2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 18, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Private Members' Statements

Privacy and modern technology

M. Karagianis

I. Black

B.C. exports

R. Lee

B. Ralston

Poverty

J. Brar

D. Hayer

Protecting our communities

R. Hawes

N. Simons

Motions on Notice

Employment standards for farmworkers

(Motion 47)

R. Chouhan

V. Roddick

R. Hawes

H. Bains

J. Rustad

B. Lekstrom

C. Wyse

D. MacKay

C. Puchmayr

[ Page 6979 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

PRIVACY AND MODERN TECHNOLOGY

M. Karagianis: Imagine you are buying razors, and the smart

shelf that they're displayed on reports that you have picked it up and purchased

it. Or you're buying a new lipstick, and unbeknownst to you, your photograph has

been transmitted to the cosmetics company 750 miles away. Both activities are

part of RFID, radio frequency identity, and a pilot project where data is being

collected about you without your knowledge and without your consent.

Your cell phone company offers a new service called tracking

alert. The service is an RFID application that permits parents, schools and

hospitals to monitor children, the elderly or patients. The cell phone sends an

e-mail alert when the trackee travels beyond a predetermined boundary.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

How about if you take a vacation at a beach club in Spain? A tiny

chip can be embedded under your skin to access all the club's amenities. The

chip is embedded with an RFID tag and is encoded with your credit card numbers

for quick and easy payment. After all, you're in your bathing suit, and what

would be easier than to simply be scanned through to pay for your club

amenities? Or you leave a shop with a new TV without having to stand in line at

the till because it will be billed to you via this radio frequency ID tag,

through a reader at the door as you leave.

Sound futuristic? Not at all. Many of these events are occurring

right now. In Japan today young people are purchasing every one of their

consumables by simply scanning them with their cell phones. Recently an

article

ran in the Vancouver Sun that touted the benefits of radio frequency ID

tags.

Now imagine that the tiny radio-emitting tags are in every product

and

article that you consume — from your jeans to your sweaters, from your

groceries to your toiletries, the tires on your car, your pets, your livestock,

even embedded in money.

[1005]

Unique tags that are able to communicate with scanning readers

herald the prospect of information being compiled about individuals on an

unprecedented level. A small computer chip, perhaps as small as a grain of

pepper, contains specific information which can be read by the remote reader or

scanner via radio waves. When the chip comes into the vicinity of a reader, they

talk to one another. That information can be read through solid objects from a

distance, including through your purse, your pockets and the body of your car.

The technology is not new. It's been around for about 50 years.

But the application is new. Unlike bar codes — which have been used to date to

identify all cans of Coca-Cola, say, as Coca-Cola — the radio frequency ID can

identify each and every can as specific, unique and separate from the others.

And they can identify the consumer who buys that can of Coke. That's you and me.

They can identify everything you purchase — from your credit card

information, through your cell phone, banking information and, ultimately, all

of your personal information. In an age of ever-growing concern about privacy

protection, this new technology is potentially quite insidious.

Certainly, there are huge benefits to the technology. In the U.K.

and France radio frequency ID is used in public transit for pass cards; for

library books; to track pallets in shipping; for building access control; and

for airline baggage, apparel and pharmaceutical tracking. The tags are read

remotely as vehicles pass through tollbooths to debit your account. This is

happening right now in northern Ontario on Highway 407.

Inmates in correctional facilities in the U.S. are wearing

wristbands with RFID tags to help track where they are. RFID tags are used to

link cattle to their original corrals. Anyone in the agricultural industry will

know how to track their animals from corral to corral. It's a terrific thing

when you consider BSE and having to trace potential contaminants in our food.

A number of countries have begun to embed RFID devices in new

biometric passports to facilitate efficient machine reading of personal data.

We've seen the beginning of that here in Canada.

In October 2004 the FDA in the U.S. approved the country's first

RFID chips to be implanted into human beings for personal medical information.

As of January 2006, 68 U.S. hospitals have the technology to scan these

implants. The idea of having your medical information readily available, even if

you are unable to speak for yourself in the case of an accident, does seem to

have some appeal, but let's talk about the flip side.

This information could be read by anyone with an RFID scanner.

Without your knowledge, without your consent, a prospective employer or an

insurance company could access your health information and deny you worker

benefits based on your medical information. The technology allows a complete

invasion of privacy to an unprecedented level, without you ever knowing — from

your shopping habits to where you live, to where you dine out, to every detail

of your financial and personal profile.

Why is this really important? Well, like any new technology, the

law, legislation, has not advanced at the same level to judge the risks that

follow on abuse and misuse of this kind of technology. Governments, in the case

of RFID passporting, could in fact be significant proponents of the new

technology.

[ Page 6980 ]

Individuals are giving up their personal data, willingly or

unwillingly, as purchasers, subscribers, registrants, members, cardholders,

donors, contest winners, survey respondents and even mere inquirers. The

increasing accumulation of personal data and consolidation of data leaves

individuals vulnerable to abuses by those who would access that data.

In Canada the Personal Information Protection and Electronic

Documents Act governs the way in which information is obtained, used and

disclosed for the federal public, federally regulated businesses and all

commercial transactions. However, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario

are right now relying only on their private information and protection

legislation. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is currently

studying radio frequency ID, and they will be issuing guidelines.

[1010]

N. Simons: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: Today in the House we're joined by Norm and

Julie Gleadow, residents of the Sunshine Coast. I would ask that the House do

its best to welcome them in an enthusiastic, Monday morning way.

Debate Continued

I. Black: I was hoping for a moment that the other member

was going to be responding to this, and I was curious as to how he was going to

do so. I think this is….

N. Simons: Don't get me started.

I. Black: Well, I'm not. I will not provoke my friend from

across the proverbial aisle.

This is a fascinating technology that the member has brought up.

Last night, as many of us do in this job, I spent about half an hour going

through the week's mail that I didn't get to because I was in Victoria. And of

course, I get the credit card preapproved applications, which promptly went to

my shredder for reasons of privacy protection, due to identity theft and all

those other kinds of fears that we've now developed in our society.

This is a very, very important topic that's been brought up, and

I'm able to approach it and make a few comments from a little bit of a different

perspective, because my career prior to coming to this House, as some of the

members know, was in the technology business. Through the years that I spent

there — closing in on 20 — I had the opportunity to see the evolution of the

Internet come about.

I saw the opportunity of wireless technology come about and become

very, very mainstream. I saw the opportunity of something called distributed

computing come about, which basically involves data and applications not having

to be in the same physical location. This opened up all kinds of risks and

opportunities and benefits for those involved. I also saw something show up

called open systems, which allowed computers to be compatible and — I'll throw

some terminology out there — interoperatable and portable in the data and the

applications that ran on them.

There are many benefits in that technology, and there are many

benefits in the RFID technology, as pointed out by the member opposite. A couple

of comments that I'd make go as far as this. We have to be very careful, as

we're looking at technology and looking at the legislation around technology and

what it means to us as a society, that we remember that no matter what laws we

create, no matter what policies we put in place, ultimately, human behaviour,

whether it's dishonest or intrusive or inappropriate, cannot be legislated.

In many ways, many of the same risks that we're facing with RFID —

and I certainly haven't heard an outright objection to that from the member

opposite — exist with debit cards today. We could have decided as a society that

every time we swipe a debit card, what we bought, how we bought it, where we

bought it, what size in which we bought it, could be tracked by the retailer,

forwarded back to the manufacturer, the distributor and have that information

used in some fashion.

We don't allow that to happen, and the reason we don't allow that

to happen is for many of the same reasons why I've got faith that many of the

concerns identified by the member will ultimately be handled appropriately as

well, and that is that we as a society said no. Consumers said no. Governments

have said no across the land and in most western countries that have such

legislation in place.

I think the other element that's at play here — and it boils down

to a bit of a faith in the free enterprise system as well — is that there's an

element of keeping companies and organizations honest, which applies in the area

of RFID and which has indeed applied in the area of debit card transactions.

That is that there's a check and balance that's in place. On the one hand, it is

legislation, to be sure, but it's also the check and balance associated with

profit.

Organizations cannot enter into contractual relationships knowing

that they may indeed end up breaking them. And they wouldn't invest their own

money in delivering many of the types of contracts and services, either directly

to consumers or through government or on behalf of governments, if they knew

that being in violation would cause the immediate threat of termination

associated with them.

Nevertheless, the points that are being brought up about RFID are

very important, because this does take us on yet another very, very large step

in the area of information technology. And I think we as legislators should be

mindful that there will be implications that we will have to tackle.

[ Page 6981 ]

We continually update our Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act. We've done many amendments to that since 2002. Many more were

introduced last week and received the approval — or encouragement, if you will —

of our Privacy Commissioner. I think that this area will be no exception to

that.

Let me close with just a couple of observations. I think that what

is very clear from most governments in Canada — certainly at the federal level,

and I can certainly say at the provincial level here in B.C. — is that we will

never compromise in the privacy of our citizens.

