2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 10

[ Page 17487 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Campbell: I rise today to recognize the passing of two British

Columbians who made a significant impact on the public life of this province.

David McTaggart -- who was the co-founder of the world's largest environmental

organization, Greenpeace -- was a tireless advocate on behalf of the environment

not just here in our province but in Canada and around the world. He was

recognized for that advocacy. He was killed in an automobile accident in Italy

over the weekend. I'm sure the thoughts and prayers of every member of the House

are with his family at this very difficult time.

[1410]

Also, hon. Speaker, yesterday Jack Diamond passed away. Mr. Diamond came to

Canada in 1926. He came from Poland. He was penniless. But in this land of

opportunity, his accomplishments were extensive. He is considered the founder of

modern-day horse racing in British Columbia. He was chancellor of Simon Fraser

University and a Companion of the Order of Canada. He was a leader in the Jewish

community in British Columbia and a noted philanthropist who supported a broad

variety of causes that made life in our province much better and of higher

quality than elsewhere. Jack passed away peacefully in his sleep yesterday at

the age of 91.

I'd ask the House to join me in recognizing and remembering the contributions

of these two great British Columbians.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We would join with all members of this Legislature

to honour both of these men. It is part of the travails of life to open up the

newspaper and see such tragic losses, particularly in the case of Mr. McTaggart,

to what has been a worldwide cause on behalf of not only our generation but

future generations.

Jack Diamond, who I had the pleasure to meet, lived a long and fruitful life.

Nevertheless, his loss will be deeply felt, although his legacy will live on in

his children and his grandchildren.

Hon. G. Wilson: In the House with us today is Mr. David Tones, who is

the third national vice-president of IWA-Canada. I would ask the House to please

make Mr. Tones welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the House this afternoon are four first nations

chiefs from the lower Island. They are Chief Alan Claxton from the Tsawout band,

Chief Curtis Olsen from the Tsartlip nation, Chief Bert Charles from the Beecher

Bay first nations and Chief Linda Bristol from T'Sou-ke. With them is Paul Sam

from the Nil/tu,o Child and Family Services Society. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the galleries this afternoon are a

number of people who do a great deal of work in this province on the issue of

adult guardianship. I'd like to extend my thanks to the B.C. Coalition of People

with Disabilities for arranging to have our guests here this afternoon.

I'm pleased to welcome Mary Williams, external vice-president of the B.C.

Coalition of People with Disabilities; Christine Seitz, who is Ms. Williams's

personal attendant; Linda Perry, executive director of Vela Microboard

Association; Laney Bryenton, executive director of the B.C. Association for

Community Living; Joe Dickey, member of the Community Family Link Society; Lou

Drage, member of the Mount Arrowsmith Elder Abuse Prevention Committee and chair

of the Community Response Network; Lola Cook of the Community Response Network;

Ed Bodner, provincial president of the B.C. Government Retired Employees

Association and member of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations; Don

Burns, officer of the Royal Canadian Legion, Pro Patria branch; Margaret

MacKenzie, director of the B.C. Retired Teachers Association and president of

the lower Vancouver Island branch; Joanne Taylor, executive director of the

Representation Agreement Resource Centre; Deach Tetarenko, director of the

Alzheimer Society of B.C.; Lorna Hillman, executive director of the Family

Caregivers Network Society; Margaret Birrell, executive director of the B.C.

Coalition of People with Disabilities; Gordon Argyle, member of the Home Support

Action Group; Melanie Maxwell, member of the Representation Agreement Resource

Centre; Jay Chalke, public guardian and trustee for British Columbia; Linda

Derkach, director of adult guardianship implementation at the public guardian

and trustee's office; and Robert Maxwell, who is also a member of the

Representation Agreement Resource Centre.

At this time I'd also like to acknowledge Christine Gordon for her dedication

and hard work as coordinator of the Community Coalition for the Implementation

of Adult Guardianship Legislation. She is unfortunately unable to be here with

us today. I invite all members to join me in welcoming them and invite everyone

to join us at a reception after question period on the first floor of the

rotunda.

[1415]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the members' gallery today is Brenda

Makeechak. Brenda is a personal friend of mine and works as a representative for

the Canadian Labour Congress. She joins us here on a good day for her; it's her

birthday. Would the members please join me in wishing Brenda a welcome to our

House and a happy birthday.

Hon. I. Waddell: On behalf of the Premier, I'd like to welcome to the

House a school group of grade 11 social studies students located in the

Premier's riding, Vancouver-Kensington. It's Sir Charles Tupper Secondary, a

great school in Vancouver. There are 170 students here with their teachers Mr.

David Dougall and Mr. Rob Ferguson. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery is a constituent of mine. I'd like

the House to make welcome Margaret Tones, who is visiting us here today and also

visiting her grandson, who works in these buildings. Would the House please make

her most welcome.

G. Mann Brewin: I have two introductions to make today. First, there

are three constituents of mine here in the gallery to watch question period and

enjoy the fun of all of that. Their names are Ross Cameron, Hector Cameron and

Sidney Dillon. I'd like the House to please make the three of them welcome.

The second introduction is on your behalf, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Dianne Brydon is

here, and she is the director of parlia-

[ Page 17488 ]

mentary public programs at the House of Commons in Ottawa. She's been

offering some briefings to your staff and the legislative staff on public

education, outreach projects and the kinds of things that they've been doing in

the House of Commons. Would the House please make her welcome.

J. Cashore: In the gallery is my wife Sharon. We've been married 40

years. The last 15 of those years I've been an MLA, and she can tell you some

really good stories about that.

K. Krueger: With us in the House today are two representatives of the

city of Kamloops: councillor Sharon Frissell, who is the chair of the water

filtration plant committee, and Mr. Ernie Kurtz, the city engineer and assistant

administrator. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. G. Bowbrick presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, I'm proud today to introduce the Adult

Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act. The adult guardianship statutes were passed

with all-party support in 1993, and selected parts came into force on February

28, 2000. Since these acts came into force, the government has identified a

number of minor changes that will greatly enhance the clarity, workability and

focus of these statutes as well as increase access to certain features -- in

particular, representation agreements. The adult guardianship statutes remain a

high priority for the government, and it is with the goal of enlarging upon

their success that these amendments are introduced today.

[1420]

The government has been greatly assisted in making these changes by many

organizations and individuals in the community who have gained experience with

these acts over the past year. The office of the public guardian and trustee has

headed up a consultation process aimed at reaching consensus on the amendments

proposed here today. The government would particularly like to acknowledge the

contributions made by members of the Representation Agreement Act Review

Committee of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, representatives

from the Canadian Bankers Association and Credit Union Central, members of the

B.C. Coalition to Eliminate Abuse of Seniors, representatives of the B.C.

Coalition of People with Disabilities, staff from the Representation Agreement

Resource Centre, plus many other community-based groups and organizations around

the province.

In addition, the government would like once again to acknowledge the efforts

made by Dulcie McCallum, whose report to the public guardian and trustee last

summer recommended that specially trained notaries public be given the

opportunity to assist British Columbians in preparing representation agreements.

Her report was aimed at ensuring that representation agreements remain

accessible, affordable and of high quality. The amendments contained in this

bill implement the key recommendations of Ms. McCallum's report.

Among the amendments I'm introducing today are changes to the Representation

Agreement Act that will streamline the witnessing and execution requirements for

representation agreements while preserving safeguards, increased clarity about

the roles and responsibilities of both representatives and monitors, enhance the

flexibility of representation agreements by giving capable adults more options

about how they wish their representatives to act and reduce risks to third

parties who act in good faith on the basis of representation agreements.

There are, as well, changes to several other related statutes. Almost all of

these changes are aimed at increasing clarity about various matters. Many are

generally termed housekeeping amendments.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ICBC AND CROWN CORPORATIONS

BUDGET PROJECTIONS

G. Campbell: It's now clear that the Minister of Finance artificially

inflated revenue projections from B.C. Hydro for this year's budget. In the same

budget, the minister estimates a $75 million contribution to the revenues of the

province from ICBC. My question to the Minister of Finance is simply this: did

he use the same methods to estimate ICBC's revenue contribution, or did he

actually follow the advice of ICBC's professionals in this case?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We set targets for Crown corporations, and by and

large they meet them. Given the member's interest in this, I actually reviewed

what we'd set in Budget 2000 as far as targets for Crown corporations to see how

we'd done in setting them and see how they'd done in meeting them. Last year,

hon. Speaker, we set targets for Crown corporations at a bottom-line impact of

negative $178 million. Those were our targets. Did they hit those targets? No,

they didn't. In fact, for the year, Crown corporations in total recorded a

profit -- a positive number -- of over $680 million. We set prudent, reachable

targets in Budget 2000. Crown corporations met them. We have done the same thing

in Budget 2001.

The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has a

supplemental question.

G. Campbell: The opposition has obtained a document prepared for the

minister. It's a ministerial positioning note

[ Page 17489 ]

dated March 21, 2001. I'd like to quote from this note: "The provincial

government has given ICBC a target of $75 million net income for 2001-02, when

ICBC's Treasury Board submission provided a most optimistic projection of $30

million." Can the minister explain why he decided to more than double the

most optimistic projection of ICBC's professionals?

[1425]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the good news is that our government is

investing more dollars each and every day in traffic safety initiatives that

prove, dollar for dollar, to be an investment that's beyond the record of any

other jurisdiction in Canada. And the reason we can do that is because ICBC is a

publicly owned corporation, unlike what the opposition party would have it be if

for some reason they get to control any finances in this province.

Yes, it's true: we have set a target of $75 million for ICBC. Is ICBC working

on putting in place new traffic safety initiatives, investing about $60 million

in road safety improvements? Yes, they are. Let me just list some of them.

Perhaps we could see whether the opposition believes that this is good public

policy or not, or whether they would just open up ICBC to competition. They're

investing money in a community safety strategy program. They're going to invest

more money, almost $35 million, in a highway safety program. They're going to

work with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways . . . .

The Speaker: Minister. Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, they asked, hon. Speaker. I'm sorry. I guess

they don't actually want information.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I think you may get an opportunity

to follow up on this question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, I was only halfway through the list.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Campbell: This briefing note shows that the Minister of Finance

imposed an extremely high revenue projection that he put into his budget. The

positioning note states: "ICBC's submission to Treasury Board . . . contained

a projected income range spanning a loss of $150 million to a net income of $30

million." That puts the midrange at minus $60 million. My question is to

the Minister of Finance. When will he start to come clean with the people of

British Columbia, stop manipulating these figures and tell them the truth? How

can he possibly estimate a revenue stream in excess of $135 million more from

ICBC than their own professionals said they could deliver?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's review the record. Back in 1998, ICBC said their

target was going to be minus $80 million. They actually exceeded that target by

$201 million. In 1999 their target was minus $7 million. They exceeded that

target by $103 million. Last year they set a target, which he accepted, of $3

million. They actually achieved a profit of $350 million and missed their target

by $347 million.

