent in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: How do you know? You're not talking to him.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just so the record is clear, I talk to the RCMP and I have talked to the RCMP about this issue, just so the member can clearly understand that.

The member is suggesting, and I think that all members of the House should pay particular attention to this suggestion, that I should ignore the tactical, operational decisions of the RCMP and that I should order them to proceed in there with all arms bared -- to go in there come what may, consequences be damned, in order to clear the roadblock.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The potential consequences of that kind of ignorant approach to resolving this difficult issue can only be imagined, and I hope the member never, ever has the opportunity to be in this kind of position.

[2:30]

J. Weisgerber: My question is also for the Attorney General. Yesterday the minister indicated that he was helpless to do anything about the illegal blockade at Douglas Lake. British Columbians want to know who's in charge here. Is it the government of British Columbia, with its obligation to uphold the law? Or is it a band of illegally-blockaded-road militants? Are the militants in charge in British Columbia? Or is it indeed the government that is ruling this province?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members -- on both sides, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The law is clear. The government has made it clear on several occasions now that this is an illegal blockade. The people who are charged with carrying out the enforcement of the law in British Columbia are not cabinet ministers or the Attorney General but the police, who are sworn peace officers with a duty and obligation to carry out the enforcement of the law. The RCMP are doing just that now.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, on a supplemental.

[ Page 14712 ]

J. Weisgerber: My supplemental is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The government continues to negotiate with the Upper Nicola band, even though they're involved in an illegal blockade. Will the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs show some leadership and indicate that there will be no negotiations now or until such time as the blockade is down? Further, will the minister show some spine and say to aboriginal communities that there will be no negotiations with bands who involve themselves in this blockade -- no interim agreements, no treaty agreements, no negotiations with people who defy the law in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, there are no negotiations; there have been no negotiations; there will be no negotiations. As this hon. member well knows, this government will discuss what it takes to get the blockade down. That is our job and our responsibility. We are seeking diligently to do that.

Since this is a time that calls for statesmanlike qualities from all opposition benches, I think the members of this House should know.... I'm reading from a Vancouver Sun

article of October 20, 1990, page A5, where it says: "Mount Currie Indians accused B.C. Native Affairs Minister" -- then it gives the name of the current Leader of the Third Party -- "of 'scheming' and refused to negotiate with him...when he unexpectedly showed up at their Duffey Lake Road blockade." He refused to negotiate. It goes on to say that they "faced each other silently for almost a minute" before the Minister of Native Affairs "announced he had come to negotiate a reopening of the road." The story goes on to say that he arrived there with an entourage of the media.

The natives didn't know the media were coming with him, and he used them to try to foment that type of inappropriate action at that time.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I would caution all members that we are using up a relatively precious commodity of time in question period.

ALLOCATION OF HEALTH CARE FUNDS AND CARE OF SENIORS

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. This Minister of Health is aware that there is a crisis due to this government and their ability to cope with Alzheimer's patients. The crisis is evident, and the minister has simply not responded. Yesterday this minister said that he will not investigate allegations of inappropriate care being provided to seniors in this province -- he will not investigate that. Why isn't this Minister of Health showing some leadership and demanding to know why this care is being delivered in the manner it is? When will this minister take charge of his ministry?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Providing quality care to people who are residents in long term care facilities rests with care providers and the administrators of those facilities. I have yet to meet one of those care providers or administrators who is not upset and distressed when inappropriate care is provided. I have yet to meet one who is not interested in taking appropriate remedial action. I would suggest to the hon. member that when she receives such cries, she ask those patients and their families to approach the administrators of those facilities. Investigations of inappropriate care are done daily in this province.

They also have a clear avenue to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. and other governing bodies of health professionals. That is the appropriate venue for investigation, hon. member. I would suggest that you stop fearmongering among seniors in the province, and advise people what their rights are.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. A. Edwards: I have the pleasure to table a report, titled Towards Energy Sustainability: Implementing the B.C. Energy Council's Energy Strategy for British Columbia, which is the government's response to 65 recommendations put forward from public consultation.

Orders of the Day

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

Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors; and in the House today I call second reading of Bill 29.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

(second reading)

Hon. D. Miller: I move second reading of Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act.

As I indicated during the bill's first reading, the amendments in this bill are being introduced in response to the first comprehensive review of employment standards in the history of the province. We do have a long tradition in Canada and, in fact, in North America and other European and industrialized countries of having employment standards acts that represent a kind of minimum standard, if you like, in a variety of ways for unorganized workers.

The current Employment Standards Act was a cobbling together in 1980 of about ten different statutes into what we now know as the Employment Standards Act. Thus the review that was initiated by our government was the first comprehensive review of that Employment Standards Act, and the new act we are dealing with now is the result of some fairly intensive consultation around the province. I'll deal with some specifics on consultation, because there are those who are currently alleging that that consultation did not take place. But we'll deal with that in substance in respect to second reading and as we move into committee and the clause-by-clause debate that will ensue.

The act sets out minimum standards in the workplace for more than 1.5 million B.C. employees and their employers. This act does not deal just with minimum standards for working people -- for employees. It also deals with the rights and obligations of employers with respect to those employees.

In April 1993, Prof. Mark Thompson was appointed by the then Minister of Labour and Consumer Services to review the act and its regulations. In that regard there was a panel of people. It was not structured similar to the approach to the Labour Code, but nonetheless there was a panel of people who represented both the organized workforce in the province and different employers' organizations. That panel was there to advise Professor Thompson as he pursued the various issues around the province.

[ Page 14713 ]

In February 1994, Professor Thompson submitted his report on the Employment Standards Act. That report is available for any members who haven't yet had an opportunity to read it. It is entitled Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace and included 118 recommendations for changes to the act. I made that report public shortly after I received it, and I invited a response from the public and from organized groups, whether they be employer groups, trade unions or whatever. I wanted to hear their views on that. An extensive and lengthy analysis was conducted internally.

It was one of the most comprehensive analyses that I've been party to with respect to a bill -- and obviously this is a very large bill. It's very important that a thorough job be done in terms of the various provisions contained in the act, both existing and new. A very comprehensive analysis ensued as we also received input from the general public. That resulted in a decision to proceed to incorporate some of the 118 recommendations into a revised Employment Standards Act, and to reject some of the recommendations that had been made by Professor Thompson.

I announced on November 21, 1994, the government's decision with regard to the Employment Standards Act. I announced at that time, members might recall, that we intended to proceed to increase the minimum wage. That first increase has now gone into effect, as of March, and the minimum wage now stands at $6.50. The second increase in the minimum wage that I announced last November will kick in during October and November, and B.C.'s minimum wage at that time will be $7. It's not the highest -- and who knows what other provinces may do in time? -- but it is nonetheless one of the leading minimum wages in Canada.

But to go back to November. I announced then in some detail those areas in which we would be proceeding, as well as those areas we would not be proceeding with. During the day following my announcement, I held specific discussions with a variety of organizations -- the Business Council of B.C., the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, the B.C. Federation of Labour, agricultural groups, domestic workers, the agricultural sector -- a whole range of people who had expressed concerns, one way or the other, about certain provisions of the Thompson report.

Based on those discussions last November, I was satisfied, on balance, that we had indeed listened and that we had responded in an appropriate way to the concerns that had been raised. I don't suggest that everybody was completely satisfied or completely happy with the decisions our government had taken, but quite importantly, they were satisfied that their concerns had in fact been listened to and had been reflected in the final decisions made by the government.

I made a commitment at that time, which was subsequently followed up, to share the draft as we moved forward with the groups I had met with. To turn the report and the decisions we'd made into legislation, we then took pains to go back and meet with those groups to share with them the kind of language we were proposing to use. As I indicated at the time, this was to ensure that there were no unintended consequences of any decisions that had been taken.

[2:45]

We arrived at this moment in time, which I suppose is coloured somewhat by some events over the last few days with respect to one of the organizations that had been consulted on this legislation. We have prepared a very comprehensive analysis of a letter received by the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, and I hope members take the time to read it to try to understand the issue in specific detail. I would hope that, having read the analysis, they would come to the conclusion that in fact there's nothing to fear with respect to the issues that we are discussing here today and as we move into committee.

This bill promotes social and economic equality for all British Columbians and addresses a number of changes. Our economy is changing. As we all know, it's gradually changing from resource-based to a more service-based economy. Social values and human rights concerns are changing. This bill addresses the need to enhance compliance with the statute through a combination of sanctions for non-compliance and, more importantly, an education strategy to promote awareness of rights and responsibilities under the act.

This legislation covers major changes in the act. To the degree that it has been possible, the act has been rewritten in plain language. I know that anybody who ever picks up a piece of legislation no doubt will arrive at sections that appear at first blush to be somewhat incomprehensible. I suppose the challenge in trying to address the plain-language issue was to construct a bill that was sound in its construction. After all, bills are legal documents. They are subject to court challenges, for example, and therefore the bill must be constructed and the language written in such a way that they meet the test and, in fact, support the intention of the bill.

Despite this, we have made a very sincere attempt in working with legislative counsel to draft the bill in what we call plain language. Anybody who now might want to take the time to review the existing act and contrast it to the new act would come to the conclusion, I hope, that our efforts were not in vain. In fact, we have done a reasonably good job in meeting one of the tests that the business community suggested in their submission to Thompson: a bill that could be interpreted by the average person. You didn't need to be a lawyer to try to understand the act. Again, we will move forward in, I hope, a comprehensive way, not just.... We don't feel it's good enough simply to introduce

an act, let it lie and let people kind of sort through provisions.

