1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4019 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 43). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4019

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 29). Committee stage.

Division on third reading –– 4019

Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 30). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4020

Public Service Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 37). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4020

Pension Plans (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act (Bill PR402). Committee stage.

section 1 –– 4020

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Segarty

Third reading –– 4020

Insurance Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 40). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4021

Employment Standards Act (Bill 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4022

Ms. Sanford –– 4023

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4025

Ms. Brown –– 4027

Mr. Hanson –– 4028

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4029

TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I advise the House of the absence of the member for

Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King), the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet), the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) and the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who will be absent until the 26th of

this month. They are on assignment from this office in Nova Scotia at a

parliamentary conference.

MR. HYNDMAN: I wonder if

members would join me this morning in recognizing and welcoming three

citizens from the city of Vancouver, who are importantly involved in

multicultural work: Dr. Katherine McGrady, who is the president of the

Immigrant Services Society; Mrs. Beverly Nann, who is the chief

coordinator of the home-school workers' project of the Immigrant

Services Society; and Mr. William Brown, a trustee of the Greater

Vancouver School Board. They are all in your gallery, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 43.

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 43, Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (TEACHERS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

29, Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page 4020 ]

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 30.

PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 30, Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 2 approved on following division.

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 37, Public Service Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill PR402, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION PLANS

(I.W.A.-FOREST INDUSTRY)

MERGER VALIDATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. HANSON:

I would like to direct a question to the sponsor of the bill, Mr.

Segarty. I wonder if he could outline the actuarial assumptions in

section 1 and how they relate to the merger.

MR. SEGARTY:

That was discussed in committee on private bills. You were there at

that time with Mr. Munro, who was there along with the pension actuary,

Mr. Geoffrey Calvert.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

PR402, Pension Plans (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources should ask leave of the House to go backwards on the order paper.

[ Page 4021 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I beg your pardon. I'm going on the same list you've got, I assume.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, everything that has been done so far on private

members' bills is out of order. It's not private members' day, and

leave was not asked to go into private members' bills. I would think

members might be in the House had they known that such business would

be brought up today. It's not in the orders of the day.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'm talking about orders of the day. If there was competency over

there, in terms of the House Leader, they would have asked leave that

we proceed with these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the committee cannot decide on that. That matter would have to be brought to the House. We are in committee.

MR. NICOLSON: I move that the committee rise and report to the House in order to get leave to proceed with private members' bills.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no such motion in our standing orders, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD:

What the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is saying is inaccurate.

He's making an accusation from his seat in the House. When we were in

the House I rose on a point of order and said: "This should be done by

leave; do it properly." The government House Leader didn't seek to do

that at the time, but we granted leave in any event through Mr.

Speaker. I think it's improper for the Attorney-General to start making

snide accusations across the floor.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Please, hon. members, we are in committee. The committee has been

called to discuss Bill 40. That is the only matter that the committee

can debate, and I'm sure all hon. members are aware of that. Matters to

be brought to the attention of the House will have to be brought to the

attention of the House when we are in the House.

Sections 4 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 40, Insurance Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rose to my feet on a point of order before the hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I have recognized on a point of order...

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you must be deaf, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. For the record of the House, and if

there's some necessity to do something further, I'm sure it could be

agreed, but it's my understanding that technically the House Leader

should have sought leave to go into private members' bills in committee

stage, or to go back on the order paper. It was my understanding that

the House Leader for the opposition did grant that leave while you were

in the chair, and I assumed that that would be all that was necessary,

Mr. Speaker. If there's something further necessary, then we'll be glad

to proceed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON:

I don't recall hearing the Chair asking for leave. It isn't up to the

House Leader to ask for leave; it's for the Chair to ask leave, Mr.

Speaker. Today being Tuesday, the orders of the day are public bills

and orders, private bills and public bills in the hands of private

members. On reflection, perhaps it is in order that we be going here.