If ICBC achieves a target this year of $75 million, that will be its lowest

profit figure in the last four years. It is reasonable; it is attainable. This

well-run Crown corporation will achieve it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hope the minister isn't counting on ICBC's

investment revenue to be near what it was last year, because the markets aren't

looking as good for ICBC as they were last year.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Speaker, I hear the minister of ICBC shouting:

"Road safety, road safety, road safety." Well, we have another letter.

This went from the Minister of Finance to the minister responsible for ICBC, and

it was dated March 14 -- the day before the budget was introduced, as amazing as

that is. And it says: "ICBC should continue to suspend expenditures and

public announcements on the road safety fund . . . . "

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister hasn't had time to get the letter. It was

only sent last week. Can the minister responsible for the budget tell us how on

earth he expects to hit those revenue targets that he knows are way outside the

range put forward by ICBC?

[1430]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, hon. Speaker, the fact that there's

prudent planning going on with ICBC and this government seems to upset the

opposition. On one hand, they're objecting to the fact that there is no planning

going on for the targeting, and then the next minute that the Minister of

Finance suggests to me as minister responsible that we bring forward to Treasury

Board exactly how the road safety initiatives are going to meet the target .

. . . They object to that too.

You know what they really object to? Here's what they really object to. They

really object to the road safety initiatives that this government has put in

place, because you know what it means? It means that we have a financially sound

public auto insurance that for six years has frozen rates. In fact, this year

there was a safety dividend -- the second year in a row, hon. Speaker. Our road

safety record not only continues to increase with lives being saved, but the

Treasury Board will be working with the Insurance Corporation to put fully tens

of millions of dollars of road safety initiatives in place once again.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: And that's the work that's taking place now. On

behalf of the people of British Columbia, they should join with us on this

initiative.

The Speaker: I will remind members that open-ended questions will lead

to longer answers.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's amazing to hear the minister of ICBC talk

about the road safety initiatives and that the opposition is opposed to them

when the letter comes from the Minister of Finance directing the minister to

suspend the road safety initiatives.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance, because I've heard both the Minister

of Finance and the minister responsible for

[ Page 17490 ]

ICBC talk about reasonable and prudent planning and budgeting . . . .

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's interesting, because the letter says -- and remember,

it's dated March 14, the day the budget was leaked, so it was already printed --

that by March 31, ICBC is supposed to present to the minister a revised 2001

budget showing how the $75 million net income target will be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, that's not prudent and reasonable. You don't set the budget and

then decide on what the plan is or how to hit it. How does the Minister of

Finance ever expect to hit these targets?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, let's look at what happened last year and this

year. Let's do it again. Last year we had a

summary accounts balance for the

Crown corporations of negative $178 million. Guess what. They achieved $850

million better than that -- $850 million better.

So what did we do this year, hon. Speaker? Did we set a higher target for

them? In fact, no. The combined targets for Crown corporations in Budget 2001

say negative $290 million, below last year's targets. The only way the Crown

corporations won't meet these targets is if this Liberal opposition ever became

government and actually carried out its plans to review and sell Crown

corporations. Last time it was B.C. Rail. This year they know very well -- it's

exactly the Crown corporation that they stand up here and ask about -- that

their friends in the insurance industry have funded them well to do away with

the very Crown corporation they now question.

G. Plant: The status quo as of now is that the Minister of Finance has

picked a number out of the air which he's entirely unwilling to defend, and the

minister responsible for ICBC says she's going to save the money by spending it

on a program that she was expressly directed by the Minister of Finance not to

spend any money on. Well, that's a really good start towards achieving

reasonable budget predictions.

I want to read this passage again from the letter, because I want to make

sure that the Minister of Finance gets the point. ICBC is required to provide

the following additional information by March 31, 2001: a revised 2001 budget

showing how the $75 million net income target will be achieved. In other words,

the Minister of Finance picks a number out of the air and says to ICBC:

"Here's the deal. You come up with the money, and you tell us how you're

going to do it." How on earth should anyone believe any single revenue

projection in this minister's budget?

[1435]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The issue here is that it makes prudent sense for us

to work together on the road safety initiatives that this government's record is

unprecedented on. There have been four years -- almost five years now -- of road

safety initiatives put in place, all of which have paid off over and over and

over for the premium policy holders, for the corporation at large and for the

potential victims of crashes in this province. What we will be doing, and we are

doing right now, is taking the fund for road safety initiatives that we have .

. . . We have in place a plan, and what we'll be doing is presenting that

plan to Treasury Board, as is the requirement, to ensure that those plans will

meet the target. That's what prudent planning is, unlike what the opposition

will do, which is to take those road safety initiatives that work -- like photo

radar, which has saved lives and money and reduced premiums in this province --

and scrap them. That's how much they care about ICBC and good public safety.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has a

supplemental.

G. Plant: We know that B.C. Hydro is expected to make its revenue

targets by starting up a plant that it shut down. We know that ICBC is supposed

to make up . . . . Well, who knows how they're supposed to make up

their $75 million.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. A week ago he told us that the

B.C. Lottery Corporation was going to cough up $585 million. That's an 11

percent increase this year over last year. Can the Minister of Finance explain:

what were the figures that the Lottery Corporation gave to Treasury Board before

he tabled his budget? And while we're at it, will the Minister of Finance not

commit to some measure of accountability and table each and every single

submission by each and every Crown corporation in this House right now?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The budget that we tabled has been prepared in

accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. All assumptions

have been attested to by senior public servants who worked with me in

preparation of it.

If we want to talk about accountability, when will this opposition come

forward and tell how it intends to pay for its dramatic and reckless tax cuts?

Having ducked budget debate, having refused in this House to admit that they

intend to either drive this province back into deficit or slash health and

education spending, when will they come forward and actually come clean with the

public about the impact of their tax cuts on the services in this province?

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Petitions

J. Pullinger: I have the honour today to present a petition signed by

approximately 2,800 citizens and workers of the Cowichan Lake and Cowichan

Valley communities who are asking every member of this House to support the

petitioners' efforts to purchase the Youbou sawmill from TimberWest and enter

into a purchase agreement with TimberWest for the long-term benefit of the

community.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Evans: I have the honour to present the Ministry of Health and

Ministry Responsible for Seniors 1999-2000 annual report.

The Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the annual report

of the British Columbia Legislative Library for 1999.

[ Page 17491 ]

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT

A CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCATE

Hon. G. Janssen: I move Motion 2 standing under my name on the order

paper.

[That a Special Committee shall be re-appointed to select and unanimously

recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of a Child, Youth and

Family Advocate, pursuant to

section 3 of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy

Act , and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers

of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to

such

subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the

recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any

sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall

report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at

the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its

reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of

adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall

present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be comprised of the following members: Ms.

Priddy, Convener; Mmes. Mann Brewin and Sawicki, Messrs. Cashore and Lovick,

Ms. Reid, and Messrs. van Dongen and Neufeld.]

[1440]

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to inform the House that we'll be voting

against this motion. The reason for it is quite simple: it's not unclear -- the

Premier has said -- that this House will be going to an election within the next

few weeks or so. I think that given the status and the amount of work that needs

to be done, including criminal record checks for that position, it is virtually

impossible for the committee to get their work done in that period of time. The

incumbent commissioner has indicated her willingness to stay on until such time

as a proper process is gone through. As a result, the opposition will be voting

against the motion until a new parliament has an opportunity to deal with this

issue.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Zirnhelt

Doyle

Gillespie

Kwan

Waddell

Hammell

McGregor

Giesbrecht

Farnworth

Lovick

Petter

Mann Brewin

Pullinger

Randall

Sawicki

Priddy

Cashore

Orcherton

Stevenson

Robertson

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Bowbrick

Janssen

Evans

Ramsey

Smallwood

G. Wilson

Streifel

Miller

Sihota

Calendino

Walsh

Boone

Lali

Kasper

Goodacre

NAYS -- 33

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

J. Reid

Krueger

Thorpe

Symans

van Dongen

Barisoff

J. Wilson

Roddick

Masi

[1445]

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW

THE POLICE COMPLAINT PROCESS

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that Motion 3 standing in my name on the

orders of the day be moved now. The motion would appoint that a special

committee review and make recommendations respecting the police complaint

process in

part 9 of the Police Act. The appointment of this committee is in

accordance with a provision of the Police Act, which requires that a special

committee begin a comprehensive review of

part 9 within three years of its

coming into force, which was July 1, 1998.

[That a Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process be appointed

and empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to

the police complaints process in accordance with

section 51.2 of the Police Act

(RSBC 1996, c. 367) and in particular, without limiting the generality of the

foregoing to:

1. review comprehensively

Part 9 (Complaint Procedure) of the Police Act and

the work of the Police Complaint Commissioner;

2. solicit and consider written and oral submissions from any interested

person or organization by any means the committee considers appropriate;

3. submit a Report including any amendments to

Part 9 that the committee

recommends to the Legislative Assembly arising out of the results of the

committee's inquiry within one year of this resolution being adopted by the

House.

The Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to

such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess

after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the

House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall

report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the

next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its

reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of

adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall

present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the Special Committee of Selection be empowered to compile the list of

Members for the said Committee.]

G. Farrell-Collins: As I have advised the Government House Leader,

we'll be voting against this motion as well. This act, under

section 51(2), says

that this must be reviewed after three years of the act coming into force. That

was July 1, 1998.

[ Page 17492 ]

That would be July 1 of this year. This parliament won't exist on July 1,

2001. There will be a new one, or else we will be in the middle of an election

campaign. So it's not required that that be done at this point in time.

Therefore the opposition will not be supporting it.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, would those in favour of the

motion please say aye. The ayes have it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: On division.

Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 17.

The Speaker: I'm sorry; I didn't see that the member for Malahat-Juan

de Fuca rose.

R. Kasper: It should be noted that I would change my vote, and I would

not support the motion. So "on division" should not stand.

The Speaker: Member, the motion was passed on division.

An Hon. Member: He wants division.

The Speaker: Well, he's a little late. The member wishes to call

division now? Okay. Division's been called.

[1450]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36

Zirnhelt

Doyle

Gillespie

Kwan

Waddell

Hammell

McGregor

Giesbrecht

Farnworth

Lovick

Petter

Mann Brewin

Pullinger

Randall

Sawicki

Priddy

Cashore

Orcherton

Stevenson

Robertson

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Bowbrick

Janssen

Evans

Ramsey

Smallwood

G. Wilson

Streifel

Miller

Sihota

Calendino

Walsh

Boone

Lali

Goodacre

NAYS -- 34

Kasper

Weisgerber

Penner

Nettleton

Anderson

Jarvis

Sanders

Chong

Coell

Neufeld

L. Reid

Abbott

Plant

de Jong

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

C. Clark

Hansen

Whittred

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

J. Reid

Krueger

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

J. Wilson

Roddick

Masi

Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 17.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the bill be read a second time.