We intend to move forward with an education program. We have discussed that at length with the various constituent groups who have an interest in the bill. They were generally pleased with that approach and look forward with some enthusiasm to that kind of educational program.

It's based on the premise that the majority of people impacted by the bill have no desire to break provisions of the bill and, in fact, feel that if they're well informed about what is in the bill, those kinds of problems will not arise. We will not have applications to the employment standards on breach of legislation. So we will be promoting and moving forward. I hope that as part of that exercise we will develop, as we have in the past, a new pamphlet that is available to the layperson, both the employee and the employer, so they can better understand the provisions of the act.

Some of the changes that have been made.... All of the

interpretations and

definitions have been moved to the beginning of the act for ease of use.

The term "work" has been broadened to recognize and include work that is done in the worker's residence or the residence of another person. We talk about the changing

[ Page 14714 ]

nature of work. We understand -- it's very clear -- that there are those who gain their employment by working full-time in the residence of another person. Typically, those are the live-in domestics or nannies. Typically, in British Columbia they have been mainly women -- in fact, I would say almost exclusively women. Many, if not most, of them are drawn from the ranks of immigrant women, who have the usual difficulties in adjusting to our society with respect to language and alienation from their families.

They are subject to abuse. When I say that, I'm not denigrating any individual; but it's true -- they are. Submissions made by the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association clearly indicated that some people who gain their employment through full-time work as domestics do not work and live under a standard that, quite frankly, I think any member of this House would find acceptable.

Therefore, in broadening the definition of work, we have been able to capture those people who do earn their living by providing that kind of service in another person's home. Again, the provisions are not onerous. But we feel that these people are British Columbians, and they should be entitled to these minimum standards that the act lays out for all working people in British Columbia. I hope that we would find concurrence from members opposite with respect to that basic approach.

The definition of immediate family has been expanded to include adoptive children, parents and other persons who reside permanently with the worker. No doubt there may be some who object to the connotation there. It certainly does come into the area of same-sex couples. I look forward to any debate that people may wish to entertain on that subject. Primarily, the issue has been canvassed well in this country. The courts have, I think, spoken on the issue. Nonetheless, there may be a diversity of opinion here in the chamber. I'm quite prepared to engage in some reasonable, rational debate around that issue.

The terms of employment.... The amendments addressing the conditions of employment required in the workplace include hours of work. We have made, I think, a positive change. In the current act, if an employer and employees wish to alter their work

schedule from the schedules laid out in the act.... In other words, any work after eight hours in a day or 40 in a week is subject to overtime. That has been a provision of the act for some time. Under the current act, if employers and employees wish to alter that work schedule, it is now a fairly onerous process. There's more paperwork than is required. One needs to have agreement by about 100 percent of the employees. We normally send an investigating officer into the workplace. In other words, it's a cumbersome bureaucratic approach.

We have streamlined that in this bill. Compressed workweeks can now be approved with the approval of 65 percent of the workforce instead of 100 percent, as was previously the case. We have developed some on-the-shelf models of a variety of shift schedules. Different flexible shift schedules are on the shelf that both employers and employees can take, if you like. The requirements to maintain that flexible

schedule are less onerous, less burdensome and require less paper than in the existing act. That's a subject that has been raised in recent days. I would hope, again, that members would appreciate the work that we've put into this

section in order to reduce the kind of red tape that had been part of the act even before our government came to power.

Statutory holidays. It changes the name of the holidays from "general" to "statutory," extends the entitlement to holiday pay to all employees after 30 days of employment and standardizes the method of payment. What this really means is that part-time workers will now be able to collect pay for a statutory holiday on a prorated basis, based on the hours they've worked. They have previously been excluded from that kind of payment. We think it's only proper that permanent part-time people be allowed, in a modest way and on a prorated basis, to be paid like other working people when a statutory holiday occurs.

One of the new provisions -- and one that I'm sure will receive broad support from members opposite; I know my caucus is very enthusiastic -- says to working families, for the first time in British Columbia, that if you have a sick child or parent or some family crisis, you now have the right under employment standards to take a day off to care for that child or parent, or to deal with that crisis. I know that most employers in our province probably do that already. But I was struck by an article....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I hear the leader and lone member of the Social Credit Party muttering in his seat, so perhaps I should respond and refer the member to an

article that appeared just last week in the press -- and I'll get a copy of the

article -- citing a woman's response to this new provision. Her response was: "Thank goodness. I lost my job because I did that very thing. I was fired for taking a day off to care for my child" -- I can't remember the exact circumstances -- "because that protection wasn't in the bill."

This bill is not designed to say that all employers are bad and need this kind of requirement in order to be good. This bill is designed so that where employers are not prepared to grant what we all, I assume, agree is a reasonable day off, the employee has the right to take the day off. I say that it is long overdue that we in British Columbia have that kind of right. Similarly, it ensures that where there is a situation that requires bereavement leave, which, again, most employers would provide.... For those who are not prepared to provide it, we now will have a piece of legislation that guarantees the ability of a person to take three days off for bereavement leave.

The

article I just referred to just magically fell into my hands. It's from the May 24 edition of the Province newspaper, page 26. May I quote from the

article by Barbara McLintock, a well-known, senior reporter in the press gallery, and Stuart Hunter. It goes like this: "A woman who said she was fired because her boss thought she couldn't manage her baby and her job got some satisfaction yesterday. Nicole Antonovitch joined unionists and business owners" -- business owners! -- "in applauding a new law that helps working parents." It goes on to say how she lost her job because she took a day off. So that kind of activity, if this bill is passed -- and I hope with full support.... I must say that I have heard some disquieting rumours.

I understand the former Minister of Labour and now the critic in the Reform Party intends to put a motion forward to hoist this bill. He doesn't like this bill. I read, to my absolute horror, this morning's newspaper, where it suggested that the leader of the Liberal opposition doesn't like this bill. He describes it as a job-killer. I only assume that we're going to get the Liberals opposing this bill, and we'll get into some more debate around that, I sincerely hope.

[ Page 14715 ]

The bill reduces the time period in which an employee is covered for the purpose of termination. Currently the act says that if you have worked less than six months, your employer can summarily fire you, and you have no access to the Employment Standards Act. I encountered a young person who had worked in a circumstance.... I can't remember where the community was. A young fellow came up to me and said: "You know, I got a job, and it was a real struggle. It was a minimum-wage job. But I got a job in this small video outlet. I worked for five and a half months.

The person who owned the shop sold it to somebody else. The new owner came in, and he fired me, not because I was a bad worker or anything else. I went down to Employment Standards to see if there was some redress and was told: 'Sorry, there's none.' "

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I hear the leader of the Reform Party now, and I'm looking forward to some debates that hopefully we can have with the leader of the Reform Party -- an enlightened individual when it comes to these issues. We'll leave that again, I guess. I look forward to what that member might have to say today.

So we've lowered that to three months from six months -- again, I think, a move that generally will be applauded by all members. And I would hope that even some members of the opposition might bring themselves to support these kinds of modest improvements in the conditions that govern the working lives principally of those working poor, if you like -- the minimum-wage, low-wage earners -- who rely on the employment standards as a set of minimum standards.

[3:00]

We have changed some sections with respect to enforcement. One of the issues that the employers brought to us, in fact, was the need, as they identified it, to single out the bad employers -- the repeat offenders, if you like. So the bill will contain the ability to levy fines and penalties for repeat offenders. That was generally supported, by the way, in the discussions my staff and I held with organizations representing the business community.

The bill changes a condition that had been criticized by the business community where, currently under the act, the employment standards branch is both the arbiter of a dispute and the judge, if you like, with respect to that. The bill will establish a separate tribunal, which will not be a huge bureaucracy but will, I think, eliminate that problem which was identified by the business community, and will also, I think, remove the issue of appeals of decisions of the branch to the courts rather than having them dealt with by the tribunal. Therefore it should be less costly and less onerous for all those involved.

I already mentioned another provision, one that I think is timely in light of the changing social values that we have not only here in British Columbia but in other parts of Canada and other parts of the world. The bill never contained provisions to respect the rights of pregnant women in the workplace. They, in an unorganized setting, were always at the whim of their employer when it came to determining when they had to leave the job in order to see the pregnancy through.

The bill now provides that the individual, the woman in question, will have some say in determining when that period of time is, when that time is that she has to leave the job. Surely the members opposite -- the Reform Party... I can't anticipate -- won't be objecting to this section; but perhaps I'm wrong.

The bill is intended not only to enhance minimum standards but provide for new standards, and I've mentioned some of those new standards. I don't want to get into too much of the substantive debate or the separate-issues debate in my opening remarks, but I've tried to outline in a general way that the bill is one that has been put together with a lot of care, a lot of effort.

It is as the result of a significant amount of consultation in the province, both through the Thompson process -- through the submissions that were made to Thompson through the process that I initiated directly with various organizations, both in my office and in Vancouver -- and through discussions that my staff have had subsequent to those discussions. In fact, some of those are ongoing -- as we work with the agricultural sector, for example -- and we're prepared to make further commitments along those lines.