But if we're going to go back to public bills, then we're certainly

going to have to ask leave, because then we would be going into the

orders: public bills, private bills, public bills in the hands of

private members. It would then put us into public bills once we finish

this order of business, unless leave is granted to go back to

government bills.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members,

hopefully to help clarify the matter, during the previous discussion

the Chair did indicate to the opposition House Leader that leave had

been granted, although leave had not been asked by the Chair. Possibly

that is where the confusion arose. The points made by both the member

for Nelson-Creston and the minister were taken by the Chair. I hope

that resolves the matter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 36. Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

[ Page 4022 ]

MR. NICOLSON:

My point is that, on reflection, I said that the government was perhaps

correct: the House Leader could call for public bills, then could go to

the private bills from the private bills committee. But now, if the

government wants to go back to Bill 36, they're going to have to ask

leave, because now on orders of the day we are on public bills in the

hands of private members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member, leave having been granted previously, the Chair will take the

matter under advisement. But the leave aspect has been considered and,

I believe, addressed by the House. However, if it would help resolve

some matter, possibly the Chair could at this time ask for leave again,

although this would be.... Leave has been granted, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: And put by the Chair?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And put by the Chair, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: To do which?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To go back to public bills.

MR. NICOLSON: Just this moment right now?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

It was done prior to entering committee, hon. member, and that was

where the confusion arose. The Chair then made that explanation, I

hoped satisfactorily, to the members of the House. If the member is

desirous of a full....

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, did the Chair ask for leave earlier today to go on to Bill PR402?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's where the confusion arose, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: Did the Chair ask for leave then?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave was given, but it was not asked.

MR. NICOLSON:

It was not asked; it can't be given. It isn't the two House Leaders who

run the House; the Speaker runs the House. I'm saying that we can

rectify this now, but it is our right to proceed with our private

members' bills now, our public bills in the hands of private members,

the ones that the members of the House have prepared. We're at that

point. If we want to give that up, then we must give that right up at

this point by granting leave, and leave should be asked by the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the Chair is going to take the matter under advisement

and review what has happened, because there seems to be some confusion

as to what just did take place. Leave having been granted previously, I

will now go back to the House Leader, who has called for second reading

of Bill 36. I will take the matter under advisement as raised by the

hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have a few short remarks on second reading of Bill 36,

entitled the Employment Standards Act. The purpose of the act was to

improve some standards, and it was obviously to make additional

standards as well. There are also new provisions with respect to

procedure and enforcement.

Probably one of the main features

of the act was to incorporate within one statute a number of standards

which had previously been incorporated in ten other statutes. I need

not name the statutes. Since the introduction of the bill it certainly

has been interesting to hear from the public, which in many cases was

never really aware of some of the laws which had been on the books for

5, 10, 15 and in one case up to 34 years. The public was wondering

whether this was something new; it wasn't. The additional standards

that I think we should take note of involve termination of employment

and notice, or payment in lieu of notice. The standards are not

pace-setting. They are minimum and, in my view, will be accepted by

most.

Probably one of the items under the legislation

drawing the most interest involved licensing of farm-labour contractors

legislation also covers all employees, including farm workers and

domestics. From time to time, to make the legislation function

properly, it will be required to make certain exemptions by

regulations. I think it's only proper to advise you in advance, Mr.

Speaker, that where farm-labour contractors are involved there will be

exemption by regulation, as I have mentioned on a number of previous

occasions, involving hours of work, overtime pay and general holiday

pay. Right now the research department in my ministry is attempting to

work out acceptable regulations to accommodate those who have

traditionally earned their living by piecework. In many areas of the

agriculture industry there is an hourly rate set. Interestingly enough,

in most cases it is above the minimum wage.

As far as the

farm-labour contractors are concerned, Mr. Speaker, you might be

interested in the fact that to date there has not been one complaint

filed with the labour standards division in my ministry — not one. I'm

not saying that they won't come, but it is interesting to note the

effect of the proposed legislation in its early, embryonic stage and

also since its introduction in the House.

Four major items

are covered in the act. All of these are the result of discussions

which involved, in some degree, the agriculture industry. One was

mandatory licensing of all farm-labour contractors; that is within the

legislation. Posting bonds is within the legislation. Wages to be paid

weekly is within the legislation — and also within 72 hours after the

pay period. Another important thing, and something which the farming

community was quite prepared to support, is liability to a farmer

should he contract with an unlicensed farm-labour contractor.

Administration

enforcement procedure under the present act falls mainly under the

jurisdiction of the Board of Industrial Relations. Under the new act we

will find the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council making regulations for

minimum wages, general holidays and specific exemptions when required.