[1015]

I think it's incumbent upon us — and to this extent, I think I

agree with the member opposite — as legislators to, as we can, stay current with

these technologies, understand how they may intrude in our worlds and find that

wonderful balance between leveraging the benefits that they bring to our society

and the people that elected us in this House, while also being mindful that the

inappropriate use of them would indeed harm some of our citizens.

We have that responsibility to stay vigilant, and to that extent,

I believe we certainly will. We would welcome, as always, encouragement as to

how we might do so from the technology community and, dare I say it, from

members opposite as well.

M. Karagianis: Unlike debit cards, though, RFID tracking is

not always voluntary. I think that's where we begin to draw the line. My

discussion this morning is really about drawing some awareness to this, both for

ourselves in this House and for the public at large.

Personal information defines you. It's not just your name,

address, phone number and e-mail address. In fact, it goes much deeper than that

— a declaration of your ethnicity, your religion, your sexual orientation, your

political affiliation, your personal associations and preferences. It's

biometrics, like your photograph, fingerprints, palm prints, facial and iris

scans and your DNA.

Individuals need to protect their personal information and need to

know why they should before they give it away for the sake of convenience and

security. When we give up our personal information, we become vulnerable to

advancing technologies and those who know how to misuse them. The member that

spoke previously may talk about checks and balances in the system, but in fact,

we know that is not true. That is why we are here as legislators — to build

those protections.

When we give up our personal information, we give up our right to

privacy. Here in Canada we hold our right to privacy very, very seriously — in

fact, as one of the top issues. The right to control what others know about us

is a social value that is shared by the rest of the community. Ann Cavoukian,

the Ontario Privacy Commissioner, said that the overriding concern shared by

many opponents of RFID technology is the impact on individual's informational

privacy.

Privacy is something that we do not think about until we do not

have it. Once we don't have it, we can never get it back.

The Ontario Privacy Commissioner has been looking at guidelines

for the use of RFID. These are guidelines, though. This is not legislation.

There is no provision for enforcement. There are currently no acts of

legislation anywhere in Canada specific to radio frequency ID tagging. I say

that as legislators, it is our duty to ensure that our laws are relevant and

that we lead the way in protecting the citizens of our communities.

I think it is important that we are aware of this new technology,

that we begin to think about how we will put together enforcement beyond what

currently is available. Our Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

does not in fact protect us from this. I think we're going to have to look at

new technologies of the future and the ways that we can actually protect our

citizens from abuse and misuse.

B.C. EXPORTS

R. Lee: Today I rise to speak about an important and

growing part of our economy, and that is B.C. exports and trade with our

Asia-Pacific partners.

British Columbia is a trading province. First, let's look at our

export numbers. Our total international exports, valued at $25.7 billion in

1996, increased to $31.7 billion in 2001 and $33.3 billion in 2006, according to

B.C. Stats.

Our largest export market is still the United States. However,

exports to the U.S. remain flat at $22.1 billion in 2001 and $20.4 billion in

2006. Our second-largest export market is Japan. However, exports to Japan have

declined substantially, from $6.4 billion in 1996 to $4.1 billion in 2001, and

only recovered to $4.7 billion in 2006.

Our third export market is China now. Exports to China increased

slightly from $508 million in 1996 to $727 million in 2001 and jumped to $1.5

billion in 2006. Our other important markets are South Korea, Taiwan, Germany,

the United Kingdom, India, Hong Kong, Mexico and Australia.

[1020]

Overall, B.C. exports to the Pacific Rim, including Japan, have

steadily increased from $6.6 billion in 2001 to $9 billion in 2006, which

represents an increased market share from 20.8 percent to 27.1 percent of our

exports. Last year the top exports from B.C. to these regions were coal, copper

ores and concentrates, lumber and pulp — mostly from the natural resource

sector.

British Columbia has an unprecedented opportunity to reap enormous

benefits from Asia's current economic transformation. The Asia-Pacific

Initiative is the province's long-term strategy to diversify B.C.'s economic

ties with the Asia-Pacific. B.C. is uniquely positioned to be Canada's Pacific

gateway because of geography. Our major airports are closer to Asia than

airports in the United States.

The Asia-Pacific Initiative identifies five priority areas that

must be aggressively pursued in Asia. First,

[ Page 6982 ]

B.C.'s Asia-Pacific identity. Second, world-class transportation and

infrastructure gateway. Third, trade and investment relationships. Fourth,

Asia-Pacific destination for our industry — for example, tourism, cultural

exchange, and demand for business and financial services. Fifth, Pacific century

skills: develop and attract a labour force that has Pacific century skills for

B.C. Those are our five priority areas.

Underpinning our initiative is the ability to attract the

expanding volume of trade with the Asia-Pacific. British Columbia's Pacific

gateway is a national strategic asset that, properly utilized, will ensure

national economic prosperity for decades. We cannot overestimate the strategic

importance of our transportation assets in western Canada. Revitalizing the

infrastructure of our transportation gateway is important not only to B.C.'s

economy but to all of Canada.

The ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert are also closer to Asia

than anywhere on the west coast of North America. Increased trade with Asia has

spurred port expansion in both Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Without a

world-class port, airport, road and rail network, B.C. cannot promote itself as

a Pacific gateway. B.C. and the private sector understand that in order to

compete successfully on the world stage as an international gateway, B.C.

requires a reliable cost-competitive supply chain.

Our initiative also stresses the need to leverage our major

strength: our people and our gateway. The gateway is more than just

transportation infrastructure. It's about communications, financial services,

education, cultural exchanges, training projects and so much more.

The Asia-Pacific Initiative reflects a more coordinated approach

to facilitating trade and investment. It demonstrates how we intend to realign

our priorities and prepare British Columbia's economy for the unprecedented

opportunities in Asia. Asian container trade to North America is expected to

increase 300 percent over the next 15 years. Our strategic gateway location and

transportation infrastructure provide a competitive edge in capturing a share.

Asia's need for abundant, reliable energy and natural resources

presents expanding export opportunities for British Columbia's traditional

resource industry. The urbanization in Asia is creating the demand for new

infrastructure — the equivalent of building a city the size of Victoria every

day for the next 20 years. This presents a tremendous opportunity for pine

beetle–impacted communities and provides an alternative market for B.C.'s wood

products.

[1025]

Asia-Pacific is expected to remain the fastest-growing economy

from 2006 to 2020. The average growth rate of Asia is projected to be 4.9

percent, compared to 2.9 percent for the U.S. and 3.5 percent for the world. In

2006 the U.S. had 61 percent of B.C.'s export market share….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Ralston: The challenges of British Columbia in the world

economy as a relatively small subnational economy on the Pacific located in

Canada — from the perspective of eastern Canada, at least, described by one

British Columbia historian as the west beyond the west — are immense.

Traditionally, British Columbia has exported natural resources to

the Pacific Rim and to the Asia-Pacific. It has only become clear with the rise

of, particularly, the Chinese economy but also the emerging Indian economy that

the potential for growth is huge in the Pacific and Asia-Pacific region. The

challenge for British Columbia is how to capture that in a way that is

beneficial not only for some parts of the economy but for all the people of

British Columbia and of Canada.

The example of Japan, which has historically been one of British

Columbia's largest trading partners, is instructive. In the early 1990s, 25

percent of British Columbia's exports went to Japan. With the decline in the

1990s of the Japanese economy and particularly after the collapse of the Thai

currency in 1998, we saw a 24.4-percent plunge in Japanese exports from British

Columbia. By 2005 Japan formed only 12.2 percent of the destination of British

Columbia exports. It increased in 2006 to 14.1 percent.

The composition of our exports to Japan is again instructive —

wood products, 27 percent; metallic ores and concentrates, 24 percent; coal, 18

percent; aluminum and aluminum products, 10 percent. So it's one of our

strongest trading partners historically, but with the decline in the 1990s the

world economy, particularly in the Asia-Pacific — and in Japan, where they

endured a prolonged recession — our dependence to some degree on Japanese trade

was a problem which has only become remedied lately.

The bilateral trade, particularly the volume of tourists to

British Columbia, has declined over the last decade as well. So one would look

to strategies in economic development that would see the increase in trade and

export of services such as engineering services, financial services, education,

health care and health care professionals who are adept at public health in

particular. Those opportunities exist in the Asia-Pacific in a way they haven't

existed in the past as the economies of the Asia-Pacific expand and diversify.

Other countries in the Asia-Pacific that have gone relatively

unnoticed by British Columbia, although there are strong bilateral ties, have a

great deal of potential. Particularly, South Korea, which similarly restructured

with the difficulties in the 1990s globally, is a very vibrant economy,

represented in Vancouver by a consul general and a trade office. Those

opportunities have been relatively unexplored by the British Columbia

government.

In addition, much of the discussion of Asia-Pacific trade is

understandably captured by people's fascination with China. Given its population

and the over 10-percent annual growth of its economy over the last few years,

it's an understandable focus.