There may be issues in here that, despite our rigour, we, for whatever reason, erred on -- we failed to consider issues. I would hope that this forum, where we have MLAs who are elected to represent all of the constituencies in the province and, clearly, a variety of points of view in the province, will be the forum where we can engage in a reasonable debate. Perhaps as a result of that, the public will have a clearer understanding of where we all do stand respectively when it comes to these kinds of issues, which we think are fundamental to our modern society.

So, hon. Speaker, I will take my place and listen with pleasure to the, hopefully, enlightened debate to follow.

G. Farrell-Collins: I too want to participate in the debate today. I imagine we will be here for some time, discussing the other half of the government's labour agenda. We had the first half -- the B.C. Labour Code, which came in very quickly after the government assumed office -- and now, some three and a half years later, we have before us the changes to the Employment Standards Act. I was one of the few who.... When the government made clear -- I think it was last year -- that they weren't going to bring forth employment standards in that session, I made it clear that I was disappointed.

I thought that there were changes that needed to be made and that the government should get on with it.

The unfortunate thing is that as this bill has progressed, and as we've seen the Mark Thompson report -- which I think, quite frankly, was a bit pie-in-the-sky, for the workers' utopia, and didn't have a lot of grounding in reality and practicality.... I was a little disappointed with that report, and I said so at the time, although there were good things in it that needed to be dealt with and there were some recommendations there.

I think it was last fall that the minister made a statement of intent of this government as far as some areas that they weren't going to proceed with and others that they were. Again, I was pleased to note a number of changes, some of those to the requirements for farm labour contractors -- to clean that up a little bit; certainly people have been taken advantage of. Certainly the area of domestics was another thing that needed to be dealt with. I was pleased to see those.

But I, apparently unlike many other people in the province, wasn't privy to the actual legislation until last Wednesday. I must admit that I was shocked to find that a

[ Page 14716 ]

meeting had been set up on Thursday between the group that represents small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia and the Premier; I think it was one of the few times they've had to meet with him. They were also meeting with us on that Thursday. The day before that meeting took place, the minister brought the bill into the Legislature and tabled it, before they even had a chance to talk to the Premier about what their concerns were.

Hon. D. Miller: We thought you were more important.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says he thought we were more important and should see the bill first. The reality is that many other groups saw the bill before we did. That's fine; that's the way this government operates; that's okay. They took that bill.... Those people had a chance to actually see the legislation, and were quite upset with certain elements of it -- not all elements, but certain elements of it -- and wanted to voice their opinion to the Premier.

Instead of having the opportunity to be briefed quietly on the bill and then come back to the government and bring their concerns and have those concerns dealt with in an open manner, the bill is tabled the day before the meeting takes place -- sort of thumbing your nose at people who want to have some opinion on this.

The previous Labour minister had promised the small business group, when the B.C. Labour Code was brought through, that they shouldn't be terribly upset with the Labour Code, because it didn't affect them a great deal. Well, we now know that it has affected them substantially, in that the number of certifications among small and medium-sized businesses has skyrocketed under the labour bill. What has happened is that they were assured by the previous Labour minister that the bill they should really be concerned about was the Employment Standards Act. Unfortunately, that has come to be just too true.

They should be very worried about the Employment Standards Act and some of the implications that are in that, and we will be discussing them as we move along.

That wasn't the end of the insult. On Thursday, when they finally got the meeting with the Premier after the bill had been tabled, the Premier told them.... I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the Premier, thanking him for the meeting that was set up last Thursday, trying to be as polite as possible despite, I think, the less than forthright practice of the minister in tabling the bill.

It said that they were glad the Premier had agreed to take under consideration their position that this bill be used as exposure, that we have a chance to look at some of what they consider problem areas, and then come back. They also said that the Premier couldn't do anything about it; he had to take it to cabinet on May 31, and that on May 31 cabinet would be discussing it. Well, we heard last night before cabinet even happened this morning that this bill was coming forward today, about seven days after it had been tabled initially.

Once again the Premier promised the people of this province one thing and delivered something else. He promised the people of the small business coalition that....

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: I have difficulty comprehending a point of order, minister, but....

Hon. D. Miller: Well, hon. Speaker, the member is using all his time complaining about the fact that the bill is in the House, and I thought he might want to actually debate the contents of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. Will the member please proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I had a chance to get a glass of water.

The reality is that the Premier told those people that he would take it to cabinet, and they would discuss it at the cabinet meeting today, which took place this morning. Yet yesterday the government decided to proceed with the bill before it even came to cabinet. So you have to ask yourself why people are being told one thing and another thing happens. It does nothing to instil any sense of confidence in the consultation process that's supposed to be taking place, that has taken place to a certain extent on this bill and that will take place in the future.

What does that do but erode that sense of cooperation the minister talks about that is necessary between business and labour and the government in this province? It erodes it. The Premier has gone to great lengths and great expense with these Premier's summits all around the province on a variety of issues, to get business and labour and government working together, and then the Premier and the minister snub their noses at the small business community, the mom-and-pop operations, when the chips are really down.

The minister smiles; he doesn't think there's anything terribly important about that. But I can tell you, hon. Speaker, with all this minister's philosophical positions on the battle between labour and management in the province -- and I know his background; I know where he comes from -- that unfortunately small business generally doesn't work that way. The element of confrontation that takes place sometimes in the big mills and the big mines doesn't necessarily apply to small businesses. In many mom-and-pop operations it's the family that's working there, or it's relatives, or it's people who are actually quite good friends, and they work quite closely together.

What this government has tried to do, I think, with some of the changes they have made -- not all of them, but quite a good portion of the changes they're trying to make with the Employment Standards Act -- is impose an industrial relations model on small and medium-sized business. I don't think that's the right way to go, and I don't think the minister, if he sat and thought about it, would agree that it's the right way to go. But I don't know that he's thought about it.

I think he's just fallen back on the thing he knows best, the thing that's easiest, the thing that he'd like to see the most, which is that good old-fashioned, industrial relations conflict model in the corner stores and the small retail shops and restaurants and hotels of the province of British Columbia.

I think that is extremely unfortunate. If those workers wanted to join a union, they would join a union. Heaven knows, the Labour Code makes it really easy to do. They have the right to do that. We all say they have the right to do that. But why don't they do it?

Hon. D. Miller: What don't you like, member?

[ Page 14717 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll get there, hon. member, I'll get there. Hon. Speaker, I listened quietly to the minister, and I wish he would listen quietly to me. The minister has fallen back on old ways and is trying to impose an industrial relations conflict model on small and medium-sized businesses, and I think that's unfortunate.

Small and medium-sized businesses have, I think, frustration at the way this bill was introduced and the context around it; there is frustration about the understanding they had with the Premier last Thursday that their issue would be addressed in cabinet before this bill came forward -- clearly that wasn't the case. More importantly, we have yet to see the regulations of a bill that's going to have the ramifications this one is going to have.

I know the government gets the complaint from the opposition from time to time on various bills of, "Where are the regulations?" but you would think that after three and a half years of working at drafting this bill, the minister would have those regulations ready for us, because they are going to have a huge impact on what the meaning of these various sections actually are, how they're going to be implemented, how much red tape is going to be involved and how much of an administrative workload is going to be involved in bringing this forward.

I think the Employment Standards Act is really about people and jobs. It's about making sure that people have safe jobs and that employees are respected, but it's also about making sure that employers are respected and have flexibility in a changing economy to provide flexibility, to be competitive, and to provide jobs -- particularly for the young people in the province. Every time the minister raises the minimum wage, I caution him that what he's really doing is damaging the job prospects for young, single employables.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister seems upset by that, but maybe I could use some statistics....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to show some statistics to the Minister of Labour. Since October 1991....

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Could we perhaps allow the member to make his comments without too many interruptions.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. The minister gets two chances to speak to this bill; I get one, so maybe he can write down his objections and raise them when he gets a chance to sum up.

For example, we start with October 1992.... If you look at some of the employable males who are presently under the auspices of Social Services -- those people who have fallen through the cracks of the UI system; they've run out their time, they're still looking for work and now they're on social assistance -- the number has gone from 51,335 to 67,584. What impact is this bill going to have on employment for those young people? What about the employable single females? It has gone from 18,559 people on social assistance to 24,365. Those are pretty huge increases, and I think the minister should stop smiling and start getting worried about what's happening.

[3:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Check the statistics, my friend.

G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Minister, these are statistics that come from your government, so if there's a problem with the statistics I suggest you talk to the minister involved; don't talk to me about it.

If we look at the statistics for unemployment alone -- not those people who appear under social assistance, but the unemployment rate.... Again, this comes from the B.C. stats branch, so the minister knows where he can source them out if he doesn't have them himself. In 1990 the unemployment rate for males aged 15 to 24 was 14.5 percent; in 1995 it is 17.3 percent. That's an increase of 3 percent in the unemployment rate in British Columbia, under the guidance of the NDP government which is supposed to be doing wonderful things for working people in the province.

Let's look at what happens to young women aged 15 to 24. Again, for young people -- that lost generation we're worried about finding jobs for -- in 1990 the unemployment rate was 11.7 percent, and in 1995 it's 15.3 percent. In this case it's almost a 4 percent increase in unemployment among those people.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I ask the minister -- and I ask him to do it in his summation -- to tell me what the Employment Standards Act that he's bringing forward is going to do to help small and medium-sized businesses get some of those young people in British Columbia off social assistance and unemployment insurance, and back into the workforce where they all want to be.