Pay equity is, we believe, a fundamental human right. The purpose of this

bill is to recognize that fact by enshrining the principle of equal pay for work

of equal value in the British Columbia Human Rights Code.

On average, women in British Columbia earn 27 percent less than men. This

means that for every dollar that a man earns in this province, a woman will only

earn 73 cents. This gap between men's and women's earnings results from a number

of factors, including supply and demand, training, seniority and systemic

barriers to hiring and promoting women.

[1455]

This pay equity amendment addresses the 8 cents of that 27-cent gap that is

due to the historic undervaluing of work traditionally done by women. This type

of discrimination is rooted in the past when women in the workforce either were,

for the most part, single and without families to support or were working

outside the home to provide the family with what many refer to as extra income.

Those times are long past. Many women in the workforce are single parents,

and many families require two incomes to meet their needs. Indeed, I would

suggest that most families need two incomes to meet their needs. Moreover,

attitudes have changed, and people expect to be paid for the value of the work

that they do.

The public sector pay equity policy, which has been in place in this province

since the early 1990s, has been successful in reducing the wage gap in the

public sector. Unfortunately, for the most

part local government and the private

sector have not voluntarily followed the government's lead. It is clear that

market forces have been unable to eliminate that portion of the wage gap which

is caused by this historic undervaluation.

The Human Rights Code already prohibits an employer from discriminating

between male and female employees by paying them differently for similar or

substantially similar work. This bill amends the code to prohibit an employer

from discriminating between male and female workers by paying them differently

for work of equal value. This is a logical extension of the code and is entirely

consistent with our human rights policy.

What this means is that workers of one sex who believe they are being paid

less than their fellow workers of the other sex for work of equal value will be

able to file a complaint against their employer with the British Columbia Human

Rights Commission. The commission already has responsibility for administering

the code, and the commission and the Human Rights Tribunal have the expertise to

deal with complaints of discrimination. If the complaint is founded, the Human

Rights Tribunal will be able to order the employer to address the pay inequity

by paying wage adjustments to the affected employees at the rate of 1 percent of

the employer's payroll per year until pay equity is achieved. Or if the tribunal

determines that it is in the public interest, the tribunal can order a pay

equity plan for all of the employer's employees, under which they will receive

wage increases equivalent to 1 percent of the employer's total payroll per year

until pay equity is achieved.

The bill also includes provisions designed to encourage employers and their

employees to reach agreements on a plan for achieving pay equity in their

workplace. It provides that if the employer and employees agree in good faith to

a plan to

[ Page 17493 ]

achieve pay equity for all of the affected employees through increases

totalling at least 1 percent of the employer's payroll per year, those employees

will not be able to make a successful pay equity complaint. So the incentive for

the employer is to come up with plans in order to provide an absolute defence to

any complaint that may be made to the commission.

The bill also provides that in making a plan, the employer and employees may

agree to look at outside comparators where no comparable position exists within

the company.

To allow employers and employees some time to work on pay equity plans for

the workplace, this bill provides that the amendments come into effect on June

1, 2002.

When work done by women and men working in jobs traditionally done by women

is undervalued, this has a very significant impact on women and their families.

It also affects employers and the economy as a whole by leading to employee

dissatisfaction, low morale and low productivity. Low wages for women and men

working in jobs traditionally done by women have been subsidizing employers and

other employees. Adjustments to wages for work traditionally done by women are

the right of employees who have not been paid fairly in the past. This

government is committed to economic equality and security for women. We believe

that achieving pay equity is essential to the prosperity of all workers, to

successful and competitive business and to long-term economic growth.

[1500]

We believe it's time to end the form of discrimination that has existed for

years in the form of pay inequity in this province. It's time to pass this

amendment. Every woman in British Columbia should have the right to work in an

environment that's free of this form of discrimination. Our Human Rights Code

prohibits many forms of discrimination in this province, and we think it's time

that this was added to the list. If women are facing such discrimination, it's

time for the law to back them up when they make that complaint.

I think it's important to note that there are, of course, employers who have

voluntarily implemented pay equity. As I mentioned earlier, in the B.C. public

service we've had pay equity employees for a number of years now, and we've been

working towards it through most of the 1990s. The result has been that the wage

gap in the public service is far less than it is in the population at large. Now

we're anywhere from 89 percent to, I believe, 92 percent. Women are getting 89

to 92 percent of the wages of men in the B.C. public service. When we consider

that the remainder of that gap could be due to other factors such as lower

education levels, less experience, less seniority and less responsibility in

various jobs, this means we've made great strides, and we have essentially

achieved pay equity in the public service.

However, it's important to note this bill does not apply just to the private

sector; it applies to all employers in British Columbia, including government.

So if we have overlooked public service employees in this province, or if they

feel we haven't gone far enough, it's certainly open to them to make a complaint

as well. It's also worth noting that in addition to the B.C. public service,

there are municipalities in this province that have voluntarily implemented pay

equity, and there are private sector employers in this province who have

voluntarily implemented pay equity.

I want to outline again a few of the important elements of this legislation.

As I've said already, it applies to every employer in the province. This is

sometimes characterized as a debate only about asking the private sector to

implement pay equity. In fact, it's about every employer. Certainly I feel that

it's incumbent upon government to show leadership. That's why we've been

implementing pay equity for most of the last decade. Unfortunately, our

leadership hasn't paid off to the extent that we thought it would, and we

haven't seen as many other employers follow as we would have liked, so it will

apply to all employers.

Secondly, this is a complaint-driven model. Pay equity will be enforced on

the basis of complaints made to the Human Rights Commission and ultimately, if

necessary, adjudicated upon by the Human Rights Tribunal. This is not a model

like that which exists in Ontario, which is a stand-alone piece of legislation

and is more, some would say, proactive. It is complaint-driven.

Also, it's important to note that pay equity plans under this amendment are

not mandatory, which again is unlike some other jurisdictions such as Ontario.

But as I indicated earlier, there is an incentive for employers to develop pay

equity plans. I would like to see employers do all of this voluntarily, as this

government would. Unfortunately, we haven't seen that thus far. But again, by

amending the act in this manner and providing an additional incentive, perhaps

we'll see more employers do this voluntarily with the incentive of being able to

develop a plan as an absolute defence to a complaint against them made by

employees under this amendment.

It's also important to emphasize again, on the issue of costs, that costs

under this amendment are capped at 1 percent of total payroll per year until pay

equity is achieved. The legislation does make it possible for employers to do it

voluntarily -- do more voluntarily if they wish -- but under this amendment no

employer will be forced against their will to contribute more than 1 percent of

their total payroll per year towards pay equity.

[1505]

Finally, as indicated earlier as well, this amendment comes into force on

June 1, 2002, which I think is sufficient time for employers to be able to

prepare for the advent of pay equity as being the law in British Columbia.

There have been a number of criticisms levelled at this amendment and what

we're doing, and I would like to take a few moments now to address some of those

concerns that have been raised. One is that there hasn't been enough

consultation on pay equity and this amendment. I know that my colleague the

Minister of Women's Equality can likely outline in much more detail the

consultations undertaken by her ministry, and so I won't do it at great length

here.

But it's important to note that we've been talking about pay equity in this

province for the better part of a decade now. We have been not just talking

about it but walking the walk on it in the public sector, and so there has been

that discussion that has gone on. And then last year the Ministry of Women's

Equality put out a document on economic security for women and began

province-wide consultations on that, including, I am informed, conversations and

discussions about pay equity at that time.

So that took place last summer, and we heard a number of things. What we

heard was that there were some who didn't want a heavily bureaucratic model.

They rejected what in this country would be characterized as the Ontario model.

[ Page 17494 ]

Unfortunately, many of those who took that position just didn't want any

legislated pay equity at all, but they certainly objected first and foremost to

a heavily bureaucratic model like that in Ontario. There were others, of course,

who said that they wanted something much more like the Ontario model. They

wanted a stand-alone piece of legislation. They wanted it to be more proactive.

They wanted mandatory pay equity plans on all employers in British Columbia, or

at least employers of a certain size in British Columbia.

Those were some of the other things that were heard during that consultation

process. Now, I have to emphasize that sometimes when we talk about

consultation, people for some reason think that consultation means that they get

whatever they ask for. That isn't what consultation means. Consultation means

that they're asked for their opinions, their opinions are solicited and listened

to, and at the end of the day it may result in their views being reflected in

the final decision, or it may not, or it could be varying degrees in between.

We listened to everyone. That meant that no one group got every single thing

that they were asking for. To my knowledge, nobody came forward and asked for

exactly the form of amendment that we have in this House today. They asked for

something more, or they asked for something less, and I think it's evidence of

the fact that we listened carefully and took into account all of those different

views that we have the amendment in this form today.

There are also those who are concerned that this could harm our competitive

position in this province. I have to say that I'd like to see some more evidence

of that perhaps offered in this debate, especially now as we get so close to an

election. I'm afraid that this debate won't get its due. There is far too much

rhetoric, and there aren't enough facts infusing this debate.

Pay equity legislation exists in Quebec and Ontario and the federally

regulated private sector, with regard to the private sector. We are not the

first province to do this; we're not the first jurisdiction to do this. Ontario

did it in the early 1990s. Quebec did it as well. And even the federal

government has done it with regard to all employers following in their federally

regulated jurisdiction.

I have not seen the evidence that those pay equity statutes have harmed the

competitive position of those other jurisdictions. So I think it's important to

note that we aren't the first ones to do this. It's not the first time ever that

this has been done anywhere. In fact, some would say that we've been too long

coming to this point.

On the issue of cost, again we hear all kinds of numbers thrown about. I

haven't seen how they've been substantiated to this point, and I certainly would

like to see them, if that's going to be part of this debate. I think it amounts

to an overblown level of rhetoric and not a thoughtful debate when we hear costs

in the billions or what have you. We put a 1 percent cap on this legislation to

make sure that this wasn't too onerous on employers. I happen to be very

sympathetic to the view that it's important to achieve an important principle,

but it does take time to do that. This legislation reflects that.

[1510]

When we talk about costs, all too often critics of pay equity only talk about

the costs to employers, but we never hear about the costs to women. I don't

think there's any dispute that pay inequity exists. We're debating second

reading right now; we're debating this in principle. If there's a dispute about

whether pay inequity exists, then we should hear it during this debate if at any

time at all.

There isn't a dispute about whether pay inequity exists. So if we all agree

that pay inequity exists, then who bears the burden of that inequity? That's the

fundamental question. Should it continue to be women, as it has been for so many

years? I would suggest that those who say that it all has to be done voluntarily

and that everyone can take their time are saying: "Yes, women will have to

continue to bear this burden until market forces correct this." And thus

far, women have been in the workforce in this country in a significant way for

decades, and we haven't seen a substantial decrease in that pay inequity.