[ Page 6983 ]

There are other opportunities which British Columbia may be

uniquely fitted to serve, and with huge potential. In particular, I'm speaking

of the potential of the Indian economy. The Indian economy is projected by the

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian federal

ministry, at an annual growth that is forecasted at 8.2 percent over the next 20

years and will make India into one of the most powerful economies in the world.

Uniquely, British Columbia is represented….

[1030]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Lee: I would like to thank the member for Surrey-Whalley

for his comments. Not only China and India but also South Korea and Japan are

important partners.

I would also like to mention that it's not only for hardware or

port exports; it's also important to develop our human resource as well. The

human dimensions with our Asia-Pacific partners can lead to more trade

relationships.

The conference in Ontario addressed the human dimensions of

gateway — education, tourism, arts and culture. We know that the Royal

Conservatory of Music has developed a China strategy and is engaging in cultural

diplomacy efforts through the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office and the Hong

Kong Trade Development Council.

opportunity for foreign firms that can develop good contents for the Asian

market. From the tourism point of view, Asian tourists are among the highest

spenders in the world. Art also builds human relationships. The challenge is

finding ways to integrate art, science, engineering and now our natural

resources.

Ethnic diversity, awareness and tolerance give Canada a special

attraction to many Asians. Surveys show that Canada's lifestyle and openness are

the greatest attributes of this country in the eyes of many Asians. There is a

solid foundation on which to strengthen transpacific cultural exchanges. B.C.

has already recognized culture as one of the components of its ambitious

Asia-Pacific initiatives. Cross-cultural learning and exchanges are vital to the

development of the people-to-people contacts that underpin the Asia-Pacific

gateway.

Sister cities or sister province relationships are also valuable

if the ties are maintained on an ongoing basis. British Columbia has the

privilege of having many ties to cities in China and Japan. Vancouver, Burnaby,

Richmond, Victoria, North Vancouver, Kelowna and Campbell River all have sister

cities in Japan or China.

Many of our advanced education institutes already have a strong

presence in the Asia-Pacific region. B.C. also has the largest

organizations operating in Vancouver.

POVERTY

J. Brar: I rise to make a statement with regard to a very

important public policy area, the issue of growing poverty. Poverty is growing

in every community in British Columbia since the Liberal government took over in

2001. The Liberal government has attacked the social safety net in British

Columbia by making public policy changes to attack the most vulnerable people in

the province and by not having the vision and political will to address the

issue of growing poverty. The growing poverty in B.C. is a direct result of

one-sided policies and a mean-spirited approach of this government.

[1035]

To begin with, let me provide some facts from the various reports

which have been produced by many independent agencies in the province of British

Columbia as well as in the country of Canada.

First, British Columbia had the worst income gap between rich and

poor among all the provinces of the country. In 2004 the average market income

of poor families in B.C. was just $8,800, compared to the average income of

$148,000 for rich families. In other words, the poor earned only 6 percent of

what the rich people earned in the province.

Second, B.C. had the highest child poverty rate in the country as

compared to other provinces. We have the highest child poverty in this province

as well. We are a rich province in the country, but one where the most

vulnerable people — 24 percent of our kids — have been left out by this

government. In other words, nearly one of every four children lives under

poverty in British Columbia.

Third, every month over 24,000 children in B.C. use the food bank,

as per the HungerCount of last year.

Fourth, the GVRD homeless count indicates that the number of

homeless people has doubled since the government took over — up to 2,174 from

1,121. This count includes 40 families with children.

Fifth, the number of homeless people in Surrey has increased by

140 percent during the last five years. The situation is even worse when we talk

about the Vancouver downtown area.

It is not limited to the Vancouver downtown area when we talk

about homelessness, which used to be the case if you go back some years. But now

homelessness has become a provincewide problem. Other communities, such as

Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George, Victoria and Nanaimo, are also faced with

growing homelessness in their communities.

Seventh, a third of B.C.'s food bank clients are children, and

over 50 percent of food bank users are families on income assistance.

Today we are going to hear from the farmworkers. This is a group

of people who have been excluded from the Employment Standards Act, which is

applied to all other working people in the province.

The list goes on. This government has millions of dollars to spend

on advertisements every year. The government has millions of dollars for hefty

pay increases for the political appointees of this government. The

[ Page 6984 ]

government is not concerned at all when it comes to the cost overruns in many

projects across the province — $400 million cost overruns for one project only,

known as the convention centre. When we ask the minister, the minister is not

concerned about the $400 million in taxpayer dollars for the cost overruns.

When it comes to the average working family and the most

vulnerable people in the province, this government's approach for the last five

years has been one-sided and very mean-spirited. The question we need to ask is:

why, at a time when B.C. has the biggest surplus, is the number of people living

under poverty growing? Why, at a time when B.C. has the biggest surplus, is the

number of homeless people growing in the province?

Those are very fundamental questions we need to ask, which this

government should have asked themselves during the last five years. There must

be a cause, and you know what the cause is? The cause is this government — the

members sitting on that side. That is the cause of what we see in the province.

They have created a new class of working poor by introducing the

$6-an-hour training wage. That was a mistake at that time. That is a mistake

today. That will be a mistake in the future. We have called upon the government

to raise the minimum wage to $10. If Ontario can do it, B.C. must do it.

[1040]

B.C. Liberals are the only government in the country which has

taken away the earning exemption from the people on income assistance — the only

province in the country — which, in the opinion of many professional people, the

experts, is a very important incentive for people to move on from welfare to

work. Even the Fraser Institute has indicated very clearly that that's a

mistake.

In 2002 the B.C. Liberal government brought in the Employment and

Assistance Act, which introduced several barriers for people accessing income

assistance. The first was the three-week work search. The government now makes

all applicants search for work for three weeks before they can even access

income assistance.

Second, the two-year independence test. People have to clearly

demonstrate before they can access income assistance that they have been

independent for two years. The end result of that is more homeless.

D. Hayer: In response to the member, I think everyone

agrees that poverty is a sad thing. But let me be clear. This government did not

invent or create poverty. Let us be clear that in the 1990s when the NDP was in

government, thousands were cut off of income assistance as the NDP slashed the

welfare rolls, trying to get a handle on the runaway cost and fiscal

mismanagement.

Let me also be clear that under the NDP, almost 10 percent of the

people in British Columbia were on welfare. There were more than 131,000

children — one out of seven — in poverty. Now we have one in 30 compared to one

in seven under the NDP.

The data from the….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat for a moment.

Can I remind all members to show respect and to keep decorum in

the House and allow the member that has the floor to speak so we can all hear

him.

Continue, Member.

D. Hayer: The research that the member opposite uses,

including the one he's talking about today, is a snapshot in time. It lags two

to three years behind the current statistics. People in poverty and people on

welfare are continuously going down. We have less poverty now than what we had

under the NDP.

Our government, on the other hand, compared to the NDP, is doing

much to help people climb out of the shadow of poverty. In fact, just a few

weeks ago our government, at the urging of our Premier, purchased 11 hotels,

creating homes for hundreds of people who are the poorest in the country. These

11 hotels will provide single-occupancy rooms for the homeless and give shelter,

warmth and comfort in a place people can call their own place.

In Budget 2007, just two months ago, our government wanted to make

sure that those that needed help are helped by increasing the rental subsidy

program. Those on low incomes who already have homes can spend a little more

time on necessities because of the new rental subsidy program. In the same

budget we also increased the income assistance program by $50 per month.

We have also given the largest increase to people with

disabilities that this province has ever seen at one time. We also have the

highest minimum wage rate in the country. On average, youth earn about $12.31

per hour compared to what the member opposite is talking about.

The biggest thing that our government has done to combat poverty

is to make life easier for people by creating the most powerful economy in the

country. Today, instead of the for-sale signs and going-out-of-business signs in

the stores and business windows that were the norm in the 1990s when the NDP was

in government, we have help-wanted signs everywhere.

In the 1990s people could not find jobs here. They had to move to

Alberta, Ontario, the United States and other provinces to find jobs. Nowadays

businesses are asking: "Please bring all your friends and relatives who need a

job, because we have more jobs than workers."

[1045]

The unemployment rate is the lowest in B.C.'s history — less than

3.9 percent. Statistics have proven that any unemployment rate below 4 percent

means that everyone who wants to work has a job. Because of so much competition

for jobs, people are earning good wages out there, and that is the best way to

end poverty — by creating an economic climate that allows everyone who wants to

climb out of poverty to create a lifestyle and generate hope for the future.

[ Page 6985 ]

Despite what the opposition said, cutting taxes…. Those earning

less than $16,000 a year pay no provincial income tax at all. That really works.

Cutting taxes for those on the bottom low-tax brackets also works. Creating a

business climate that generates jobs, income taxes and incomes for the people

and for business also works, because it helps government to help those on the

poverty line — those who are poorer.

This government has been doing that by making sure it has created

a climate that creates more jobs, more success for business, and so more revenue

is available for the government to help the people with low income.

If we had not begun the cycle of prosperity as soon as we took

office in 2001, if we had not allowed the incredible….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Brar: Thanks to the member for Surrey-Tynehead. I wish

the member could have said that we do have a serious challenge when we talk

about poverty, but that's not the case.