Perhaps the minister can tell us.... We know they've got this little Skills Now program that they have been playing with for a while that seems to be nothing more than spending money on advertising -- little buckets and bolts and cute little advertising things. I know they've probably got a huge office space and contracts to NOW Communications. The only people who are working in this province are those who have NDP cards. They are the only ones getting the contracts and the only ones who are getting a deal. So maybe the Minister of Labour can tell us what the Employment Standards Act is doing for those young people.

When he goes out around the province and talks about his Employment Standards Act and talks about the wonderful things it's doing for workers in B.C., I hope he meets with the young people on social assistance and unemployment insurance who are just trying to get a job, and tells them what his Employment Standards Act is going to do for them.

Hon. D. Miller: I will. I'll tell them the Liberals are going to reduce the minimum wage.

G. Farrell-Collins: He should be telling them in the Employment Standards Act where he is going to find jobs for those people. Where's he going to create those jobs? Where are the small and medium-sized business people in B.C. going to find jobs for those young people? I'd like to know.

[ Page 14718 ]

What he's done with this bill.... I've said there are some good things, and I'll talk in a little bit about some of the bad things. It's nice to put the good things first so that people know they are there, because oftentimes they're not brought forward.

I think the Employment Standards Act that we have before us is really a lot of.... I guess you could say it's almost like the death of a thousand cuts for small business in B.C., because almost every

section imposes another layer of regulation, another paper burden they have to bring upon themselves, another process they have to involve themselves in that's going to take time away from actually doing their business and creating jobs and creating profits for themselves and their employees, and then has them doing more work for the government -- once again, doing more work for the government.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is asking me if I've worked for minimum wage. I worked for minimum wage an awful long time. I put myself through school and university on minimum wage. I can tell you that the flexibility provisions in this act are going to kill the restaurant industry and are going to kill the small retailers in this province. That's where those young people find their first jobs. That's where those young people find the flexibility to keep jobs and go to university at the same time. They can scrape up the money to pay the ever-increasing tuition and the ever-increasing cost of books.

Interjection.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

G. Farrell-Collins: That's where those people get those jobs, and those jobs won't be there. All that the loud-mouth member for Prince George-Mount Robson has to do is go talk to those young people who are out there looking for jobs this summer. She'll find that there are tens of thousands of university students in B.C. right now who are looking for jobs so that they can scrape together enough money to go back to university and college next year. This isn't going to be.... The options in this bill aren't going to help them at all.

L. Boone: What about your federal counterparts?

G. Farrell-Collins: The former minister from Prince George-Mount Robson who occupies the back corner is running down her list of heckles, and when all else fails, she blames the federal government. She runs down her whole list, and when she gets to the bottom: let's blame the feds. That's all this government can stand on. If they're going to go into an election blaming the feds and that's the only thing they've got, she's going to be demoted from a minister to a backbencher to the unemployment ranks. She should be darned concerned about the Employment Standards Act in this province, because she won't be able to find a job.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: We've seen the impact of the Labour Code in B.C., and I would suggest that some of the....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've just shown the minister some of the statistics in British Columbia so that he knows what the unemployment rate is, he knows what the social assistance rate is and he knows what's happening to small and medium-sized businesses that are going out of business, particularly in the construction industry. He knows those stats.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't notice the former minister on the speakers' list, but I would be glad to get her on so that she has a chance to speak.

The Labour Code has proven to be inflexible and biased, and it's proven to damage small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia. Small business has been faced with outrageous increases in Workers' Compensation Board fees and assessments.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: And the minister smiles. Perhaps the minister wants me to talk about that. Well, I will, because a lot of the fees that those people are paying to the Workers' Compensation Board are going to unusual places: $88,000 of it went right into the pocket of Connie Munro.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says he knows. Can the minister tell us what he's done about it? I would be glad if the minister would call his estimates and we could discuss that.

The reality is that the small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia are paying massive increases in the workers' compensation rates they have to pay. The unfunded liability is going up, the number of injuries is going down, and the service to injured workers is getting worse. I don't know what that minister has to brag about with workers' compensation, but I can't wait to get into estimates so we can have a good discussion about it. That's just a couple of things.

Then we look at the increase in fees and licences that this government has brought in and imposed upon the small and medium-sized businesses here. It costs hundreds of dollars to get your pool inspected if you own a hotel, hundreds of dollars to get your restaurant inspected from the Minister of Health and hundreds of dollars to the Minister of Agriculture.... There are lists and lists of them, not to mention all the other regulations that have come from the various other ministries: the Finance ministry, the Agriculture ministry, the Health ministry, Aboriginal Affairs -- you name it.

You can just about name any ministry in this province and find the layers of regulation they have put on small and medium-sized businesses.

We have a situation where there is a conflict between two ministers. We have the Minister of Small Business who's gone out there and promised the estate wineries in British Columbia that he's going to sweep aside the regulations and make sure they can be competitive with American wineries down south; that they can be competitive with other industries in the tourism sector; and that they're going to be able to serve food and alcohol on the estate wineries -- those neat little

[ Page 14719 ]

places. The minister has promised changes to the people who are struggling to actually keep land in agricultural production in the Okanagan instead of building condos. Then they go and deal with the Minister of Agriculture, and the lists of regulations and requirements in order to get there are killing them, not to mention the Attorney General and the liquor distribution branch. It's getting to the point where you can't do business in B.C. anymore.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can tell me how many went out of business last year, too. There are two sides to every story.

After all of that, now we have the Employment Standards Act -- this wonderful new bill that we're all going to see. As I said earlier, there are some good things but there are some bad things too. The provision for votes to create some flexibility in the number of hours in the workweek requires a 65 percent vote of the employees. It only takes 55 percent to form a union, but it takes 65 percent of the employees to make any changes to the workweek. Why? Does that make sense? Why not 55? Why 65? Where did that number come from? It just makes it that much more unfortunate. Why not have a simple majority of the employees working with the employer to make some flexibility in their work

schedule so they can have it work better for them and better for the employer?

I speak from a little bit of experience, having been in the restaurant business, from dishwashing to managing. I've done the whole work, and it's one of a number of industries that I do know. I can tell you that a lot of young people get into that industry because the money is decent; they can do okay. But more importantly, it allows them the flexibility to come in and work a couple of hours, and if it's slow, you go home and work on a paper or study for your midterm. There are all sorts of options there for you. That's what's great about that industry: it's so flexible for young people.

You'll find a ton of university and college students are in the restaurant industry. They make their money in the summer. If they're lucky enough, they can hold onto their jobs throughout the year. It allows them to pay for their tuition and their books and get an education.

I can tell you, however, that requiring those people to do four hours of work regardless means that they won't be called in at all. It means that they're not going to get the work. It means that they're not going to make any tips; they're not going to be able to get the money that they need to stay in school.

Where are those people going to go? They had a part-time job, they were going to university or college, and they were paying for their books. Instead of having a part-time job, going to university or college, advancing themselves, taking some training program or whatever it may be, these people are now going to lose their jobs. They are not going to be able to afford to go to school. They are going to land on these two pieces of paper: first, they're going to go on UI, and when that runs out, they're going to be on social assistance.

Then the government is going to step in with millions of dollars and run a great advertising campaign to talk about how they're going to give people skills to get into the workforce. They were already in the workforce; they already had a job; they already had a future. They were working toward it, and now it's gone.

Is it gone because the economy went down? No. Is it gone because tourism has dropped? No. Those jobs are gone because the government came in with a whole raft of ideological regulations and sections of legislation in a bill. That's why those jobs are gone. If the minister can't understand that....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member from Prince George can't understand that, I'd suggest that she go out and talk to some of the people who are out there. Talk to some real people.

[3:30]

One of the other items that I think is a little outrageous in this bill is the requirement that once businesses come to some agreement with their employees to actually compromise and make some changes and make for some flexibility in the workplace -- if they ever manage to get there -- they have to keep those records for seven years. I don't think even the tax department demands that you keep your records for seven years. These people are going to be keeping so many records that they're not going to be able to run their business.

Every time you want to make any change at all, you can't just go and talk to your employees and say: "Hey, let's try this." You've got to sit down, write it out, get it all printed out on paper, have a vote on it, get 65 percent support, file that in a file somewhere and report it to the employment standards bureau. Then you get to implement it.

I don't know how many small businesses that members of this House from the New Democrat side have ever been involved in, but....

An Hon. Member: Lots.

G. Farrell-Collins: Lots, perhaps. Successfully or unsuccessfully? Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that it's pretty tough.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Four votes. Four out of 51. Great.

That's not the way a small or medium-sized business works. If you're going to be competitive, you've got to be fast, and you can't be spending all your time doing paperwork for the government.

Another area that the government is going to have an impact on with this bill -- perhaps unintended -- is the little boys and girls out there and the seniors in the province who deliver papers for pocket money.