Hon. Speaker, the fundamental question that I have to ask -- and I hope

others in this debate might answer it -- is: what about the cost to women?

They're the ones who've been bearing the brunt of this for decades. They

continue to bear the brunt of it. We have to find a way, as a society, of

addressing this. It is not fair that only women should bear this burden.

On the other hand, we've made a policy decision that says it's also not fair

to ask business to fix this overnight. It's not fair to ask every employer out

there to fix this overnight. That's why there's a 1 percent cap on costs on an

annual basis, so this can be done in a measured and reasonable way to achieve

what I hope we'll all agree is a fundamentally important principle.

Now, as I've suggested, there are also people who say that legislation just

isn't required. In fact, I think the hon. member who may be speaking on this

shortly called it a goofball idea. Perhaps he might like to expand upon that a

little, because that's open to terrible

interpretations. I'm sure the member

wouldn't want that to happen. He can expand upon what pay inequity legislation

being a goofball idea means, and I'm very much looking forward to that.

For those who say that legislation isn't required and that pay equity can be

achieved voluntarily, I guess the question is: how much longer will it take? Are

there any estimates? Do those who argue for a voluntary approach have an answer

for the women of this province? Can they go out to those women and say:

"Hold on. Legislation isn't required because we estimate, at the current

rate, that in ten years there'll be pay equity in this province"? I haven't

heard that. If that can be added to this debate, I think it would be a useful

thing.

I'm looking forward to hearing it, if there's been any thought or analysis

given to that position other than just: "Wait a little longer; we can't

tell you how much longer. Things are going to get better at some point in the

future; we just don't know exactly when. In the meantime, when you're worried

about your paycheque and how much you're bringing home to your family, we just

don't have an answer for you when you say that there are some men in

traditionally male-occupied positions with your same employer who are getting

paid more than you. Sorry, it will be taken care of voluntarily."

Well, it has taken us a long time to get to this point where we say that

there's a 27 percent gap right now. Eight percent of the gap, or about just over

a third of the gap, is directly attributable to this form of discrimination.

Women have been in the paid workforce in this country for at least the last 40

years, in very significant numbers, and of course women have performed work of

great value to society since long before

[ Page 17495 ]

that. Here we are with a 27 percent gap, 8 percent of the gap is directly

attributable to discrimination, and they're being asked by some to wait even

longer to address that discrimination.

[1515]

We think now is the time to do this. Now is the time to pass this amendment.

It's not the time to try and sidestep this issue. Right before an election is

the time for all parties to indicate exactly where they stand on these issues.

With all due respect, to sidestep this issue by saying that we're going to refer

it to a task force is a dereliction of duty. The women of this province deserve

better than that. They really do deserve better than that.

I hear the member asking where we have been for the last ten years. We've

been implementing pay equity in the public sector for the last ten years,

because I know what would have happened. If we hadn't implemented pay equity in

the public service before we did this, we'd be criticized for not doing it

ourselves. So that's where we've been. We've been busy making sure our own house

was in order for the last ten years. We have a very clear position on pay

equity. We've demonstrated as an employer our commitment to pay equity, and now

we're saying that since we've got our own house in order on pay equity, it's

time for the private sector and other public sector employers in this province

to do this as well. We're not going to be cute. We're not going to say that this

should be referred to a task force, that we don't have a position at this time,

that we're in favour of the principle. What does that mean? We're in favour of

the principle, but we don't have anything to offer the people of this province

who are concerned about this issue about how exactly we're going to achieve pay

equity. No.

"We favour the principle; we're going to have a task force. Don't worry;

it'll all be voluntary. Everything will work out somehow." The people of

this province have a right to expect better than that from everyone concerned.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

I hope that we'll have a good debate on this. I hope the women of this

province will get some answers in terms of where the official opposition stands

on this issue besides that they're in favour of the principle and that there

will be a task force. They've had an opportunity now to view the legislation and

can offer some specifics on the legislation.

Hon. Speaker, I'm sure I'll have more at the close of this debate. But I'm

very pleased to be supporting this bill in second reading.

G. Plant: The official opposition supports both the principle and the

practice of pay equity. Women and men doing the same work should receive the

same amount of pay. The law of British Columbia already protects that right in

section 12 of the Human Rights Code. I think it's important as part of the

context of this debate to read

section 12(1) of the Human Rights Code, since

that's the first

section that this bill would amend. In its present form it

reads: "An employer must not discriminate between employees by employing an

employee of one sex for work at a rate of pay that is less than the rate of pay

at which an employee of the other sex is employed by that employer for similar

or substantially similar work."

I contend that that is a significant and important statement of public

policy. It is clearly an important part of the Human Rights Code of British

Columbia and a provision of that code which we in the official opposition fully

support. Bill 17, however, the bill that we're now debating, would rewrite this

requirement to create a new test for discrimination: the idea of equal pay for

work of equal value. This test has been imposed by legislation elsewhere in

Canada with, at best, decidedly mixed results. Bill 17 does not simply follow a

model already adopted in other jurisdictions. Bill 17 charts a new course based

only in part upon legislation enacted elsewhere. That course, the course charted

by Bill 17, is flawed for the reasons that I will elaborate on in due course.

But in sum the position is this: Bill 17 will create uncertainty and

instability, not social justice.

[1520]

The inquiries that it will permit are more likely to be arbitrary than

principled, and the results of these inquiries will be unpredictable. Dollars,

years and much human energy that could be spent improving the lives of workers

and the conditions in which they work will be spent instead upon litigation and

consultants.

The process of collective bargaining in British Columbia will be undermined

by this bill, because collective agreements will be attacked by complainants who

will be entitled to invoke the whole of the human rights investigation process

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

In the final analysis, this bill will do nothing to help women who work for

low wages in single-sex jobs -- women who work as domestics or piece workers in

the garment industry. Bill 17 won't help them. In short, the goal of pay equity

will not be met by Bill 17.

We support the goal of pay equity, but we oppose this flawed and

ill-conceived legislation. I repeat, Mr. Speaker: we support the principle and

the practice of pay equity. To meet our commitment to pay equity, we have stated

that if elected, we will appoint a task force headed by a judge or a retired

judge to review the economic impacts, the various models and options of pay

equity that exist, and to report. That proposal -- the proposal to appoint a

task force -- offers, I think, a way forward which ensures that the legitimate

question of gender-based wage discrimination will be kept before us as a public

policy challenge while ensuring that all voices will be heard in the dialogue

that lately has been driven by political imperatives rather than public policy

principles.

I want to speak for a moment about the process that has led us to this point,

since that was the subject of some of the remarks of the Attorney General in

introducing second reading. On April 6, 2000, the Premier of British Columbia

was quoted in the news media as having said this: "There is going to be no

legislation on pay equity, private sector or public sector. That's a decision

that has been made." Those were the Premier's words. Well, the bill before

us today is, to put it plainly and simply, legislation on pay equity, private

sector and public sector. In short, Bill 17 represents a complete abrogation of

the promise made by the Premier just a few short months ago.

There is little prospect of economic prosperity or social justice in a

political jurisdiction where the Premier says one thing one day only to do

something completely different the next. Stability and certainty are

preconditions to good government and healthy democracy.

Interjections.

[ Page 17496 ]

An Hon. Member: I'm having trouble hearing.

G. Plant: I'm having trouble hearing myself think.

Deputy Speaker: That's a good point, hon. member. Members, Richmond-Steveston

has the floor. The Speaker's having a difficult time hearing the remarks as

well, so if the government side would just lay down the heckle a little bit,

we'll get through this debate.

G. Plant: The decision to introduce this bill represents the

antithesis of stability and certainty. It's no wonder that employers and citizen

groups across the province reacted to the announcement of this legislation with

dismay. Last April the citizens of British Columbia were expressly encouraged to

believe that whatever this government's legislative intentions might be, they

did not include legislated pay equity. By introducing this bill, the government

mocks that belief and insults all those who -- na�vely, as it turns out --

thought they could rely upon the word of the leader of this government.

[1525]

It's impossible to believe that last April the Premier was inadequately

informed about the public policy implications of comparable-work legislation.

After a half decade as the Minister Responsible for Human Rights, no one in this

government could have known more about the issue of wage discrimination than the

Premier. No, last April the Premier knew exactly what he was saying when he told

the people of B.C. there would be no legislation on pay equity. He put his

credibility on the line. He said -- and I think it's worth quoting again:

"There is going to be no legislation on pay equity, private sector or

public sector. That's the decision that has been made."

An Hon. Member: Why would he change his mind?

G. Plant: Well, he put his credibility on the line last April, and

last week he introduced pay equity legislation. The prospect of electoral defeat

causes all kinds of strange machinations in the hearts and minds of Premiers.

Members of the government, including the Attorney General just a few minutes

ago, have commented on the issue of consultation over the last couple of weeks.

They have argued, as the Attorney General just did, that public consultation

over the issue of pay equity has taken place over many months. To answer this

argument, and to answer it completely, it is only necessary to point out that

from last April until March 2 there was no need on the part of any single person

in the private or public sector to think or talk or write or debate about the

challenges of pay equity legislation because, in the Premier's words, there

wasn't going to be pay equity legislation.

All that changed when on March 2, the Attorney General told the public that

there would be pay equity legislation and that there would be a grand total of

13 days for people to offer their comments. Actually, he didn't even mean it

when he said that, because he told people he had already made up his mind that

there would be pay equity legislation.

I respectfully suggest that anyone from the government benches who dares

defend the government's process on this bill must answer this question: what did

the Premier mean when he said last April that there would be no legislation on

pay equity? I haven't heard an answer to that question, but I look forward .

. . .

Interjections.

G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition supports the principle

of pay equity, but if pay equity is to be imposed by legislation, it can only be

imposed by result of a process of consultation in which the people of British

Columbia are actually listened to rather than insulted.

I want to turn for a moment to the experience with pay equity legislation in

two other jurisdictions, Ontario and the federal government. The first is

Ontario. Ontario introduced private sector pay equity legislation as long ago as

1987. Now, in fact, if you try to get a printout of the Ontario Pay Equity Act,

it's 56 pages long. It's pretty careful; it's pretty articulate; it's pretty

detailed. And I'll have more to say about the significance of that detail when I

speak to parts of the provisions of Bill 17.

[1530]

But the point I want to make is that we've had a chance -- all of us, as

observers -- to determine whether or not the Ontario model of pay equity

legislation has worked. And that's the question that I think needs to be

answered. That is: if we support the principle of pay equity, then we look at

legislative models that are intended to give effect to that. Have they made a

difference? Have they actually improved the situation of gender wage

discrimination either in the private sector or in the public sector?