The only thing that we hear from these members is about 1990. The

memory chip on the other side — what we see — does not include the last five

years of this government whenever we see any response from these members.

Let me tell you that in Manitoba, we have an NDP government. In

the last two terms their unemployment rate has been lower than this

government's. Their small business tax is lower than this government's. We all

know that the economies of this province and all of the provinces are doing well

because of international factors, not because of the policies of this

government. However, the poverty in this province is a direct result of the

policies of this government. I wish the member could have recognized those

things, but the member failed to recognize those things when he had the chance.

I'm also surprised to see that this member has the courage to

stand up and say that we have the highest minimum wage in the country. That is

not true. I challenge that. Ontario has done $10.50. They are going to do that.

That is wrong.

Also, I hear that the average youth makes $12. I would like to

know the address of that place and send 20 youth to that place tomorrow. I need

to know that.

What I want to repeat is that this government does not have any

plan, any policy to reduce poverty. If this government has, I would like to know

on what page that policy is. The only department that I can understand would be

responsible for this is the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, and

not even a single page of the service plan of that ministry talks about the

reduction in poverty. No other service plan of any other ministry talks about

the reduction in poverty that is absent from the vision of this government —

absolutely.

In other words, this government does not have any vision, any

plan, any strategy when we talk about the reduction of poverty. Let me tell

these members on the other side that a successful economy is one which is

successful at reducing the welfare caseloads and creating the employment and

earnings of poor families and reducing poverty rates. That has not happened in

the province of British Columbia. Only one group of people who have benefited

from the….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES

R. Hawes: Today I want to talk about an issue of impending

critical importance to my community, other communities in the Fraser Valley and

indeed in other parts of British Columbia. That is the imminent risk of flooding

in the Fraser Valley as the snowpack melts this year.

[1050]

This year we have experienced the fifth-highest snowpack in 50

years. In 1999 the snowpack was slightly higher than this year but was more

localized. This year the snowpack is much higher, and it is throughout the

entire watershed for the Fraser Valley. That creates a risk that is, I think,

far more pronounced than what we faced in 1999.

I'd like to give a very brief history of what was happening,

certainly within the Fraser Valley, along the Fraser River and with the diking

system from the mid-1990s. In the mid-1990s — prior to then — there was a

program run, as a partnership between the federal government and the provincial

government, for Fraser dike maintenance.

There was approximately $10 million…. Some years it was a little

more. Between $10 million and $15 million was being paid into this program by

the federal government until the mid-1990s.

At that time the federal government abandoned the plan. As a

resident of the Fraser Valley, frankly — at that time I sat on the regional

government — I believed that in fact the federal government was abandoning the

people of the Fraser Valley, because by abandoning that program, they were

increasing the risk for all of us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

At about the same time, the mid-1990s, a program of not removing

gravel, or stopping the removal of gravel and siltation in the river, commenced.

It was an informal moratorium. There was never anything in writing, but the

federal government, the DFO, guided by an employee of the provincial government,

actually — Dr. Marvin Rosenau, who was the architect of the plan — said that no

gravel should be removed from the upper reaches of the Fraser Valley between

Hope and the Mission area.

Previous to then, there had been regular scouring of the river.

There had been regular gravel removal. That was stopped, and the much heavier

siltation of the river commenced. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to

understand that when you have dikes — and we've had dikes along the river for

many, many decades —

[ Page 6986 ]

and if the river begins to infill, the dike level will become too low if the

bottom of the river is coming up with siltation. That's what's been happening

for over ten years.

In fact, in the Chilliwack area there are some areas that have

been measured as having the bottom come up by as much as a metre and a half,

which is an incredible infill. There have been millions of metres of gravel

infill into the river in the last decade and very, very little removed.

As a provincial government, we've worked hard to try to return to

the program of gravel removal. We've made an agreement with the federal

government, but the DFO bureaucrats at the lowest levels have thwarted gravel

removal to the point, frankly, that it has not been coming out at all.

A few weeks ago I flew up the river with Stockwell Day from the

federal government. We wanted him to have a look at what was going on in the

river. We went to Chilliwack and stood on the riverbank near Island 22 in the

Chilliwack area. Island 22 is an area where the river has been depositing gravel

over the last few years. There are some aerial photographs that Chilliwack has,

which were shown to Minister Day, that clearly show what was happening between

1990 and today at Island 22.

At Island 22 a bar began to reach out into the river's current. It

started to plug the channel, and it actually moved the current of the river over

towards the dike system in Chilliwack. As we stood on the side of the river

looking at what used to be a campground, which is no longer there — it

completely eroded away — we could see how bad the erosion problem is and how the

current, as it's now moving with the siltation, is causing the dikes to be under

a great deal of pressure.

[1055]

We as a government have come up with a short-term solution. We've

been asking the federal government to participate. If there is a flood, the

federal government — through the emergency preparedness program and disaster

financial assistance — will pay 90 percent of the cost of the damage, which has

been estimated, if a major disaster happens, to be as high as $6 billion. We've

asked them to participate now in advance of the flood to raise the level of the

dikes.

The Fraser Basin Council has done a study and calculated that in

many areas along the Fraser, the dikes are now as much as a metre too low. The

federal government has yet to come to the party and put in five cents towards

this program. They have abandoned us. So we as a provincial government have put

$33 million into increasing the dikes in various communities along the Fraser as

a short-term interim solution to, hopefully, mitigate a flood this year.

If we have the wrong combination of weather and rain this year, it

doesn't matter what we've done. It's going to be too late, and we are going to

face the major catastrophe — major flooding along the river. There's a huge

amount of infrastructure at stake. There are a large number of families who live

along the river, whose lives are going to be completely disrupted. The

businesses that are going to be disrupted, if there's a flood, may take a

considerable time to reopen, which is going to put a lot of people out of work.

This is a really, really serious situation, and the folks who live

along the Fraser River — many of them I represent — are sitting on the edge of

their seats. This happens every time there's a high snowpack, and it's just not

right.

N. Simons: I'd like to thank my friend the member for Maple

Ridge–Mission. I knew that, and I didn't have to look at my notes. It's nice to

see the hon. members opposite as well.

I'm pleased to respond to the member's statement. I believe he's

touched on some very important issues that we need to take into consideration

and that we need to put closer to the top of our list of priorities. I agree.

I would like to ask the member if he had any comment about his

discussion with the minister from the federal government and whether his

response, perhaps, to his statement that the federal government has abandoned us

met with any appropriate response.

I would expect that that would be something that he, as a

representative of a constituency here in British Columbia, would make a strong

case for in the presence of a minister of the cabinet in Ottawa here visiting. I

hope he took the opportunity to insist that closer attention be paid to issues

facing British Columbia in the face of global climate change.

One of the factors that municipalities and regional districts

across this province would probably like to see addressed by this government is

the fact that much of the cost to address some of the issues, which are caused

by climate change and other policies and natural events, need to be…. The

municipalities and the regional governments need to have adequate resources,

both in terms of personnel as well as financial resources, available to deal

with the challenges that flooding and the large snowpack cause.

I think something that clearly needs to be part of the provincial

government's strategy is to assist the communities that are likely to be subject

to some of these climactic events, and to be prepared to address these at a

community level, without having to charge small communities the unaffordable

costs of protecting them against…. Well, whether it's floods, fires, windstorms

or utility systems breakdowns, it is the responsibility of the provincial

government to ensure that municipalities have the resources at their disposal

for those types of eventualities.

Part of the issue is that in 2003 the responsibilities for such

activities and emergency preparedness in large part were downloaded onto

municipalities. We've seen as a trend in a number of other ways that what this

government has tended to do is download responsibilities without associating

with that the necessary transfer of funds to accommodate those increased

responsibilities.

As a representative of a constituency that has many small

communities and small towns and has to deal

[ Page 6987 ]

with some of the environmental choices of this government…. The challenges

are great. I also believe that the challenges need to be met by concerted action

on the part of this government.

[1100]

I'm extremely pleased that the member has taken this cause up with

his government to ensure that the communities around the province, large and

small, have the resources available. I think his insistence in bringing this to

his own government, to recognize the challenges and to know that flying over and

worrying about snowpack isn't going to do what is necessary….

In fact, actual infrastructure costs need to be provided to the

municipalities and the regional districts so that they can do what's necessary

to protect their communities against flooding, scouring and all of the impacts —

whether it's forest practices in the pine beetle–affected areas, natural causes

or a combination of both — so that those get addressed properly by this

government.

I commend the member for bringing this important issue to the

attention of his colleagues on that side of the House. It's something that we've

been trying to bring to the attention of this government for some time. I

encourage him to pursue that and to ensure that the regional governments and

municipalities have the resources available to deal with this very important

issue. I thank the member for his comments.

R. Hawes: I thank the member for his comments. I want to

make very clear that the long-term solution for flooding dangers in the Fraser

Valley and other parts of the province doesn't lie strictly with the federal

government, the provincial government or the municipal governments.