An Hon. Member: Seniors deliver papers for pocket money?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member seems shocked by that. Talk to people. If you get outside of this building and actually talk to real human beings, you'll find out that it happens. She's shocked that young people and seniors are delivering papers for pocket money. They go out and work for a couple of hours or an hour or so during the day, and they take a couple of routes. Some of them do it just for exercise, quite frankly. They're out walking anyway; they might as well deliver the paper and pick up some money for doing it.

[ Page 14720 ]

Young people in school, those oppressed paper-boys and paper-girls around British Columbia, have now lost their jobs under this bill, because they are going to be required....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I understand that as a designated speaker I have up to two hours to speak. I'll be taking full advantage of that.

I think those young people out there who have those jobs are doing it because it gives them some pocket money -- they can save their money for whatever. Now the big government is.... It's like Bambi Meets Godzilla: there's the little paper-boy walking down the street, and there comes the big Minister of Labour with his big foot and smacks him into the ground. He's out of a job. Those are the types of stupid things that government does. Another one, which I'm very pleased to see the minister back down on, is the change to the act with regard to babysitters.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'd love to talk about it in committee. Maybe the minister is changing his mind back; maybe he didn't make that decision of his own accord; maybe he did it at gunpoint. I don't know. But he doesn't seem too happy with his decision. I think there's a difference between a domestic -- a nanny -- and a babysitter. If the minister didn't see that difference, then I wonder why he repealed his regulation. Why would he repeal his regulation if he stands by it? Either he stands by it or he doesn't.

We saw him back down on that one, and I hope that with some sober second thought he'll have a chance to back down on some of the changes he has brought in with this bill, and to make some changes to this bill.

There is a lot more to be said; there will be more said. Other members have things to say -- members from agricultural communities, members from our caucus and other members who have experience in other areas have things to say.

I do believe, however, that some time needs to be taken with this bill. The minister, after the time he has taken, unfortunately still doesn't have the regulations ready for us so we can see them and see what the real impacts are going to be as they are implemented in various small businesses around British Columbia. We haven't had an overwhelming sense in the last week or so from this government that they are willing to listen in the short term. Rather, they have, I think, been a bit less than upfront with the members representing the small and medium-sized businesses.

There are problem areas in this bill, some of which I have itemized and some which other members of our caucus will be itemizing. But there is in this case, in this bill, a lack of confidence, unfortunately, that the government is really listening. It's one thing to open your doors and have people come in and tell you what they think, and they go out. And you slam the door and say, "Great, I heard them; I don't believe anything. I'm not going to listen to them, and I'm not going to make any changes," and away they go.

There's a difference between that and actually consulting people, listening to what people have to say and making some changes. I think it's important, and as much as I have encouraged this minister to get on with the job, having now seen the complete job I can't tell you how dismayed I am with the quality of what's here and the policy choices he has made.

Unfortunate as it is, I think the minister has to take some time to look at this bill. He has to get out there and talk to the young people. I suggest that he go to the universities and colleges and talk to people; I suggest that he talk to the small and medium-sized businesses, and that he sit down with the restaurant and hotel industry and talk about the flexibility provisions in this bill, and whether or not there can't be some changes to accommodate the four-hour allotment and some of the lunch break periods.

Having worked in the restaurant business, you come in and you start at six and you go until 11, or you start at five and you go to 11:30. The customers are there; you don't just sit down and take a break. You work, and when you're done, you're done. And it's great -- it's fun; you work hard, you get paid for it, you earn good tips and it's helpful. Some of the provisions that are in here are a bit ridiculous, I think.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister laughs. I know he has only worked in a union environment. I would suggest that he try something else for a while and see what it's really like out there. I think his laughter just indicates his lack of understanding about what it's really like to run a small business.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd just suggest that they get out and talk to people. Talk to real people. Don't talk to Ken Georgetti, who has got his agenda, his big labour agenda: let's certify every restaurant in town -- which is what he'd love to see. Certify McDonald's, certify Burger King, certify Wendy's. Get everybody -- get all those teenagers -- in a union, despite the fact that they don't want it. He talks about sectoral certification. Let's get out there and talk to real people, working in small and medium-sized businesses, and find out what's going to work for them as employees and employers in order to ensure that they have a business and that there are jobs there for the employees.

With that, I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 29 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."

On the amendment.

L. Hanson: I guess I haven't been around here long, because obviously we made a tactical error of some kind. We published a press release that said we were going to ask for a hoist motion. Regardless of where the motion comes from, regardless of the source, we believe that a good idea is a good idea. So we will speak in favour of the hoist motion because, other than a few words, it's identical to the one that we were going to bring forward.

The process that we've been through is kind of an interesting one. I think the minister mentioned that he had made some statements as to what the employment standards were going to include. Back in November, I think, was the date he

[ Page 14721 ]

mentioned. He acts surprised now that there is opposition, because he had put out this information that told us what we were going to do or what he was going to do -- so why is everybody so surprised?

First of all, there are some surprises in the bill. Much as it pains me to say this, there are some improvements in some of the wording because of the plain-wording initiative -- even though some of the clauses within the bill are a little difficult to understand even with the plain wording. But I know that that's an issue that we will cover on a serious basis when we get to the clause-by-clause debate, and maybe we could even suggest some improvements in that.

But it's interesting that in November we were told what was going to happen. On May 24 we actually got a copy of the bill, amazingly coinciding with the timing of the B.C. coalition of small business having a visit to Victoria. And with a very, very short interval in between, we're all of a sudden up in the Legislature debating the principles of the bill -- although right now we are speaking on the hoist motion.

I might add that this gives an opportunity to speak again at a later date without having lost our place, after we have the opportunity of listening to what some of the members of the governing party may have to say about the bill. As a matter of fact, I've been hearing a lot of opinions, not necessarily in the proper form, but certainly in the form of heckling of the former speaker.

It's difficult to understand the rush that has been obviously placed on this bill, the emergency nature of having it brought in and debated so quickly. It may be pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that there may be some sensitivity to the different analyses that have come forward already as a result of the bill.

Even though there appears to be some difference in the public approach to this process by the Premier and the Minister of Labour, I guess the Minister of Labour is the one who is driving the bus. That's kind of interesting. I don't know yet how the minister has been able to twist the story to blame it on the past government, but I suspect that the minister would recognize that he and his colleagues have been driving the bus for a little over three years now.

We hope that the minister would encourage his colleagues and particularly his leader to call forward the driver's test by going to the electorate, to see if they will give them another driver's licence. I suspect that it may be a pretty questionable process that they would like to avoid as long as they possibly can.

There are so many things in the bill that we will, I know, get to argue about when we get to the clause-by-clause, committee stage of the bill. But there are things that indicate where this bill came from. The minister and the members of government are very proud of and very emphatic about the consultation process that they claim to have gone through with almost every piece of legislation they have brought forward. It's kind of strange why organizations like the coalition of small business, the Business Council of B.C. and the B.C.

Chamber of Commerce would suggest that the consultative process was less than an honest one, because they now have had an opportunity to look at this bill. They see that the various presentations and positions they have taken are not reflected in the bill that has been brought forward. So that raises some questions.

I guess that the obvious bias is indicated by the requirement for 65 percent of the employees to adopt and approve of a flexible work schedule, when if 55 percent of them were to sign a union card, they would get an automatic certification. So somewhere there are some different standards, quality and level of approval. That seems to indicate, certainly in my thinking, that there is a bias.

[3:45]

Interjections.

L. Hanson: Again I have members heckling me, asking: "What is the federal Reform's position?" They're two different parties, and they're different people.

Interjections.

L. Hanson: I hear the Liberals laughing about that. I suppose their assurances that the federal Liberal Party and the provincial Liberal Party.... That's different.

Anyway, it's the usual bill that comes forward. We see so much of the bill that we're unable to analyze or determine what the result will be. We're unable to determine what the direction of it is simply because so much of the bill allows for regulations to be made. When we do see them, we will understand the true intent of the various clauses in the bill. But I'm not sure why I'm pointing this out, because it's been a habit of this government. I don't know why I'm surprised.

The minister mentioned the new entitlements that are in the bill. I suppose there has been the odd circumstance where some situations have not been done as well as we would like to see them done. I suggest to the hon. Speaker, to the members of this House and to the public of British Columbia that 99.9 percent of employers are very understanding when employees have a true need to have some time off, and are already recognizing the need in some circumstances to accommodate their employees.

It seems there is a direction here that would seem to say: "We can't trust you, so we have to put it into law; therefore here it is in front of you. You have to do this, you have to do that, you have to do something else."

I guess the whole of the issue, as far as I and my caucus colleagues are concerned, is that there should be an opportunity to look at some of these various clauses in the bill. There should be an opportunity for the people who are involved in the workplace to study the application of what the minister has brought forward. It doesn't seem to be too onerous to suggest that this bill could be set aside for some six months to get that response.

The main thrust of the concern we have is the analysis of the bill -- the opportunity to analyze the bill, its impact and the influence it is going to have on our small business community. The minister and the government are quite loud in claiming that British Columbia has been a leader in the creation of small jobs in Canada. They're very proud of that fact. I think all British Columbians should be proud of that fact, because it is less to the credit of the government than it is to the small business people of British Columbia.

The main thrust of the concern with this bill -- from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the coalition of businesses and the Business Council of British Columbia, which probably represent close to the majority of the workers in this province -- is that the new Employment Standards Act adds more regulations and increases the extent of government intervention in the province's economy. If this government doesn't

[ Page 14722 ]

understand how important small business and those other organizations that are represented here are to the economy of British Columbia, to job creation and to the healthy financial position of this province, they had better start to learn.