Well, there's been a study done on the Ontario legislation by an economist

from the University of Toronto and an economist from the University of British

Columbia. The study is the first to take a comprehensive look at the impact of

Ontario's Pay Equity Act. There are a few comments from that study that I think

are worth putting on the record in the context of this discussion about whether

or not legislated models of pay equity have been effective. Here is a quote from

that study:

"Whether viewed positively or negatively, to be effective pay equity

must be practical. This issue is less important for other labour market

regulations such as minimum wages or overtime rates. In each of these cases, the

regulation is conceptually simple and external to the firm. Therefore lapses in

compliance are primarily the result of an employer malfeasance. The difference

here is that comparable worth involves the conceptually difficult step of making

male and female jobs commensurate."

I want to stop there. That is what pay equity legislation is about. When you

introduce this idea of equal pay for work of equal value, you're now introducing

the idea that two jobs which on their face appear to be different may

nonetheless be valued equally, and that analysis may form the basis of an

argument of gender discrimination.

So you're trying to compare what may look like apples and oranges. It's not

an easy task. I must point out, although we'll get to it in more detail later,

that there's almost nothing in Bill 17 to help anyone in the discharge of that

difficult task -- what the authors of the study refer to as the conceptually

difficult step of making male and female jobs commensurate.

I want to continue. "The legislation" -- that is, comparable-worth

legislation -- "can prescribe the principles by which these jobs should be

compared but not the specifics of the mechanism or the awards without assuming a

domi-

[ Page 17497 ]

nant role in the firm's wage determination process." I'm pausing there

for a moment. What that means is that the legislation can go a certain distance;

but if it goes too far down the road, then what happens is you have government

assuming a dominant role in deciding the wages that people earn. That's

generally considered to be inconsistent with free market economies.

I want to continue. "Many previous applications of this policy have been

to single employers or to labour markets with centralized wage determination or

strong centralized unions. We know very little of how this policy functions in a

decentralized labour market."

What that's talking about is this: for the provincial public sector in

British Columbia -- it's a large market -- the government essentially, as the

employer, has significant control over the wage determination across the entire

public sector. For the vast majority of the rest of the economy, people work in

job settings with one employee, two employees, 50, 100, 1,500, 5,000. The entire

job market is highly decentralized, and terms and principles which attempt to

regulate that run into significant problems.

[1535]

Here is the first significant finding of that University of Toronto study:

"Comparable worth appears to be a complicated and unwieldy labour market

regulation." "Complicated and unwieldy" -- I think those words

are significant when we examine the model of comparable worth legislation that

has been presented to us by Bill 17.

And then the study goes on, on the basis of statistical analysis, to draw

three further conclusions that I think are important to the issue before us.

The first finding is that there were substantial lapses in compliance and

implementation in small firms. The reason is, quite simply: small firms just

don't have the money to construct the complicated job evaluation systems and to

undertake the analysis and hire the consultants and pay for the lawyers, which

you need to do in order to make the premise of comparable worth legislation

work. So the study concluded that the Ontario law has had "little effect in

a sector of the labour market that employs roughly 65 percent of working

females." The policy, the Ontario approach, has simply had little effect in

virtually two-thirds of the female workforce in Ontario.

Secondly, "Because much of the Ontario labour force was untreated by the

law," the authors of the report conclude, "we find no robust evidence

that the pay equity legislation transferred a general benefit to women in

Ontario over a six-to-eight-year period." In other words, it didn't work.

Over the six to eight years that these people did the study, the legislation in

Ontario didn't work. It didn't actually transfer any money in the way that it

was supposed to.

The third finding that's important is this: any direct positive effects on

the wages of females working in female jobs are modest and typically

statistically insignificant. Well, there it is again. The Ontario model, which

is clearly a long-established model and frankly, notwithstanding the Attorney

General's submission, is the conceptual basis of the approach taken here in

British Columbia . . . . It hasn't worked in Ontario. That's the

study's conclusion. It has not in fact improved the situation of workingwomen in

Ontario. It's a great idea, but it doesn't work.

I want to speak for a moment or two about the federal model. I really only

want to speak for a moment or two, because we know about the federal model, and

we know about the disputes in the federal model that have gone on for 12 or 13

years. We know about the litigation that started in the late 1980s and has

continued. We know about the fact that the government has itself commissioned a

study into the federal model which determines that complaint-based models don't

work very well.

So there's the evidence from the federal system. In fact, if we look across

Canada at these two leading examples of pay equity legislation, and if we're

prepared to stand back long enough to be objective, we'll see that pay equity

legislation in other parts of Canada may be well motivated. It may speak from an

important social justice imperative, but it has not achieved the objectives set

out for it. And if it doesn't achieve the objectives set out for it, then we

need to ask questions about whether it's the right way to proceed. So in that

context, I want to say a few things about Bill 17 and the Human Rights Code

Amendment Act.

One of the things that I think needs to be said to follow up on a point made

by the Attorney General during his remarks has to do with the issue of costs. He

expressed interest in knowing something about the issue of costs, and I want to

say that my best source on the issue of costs is his ministry's backgrounder. It

was released at the same time as the legislation was introduced last week. The

figure used there is $2.9 billion per year. That is, his ministry, his

government, estimates that the introduction of this model of pay equity

legislation would cost the economy of British Columbia $2.9 billion per year.

That's how I read that sentence in his backgrounder.

[1540]

However, there was an interesting sentence that followed that. I wish I had

it in front of me; I could quote it exactly. The sentence which followed that

statement pointed out that for a variety of reasons, that figure was unlikely to

be achieved. When you read those reasons -- people not filing complaints, people

in small workplaces not choosing to file complaints, and so on -- it was

actually a pretty good list of criticisms of this model. In other words, the

government said: "If our model of pay equity legislation worked, it would

cost $2.9 billion a year. But it won't work, so it won't cost that much."

That was really the most compelling part of the government's backgrounder on

this issue. That is, they have their own number for the cost, but they say:

"Don't worry. It won't cost that much, because our model of pay equity

legislation won't work."

Well, let's have a look at their model of pay equity. The first point to make

about their model of pay equity is to note an important distinction between the

approach taken in Ontario and in virtually every other model of pay equity that

I know of compared to the approach taken in this jurisdiction by this bill. The

Ontario act, and this is just by way of example, reads as follows: "The

purpose of this Act is to redress systemic gender discrimination in compensation

for work performed by employees in female job classes."

There are a couple of significant points. First, the purpose of the act is

directly related to systemic gender discrimination performed on employees in

female job classes. So it's focused on women and the issue of systemic gender

discrimination. The second point is that it's not focused on women as

individuals. It's focused on the work performed by employees in classes of jobs.

The reason that distinction is relevant is because the project of attempting to

determine whether work

[ Page 17498 ]

done by one set of people is comparable to work done by another set of people

works if you focus on . . . . Its only chance of working is if you

focus on the classification of the job, the job description, rather than the

work actually done.

If you were to focus on the work actually done by the employee, then you

would have a number of risks, only one of which I need trouble you with, Mr.

Speaker. That is, what happens when the employee leaves? If the focus is on the

employee and the employee leaves or changes jobs, then you've lost your point of

comparison -- you've lost the comparator.

So what does this bill do? This bill says this, in what will become

section

12(1): "An employer must not discriminate between employees by employing an

employee of one sex for work at a rate of pay that is less than the rate of pay

at which an employee of the other sex is employed by that employer for work of

equal value." Two significant points -- first of all, no focus on gender

discrimination as it applies to women. The

section backs away entirely from the

situation of women in particular and focuses on systemic discrimination as it

may apply either to men or to women. Now that may be, in fact, the public policy

intent of the government, but I must say that it has not been the statement of

their intent over the last couple of weeks.

They have been talking, as the Attorney General did in his own remarks, about

the wage gap that exists between men and women and saying that they want to

remedy that. They want to bridge that wage gap. So they introduce legislation

which does not limit itself to the question of the traditional inequity

experienced by women in traditionally female job classes. They open it up to all

employees in any job anywhere in B.C. who can point to somebody else at their

worksite who is of a different gender and say: "I think I should be paid

the same as you. I know you're a woman and I'm a guy, but I think I should be

paid the same as you, so I'm going to file a complaint." That's what this

bill would permit. It certainly would permit men to file complaints of systemic

discrimination in the workforce. I say, with respect, that it's hard to describe

that as being a bill that's directed at the issue of traditional systemic

discrimination experienced by women in the workforce.

[1545]

The second point that needs to be made here is that the legislation does not

focus on the classifications or classes of jobs but rather on the employees

themselves. That is, the

section is directed not at job classifications but at

the work done by employees. That has at least this significance: all of the work

done everywhere else in North America that has examined the issue of female job

classes will be of no use in British Columbia. So every little bit that we could

have saved here, by using models that might have worked a little bit elsewhere,

we've decided not to do. We're going to create a different system that will

require the creation of a completely new set of principles for determining these

issues in the workforce.

Another point I want to make is the relationship between subsection (2) and

subsection (3). One of the things that people always talk about in the context

of equal pay for work of equal value is the relevance, if any, to this inquiry

of things like market conditions, the demand for certain categories of

employment and ability to pay. Those are sometimes considered to be relevant and

sometimes considered not to be relevant. What we know about this bill is that

it's completely unclear whether those things will be relevant or irrelevant.

In subsection (3) what the code will do is simply hand that question over to

the tribunal to determine, because the issue will be whether or not a difference

between the salary for one person's work and the salary for another person's

work can be reasonably justified. That exercise, in an attempt to reasonably

justify the difference, is an exercise that -- I can assure you -- thrills the

hearts of every employment law lawyer in British Columbia. Legions of

consultants will be lining up to attempt to develop principles to fill in this

empty vessel created by this provision.

The point is that we simply don't get any guidance from this bill as to what

will constitute discrimination and what won't. And when you don't get any

guidance, you've created the uncertainty and instability which is antithetical

to the creation of economic prosperity and social justice.

This particular subsection is, I think, way too broadly worded. And I think

it's particularly problematic given the purpose of rules of

interpretation that

tribunal officers are required to apply when they look at the code. That is,

they're going to look at this, they're going to listen to arguments about what

might reasonably justify the difference, and they're going to be as narrow as

they can, because the Supreme Court of Canada has told them that they should

construe those exceptions fairly narrowly.

[1550]

All of that happens, of course, at the end of a long process that begins with

the filing of a complaint. And there's no limit to how many complaints can be

filed. At the end of the collective bargaining experience between a large

employer and a large union, every single person in the workforce can line up and

file a complaint and ask to have their job examined. And there is nothing in

this that will permit the union to say: "Hold off a minute. We dealt with

that issue." There's no mechanism to allow the union to control or limit or

be cautious about whether they want to fight again in front of the Human Rights

Tribunal on an issue that they maybe had to take to arbitration.

All of this, I say -- and this is really a third point -- is quite corrosive

of the basic principles of collective bargaining. You take a system of

collective bargaining that's supposed to create certainty in the workplace and

then allow anyone who doesn't like that result to file a complaint. That seems

to me to also be a problem.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Now, I may be wrong about that. It may be that these things can be explained.