Rather, there's a partnership that has to be built here. There

used to be a partnership, and it was disrupted in the mid-1990s when the federal

government withdrew from the partnership. Now, the short-term solution…. Right

now all we can do is put the money — the $33 million that we've put into

mitigation works, which we hope will protect us for this year…. But there has to

be a long-term solution.

The people who live along the Fraser River and along other

watercourses in this province where there are dike systems need to have the

assurance that all levels of government are working on their behalf to ensure

that their lives aren't going to be potentially disrupted every year. They

shouldn't be living in fear. Yet they are.

What is being proposed, and what I know that the Solicitor General

and others in our government are working hard to do, is to get the federal

government to the table to work on a long-term strategy where they are there as

full partners.

I will say this: regional district director Lloyd McKimmon from

the Fraser Valley regional district proposed years ago that it be a one-third,

one-third, one-third partnership. We have an idea of how much money needs to be

put into the Fraser Valley, for example, to protect communities — and it's not a

small number — but his proposal was that there be a one-third costing formula,

that we build to protect people for all time, and that then we maintain what

we've built.

Frankly, as a resident of the Fraser Valley, I really endorse that

plan. I heartily endorse that plan, and the first step is to get the federal

government back to the table and to have them understand that there is extreme

risk. Without them at the table, this will not work. Now the big fear that many

of us have is that the federal government is not going to get it until we're

under water. If you live in the Fraser Valley, that's a pretty sad statement,

and I'm deathly afraid of that.

I would certainly urge all of my colleagues in the House to speak

to their federal representatives to urge them to come to the party now and to

ensure that they are there with a long-term solution, because that's the only

way that we're going to protect ourselves from the potential of a real disaster.

The amount that has been calculated by the provincial Ministry of

Environment could be, in the worst case, as high as $6 billion, as I said

earlier, and 90 percent of that cost would be borne by the federal government.

Why, then, would we not mitigate today to save us that money tomorrow? It only

makes sense.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Motion 47 on the order paper.

[1105]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House

is required to proceed with Motion 47 without disturbing the priorities of

motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

FOR FARMWORKERS

R. Chouhan: I rise in support of Motion 47.

[Be it resolved that this House cover farm workers

under all relevant provisions of the Employment

Standards Act;

Be it further resolved that the BC government

immediately reestablish the Agricultural Compliance Team

(RCMP and WCB) and other inter-agency teams (RCMP, WCB, HRDC, CCRA and Motor

Vehicle Branch) to ensure enforcement;

Be it further resolved that the roadside spot

checks of vehicles is restored and increased;

Be it further resolved that the BC government

order immediately a public inquiry into the roadside

accident of a van carrying farm workers on March 6, 2007.]

On March 6 the Minister of Labour told this House that

farmworkers were making $8.90 an hour. Then the accident occurred on March 7,

which killed three farmworkers on the highway.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

On March 12 the Minister of Agriculture told this House that

farmworkers were making $12 to $13 an hour. The day after, the Minister of

Labour said farmworkers

[ Page 6988 ]

were making $14 an hour. The reality is that none of the above applies to

farmworkers. Farmworkers are excluded from the basic protection under the

Employment Standards Act.

According to Professor Thompson, who wrote an

article on April 11

this year in the Vancouver Sun …. He said in his

article that: "Despite

record low unemployment rates in B.C. and industry claims of labour shortages,

farmworker wages remain among the lowest of any occupation."

Farmworkers work long hours. The labour contractors pick up

farmworkers early in the morning, sometimes five o'clock, from Vancouver to take

them to the Fraser Valley, in the Abbotsford area, to work in the fields. They

work long hours.

By the time they are brought back to their homes, most of the time

it's about ten o'clock at night. It's backbreaking work. Many times workers are

not even given basic protections such as rest breaks, running water, toilets.

Those kind of basic things that we take for granted are not accorded to

farmworkers.

The transportation in which they are transported to the Fraser

Valley, to the fields, is so unsafe that many times when they were stopped at

the freeway, the authorities have found out that many of these vans and buses

carrying farmworkers didn't have proper brakes, gearboxes were faulty and the

seats in those vans were not even properly mounted. Many of them didn't have

seatbelts.

The accident which occurred on March 7 this year…. That van had

the capacity to carry only 12 to 13 people, but it was carrying 17. One of the

seats at the back of that van was just a wooden bench. It wasn't even bolted to

the floor. There were only two seatbelts in the van that killed those three

women and injured the other 14 farmworkers there.

Prior to 1980 farmworkers were not even covered under the

Employment Standards Act. They were not even deemed workers. In 1980, as many of

you know, I was the founding president of the Canadian Farmworkers Union. With a

hard struggle — with support from the trade union movement, the community

organizations, the student movement and other individuals — we were able to win

some basic rights under the Socred government.

The exact protection that farmworkers enjoyed was extended to them

in the 1990s under the NDP government. Prior to that, in 1981, we had seen three

young children — who were working with their parents because there was no

requirement to keep children away from the fields — who were drowned in a pool

of water in the fields.

Three farmworkers' children died in the fields. One infant child

rolled over from her bunk. She was at that time, I believe, only about eight

months old. She was sleeping in one of those cabins provided by the farm owners

inside the fields, but there were no regulations to protect her. There was no

way to define how big and large, safe or what kind of cabin they would be. That

child, while her parents left to go outside, rolled over in her bunk bed, fell

into the bucket of water and drowned.

Then there was another young man, Jarnail Deol. He died while

spraying pesticides in the fields because there were no regulations to protect

farmworkers from pesticides.

[1110]

In 1993 the health and safety regulations were extended to

farmworkers. That was when the NDP, under the leadership of Moe Sihota, the

Minister of Labour at that time, made sure that farmworkers received all the

protections of other workers.

In 1994 there was a commission established by the NDP government.

It was called the Thompson commission, and they investigated…. They met with

farmers, farmworkers, labour contractors and others in the community. They found

out that workers were receiving so much exploitation that even the weighing

scales in the fields were not calibrated.

People who were working on a piece-rate system…. If they were

supposed to be picking up 20 pounds of berries, they were paid only for 17 or 16

pounds because the scales were so wrong, so incorrect. The vehicles in which

they were transported were very unsafe. Many of these labour contractors had

failed to pay workers.

In 1997 the NDP decided to strengthen the workers' rights further,

and they established the agricultural compliance team. Under that agricultural

compliance team, workers were protected. Officers of the employment standards

branch, Workers Compensation Board, motor vehicle branch and also from the

federal authorities formed that team. They would go to the roadside and, as

well, to the fields to inspect those working conditions and make sure the

workers were working in a safe environment.

Then in 2002 the Liberal government decided to change some of the

clauses of the Employment Standards Act, and they brought those changes to

deprive farmworkers of the basic rights they had had for many, many years prior

to that. What they did also…. The farmers were responsible to make sure that

workers were paid in case the labour contractor had failed to pay them. That

provision of the Employment Standards Act was also removed in 2003.

As if that was not enough, the Liberals now allow children to work

in the fields as well. We have seen many young children of the age of 12 or 13

driving tractors, which could cause a very serious accident.

What we have to do is make sure that this government wakes up and

treats farmworkers like any other workers. Why do they continue to treat

farmworkers like second-class citizens? They're people who work so hard to make

sure that everybody has the food they need, and they are not given protection at

their workplace.

In July 2003 there was a roadside accident, and Mohinder Sunar got

killed. The coroner investigated and made recommendations, and those

recommendations are still not implemented. On March 7 another accident happened.

Now three farmworkers were killed.

What we need to do is re-establish the agricultural compliance

team. We must make sure that spot checks on the highways are made regularly and

that farm

[ Page 6989 ]

vehicles are identified as farm vehicles. They should be required to make

sure that the windows are not tinted. And there should be a public inquiry to

make sure that we get to the bottom of this terrible accident that we had on

March 7.

[1115]

V. Roddick: I rise today to state that I cannot support

Motion 47. There are four resolutions in this motion, and I'm going to speak to

each one.

Resolution 1: "Be it resolved that this House cover farm workers

under all relevant provisions of the Employment Standards Act." This resolution

is not specific as to which provisions of the Employment Standards Act are to

apply. Employment standards changes require legislative amendments through a

bill to be debated in the Legislature or a regulation change through an

order-in-council.

Resolution 2: "Be it further resolved that the B.C. government

immediately reestablish the Agricultural Compliance Team…and other inter-agency

teams…to ensure enforcement." The resolution does not correctly describe the

composition of these earlier interagency enforcement initiatives. For example,

the agriculture compliance team, ACT, did not consist of the RCMP and WCB.

Rather, it involved the joint participation of the Ministry of Labour, Human

Resources Development Canada and the Canadian Customs and Revenue. Each

participant agency focused on enforcement within its area of jurisdiction.

The role of ESB in this group was to monitor and enforce

compliance with the statutory requirements of the Employment Standards Act. The

federal agency, by the way, decided to withdraw from the joint site inspections

in 2004-2005.