It was pointed out in the conclusions of the job study published in 1994 by the Organization for Economic Development that rigid labour market regulation is one of the biggest obstacles to new job creation in industrialized countries. While other jurisdictions are taking note of this important finding, the British Columbia government is adding to an already onerous burden of government regulation and intervention with respect to labour and employment matters. That is true, and that is a prophecy that is going to affect British Columbia.

It is going to hurt British Columbia's economic future and hurt the job creation market this government is so proud of and brags so much about as being a result of its initiative and its laws.

That is going to hurt British Columbia. I'm not a betting man, but I would bet the hon. minister on that. I would like to re-emphasize the fact that he and his colleagues have been driving the bus of British Columbia for the last three and a half years. Let's go take a driver's test by putting this subject to the electors and see if they'll renew his licence. I support the hoist motion.

D. Mitchell: I wish to say a few words to the amendment moved by the official opposition to second reading of Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act. In speaking to the amendment, I'd like to note that the amendment suggests that this bill should not now be read a second time -- or in other words, approved in principle -- but should be read a second time six months hence. The effect of this kind of amendment at second reading stage is, of course, to kill the bill. It's not really a motion to have the bill read six months from now; it's a motion to kill the bill.

We know that the House won't be sitting six months from now, or if it is, that will be a total surprise to all of us. We know that it's extremely unlikely that the House will be sitting six months from now. Even though some of us would like the House to be sitting six months from now and to have a

schedule that would tell us when the House would sit, we don't have that. We're not quite that civilized in British Columbia. So I think we have to recognize that this amendment.... It's considered to be, in parliamentary language, a dilatory amendment, but it's seeking to kill the bill.

There's only one other kind of amendment that's allowed at second reading stage of a bill, and that's a reasoned amendment. My preference would have been that if an amendment was moved by the official opposition or any other member of the opposition, we might have had a reasoned amendment moved that might have, for instance, suggested that the bill be referred to a select standing committee. That's a perfectly acceptable amendment that can be moved. It can't now, because only one such amendment can be moved in second reading stage. So this is it -- unfortunately, in my view.

When the bill was tabled in the House last week, I think all members of the opposition side were somewhat surprised, even though there had been a long, ongoing process of a couple of years of discussion of a new Employment Standards Act in British Columbia. The minister is quite right: there has been substantial consultation, not only by himself but by his predecessor as Minister of Labour.

When the bill was tabled, it still caught us by surprise, because we weren't sure what the government's intentions were. No one was sure. We weren't sure in this House. The business community wasn't sure; we weren't certain, either. It was an amazing coincidence that it was tabled the day before an important meeting with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. Just by coincidence, the following morning I travelled to Victoria with some members of the coalition who were coming to the meeting with the hon.

Premier and the hon. minister who tabled this bill -- simply happenstance that I had a chance to chat with them on the way over. I can tell you this: they sure noticed -- they had sure heard -- that this bill had been tabled the day previous. It was quite a surprise to them. It was a surprise, because their meeting had been scheduled with the Premier and the hon. minister for some time previous, so obviously this was going to be the subject of the meeting.

That morning, when I arrived in Victoria, I wrote a letter to the Premier. I suggested in a constructive tone.... I tried to be constructive. I didn't release this letter to the media, but I copied the hon. minister on it. I'll tell you what I suggested in the letter. I'd like to read that into the record. It's a brief letter, hon. Speaker.

"Dear Premier:

"Yesterday, your Minister of Labour introduced the above-noted legislation in the House" -- referring to Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act. "I recognize that a great deal of work on the part of the government has gone into this bill, including the study conducted by Prof. Mark Thompson. However, there remains some real concern among the small business community regarding the cost of implementing Prof. Thompson's recommendations."

I said that because I had been told that morning by representatives of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses that that was the case.

I go on in my letter to say:

"I know that you will be meeting this afternoon with representatives of our business community, and I am assured that you will hear this point of view expressed. I would like to suggest that you consider using an innovative parliamentary procedure to help allay these concerns. In other legislatures, including our House of Commons in Ottawa, first reading bills are often referred to all-party standing committees for review and possible amendment before moving to the second reading stage."

It often happens in other houses. Never in our House has a bill been tabled for first reading and then sent to a select standing committee -- an all-party committee -- where it's reviewed and where there can be more consultation. But there's no reason why we can't do it. I said to the Premier in my letter:

"If your government was to use this method for the purposes of addressing the new Employment Standards Act, three important objectives might be met. First, one final and important stage of consultation for the small business sector would be achieved; second, the debate over the implementation of the legislation would be more rational, focused and better informed; and third -- just as important -- a commitment to parliamentary reform would also be demonstrated."

I concluded my letter by saying: "Please accept this suggestion in the constructive spirit in which it is offered."

I haven't received a response to my letter to the Premier yet. I know he's pretty busy. I wonder if he's read it. I don't know if he has, but I think the Minister of Labour probably read it, and I can predict what the Minister of Labour's response probably was on the basis of his comments today in the House. His response was probably: "Forget it. We don't need any more consultation. We've had enough consultation, and we're committed to pushing this bill through." That's the Minister of Labour's response, that's cabinet's response. The minister will have an opportunity to speak to the hoist motion,

[ Page 14723 ]

and I'm sure he can give it to me in his own language with his own spin. But that's the sentiment that I think he'd be likely to express.

That is unfortunate, in my view, because even though I for one don't want to see any further delays, I think we should have an Employment Standards Act providing minimum services of employment standards in any workplace in the province. I think the province of British Columbia deserves a good Employment Standards Act. There are legitimate concerns in the small business community in particular -- the small business community that is creating jobs. It's the only sector in our economy that's creating employment. Large companies, we know, are laying people off.

Large corporations in the province of British Columbia are downsizing. We know that. The only sector of the economy that's producing new employment is the small business community. So why would we not give them at least one more chance to have some input into a law that is going to affect working conditions at each and every place of employment in the province?

This bill does not impact on large unionized employers. I think it's important to remember that. The large unionized employers in British Columbia will not be affected by this legislation whatsoever, because the collective agreements that they have signed with their employees already provide these standards -- in fact, sometimes go well beyond them.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: Minimum standards are there.

The Employment Standards Act is going to have an impact on non-union companies, small companies, emerging companies. We have to wonder about the kind of signal that's giving to the entrepreneurs in British Columbia who want to create new jobs, start new businesses. We want to encourage them, obviously. The Minister of Small Business should get up and speak on this bill, to talk about how it's going to impact on those small businesses, which are really the engine of economic growth in our economy today.

So that's why it puzzles me that the minister would be so intransigent in his view not to allow one final stage of consultation just to hear -- very carefully, one more time, one final time -- the views of those small businesses before bringing the bill forward. It could well be that with a few minor amendments to the bill we might have been able to placate some of the concerns of small business and had a consensus to move forward. I don't think that consensus is quite there today.

We have a hoist motion before us that effectively will kill this bill. It's too bad we didn't have a reasoned amendment that might have allowed for some further consultation, because perhaps that kind of amendment might have had a little bit more support in the House than this hoist motion will likely have. You know, this hoist motion is unlikely to be successful. Let's face it. What it does allow is for more debate, and what it does allow is for the minister to get up and speak to the hoist motion as to why the bill should not be hoisted for six months.

[4:00]

I'm going to take this chance just to mention a couple of points about the bill and why the bill should or should not be hoisted or killed at this point. The Mark Thompson report, upon which this bill is based, in my view doesn't really reflect the reality of working conditions in the province. It's unfortunate that the bill wasn't drafted by someone with much more concrete business experience, someone who perhaps has met a payroll and who understands the dynamics of the business community -- not the large business community, not big business.

I think that's the one underlying concern I have about this legislation: that it takes a corporatist viewpoint of the economy, where we have big business, big labour and big government somehow coming together and deciding that this legislation will be acceptable. But that kind of corporatist viewpoint doesn't really take into account the small businesses, the medium-sized businesses, the non-unionized sector and the service economy, which are really the engine of economic growth and are really creating jobs. And so that corporatist viewpoint that drives this legislation is, I think, its own weakness.

It really deprives the small business sector of having any kind of hand in the kind of employment standards that we all want to see in every place of employment in the province.

We do need more flexible work scheduling; we do need much of what the bill is offering. But the paperwork, the administrative burden that is going to be created, has to be looked at. I think, at the very least, we owe it to the small businesses of this province to have their voices heard on this, to ensure that these employment standards can be implemented with a minimum of administrative burden. You know, most small businesses don't have a human resources department and a full-time administrator to deal with government regulations. Most small businesses can't afford to implement such a position.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

We in British Columbia today should be trying to devise ways to encourage people to go into business, to take the risk -- the big risk that it is -- and to create jobs. But when we look at the array of obstacles for the average business person, at Workers' Compensation Board regulations, at the tax burden of the GST and PST, at the corporation capital tax and now the new employment standards legislation, one has to wonder if anyone in their right mind is going to want to take the risk to go out on their own and create a business that will in turn create new jobs.