But we're not going to have a whole lot of time to look at that question,

because even when this government said, "You've got 13 days," they

didn't tell us what the model was. They didn't say: "Here's the model; now

think about it for 13 days." They said: "You've got 13 days, and

that's it. Put up or shut up. Say anything you like. We're not interested; we

don't listen. And in any event, we're going to do whatever we want, and we're

not going to tell you." But here we are today doing it. So I'm asking

questions . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order please. The member for Richmond-Steveston

has the floor.

G. Plant: I've been going through, in detail, some of the concerns I

have with some of the provisions in Bill 17, and I

[ Page 17499 ]

want to continue that. I want to point out again that the way the remedy

mechanism is triggered is not by reference to job classes. It's not by reference

to descriptions that could apply to people who may be in that job category. It

actually is limited to people who are the subject of the complaint. I think

there's a problem there, because what the process seems to do is encourage the

making of multiple complaints. And then it means that, at least in the first

instance, the issue is not whether there is, by category, systemic

discrimination in the workforce but rather whether the employees who are the

subject of the complaint have had their rights infringed upon.

I understand that there could be a legitimate objective in achieving that.

The question is whether, by implementing this scheme in that way, you're

actually, in the long run, going to be undermining the objective of principled

pay equity and also making it just too darned expensive and time-consuming to

achieve.

One of the things that the people who have talked about this bill have spoken

about is the idea of an employer entering into a plan that may adopt or make

reference to job classifications. And it's right to point out that in some

circumstances a plan entered into as an agreement between the employer and the

employees could work as an answer to a complaint.

Note where the plan becomes effective. The plan does not have any effect in

answer to the complaint at the commission stage. The plan does not have any

effect in answer to the complaint as the complaint is being investigated for the

months and months and years and years that these complaints will be

investigated. The plan does not have any relevance in the context of an attempt

to mediate the dispute between the complainant and the employer. It's only if

the complaint gets to the tribunal that the tribunal at that stage may look at

the plan as an answer to the complaint.

[1555]

What is the reason for an employer to enter into a plan when it doesn't

prevent any of the investigative, mediation, reporting work from happening? The

plan doesn't allow the employer to say: "Well, I've reached an agreement

with my employees, so I'm not going to have to worry about this issue." No,

no. The plan means that the employer may still have to spend hundreds of

thousands of dollars defending or resisting or dealing with or responding to the

investigation as it works its way through the system. And only when the case

finally makes its way to the tribunal for determination by adjudication will the

plan become relevant. When it does, there is no guidance in this bill as to the

basis upon which the plan should be considered to be relevant. So even after

doing all that work, there is no certainty in this bill about the extent to

which particular arrangements made in a plan will help or not. It's an

invitation to litigation; it's a recipe for litigation. There is nothing in this

bill that will encourage employees and employers to resolve these issues.

There are some interesting comments about the 1 percent per employee thing

which the Attorney General focuses on. Well, it is 1 percent -- that is, 1

percent of the total payroll. So if one person in a company that has 5,000

people has a complaint of wage discrimination, then the maximum amount available

to satisfy that claim in the event that it's upheld is 1 percent of the payroll

of the other 4,999 people. Now, it's unlikely that the discrepancy in any case

is ever going to be that much, but the point is that you're going to get right

to the end of the problem in the first year. For a huge number of employers

there's no gradual phase-in of this. The 1 percent rule isn't going to slow

things down. Employers are going to be faced with the full rigour of this in the

first year of its operation. I think the Attorney General should admit that.

Secondly, what does the act say about multiple complaints? Does each

complainant get their 1 percent? So what happens if you have 100 complainants?

There's nothing in the bill that says the complaints can be merged or

amalgamated. Each complaint will have to be dealt with on its own terms. Again,

it's a recipe for uncertainty, a recipe for instability, a recipe for litigation

and delay.

The last general point I want to make is this: Bill 17 will do nothing to

help women who work for low wages. It's an argument that has been made to me.

The argument is made that the only way an employer can avoid the substantial and

ongoing threat of

section 12 complaints is to ensure that it has a single-sex

workforce or that it only has one job. So how do you get there? Well, I know

that in the world of the Attorney General and the government, the assumption is

that when the government comes along to the private sector and says, "We

know what's good for you. Take your medicine and behave . . . . "

That's the way they think. But that is actually an unrealistic picture of the

marketplace.

In fact, in the marketplace, employers who will be concerned about the impact

of the costs of delay in litigation will look for ways to mitigate those

impacts. And some of us might not be very happy about those mitigation

strategies, and some of them might make perfect sense. We all know the story of

Bell Canada -- I'm sure that the minister himself does -- where the end result

of a longstanding complaint by certain employees in Bell Canada was that Bell

Canada simply stopped employing those people. They instead contracted out that

work, and the people who were doing the telephone operator service ended up

being paid $7 an hour less after pay equity than they were before.

That's what happens when governments impose unworkable, inefficient,

arbitrary, unprincipled schemes of pay equity. They don't get the support from

the employer sector that they need to make these schemes work. There's nothing

in this bill, that I see, that will preclude that result. In work that's

contracted out we know this. It tends to attract even lower wages. Currently

some of the most poorly paid groups of women tend to work in single-sex jobs.

They're domestics, or they're pieceworkers in the garment industry. My concern

is that Bill 17 won't improve their situation. There aren't going to be any

comparators in those single-sex jobs. The bill will likely create more of those

ghettos rather than fewer, because it simply won't apply. That's been the

experience in other situations, in other circumstances, in other jurisdictions,

and I see nothing in this bill that is responsive to that situation as it may

arise in British Columbia.

[1600]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the bill in its detail, I think that it is

flawed. I think that its approach is, generally speaking, wrongheaded, and I

think it is not likely to make things better for women in British Columbia. In

some limited circumstances it may even make things worse. So we need to look at

this situation. If the minister is right when he says that 8 cents of every

dollar in the workforce is a gap in the wages that exists between women and men

for reasons that have no legitimate basis, then we have a public policy problem

that we need to solve. We need to be open-minded about the ways to solve it,

although I want to tell you that I think we also need to

[ Page 17500 ]

be skeptical. We need to be scrutinizing, and we need to be prepared to

acknowledge that if a scheme doesn't work, it won't work unless there are ways

we can fix it.

What we see is that pay equity is a great idea and a noble principle, but

attempts by government to implement it in Canada have met with, at best,

indifferent success. That's a reason for caution. That's not an argument in

favour of haste. That is an argument in favour of taking a step back and asking,

in a principled and objective way, the questions that need to be asked and

looking for the answers that we hope will be out there.

I'm sure that during the course of this afternoon we're going to hear the

moral sound and fury from the members of the government who will stand up here

and make speeches about fundamental human values. I have to say that I will

probably agree with some of what they say. But I also want people who listen to

those words spoken at the end of March, in the year 2001, to ask themselves:

where was that moral fervour last year or the year before that or in all the

years in which the people on that side of the House have had the opportunity to

introduce pay equity by legislation and have not done so? Where was that moral

fervour when the people on the other side of the House controlled the agenda in

this assembly, as they have for nearly a decade, and introduced no end of

ridiculous pieces of legislation that have accomplished no purpose at all?

Why did they not say to themselves: "Instead of introducing this bill to

amend a comma in a statute that no one cares about, why don't we use this

opportunity to bring in pay equity?" Well, they didn't do it. You know, we

can talk about what we believe, but eventually we're judged by what we do. And

this government will be judged on its record on pay equity by what it has not

done as well as by what it has discovered, in the last few minutes of its

mandate, to be something that it wishes to do.

Pay equity is a noble goal. This bill is flawed, and the opposition will not

support it.

[1605]

Hon. S. Hammell: It makes me very proud to rise to support this

legislation. Having listened to the debate for the last hour almost, I can't

imagine anything that defines the difference between the opposition and this

government any more clearly. When it comes to paying women for the time they're

out working to earn money to support their families, they cannot bring

themselves to do it in a fair and equitable fashion.

When it comes to paying women, they say: "It's too complicated."

They say: "Oh, no, no, let's leave it to chance." They say:

"Let's think about it." They say: "It's a goofball idea."

Paying women for work when they already hold up more than their share of the

sky, paying them fairly and equitably for the time they're out there, "is a

goofball idea." "But even more than that, it will cost too much money.

No, no, no, we should not interfere; let's leave it to chance. Let the

marketplace play it. Or if we're going to do anything, let's do a royal

commission; let's do a study; let's do a task force; let's hire a judge. No,

let's hire a retired judge. Nothing works anyway, so let's just look at it.

Let's think about it."

Then they throw out and distort the facts. Never mind all this lawyer talk

about this clause and that clause. To quote somebody: "I'm not as wise as

these lawyer guys, but let's just look at the facts." In Ontario they have

the second-smallest wage gap in the country. It doesn't work in Ontario, but

Ontario is the second best when it comes to the wage gap. And you know where the

worst is? Alberta. And it doesn't have any legislation. There's no legislation

in Alberta, and it's worse. There's legislation in Ontario, and it's the second

best, following another province that had pay equity legislation.

This is about fairness, this is about equity, and it is about paying women

for work of equal value. Hon. Speaker, I do want to just take a minute and go

back to the past. The Attorney General did mention that things have changed; our

lives are very different now in this century. If we go back to when this topic

began in any clear fashion, it was in 1967. Then a professor from the University

of Toronto took the first snapshot of what is now called pay equity. In that

time, in 1967, women in full-time, full-year occupations -- in other words,

they're out there the same amount of time as men in full-time, full-year

occupations -- made 58 cents of the dollar that men earned. They earned 58

percent of what men earned.

That snapshot was called the wage gap, and it is the single snapshot that we

now measure everything against. Thirty years later women make 73 cents. In 30

years, 15 cents has been gained. In 30 years, we have gained half a cent a year.

Although it must be a goofball idea, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to

figure out that if you extrapolate that into the future, sometime around 2050

you will see that gap close. That's not good enough; it's not good enough for

the women in B.C. When I have spoken of this issue in the community, women who

understand this issue and understand the facts are horrified. Not only are they

horrified, they don't accept the wage gap. They don't believe that the work they

do is worth less than the work that a man does. It's just not on. Women are

wanting to be valued for the work they do, and this is about work of equal

value.

[1610]

When a woman gets up to face her day, she often gets up to look after the

kids. Even today, though there are many, many men who are very progressive and

out there assisting, women are still the primary caregivers. Not only do they

have their work to do, they have their children to look after. But women still,

despite the fact that many men are in there helping, do most of the chores

around the house. In fact, not only do they look after the children and do most

of the work in the house, most women are working. Never in the history of this

country have so many women been working outside the home. So why, if they are

outside the home spending the time doing their share and if they are also

working in the home and looking after children, should they be paid less for the

work that they do outside the home? It's patently unfair.

I don't know why the members of the opposition should think this is too

complicated, too hard, too difficult to do. They want to do nothing. Leave it

alone; let the marketplace fix it eventually. And if it doesn't, just leave it.