The B.C. Federation of Labour and others have raised the issue of

joint or coordinated prevention and enforcement activity with respect to

farmworkers. Government is exploring this proposal, and the ministry and

WorkSafe B.C. are amenable in principle to participating in such interagency

initiatives.

Resolution 3: "Be it further resolved that the roadside spot

checks of vehicles is restored and increased." Following the fatal farm vehicle

accident earlier this month, the hon. Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General asked the hon. Minister of Transportation to direct the commercial

vehicle enforcement branch to undertake, on an interim basis, a very specific

and more vigorous enforcement around those vehicles that carry farmworkers to

their job. These random roadside inspections are now being conducted on an

interim basis while government awaits the results of the investigations that are

currently ongoing.

WorkSafe B.C. is working with the RCMP and commercial vehicle

enforcement on these inspections. The aim of the inspection is to make sure that

people are safe and that B.C. Roads are safe. If there are any vehicles on the

road that should not be, for whatever reason, they are being taken off the road.

Vehicle inspectors have already found violations, including lack of seatbelts,

mechanical problems, etc.

Resolution 4: "Be it further resolved that the B.C. government

order immediately a public inquiry into the roadside accident of a van carrying

farm workers on March 6, 2007." The RCMP and WorkSafe B.C. are conducting

investigations into the accident. The Coroners Service announced on March 13,

2007, that it will hold a public inquest into the deaths of the farmworkers.

Chief coroner Terry Smith and a five-person jury will publicly

hear evidence from subpoenaed witnesses to determine the facts surrounding the

incident that resulted in the deaths. The jury will have the opportunity to make

recommendations aimed at preventing deaths under similar circumstances in the

future. The inquest will be held in Abbotsford in 2007. The

schedule and

location will be determined in the coming months.

[1120]

In light of what the government is already undertaking in this

matter, I feel further legislation is unnecessary at this time. What needs to be

accomplished here is education and competent enforcement. As in every type of

business, those in charge should be accountable for obeying the existing rules

and regulations.

R. Hawes: I rise today to speak, actually, against this

resolution, this motion. My colleague has already outlined a number of reasons

why legislation is not necessary.

I know that with some of the parts of this, the numerous parts of

this, there will be some other speakers. For example, my colleague from Bulkley

Valley–Stikine will speak to why a public inquiry isn't really necessary when

the Coroners Service is going to be holding a public inquest.

However, I want to speak just for a moment about a couple of

things. I note what isn't being talked about here is how, within the farm

community, one of the people who went out and spoke so hard with the members

opposite, the head of the union, Charan Gill, was accused of and, in fact,

guilty of violating employment standards in not paying overtime to his employees

and said: "Well, it was a mistake."

In fact, this isn't a thing that's only applicable to the people

out there with farms. This is something that's been negotiated and is easily

misunderstood. They're putting a simple spin on what is a very complex problem.

I am going to speak to the inspection, to start with. The

inspection of vehicles is being conducted right now, and I know the Solicitor

General has ordered the….

Interjection.

R. Hawes: I'm really pleased that the member opposite wants

to…. And I'm sure he will have an opportunity to get up and speak. But in the

meantime, Madam Speaker, I think I have the floor, so I'll carry on in spite of

the heckling from the member opposite.

The roadside inspections that are now being conducted by the RCMP

are finding a lot of violations. I have talked to the Solicitor General about….

This is what I don't understand about the members opposite. Why

would they be talking about, "It should

[ Page 6990 ]

be the government who does all of this," when what needs to happen is…. The

people who are actually committing the offences are the people who are

responsible for committing the offences. So what needs to happen is….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

R. Hawes: I have talked to the Solicitor General about much

tougher penalties against those who would drive vehicles that aren't safe or who

would violate the laws with respect to transporting people.

But within this, I want to speak for a moment about what's missing

in this motion. I'm hoping the members opposite, in the concern that they're

putting forward with this motion, will actually consider the plight of migrant

workers who are coming from Mexico and other places in the world.

They're here for an eight-month program. Yet what's happening is

that off of every single one of their paycheques, unemployment insurance and

Canada Pension deductions are made. Now, these are workers who are here on an

eight-month…. That's a maximum. Then they go home.

There is no chance ever that they will collect a pension from the

they're not going to go on UI either. They're not going to be eligible for

unemployment insurance.

Why, then, would we continue making those deductions? Why would

the federal government be forcing those deductions? So I'm speaking out, and I

am writing to my MP. I'm hoping that the members opposite will take up the

plight of migrant workers too and…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

R. Hawes: …work to get rid of the unfair deduction of these

two deductions. These are workers who have come here to escape whatever in their

own country. The wages they're paid here are actually much better than they earn

at home, but there is absolutely no justification for taking unemployment

insurance or Canada Pension off any of those workers. So I hope the members

opposite, as they get up and expound here today, are going to at least consider

something that is realistic: stop the deductions that don't make sense.

[1125]

I don't happen to agree that legislation is necessary, as proposed

in this motion. I happen to agree with my colleague who spoke immediately before

me that what is being done right now is adequate. I know if there is anything

else that comes up that needs to be done, or if what is now being proposed and

being done by the government shows itself to be inadequate, we will take the

necessary steps. They don't include what's being proposed here by the

opposition.

For those opposition members, think a little bit about the migrant

workers and the useless deductions that are being taken from their cheques, and

let's at least move on something productive.

H. Bains: It gives me pleasure and, actually, I'm honoured

to stand here and speak on this motion and to support this motion. I think this

is a motion that, if all of the members in this House — without instructions

from some consultant sitting with the Premier telling us what the policies

should be about the farmworkers — were given the opportunity independently…. I

know that most of those people out there would support this motion because they

know every worker in this province should be treated equally.

What we have here is that this government decided that the

farmworkers should not be treated the same as every other worker in this

province. I think that is a shame. It's a sad state of this democracy that we

live in and that we all pride ourselves on — the great society we have. But

those members on the other side have decided that this group of workers should

not be protected.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission has said that we should talk

about the protection of those who are migrant workers. Of course we should be

protecting those workers. No one will argue with you on that. But what about

those workers who are already here? Some of them are citizens of this country.

He is shrugging his responsibility of not protecting those workers

who are already here, the most vulnerable in our society. Most of them are

women, most of them are elders, and most of them are recent immigrants. Those

are the people who need our protection the most, and we are shrugging our

responsibility by speaking against this motion. I think that is a shame.

I want to talk about two components of this motion, although there

are four different elements. Two components are (1) to provide the very basic

employment standard protection that every worker in this province enjoys, and

(2) the safety of those workers, not only on the field at their workplace but

also when they are travelling to and from their operations. Those are the two

things that I want to mention.

The Employment Standards Act as it stands right now does not give

a heck of a lot of protection to any worker. It's a bare minimum standard that

we have set for those workers who don't have the protection of a union, who

don't have the right to negotiate with their employers.

It talks about very basic stuff like the minimum hours of the day,

the overtime after that and the hours during the week. It talks about vacations

and vacation pay. It talks about very minimum notice of termination at the time

of termination, and still there's no just cause provision in there to protect

them from any employer terminating them without cause. It talks about a minimum

wage.

Those are very bare minimum provisions in the Employment Standards

Act. Listening to the members from the Liberal side, they're saying that the

farmworkers aren't even entitled to those very basic protections. They are not

worthy of those very basic protections, as far as

[ Page 6991 ]

the Liberals and this government are concerned. I think that is a shame.

Farmworkers are the ones who toil long hours, as my colleagues

have said earlier. They start their work at about four o'clock in the morning.

My father was a farmworker for 15 years. He used to get up at four o'clock in

the morning and never got home until nine or ten o'clock. Those are the

farmworkers; those are the people who are toiling in our fields out there so

that we can have food on our tables.

We are saying that those people should be treated just like

anybody else. They're not asking for any extra protection than any other worker,

through this motion. They are simply saying: "Treat us just like any other

worker." This government is saying no to that. I think that is a shame.

[1130]

I think there's a reason why this policy exists. When I looked at

it quickly this morning, their employer…. The contractors have paid this Liberal

government, during their campaigns, a quarter of a million dollars in donations

to this party.

Farmworkers are not able to give them a dime. They can't give a

donation to any party, never mind to any political party. These are the folks

who are making the bare minimum. They don't even make minimum wage. How do you

expect them to give the Liberal Party donations?

It seems to me that the policies are made by this government based

on who pays their freight, who pays them to get elected. I think that is a

shame. That's not how a democratic society should work. Governments are elected

to protect and govern for all of their citizens, and this government decided

that the farmworkers are not worthy of their protection and that they're not

worthy of their attention.

Madam Speaker, I know my time is running out. The second

part is

the safety of these farmworkers when they are travelling to and from their

workplace and when they are actually working in their fields.

I think that a bare-minimum responsibility our government has is

to provide any worker some safety protection and safety regulations that they

apply so that they go to work and come home in the same piece as they went out,

so that they are not subject to the harmful pesticides, so that they are also

protected from the farm machinery, so that they are protected in the vans when

they travel — basically, the same basic protection that every worker is entitled

to.