Instead of providing disincentives, why not provide incentives to people to go into business? This bill certainly isn't going to provide those kinds of incentives, not if you listen to the small business community. I wonder why the government doesn't want to listen to them. That's one of the problems and the feelings about the bill.

I'd like to refer to just two sections of the bill to give you examples of what I mean. The first

section I'd like to refer to at this point, just to highlight this concern, deals with pregnancy leave. I, for one, am in favour of very generous pregnancy leave. I think every business should offer very generous pregnancy leaves to employees who need to have some time off not only to have a baby but to care for a baby in the first weeks of the child's life. I, for one, believe we should be very, very generous. Any employer is -- I think most employers are, probably.

But if you take a look at

section 50 of the act, for pregnancy leave, you have to wonder about the administrative burden. This is the example I'd like to use, because it says:

[ Page 14724 ]

"A request for leave must (

a) be given in writing to the employer, (

b) if the request is made during the pregnancy, be given to the employer at least 4 weeks before the day the employee proposes to begin leave, and (c)...be accompanied by a medical practitioner's certificate stating the expected or actual birth date...."

And it goes on.

This is the amazing part to me:

section 50 says a request for a shorter period must also be accompanied by paperwork. In other words, if an employee is taking pregnancy leave and she, for instance, might want to take less than the prescribed minimum standard in the Employment Standards Act, she has to go further. She has to give such notice "in writing to the employer at least one week before the date the employee proposes to return to work," and the employer might be in the position to require the accompaniment of "a medical practitioner's certificate stating the employee is able to resume work."

Some might say that is the standard boilerplate agreement that you would find in any collective agreement. But the point is that this isn't applying to unionized employees, who already have similar regulations in the terms of their collective agreement. This is

section

Section 50 of the act is requiring any small business person -- a restaurant owner, for instance, who has a waitress who's taking maternity leave.... The administrative paperwork makes you wonder if we're really contemplating a situation here where the employer and the employee don't have any trust or the mutual ability to negotiate a term of leave or any of the terms of their contract. So that's one of the concerns I'd just like to highlight. We'll go into that in a lot more detail in the committee stage.

Another concern, totally unrelated to this, is in

section 96, the corporate officer's liability for unpaid wages. I don't know that I understand the

section perfectly. I've read it through a few times. When we get to committee stage, I'm going to ask the minister about this.

Here's an example of where a director of a small business is going to be liable for unpaid wages of employees of a company that might go bankrupt -- or for whatever reason, I suppose. Now, I know that people going into small business want to have advisers who will help their business be successful. So if they're forming a board of advisers, they'll want to have experienced business people serve as directors of that company. But I wonder if this kind of amendment in the Employment Standards Act,

section 96, is going to discourage any person from wanting to serve as a director of a British Columbia business, because they will then be personally liable for unpaid wages to employees if a company should get into trouble.

I don't know that I understand this

section perfectly, as I said; I've read it through a few times. But the minister is going to have to explain how this is going to help small businesses -- for those businesses that form boards of directors -- to attract the very best and brightest business minds to serve on their boards, if we're creating an onerous liability that might create consequences that perhaps were unintended by the drafters of this legislation; I don't know.

Those are the kinds of complex issues -- and there are dozens of them in this legislation.... We have to ask whether or not they are obstacles to formation of businesses, obstacles to the creation of jobs and obstacles for small businesses, which are the drivers of the British Columbia economy today, which is increasingly service-oriented. We also have to wonder whether or not the bill is going to drive more of the economy underground.

I don't know if the Minister of Labour has any statistics on this, but there are estimates that 10 to 20 percent of the gross domestic product of British Columbia -- I'm not sure if these statistics are right, but I've seen them cited by respected economists -- is now considered to be part of the so-called underground economy. Are these employment standards regulations in this bill going to drive more economic activity -- more of the building activity, the constructive, economic energy and talents of the economy -- underground because people don't want to deal with the paperwork and the administrative burden?

Those are the reasons....

Hon. D. Miller: Less paperwork.

D. Mitchell: The minister says there's going to be less paperwork. But he's going to have to demonstrate that when we get to the committee stage, because the small businesses that have had a chance to look at the bill don't believe that. Why don't they believe it? Why won't the minister listen to them and allow one final round of consultation?

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: I don't want to list all of my concerns on this bill at this point. I'm speaking to the hoist motion. I think I understand why the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove moved the hoist motion. It's a traditional tactic that's moved by oppositions in legislatures.

Whether the hoist motion achieves the objective or not, it's at the very least going to allow us to hear from the minister one more time. I am hoping he'll get up and speak to the hoist motion and tell us why this bill should not be hoisted and read six months hence, and tell us why the bill should not be killed.

When he's doing so, in allowing this one member to try to decide how to vote on this bill, he could do me a favour and try to explain why he would not allow one final round of consultation with the small business community that is so concerned that this bill is going to reduce employment and reduce incentives for people to create jobs and go into business for themselves in British Columbia today.

With those few words, I look forward to speaking later to the bill in second reading. But those are my comments on the amendment.

J. Pullinger: I rise to speak against the hoist motion. I find fascinating a number of things that we're hearing so early in this debate. Nothing serves to divide that side of the House from this side of the House faster than a debate about how we should treat the working people of this province. It's also very interesting that this hoist motion we are speaking to, which, as the independent member quite correctly points out, has the intention and the effect, were it to be passed -- and I'm sure it won't -- of killing this piece of legislation, is almost unanimously agreed to by the two opposition parties.

The leader of the Reform Party has stood up and said that his hoist motion was virtually identical to the Liberals' hoist motion, and I think that is significant.

I also found it interesting to hear the Liberal member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove calling this rather benign piece of legislation some kind of workers' utopia. Get serious! These are relatively minor changes. Much of it maintains the status

[ Page 14725 ]

quo; much of it clarifies existing legislation. There are some processes that weren't there before and there's some enforcement and some changes, the overwhelming majority of which benefit women. And the Liberals and the Reform Party want to hoist this motion. They want to destroy it and get rid of all those terrible things.

And do you know what else? We listen to them talking about big business and how this is going to damage business and jobs, and if we have a decent minimum wage that you can almost live on -- because you still can't live on it -- that's going to drive jobs out of the province. The only thing wrong with those old, tired arguments is that for three and a half years the evidence shows that precisely the opposite is true -- not only in this province but in Saskatchewan and Ontario. And on the other end of the scale, where they're losing jobs and they've got low job creation and poor economies, that's where the Liberal and Conservative governments are. So let's not forget a couple of things.

We're making it fairer for workers; we're keeping jobs in British Columbia; we're stimulating the economy in B.C. And they're right: the jobs are private sector jobs by and large, and that's good. But British Columbia has created 40 percent of all the jobs in the country; the others are creating about 7 percent. We have created 40 percent of all the jobs in the country.

Let's look a bit at the economy that they're arguing about. By every measure for the last three years, British Columbia has been leading the way. We've got the highest job creation; we've got the lowest per capita debt; we've got the second-lowest overall taxes. Where the North American average hotel occupancy is around 65 percent, we've got 75 to 80 percent in British Columbia. We've got the highest retail sales in British Columbia, bar none. And guess which other provinces have also got the highest retail sales? Saskatchewan and Ontario. And guess where they're at the bottom?

The four Liberal provinces are at the very bottom of retail sales. In fact, some of them have got negative 2 and 3 percent. In British Columbia we also have the lowest bankruptcy rates, and we have had increases in incorporations every year and declines in bankruptcy rates.

Their arguments about decent minimum wages driving jobs...and all these poor young people who are going to be out of work.... If we have a decent minimum wage.... They're crying over there about how sad that is. Again, there is no evidence to show that's true. The most recent studies show that there's minimal, if any, disruption, which quickly picks up again. And also, if you look a little beyond the reports, which are sketchy, unfortunately, you can see very clearly that the provinces with the lower minimum wage -- guess what -- have got higher youth unemployment.

And if you go to the United States, where they have right-to-work legislation -- which the Liberals tried to bring in in a private member's bill, which means no minimum wage in the United States -- they have even higher youth unemployment. So the argument is absolutely bogus; it doesn't hold any water at all. What we're doing is stimulating the economy. We're saying that when our economy picks up, everybody should have a share of it, including our young people. That's what we're doing and it works, and there's lots of evidence to show that.

[4:15]

The other argument -- and I found this in a sad kind of way a little amusing.... But the other thing is that, while we have these terrible arguments from the member who spoke first for the Liberals, saying that the sky is falling, that if we have decent labour standards, decent labour legislation and a decent minimum wage all these terrible things are going to happen, we've seen that it doesn't affect the economy and it doesn't affect jobs.

The reason that these people are on social assistance -- the member says that we've got people going on social assistance -- is because the federal Liberals, who were elected on a jobs, jobs, jobs platform, have done nothing but cut, cut, cut ever since. And at the same time as they're cutting jobs, they're cutting unemployment insurance. And at the same time as they're cutting jobs and unemployment insurance, they're moving to get rid of health care, they're cutting funding for health care -- they're all but eliminating it -- and they're gutting the funding for higher education.

So again, we hear the Liberals arguing: "Gee whiz, all you need is one of these wonderful minimum-wage jobs, and you can go to university." The problem is that Liberal policies are driving the costs out of sight. So there just simply is no basis in logic; there is no evidence to what the Liberals are saying.