It's much too complicated for mere legislators to try to figure out. When they

did it in Ontario, they did it wrong. When they did it with the federal

government, they did it wrong. I'm sure there's no perfect fix, and so just

leave it.

We have never in this country chosen to just leave stuff when it's

inequitable. We always have fought against injustices. What absolutely floors me

about this opposition is that the previous administration prior to this

government, in the 1990s, was working on pay equity. They began working on pay

equity in the late 1980s, and here we are past the year

[ Page 17501 ]

2000, and we have an opposition that isn't even prepared to stand up with women

and fight with the government for pay for work of equal value. It is

astonishing.

Research shows that about half of the overall gender gap can be accounted for

by differences between men and women with certain wage-determining factors. I

remember when I was talking about this to a crowd of women, saying that the best

way to keep the gap closed between you and a man is to stay young and stay

single. Young, single, well-educated women have a very narrow wage gap. But

after that, it starts to spread out. Higher education, we know, can

substantially reduce that wage gap. For every dollar earned by men, women with a

university education earn 84 cents, while women with less than a high school

diploma earn only 69 cents for every dollar earned by men. Other

wage-determining factors include work experience, job responsibility, training

and the length of time in the workforce.

Another half of the wage gap is generally considered to stem from

discrimination. This includes the failure to hire women for some types of

higher-paying employment or to promote women to higher-paying positions. This

type of discrimination accounts for about 5 cents of the wage gap and is

addressed through employment equity programs.

The other form of discrimination results from historic undervaluing of work

traditionally done by women. Between one-quarter and one-third of the total

gender wage gap, 8 cents, is attributed to undervaluing women's work. Pay equity

closes the portion of the gap that arises from undervaluing work traditionally

done by women. It goes beyond pay for work that is the same or similar. Pay

equity is achieved when women and men receive the same pay when their jobs are

of equal value, even if the work is different.

[1615]

This takes us right back to the notion of value. Do you value the work women

do? Do you value the fact that they go out, they're in the workforce, and they

are supporting their families by putting in the time on the job? Do you value

the fact that they're out there just like men are? Do you value the fact that

they're at home as the primary caregivers around their children? Do you value

the fact that they're still the primary house-carers? If you value all that, why

would you not argue and support the notion that women should be paid for work of

equal value?

When you come back and look at these categories, this legislation is focused

on one sector of the area that needs to be worked on -- one sector. We're not

saying for one minute that you bring in this legislation and bang, magic -- the

world's fixed. What we're focused on is 8 cents of the 27-cent wage gap. What

we've got is an opposition who is opposed to trying to lever one portion of a

27-cent wage gap and an 8-cent portion of it, and they're not prepared to do

anything. They're not going to support it. It's too complicated; it's too hard;

it's litigious; it'll cost too much money; nothing works anyway. It's all too

complicated, so let's not do it. Let's do nothing. Let's let the marketplace .

. . . Let's leave it the way it is and do nothing.

As I said before, the previous administration has done something. The

previous speaker also went on and on about: "If you're going to do this in

the private sector, why haven't you done something yourself?" Well, it

really is a great moment when you can stand up and be accountable and actually

say: "Here's what we've done."

The previous member suggested that this is going to hurt domestic workers.

This is going to hurt piecemeal workers, because it doesn't focus on them. Maybe

that's for next time -- right? Right now we're focused on 8 cents of a 27-cent

wage gap. We are going to apply some force and some focus to move that, to

narrow that gap.

We have done a lot in the previous years, because we picked up from where the

previous Social Credit administration started. It is actually amazing that we

have an opposition who's not prepared to be even as progressive as the last

administration. That takes us way back to probably the early eighties or the

seventies in terms of a mind-set about what this issue is about and what a

government that is responsible to its citizens should be doing and is in fact

responsible to half the population.

And we should mention -- and I do this with the deepest reservations -- that

most women care about this issue. They do not believe that they should be paid

less for work of equal value. They think that they should have every opportunity

that any man does. They are in the workforce; they're in it everywhere. Almost

as many women who can work are working, and they expect to be valued. They

expect to be treated with respect and dignity.

British Columbia's public sector pay equity policy has been successful in

reducing the gender wage gap in the public sector, the part that we are

responsible for. Initially achieved through the collective bargaining process in

some of the broader public sectors starting in the mid-nineties, it became

provincial policy in the early 1990s. The female-to-male earnings ratio for

unionized employees in British Columbia's public sector has increased from 81

percent before pay equity, prior to 1990, to approximately 89 percent as of

October 1995, when the last study was done.

[1620]

In education -- K-to-12, post-secondary and university sectors -- the

male-to-female earning ratio with support staff bargaining units currently

ranges from 80 to 94 percent, significantly better than the provincial average.

The female-to-male earnings ratio with the health employees' union workforce

within health care -- acute and long-term care -- has increased from

approximately 86 percent before pay equity, prior to 1992, to approximately 92

percent as of March 1995, when the last study was done.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: Oh, of course -- I forgot. We were told it doesn't

work. There must be a mistake. There has been significant narrowing of the wage

gap in the public sector through political will, through the desire to value the

work that women do, embraced by the union movement . . . .

An Hon. Member: Who says it doesn't work?

Hon. S. Hammell: Well, it is just a puzzle. Even in 1995 it was clear

that it was working, and I know that the numbers have moved since.

The member for Richmond-Steveston actually said that none of this works. In

fact, I remember he said: "Do nothing. It's too complicated." Oh, he

even said: "That's too simple. It's a goofball idea. It's too hard. It's

litigious. It'll be nothing but litigious. There will be legal people all over

this. We'll be

[ Page 17502 ]

arguing about it. So let's do nothing. Let's leave the wage gap as it stands.

To heck with valuing women; it's not important. Let's get on with life. Leave it

to the marketplace. Hire a judge. Set up a task force. Get a retired judge. And

let's move on, because nothing works anyway." But with political will and

focus in the public sector, we have seen this work.

Now, the other thing I really like about this notion is that in British

Columbia over the past ten years we have moved in the public sector on pay

equity. The job, in terms of the narrow public sector that we're directly

responsible for, has been done. So it is fitting that at this point in time we

turn our attention to the larger community, because women not only work in the

public sector, here in government but also work in the private sector. I have

spoken to women. They care about this issue; they want to be valued. They

believe that when they go out to work, they should be paid for the time they're

out there and they should be paid in a fair and equitable fashion. This is not

one particular type of woman; this is every single woman, no matter who they

are, no matter where they sit in terms of this society. It's a fundamental

issue, centred on the dignity of women and the work that they do.

[1625]

It's shocking to me that the members from the opposition would not embrace

this and stand up and cheer that we're now moving on. We've done one job, and

we're now moving on. Only four provinces -- Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick and Alberta -- have a larger wage gap than British Columbia. While

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have pay equity legislation covering the public

sector and Newfoundland has a public sector pay equity agreement, none of them

has pay equity legislation covering the private sector.

The gender wage gap has significant impact on women in terms of both real

wages and future considerations. This is one of the issues that really has made

me stop and think. Senior women, as a class, are some of the poorest people in

this country. Many senior women have been denied a pension because they stayed

home and supported their families. If we don't fix this, senior women will

continue . . . . Even though they've looked after a family, looked

after a home, worked in the community, they will still be poor, because their

pension will not reflect the fact that they have been paid for work that they

have done during their work life. Their pensions will automatically be 27

percent less, because they get paid less than men do. All of the people in this

House should be shocked and want to fix that.

Hon. Speaker, we have heard much about the fact that "this legislation

won't work, and here are all the reasons." In essence, although you can

listen to all the complicated arguments of this and that, it comes down to

really clear concepts: "It's too hard; it's too complicated, it's too

litigious; we need to think about it; we need to do nothing; we need to leave it

to chance. Let's leave it to chance; let's leave it to the marketplace, because

it's just too hard." But then: "We could hire a judge, we could

appoint a task force, and then we could put the piece of paper down and think

about it. We could look at it, and we could wonder about it."

This side of the House is prepared to do something. We know that in the

provinces that have been aggressive and taken action on this, the wage gap has

narrowed. We know that even though we're only focused on 8 cents, there's much

more to do. And this government has been doing it.

I did want very much to share with you one little notion before I conclude.

I'm not used to opening up my local paper and seeing showers of praise come down

on this government. To be quite honest, our local paper is not always

supportive. As this little

article says: "So what else is new? The

provincial government enacts legislation . . . . " I need to

quote from my newspaper, because I'm so impressed by it at this moment. The

title says "Pay Equity: A No-Brainer. The provincial government enacts

legislation which attempts to eliminate discrimination, and some factions in

B.C. are howling."

It just reminds me so much of Nellie McClung when she said: "Never

retract; never apologize; never explain. Just get the job done, and let them

howl." I mean, Nellie McClung was one of the people who actually argued

that women were persons, so it does seem to be fitting that we're now talking

about women again and making them equal. And we're now saying -- the paper's

even saying, like Nellie did: "Just let them howl." And that's a lot

of what we're hearing from the opposition corner.

[1630]

Whenever a government tries to level the playing field, there's always

someone who thinks that things are just fine the way they are. It happened when

women got the vote. I mean, the opposition would be up there arguing that women

shouldn't have the vote. It happened when the Japanese were reimbursed, in a

very token way -- not good -- for the injustices done to them during the Second

World War. It happened when sexual orientation was added to the current list of

human rights protections.

"Well, let them howl. We applaud the provincial government for enacting

pay equity legislation which will hopefully one day cut down on some of the

blatant pay discrimination women are forced to endure in the private

sector." May I repeat: "blatant pay discrimination women are forced to

endure in the private sector."

"Frankly, if we have one criticism of the government, it's that this

legislation should have come earlier." As I said before, we were working on

a number of other issues, but I agree that it is timely. "After all, how

can anyone actually stand up in the twenty-first century and say that women

don't deserve to be paid what men are being paid for doing work of a similar

skill level and nature?"

So on this I do rest my case. Again, as I started, I don't think there is an

issue that so clearly defines the difference between this government and the

opposition. Hon. Speaker, I have to tell you that I am certainly pleased and

very proud to be on this side of the issue rather than on that side. The

government is amending B.C.'s Human Rights Code to prohibit gender-based wage

discrimination for work of equal value. The legislation which comes into effect

will enshrine the principle of pay equity within the B.C. Human Rights Code and

keep employers' costs to implement pay equity to 1 percent of annual payroll. I

know that's hard to take: 1 percent per year to bring women up to the same level

as men when we're focused on just a small portion of the wage gap. I know it's

hard to take, I know it's difficult, but that's what you're paid the big bucks

for.

We will also negotiate equity plans and establish a pay equity coordinator

and provide for a major public education campaign. Women in British Columbia

earn 73 cents on the dollar. I think we should all get behind the wheel and push

to change that and to turn things around. Pay equity is fundamentally a question

of human rights. It is something that all of

[ Page 17503 ]

us in this Legislature should be able to get behind and support. I certainly

know that I do, and I know that the women of this province do also.