That's what we need to do, and I urge you all to support this

resolution.

J. Rustad: I rise today in opposition to Motion 47. I'd

just like to start my comments reflecting on something that the member for

Surrey-Newton had just said.

He talks about policy. He believes that policy is made because

donations were made for political purposes. Quite frankly, that's pure baloney.

However, that's just fine in terms of that.

I just want to point out something with regards to some of the

steps that we have done for farmworkers. Back in 2003 we did an extensive

consultation process with workers and farmers, and we made changes that kept the

industry competitive and created some 9,000 new jobs over the past five years.

The employment standards are still protected, farm labour contractors are

required to be licensed and, like all British Columbians, farmworkers are now

protected through minimum-wage laws.

They must now be paid by direct deposit. This was very significant

for the farmworkers in terms of trying to get in the direct deposit. It meant

security. It meant that they didn't have to worry about a number of things that

we all sometimes take for granted. The employment standards branch also does

site inspections and payroll audits, and it educates producers, contractors and

farmworkers in several different languages.

We're taking significant steps in terms of the farmworkers of this

province — ensuring, first of all, that they have a job but, more importantly,

that they're working in a safe environment and that they're respected for the

work they do.

All of us here depend on the food we produce, depend on the food

that we have, just to live. It's an important component of our province; it's an

important component for all of us here. We take that very seriously, and we have

a great amount of respect for those who work to provide our food for us.

I'd also like to just comment about another component to this

motion with regards to roadside checks and safety. After the tragic accident —

and I have to say, Madam Speaker, that it was absolutely tragic that this sort

of an accident could happen — we made it a priority to go out and do additional

checks on the roads.

We had a nine-day blitz when we checked. Over 180 vehicles were

inspected, and 67 of those were taken out of service because they were unsafe.

To me that says that there is a problem there. Clearly, what we have done with

regards to the inspections is to step up inspections. We're continuing that.

I also want to just talk a little bit about what we are doing

provincially. Provincewide, through the commercial vehicle safety enforcements,

staff inspected over 500,000 commercial vehicles last year.

[1135]

This includes all levels of inspection, ranging from the full CVSA

inspection to mechanical or paper inspections to a visual review while the

vehicle is at the inspection station or weigh scale. We also conducted over

22,000 roadside inspections last year. There were 192 CVSE field staff

throughout the province undertaking this.

Safety, as you can see from this, is very, very important to us.

Annually, 275,000 vehicle inspections were completed at 2,111 designated

inspection facilities. Clearly, safety is a priority. We are moving towards

this.

An accident like that is tragic. It's something that we hoped

would never happen, and it's something that we need to continually work towards.

We received a number of recommendations — I believe 28 recommendations — from

the families that had to go through this tragic process. We are working through

those. We're looking at what we can do and how we can implement those things.

Quite frankly, I think this motion speaks

[ Page 6992 ]

more to politics than it does to what is actually happening on the ground and

the reality of what we need to do for our farmworkers.

In my end of the woods, up in Prince George–Omineca, agriculture

is a huge component of my riding. But one of the challenges is that we're

finding it tough to even attract people into the industry because a lot of

people have the lure of the big city or other types of jobs. It's very, very

important that we make sure that that environment is safe, that we make sure

there are opportunities for people to make a decent living off of their wages,

and that they have the opportunity to do what they would love to do — and that

is to have the life choice in terms of that type of work.

I just want to close by saying that there's nobody here in this

chamber that doesn't take safety seriously. It's a very important component for

all of us in all the jobs we do, and we will continue with the work that we have

been doing and continue with the work in terms of trying to improve the quality

of safety and the right environment for our workers in this province.

B. Lekstrom: I'd like to thank the member for putting his

motion forward for this Legislative Assembly to speak on and debate. He raises,

I think, an important issue, but I guess I view it somewhat differently in how

we get the end result.

The issue of farm safety and our workers on the farms is paramount

to everybody in this building, everybody in this province, I hope, except a

select few. Obviously, when we look at farm safety and our workers who toil in

these fields day in and day out to supply the food so that we can put it on our

table and survive as a society, it has to be looked at in the most important

light.

The issue in my mind when I look at this — I grew up in an ag

community; it's somewhat different than the one in the lower mainland — is one

that…. All of the rules and regulation and all of the legislation in the world

aren't going to stop an operator who doesn't give a hoot about his workers. I

think on occasion we have some operators like that in this province.

I think the issue when we talk about this tragic accident, and it

was a tragic accident…. My heart goes out to the families. Each and every member

of this Legislative Assembly, I know, has those feelings as well.

I try and evaluate a situation and say: "What could have changed

it?" I'm not sure that the motion before us this morning would have changed that

tragic event. I think the issue is that when we have operators in this province

— and I'm focusing on the farmworkers' issue and farm operators right now — that

don't operate in compliance with the rules and regulation that are presently in

place in this province — and then I'll go on to speak to the ones that have been

proposed — then we have to bring the hammer of the law down on those people.

I don't feel they should operate in our province. I'm not prepared

to stand up and have somebody that wilfully neglects the law, puts people's

lives at risk and has cost lives in this province….. To allow them to operate in

our province doesn't make sense to me — on behalf of government or on behalf of

the people who live in this province.

Tragedies like this aren't new. They happened in the '80s. They

happened in the '70s. They happened in the '90s. Unfortunately, today they

happen as well. The issue is to come up with a method, and I want to speak to a

couple.

The second one: "Be it further resolved that the BC government

immediately reestablish the Agricultural Compliance Team…." I think that was

brought to light as well. The B.C. Federation of Labour did some work on that

shortly after this tragedy as well, to highlight the need for it.

[1140]

It's my understanding that the ministry and Worksafe B.C. are

amenable in principle to participating in such an interagency cooperative

approach to this. I think that says something. I don't think it's because of one

individual or one organization that this is taking place. I think it's the

realization that we can work together to accomplish what we all want, and that

is to have an environment where our mothers, our fathers, our children, our

brothers and our sisters can go to work and actually come home, after putting in

an honest day's work, with their safety intact — and their lives.

These are mothers. These are fathers. Like I said, they're

brothers, and they're sisters. They are our relatives, and we cherish that — not

only because they're our family, but more importantly because they're British

Columbians.

I certainly look at this issue as one that we all want the same

result on. That's the safety of the farmworkers in British Columbia, to make

sure. But at the end of the day, I guess I do disagree with saying that this

motion will get us there. I think we're going down the right track. The public

inquest is going to look into this. I've seen inquiries and I've seen inquests

over the past number of years. This one seems to be a pretty simple tragedy in

my eyes. It was a violation of the law that led to a horrendous incident that

cost the lives of three incredible people.

The issue that we have with vehicle safety is one that's taken

seriously. The one that we have when we talk about the Employment Standards Act,

and there were changes made to that, is a philosophical difference between, I

believe, the two parties. That was debated, went on…. I think there was some

good debate on that.

I want to close by saying this. I believe that the people in this

Legislative Assembly that represent their constituents, regardless of the

political party they are with, want the same thing. We want a safe environment

for our farmworkers. We want people that violate the law — whether it be

legislation or regulation, I believe — to be punished, and to not operate in a

province wilfully neglecting the way that our other operators, the vast majority

of operators in the farm industry, operate with the rule of the law. They honour

that rule of law. They treat their employees well. But for the select few that

don't operate that way…. I think those are the ones we're going to focus on.

Those are the ones that I don't want operating in my province.

Thank you for the time.

[ Page 6993 ]

C. Wyse: It is indeed my honour to follow my colleague from

Peace River South. Like he is, I am also from an area that has agriculture as a

significant component. I mention that simply because I also happen to be from an

area where there's a transition.

There are residents from my area who also travel on a seasonal

basis and work in the lower mainland doing agricultural work. Therefore, this

particular issue is the responsibility of the entire Legislature here.

There's a very, very important distinction to be made, in my mind,

between an inquest and an inquiry. An inquest is restricted to questions by the

coroner. The issues that are here in front of us in this Legislature are broader

than where a coroner can investigate. Therefore, that component that is

contained in this motion is significant and important.

If we are indeed looking at finding the solutions to problems that

have evolved since changes were made in 2002 to the Employment Standards Act,

then we need a vehicle to do the investigation that is broader than where some

of my colleagues are hanging their hat by referring and pointing to an inquest.

We need to look at the living conditions. I don't believe a coroner looks into

that.

People from my area live in deplorable situations in some sets of

circumstances. Where are the standards to ensure that those living conditions in

actual fact are there? Where would a coroner come into play with dealing with

safe working conditions in the field? Where would a coroner come into play

dealing with fair return for the worker being paid on a piecemeal basis in the

field? Those are three examples of questions that, in my mind and my

understanding, are way beyond the jurisdictions that a coroner's inquest would

provide.