Let's just have a little look at what the Liberals are promising, although I notice that they're being very general. They're not telling us how far they will roll back the minimum wage if they're elected -- they're not telling us that. They have told us that we'll go back to Bill 19, the labour legislation the Reform member spoke of, which the Premier of the day drafted with one person and presented to the Legislature; well, that member thought he was undertaking some consultation.

We do have a commitment from both opposition parties to go back to Bill 19, which was condemned -- to our shame -- as unfair and oppressive by the International Labour Organization, which is a body of the United Nations. We have labour legislation now that is a 98-percent consensus between business and labour -- 98 percent -- and they're going to get rid of that and go back to the one that was condemned by the ILO.

They have committed to rolling back wages. He says they'll consult, but legally negotiated contracts.... These people who are complaining about process -- and we've had three years of consultation -- have already decreed that they're going to roll back wages for public sector workers. Isn't that going to be great? They're going to roll back wages of nurses, health workers, teachers, CUPE workers and people who work for government. Isn't that going to be ducky? We're going to have a war in all of those sectors. Of course, they're going to lay a whole lot of them off, which means we won't even have some of those services.

They have also made it very clear that they'll get rid of things like the Island Highway project agreement, which keeps jobs in B.C. and on Vancouver Island. They have said very clearly in this Legislature that they think it's okay for corporations and workers to come in from Alberta and get jobs that are created with our B.C. tax dollars. That's the Liberal vision.

They voted against Forest Renewal B.C., which is keeping people working in the forest industry, cleaning up the mistakes of the past made under the now Reform Party -- which used to be the Social Credit Party. It's keeping people working in communities like mine, cleaning up the mistakes of the past, while we shift from extensive forestry and the liquidation policy of the previous government, who had a specific policy that said we should liquidate all old growth in British

[ Page 14726 ]

Columbia. We're moving from those kinds of antiquated policies that created confrontation in British Columbia, and that kind of extensive forestry, to intensive forestry, where we manage and care for our forests, the people who work in them and the communities that depend on them. The Liberal vision is that they're going to get rid of that instrument of social and environmental policy because they just don't think we should have it.

We see a drive to the bottom being enunciated from both opposition parties. They want to lower wages and get rid of the basic standards for workers, of fair labour policy and of all those rotten, nasty environmental regulations so you can go and do good stuff, like mine and log in the parks. That's the kind of thing we're seeing. We know it doesn't work. The experiment in New Zealand might have been a success for a handful of people, but it was devastating to most of the population.

The Klein administration: a handful of people like that, but we're hearing more and more about the pain it's causing the average person, and their economy isn't doing that well. We've got businesses moving -- guess what! -- from old laissez faire Klein Alberta, which both opposition parties love, to British Columbia, where we're doing some things to manage the economy, stimulate it and make it grow in a way where we share the results of that growth with all the people of British Columbia, not just a handful.

That's the kind of policy we're seeing from both of the opposition parties. They're making it very clear that while we want to engage in the drive to the top, where we have a better educated workforce, high technology, affordable investment and necessary infrastructure for the twenty-first century so we can compete at the top with countries like Japan and Germany, they want to drive to the bottom, so we can compete with the Third World. I reject that notion, and so do all my colleagues. I would offer that the drive to the bottom won't even meet their own goals, and it will hurt a lot of people on the way.

One of the arguments we've heard again and again is that there was no consultation, and that we should hoist this bill, send it to a committee or do something to delay it another six months. Holy smokes! First of all, this is not draconian; this isn't drastic. This is pretty tame stuff. We have had three years of consultation -- three years. We've had 14 public hearings across the province; 400 organizations submitted briefs. Throughout that process, there was an advisory committee made up of two representatives from the Coalition of B.C.

Businesses, two from the Business Council of B.C., two from labour and one representing equity issues. They were there throughout. That group met 30 times to discuss the issues. After Mark Thompson issued his report and its 118 recommendations, we sent it out and asked the public and businesses and workers to react.

Interjection.

J. Pullinger: I'll let my friend have the floor until he's finished, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

J. Pullinger: Are you finished? Okay. Thank you.

After Mark Thompson issued his report with 118 recommendations, after all of the consultation that had already happened -- it had been consulting and continues to consult -- this government asked the public and working people and business to provide us with some responses. Guess what. We had almost 400 responses to that, as well. There have been meetings after meetings after meetings, and they continue. The process of consultation continues while we develop the regulations for this bill. I'm not sure how else they want us to consult. I suppose we could consult forever and never get this bill passed. Obviously that's what they want to have happen.

As I said earlier, this legislation, as does any other legislation that is designed to create minimum standards and improve the environment or improve the way we treat workers, especially vulnerable workers.... This legislation clearly demonstrates the difference between the members opposite in the Reform and Liberal parties, and the people on this side of the House. It demonstrates that it's part of that agenda to drive to the bottom, and we reject that. In saying no to this employment standards legislation, they're saying no to working people; they're saying no to some of the most vulnerable women.

We hear all this bleating and crying from some of the members over there about people who are vulnerable and how we should look after them, and I agree entirely. We in this party have a long history of doing just that. The first leader of the CCF traded his vote in the legislature for the first pension plan in Canada. It was the New Democratic Party that brought health care to this country, etc. We think that that is a good thing to do.

We hear rhetoric from the other side. They say that they're going to slash wages and working conditions and lay people off and gut social services, while at the same time, they're egging the federal government on and saying: "Sure, you've cut health care and education funding, but cut more." That's what we're hearing from them over there.

While they're saying no to this legislation, they're also saying no to women, and they're saying no to domestic workers. Some of the most vulnerable workers will now be entitled to some basic standards of protection, and they're saying no. Similarly, they're saying no to those people who live in homes and look after kids and households: nannies. No protection; now they have some. The Liberals and the Reform Party are saying: "No, they don't deserve that."

They're saying no to women who, for the first time, now have the right to decide when they'll take pregnancy leave -- not their employers. It used to be up to the employer. The boss used to decide that; now the woman can decide that. And they're saying that that's not okay; they object to these changes. They're saying no to five days off of unpaid leave.

We all know that women are entering the workforce in unprecedented numbers, not only because they want to use their talents and abilities, but also because of economic need as a result of the kinds of policies that we saw happen federally -- and provincially until 1991 -- that drove down wages and made it necessary for both partners to work if they wanted to survive.

The biggest single barrier against women getting ahead in the workforce, and one of the reasons that women are still only paid about 60 or 70 cents on the dollar for work of equal value, is that they still carry the burden of child care in this country and in this province. I'm really pleased that we've

[ Page 14727 ]

done a lot about that. There's a lot more child care available than there has been for a long time. All of the initiatives of 1972 to 1975 were immediately unravelled. We've started....

Interjection.

J. Pullinger: There was a wonderful infrastructure beginning for child care back then. It was wonderful stuff, but it was dismantled by the free enterprise coalition, who don't see children as important.

In this legislation, workers.... We all know we're dealing primarily with women, but, happily, more men are taking responsibility and getting involved with their kids as well. Five days' unpaid leave a year is not excessive. And that's to deal with illness or to deal with family bereavement. That's a necessary right, if you're going to be able to function. When the Liberals and Reformers are saying no to this bill, they're saying no to those women primarily, but also to those workers who need and want to be at home with their kids when there's illness or a crisis in the family.

We have two opposition parties that are arguing the same line, opposing this piece of very moderate legislation and saying no to women and workers, and those workers are among the most vulnerable workers to date in the workforce. Until this legislation is passed they don't have any protection, and the members opposite are rejecting that. But they are saying no to a whole lot of other stuff, too. They're saying no to an effective and timely appeals mechanism. There wasn't one before, and now there is one.

They're saying no to putting some teeth into the labour standards legislation so that when employers ignore those basic standards we can call them to account as a society and say: "That's not the kind of society we want to be. We want to have some basic standards. We want to have the kind of society where we treat our workers with dignity, especially our young people, who are frequently among the most abused by those few owners or managers who are inclined to do so."

There's an effective appeals mechanism in this legislation, just as there are educational programs to make sure that the majority of business owners and managers who want to go by the law, who want to treat their workers fairly, who want to do the right thing and go by these minimum standards, won't get tripped up unintentionally. That's in this legislation, and that's good stuff.

We hear all sorts of noise from the opposition benches -- the Liberals and Reformers -- saying: "Oh, my God, this is going to create all this bureaucracy because a woman who is pregnant has to send a letter in saying when she wants to leave and give her employer four days' notice." The independent member gave that example. We haven't had anything specific from the two opposition parties, but they're crying and bleeding that this is going to create such terrible bureaucracy. But they haven't read the legislation, because there is a reduction -- it reduces the paperwork.

[4:30]

For instance, wage statements can now be made electronically. Businesses can now adopt the flexible work

schedule without applying to the ministry; a whole lot of paperwork is gone. Business can establish a time bank without prior application to the ministry, as is now the case; a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork is gone. They can substitute another day for a statutory holiday without prior application to the ministry, which is the case now. It's no longer compulsory to have a medical certificate for pregnancy and parental leave, so a lot more paperwork is gone. They can set common anniversary dates for vacation pay without prior application to the ministry; more paperwork gone.

No administrative fee is to be paid to the ministry prior to an appeal; more paperwork gone. And the appeals go to a tribunal and not t