Hon. E. Gillespie: It's my great pleasure to follow the Minister of

Multiculturalism and Minister Responsible for the Public Service. Clearly she

has demonstrated from her comments today her commitment over a lifetime to the

issue of pay equity for women in this province.

I'm not expecting to hear from too many more members of the opposition, given

their record to date. I believe we have heard their position, and I say that's

unfortunate. It's unfortunate that we won't be hearing from more of their

members about their position on pay equity for women in this province, because I

think that there's a tremendous opportunity here to learn. We've heard today

that pay equity is far too complicated for ordinary men and women to figure out.

We must leave this to the lawyers, the judges, the specialists, the commissions,

the studies. Ordinary working men and women and employers couldn't possibly

understand how we get to pay equity in this province.

[1635]

I would submit to you that pay equity is not a new idea. It is not a new idea

at all. We have been working in a very proactive manner in British Columbia over

the last ten years to achieve pay equity in the public service, and there are

many businesses and unions across this province and across this country that

have bargained for pay equity. Pay equity is not something new. As a matter of

fact, in 1977 -- good heavens, almost 25 years ago -- Canada enshrined the

principle of pay equity in our Human Rights Code. Can you believe that, hon.

Speaker?

I just want to give one of the many examples available about what pay equity

might look like -- indeed, how one might measure it. I would submit that the

first thing that needs to be done is that we need to have job descriptions

within a workplace that are gender neutral. I've brought along a study that's

been done by CUPE. CUPE has worked in this area for many, many years, and they

have some, I think, probably very good suggestions that employers across this

province might want to take a look at -- indeed, that employee organizations

might like to take a look at -- in terms of a gender-neutral job evaluation

plan.

What will a gender-neutral plan look like? It will be balanced, having an

equal effect on female- and male-dominated jobs. It will be comprehensive,

having a structure that will embrace as many aspects of the work done in the

organization as possible. It will be workable and comprehensible to the union

and the management representatives within the organization who will be in charge

of making the internal equity effort work. And it will be flexible enough to be

tailored to the conditions of the workplace concerned.

Gender-neutral job evaluation plan -- does it sound like rocket science? Does

it sound complicated? Well, perhaps. So let's take a look at what some of those

job evaluation criteria might be. How can one establish a job description that

is gender neutral? Firstly, you might want to measure knowledge. What kind of

knowledge is required for the particular job? Secondly, you might want to

measure experience. What kind of experience is necessary for this job? Is there

a period of training and adjustment on the job itself? You can establish a

number of measures of how to establish what kind of experience -- up to a month,

over five years. What kind of experience and how do you measure the value of

that experience? Judgment -- what kind of judgment needs to be exercised in the

task at hand and the job to be done? What kind of independence of judgment is

required of the employee?

Here is another factor you might measure. The first three that I've mentioned

-- knowledge, experience and judgment -- all come under skill factors. Secondly,

you might want to measure effort. What's the mental effort required for the

work? What kind of physical effort is required for the work? What's the

dexterity required for the work? All simple, measurable efforts.

Thirdly, you might want to measure responsibility. What's the accountability

structure in this job? What is the responsibility requirement of the job? What

is the safety-of-others requirement? Does the person in this position have some

responsibility for the safety of others? How do we measure that? How do we value

that? How do we compensate for that? Is supervision of others required for this

job? What kinds of contacts are required to be maintained in order to

successfully do this job?

The fourth factor you might want to look at in a gender-neutral job

description would be the working conditions factor. How agreeable or

disagreeable are the working conditions?

There are many organizations across this province and across this country

that have come up with such kinds of measures, gender-neutral job evaluation

measures. Once again, I would submit that it's not rocket science. It is hard

work to begin to measure effectively the skills, the efforts, the responsibility

factors and the working conditions of any job in any organization in this

province. But again, I would submit that to measure these in a gender-neutral

environment is a true measure of the value for work, and it is a step on the

road to pay equity.

[1640]

Today I stand here in support of pay equity legislation, and it's a great

privilege to be the Minister of Women's Equality at this time as we introduce

pay equity legislation into this chamber. The Ministry of Women's Equality has

three major priorities: health care, stopping the violence and economic equality

for women. We've been working for ten years now on stopping violence against

women, on preventing violence from beginning in the first place, on improving

access for women to appropriate health care and on working to improve the

economic status of women in British Columbia.

Over those ten years several things have become clear. What we found out is

that pay equity for women will not be achieved without legislation. I have

received a number of letters that have indicated the support of businesses for

voluntary pay equity, but they do not support pay equity through legislation.

This human rights legislation that we are introducing does provide for voluntary

pay equity. Businesses have one year from June 1 to establish a pay equity plan

for that place of business, that place of work.

I would submit that voluntary pay equity is not the road to pay equity for

women in British Columbia. Again, I would say that since 1977, when Canada

enshrined the principle in our Human Rights Code, we have not seen a whole lot

of progress. As a matter of fact, I believe my colleague said . . . . Was

it half a cent a year toward pay equity? Friends, colleagues, that's not good

enough. Undervaluing and under-

[ Page 17504 ]

paying work traditionally done by women is too firmly entrenched in our

society. It's too entrenched to have it dismantled only by consensus building,

negotiation and ongoing discussion. It is time to end the talking and to get

something done, and I would submit that it's long past the time. This is not the

time to talk about pay equity. This is the time to do it, to achieve it.

Women cannot participate equally in our province if they're being paid less

simply because they're women, if they're paid less to do work that is of the

same value as work done by men. When women are paid less, that means that

families get less. That means that children get less. And how often in this

chamber have we discussed and wrung our hands over the poverty of children in

our province and in our country?

Today, in this very wealthy province -- British Columbia -- women represent a

disproportionate number of the families living in poverty. The simple truth is

that women cannot participate equally in British Columbia if they are

discriminated against on their paycheque. Pay equity legislation will end that.

It's not a panacea to all the obstacles that prevent women's equality. But as

we all know, it is an excellent start -- an absolutely important and necessary

start. Government cannot legislate people's minds, but we can legislate

behaviour enough so that women can at least be paid fairly for the work they do.

We cannot legislate how people will think, but we can legislate how they will

act. And the enshrinement of pay equity legislation in the Human Rights Code in

British Columbia is just that.

[1645]

Narrowing the gender wage gap is essential to women's economic equality and

their economic security, and it is a key commitment of this government. It has

been a key commitment over the last ten years to achieve pay equity in the

public service. And now we move forward into the broader public service, into

local governments, into the private sector as well.

Over the last 18 months the Ministry of Women's Equality has conducted public

consultations with British Columbia women. We have talked to many women about

ways to secure economic equality and economic security, because women come from

many walks of life, many different communities, many experiences. And they've

all had a lot to say. We've talked with women with disabilities, women of colour,

women of aboriginal descent, lesbian women, women from small communities, women

from large communities, women from Quesnel, from Terrace, Nanaimo, Victoria,

Cranbrook, Prince George, Kamloops, Cowichan. We met with women-serving

organizations. We met with women from local government. We met with labour. We

met with business. And we met with the education sector.

We consulted with all of them on women's economic security. Included in all

of these discussions were the issues of wage gap and pay equity. Overall, these

women supported legislated pay equity. And why not? Because we know -- we've

heard how many times here today -- that women in British Columbia earn 73 cents

on the dollar compared to men. So we know that women get paid less overall.

Getting paid what you're worth is not a great thing to ask, but if you are a

woman, it seems that it is. This legislation will correct this inequality.

Women tell me that being paid less is frustrating -- paid less because you

are a seamstress, a secretary or a receptionist, paid less because you're called

a manager while the rest of your colleagues who are men are called directors,

although your work is of equal value to the organization. I would refer you

again to my opening remarks, where I listed some of the factors that can be used

to determine a gender-neutral job description.

It is extremely frustrating, because the absence of pay equity creates a

significant block to women's economic security. It has serious implications in

terms of women's pension, their ability to raise a family and, of course, to pay

their child care bill.

We heard earlier today -- and I would like to raise it again -- that women

who earn 73 cents on the dollar compared to men are going to have pensions that

have the value of 73 cents on the dollar compared to men. That is systemic

discrimination against women that entrenches the poverty women experience in

their lives. The wage gap has a significant impact on women, both in terms of

real wages and, as I've said, for their pensions. Market forces alone cannot

eliminate the part of the wage gap that results from the undervaluing of women's

work. And why should it? It's not market forces that created that part of the

wage gap.

Hon. Speaker, I'd just like to speak for a moment about the free market

system. I wonder sometimes what people mean when they talk about the free market

system, because indeed I would submit that the free market system is a myth.

Why, if we have a free market, do we hear the call for tax breaks for business?

Why, if we have a free market, are we required to have health and safety laws to

protect workers? And why, if there's a free market, do we hear a constant call

for government grants, government subsidies to business? I would submit that

there is indeed no free market.

[1650]

The undervaluation of women's work has gone on so long that it seems as if it

is a truism. It reminds me of that saying that if you tell a lie long enough, it

starts to become the truth. At this point in the game, who would be willing to

eliminate a good and dependable pool of cheap labour?

So where does that leave us? It leaves us -- it leaves government -- with the

obligation to act. This is not new, this legislation. Our friends at the federal

level have introduced pay equity legislation. Ontario has introduced pay equity

legislation. Quebec has introduced pay equity legislation which covers both the

public and the private sectors. So what is the excuse not to act? There is no

excuse. It's time to act. It's time to correct the wrongs of the past. Just give

women what belongs to them, what is rightfully theirs.

Like my colleagues I know we have to work closely with all our partners in

communities, in governments, in business for pay equity to succeed. We have to

work together to make sure that no one is left behind. When this legislation is

introduced and proclaimed, it means that resources will flow to the Ministry of

Women's Equality -- resources to support our office for workplace equity which

will provide support to employees and employers to ensure that they have good

information and access to models of pay equity that establish a gender-neutral

basis for job evaluation. That office will ensure that there is information and

resources available to employers and employees as they move to build their pay

equity plans.

It's our work in government to ensure that no one gets left behind. It's our

work to ensure that every woman, her

[ Page 17505 ]

family, the community, business, and public and private sectors all

experience the fruits this province has to offer. It can't be done at the

expense of any one group. We want to work with business and with organizations

by providing them with the resources, the information and the support that

they'll need. But there's no going back on pay equity.

I understand that there is a great reluctance to do this. I have heard in

this House today how complicated, how difficult, how impossible it will be to

move forward on pay equity for women. There's always reluctance to fundamentally

change the way we do business, the way we pay employees, but we cannot stand

still and allow a wrong to continue. We cannot stay still and allow this pool of

cheap, dedicated employees to continue to be exploited.

The facts are that women have helped to build this country. Women have

already made and still are making enormous unpaid con