[1145]

Here within the Legislature our responsibility as government is to

ensure that all British Columbians are provided with protection and safety in

their place of work as well as to ensure that they are not unduly exploited.

When I have continually heard my colleagues from the opposite side

make argument not to go after providing those basic premises, it raises a

question in my mind, then: for whom is the bell tolling here? Why such a vicious

presentation for not moving for protection for the safety of all British

Columbians?

It raises into question, then: who benefits underneath the

existing circumstances? Assuredly, we know that one of the benefactors

underneath a mishmash of regulations is the labour contractors. It allows them

to take advantage of a situation that has no continuity to it. That situation is

without enforcement — not for nine days in a year. The last time I checked,

there were 365 days in a year. Unless this legislation intends to change it,

there will be 365 days next year.

Therefore, you have to have the regulations in place. You have to

have the enforcement on an ongoing basis. Otherwise we will continue to have

tragedy take place that leads to the loss of life and the loss of limb for

British Columbians.

With that, I ask members opposite that they reconsider the

narrowness of the debate that they've put in front of us and vote for the motion

that is here.

D. MacKay: I rise today to speak against Motion 47 that was

introduced in this House today by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds — more

specifically, that portion of the motion that reads: "Be it further resolved

that the BC government order immediately a public inquiry into the roadside

accident of a van carrying farm workers on March 6, 2007."

I'm somewhat disappointed that we have to have a tragedy such as

the one that we experienced back in March where three farmworkers were killed

for the opposition to bring a motion before this House asking for the text

that's in that motion today. So I'm speaking against it.

The motion criticizes the agencies that we have in place today.

They're there to protect all British Columbians. I think I've heard several

members speak today about everyone in this chamber agreeing that farmworkers

should be protected. They should be able to come home at the end of the day.

It's no different than the laws and regulations that we have in

the province of British Columbia today that control traffic safety. We have a

number of rules and regulations, but you know, there are always a few people

that decide, after they pass a police car going in the opposite direction…. They

put their foot down and they're speeding. Sometimes the result of excessive

speed causes accidents, and when an accident occurs, there are tragic results. I

speak from experience.

There are a number of people out there, a number of provincial

agencies, that are out there to protect the people in the province of British

Columbia. We have our police forces. We have commercial vehicle inspectors. We

have WorkSafe B.C. We also have the Coroners Service that is out there to

protect the people of this province when accidents happen and investigate the

deaths after they do happen. But there are always a few people out there that

decide they're above the law or don't have to obey the law. That is why these

tragedies happen.

I mentioned the fact that…. There were four agencies that I made

reference to, and I can speak to two of them because I've had experience in two

of them. I was a police officer for 28 years, and I was a coroner for ten.

[1150]

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that I, as an individual and as

a community member, was often traumatized by some of the sights that I saw when

I went to car accidents and when I — both as a police officer and as a coroner —

saw what happens to a body when blunt force trauma takes over in a high-speed

accident. It is quite traumatic, and I still at times have trouble speaking

about some of the sights that I saw in both roles.

So for the NDP to suggest that what we need is a public inquiry is

to me basically just suggesting that the agencies we have out there today who

investigate accidents and make recommendations to prevent similar occurrences

down the road don't have the tools or the manpower or womanpower in order to do

it. I want

[ Page 6994 ]

them to know that they're extremely wrong. Police officers in British

Columbia are made up of people from the province, as are coroners. Coroners are

usually people from a community. They're people that live in the province.

They're concerned about what happens when a car accident takes place.

Suggesting that we need to have a public inquiry throws a bit of a

shadow onto the role that those people play. If we listen to the opposition,

we'd be having a public inquiry every day because of incidents that happen

around our province. I don't think that's really necessary. The police

investigate the accident. In the case of a fatal motor vehicle accident, if

there are people killed, blood is taken to determine if there are any alcohol or

drugs present in the bloodstream of the deceased. The vehicle is inspected by a

certified mechanic to determine the road safety of that vehicle.

If someone decides that they're going to ignore the rules after an

inspection has taken place, such as we've heard so tragically about today,

there's not a whole bunch that can be done, except, as somebody said, to bring

down the full force of the law on those people.

Madam Speaker, I have so much to say, but I know there are other

members who wish to speak. With that, I would speak against Motion 47 and yield

the floor.

C. Puchmayr: I, of course, speak in favour of the motion.

I'd like to commend the excellent work that my colleagues, who are very

knowledgable in the farm sector, have done here. They have worked and they've

been involved in the farmworkers union.

The reason there needs to be a public inquiry into this, as

opposed to just a coroner's inquest…. As we brought this issue forward and

looked into some of the information that we got through freedom of information,

we found a memo from the then Agriculture Minister to the Labour Minister asking

not to have inspections during the summertime period, the hand-harvest period.

It was also revealed during the estimates a year ago by the then

Labour Minister that the reason there were so few inspections during the summer

was because they didn't want to disrupt the harvest. Well, don't you think that

that's a time when you need to get out into the fields — when there are people

working in the fields? You don't inspect the fields when nobody's working.

To look further as to why we need a public inquiry…. You know,

it's sad to ask for a public inquiry when this government has now changed the

Inquiry Act so that even at the end of a public inquiry, they can take the

information and never release it to the public. They can hang onto it as long as

possible. They can edit whatever they feel needs to be edited from it. So even a

public inquiry at the end of the day wouldn't get what is required out of this.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When we looked at the employment standards investigation, there

are over 6,500 farms in British Columbia. Employment standards did around 80

inspections. Out of all those farms, they found 42 violations where they

actually imposed fines. More than half of the inspections warranted fines. Was

the fact that there were limited numbers of inspections done on the farms…? Was

that again a spinoff from the Agriculture Minister to the Minister of Labour,

saying: "Please don't go inspect my friends. They're too busy breaking the rules

on their farms"?

WorkSafe B.C. did inspections. I forget the number. I think it was

over 300. No, I don't even think it was 350. But they did inspections on the

farms. They wrote one fine. They wrote two penalties. They literally did not go

onto the farms and inspect the way they should have — 6,500 farms.

I remember when the tragic accident happened on the highway. I

remember the Agriculture Minister getting up and, other than slandering one of

the founders of the farmworkers union, trying to deflect this to somebody else.

[1155]

I remember listening to him getting up and speaking about how it

was necessary for the farmworkers in the fields to work at minimum wage, that it

was part of the economy, that it was good for the economy and that it was hard

to retain people on the farms. Well, the foreign farmworkers come in here, and

they get a guaranteed minimum wage. The foreign farmworkers come in here

guaranteed over $8 an hour, or they get the hand-harvest rate.

I listen to the other side saying that it's such an important

industry, that we're losing people in our industry and that we need to attract

more. Well, that counters what our motion is saying. It's saying: pay them under

the employment standards code; pay them so they get a minimum wage or the

hand-harvest rate, whichever is greater, so that you can attract people to work

in those fields, so that people aren't going in there and being exploited, and

so that you're getting quality people in those fields.

Why should we have to import workers and pay them more than

minimum wage in British Columbia to pick the food — the very food that we need,

the very food that we eat? It makes absolutely no sense at all, Mr. Speaker. I

think the farmworkers have suffered a lot. They've lost vacation pay, their

statutory holidays and the dignity of a decent minimum wage. They are now

subject to exploitation by contractors. This is all with….

The 6,500 farms in British Columbia could benefit if there was a

fair wage that was being paid. Young people, maybe for summer jobs, would go in

there and pick fruit — knowing that after that harvesting machine has gone

through and taken all the best of the crop and the young people are following

the harvesting machinery and there's not very much left on the vines — that

they're going to get minimum wage at the very least.

Now they get nothing. Now they would go through there, and they

would get nothing. At the end of the day when that commodity was weighed, some

of them are working for less than $2 an hour. Is that going to make you come

back and want to pick fruit in British Columbia? The system is wrong. It's not

working; it needs to change. We need to bring dignity back.

[ Page 6995 ]

We need to enforce safety. We need to ensure that the vehicles

that the farmers are travelling in are safe, and the resolution that was put

forward in my private member's bill clearly stipulates that: a seatbelt for

every seat — and no change in the configuration of those seats without

engineering information, without seats being installed as per the manufacturer's

recommendations and WorkSafe signing off on the engineering of those. Every

worker has a seat; every worker has a seatbelt. That's a go-forward.

My final comments are with regard to the inquiry. There's talk

that it's good to have an inquest. Well, it was good to have an inquest after

the Sunar death as well. The inquest did make recommendations — recommendations

that could have very well saved lives on that horrific day two months ago in the

Fraser Valley — and those recommendations were not followed up on whatsoever.

Somebody said it's political. Absolutely, it's political. It's our

job as opposition to make sure that this government enforces — and, where there

is a void in regulations that they bring in new regulations, strengthen

regulations or bring back the old regulations — so that our farmworkers, and all

workers in British Columbia, can go home safely after a day's work.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

C. Puchmayr: Noting the hour, I will take my seat.

A Voice: I'll move adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, you've heard the motion.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is the adjournment of

debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175