There is a great deal of administration now placed with the director of

employment standards, who will be responsible for the administration,

variances, licences, and registration certificates for wages. The new

Employment

[ Page 4023 ]

Standards

Board takes the place of the Board of Industrial Relations. It contains

the additional feature that in fact it will act in an adjudicative role

only. When any disputes are subject to appeal, that board, when hearing

them, will hear them for the first time — not as is presently set up

where the members of the Board of Industrial Relations often act as

prosecutor and judge and jury. By the way, that particular point was

identified in a reported decision, and it was best that it be resolved

administratively in this fashion.

The act also provides

minimum requirements for overtime wages, rest periods, lunch breaks,

call out and notice of shift assignments. Hours of work are established

at 40 hours. Prior to that it was 44. Rate of pay is time and a half

from 8 to 11 hours and double time thereafter. Those provisions are

contained within existing minimum wage regulations.

I think

it should be noted, though, that the overtime provisions contained

within the proposed legislation do not apply to overtime provisions in

collective agreements. They will be governed in accordance with the

collective agreement. I think all members of the House would realize

the wisdom of that particular provision.

There is one point

which might be of some concern. Frankly, I think it's the best way to

handle a rather difficult problem. The previous Hours of Work Act did

not allow for working in excess of eight hours per day without an

exemption. The fact now is that permission is not required. The

significant thing is that there were countless numbers of infractions

and contraventions of the legislation. If people are prepared to work

and want to work, they're going to work. I would always hope that that

freedom would be available to them.

The enforcement of the

present law was extremely difficult. If an exemption was not requested

and somebody wanted to work, they would proceed. If a complaint was

laid, the next problem would come up, and that is how you enforce any

violation. Do you send out people from the labour standards branch

looking around to see whether the lights are on at night or checking

the payroll books? Really, it was unworkable.

The important

thing in this case is that the director can regulate where hours are

excessive, unnecessary or detrimental to health. In my view it was

certainly more sensible since the 40-hour week is established, and

after that overtime rates come into play.

There are a couple

of items prior to concluding, Mr. Speaker. Existing standards are

present. It incorporates a number of the better features in present

legislation, but I think there are some items which bear mentioning.

Annual vacations are three weeks after five years, which is a minimum

standard. At that time there is holiday pay at the rate of 6 percent.

I've mentioned earlier the reduction from a 44-hour to a 40-hour week.

Most people thought that 40 hours was, in fact, the existing work week.

Also, maternity leave has been increased from 16 to 18 weeks. The

important point in this particular

section is that the benefits which

are in place at the time an employee leaves for maternity reasons still

continue. Also their job, or an equivalent job, is available upon

return.

The minimum wage also applies to all. As far as

notice of termination is concerned, the qualifying period is six

months; after three years it is one week for each year, to a maximum of

eight weeks.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think

it's interesting to note that most of those standards are in place in

any event. I might mention to the House that most of the complaints

filed or inquiries made through the labour standards branch in the

ministry relate to notice. As a matter of interest I wanted a canvass

done of the entire province. I had it done on a Monday, a slow day, to

see where the number of complaints were. There were 553 complaints that

came in. Approximately 10 percent, or 52, related to what were the

provisions with respect to notice. Of course, they're nonexistent. I

might tell you they are in practice right across this dominion, with

the exception of New Brunswick.

There will be panels available now, with a chairman and two wing members on a panel for the purposes of hearing any appeals.

I would also mention that there are some amendments. The proposed amendment bill has been filed in the House.

I would now like to move second reading.

MS. SANFORD:

I was beginning to wonder if we would ever see the day where we

actually saw the compilation and the upgrading of what are the minimum

standards for employment in the province of British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker, you were not here at the time, but between the years 1972 to

1975, the former Minister of Labour, the now member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), had done most of the work in preparing

this compilation and preparing this upgrading of the basic standards

under which the people of this province work.

In the throne

speech in 1976 we were promised that we would see this legislation that

year. But 1976 went by, 1977 went by, 1978, 1979, and now finally in

1980 we have this statute which, as the minister pointed out, is the

very minimum in terms of the employment conditions under which people

work in this province.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is just a

catchup to what has been happening across the country over the years

while this government has been sitting there and not taking any action

with respect to these basic standards. So there is nothing very

forward-looking in the statute that we see today. In fact, there are

glaring omissions in what should be the basic minimum standards that

people work under in 1980.

Finally we have what is a catchup

to what already exists in most provinces in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, I

guess it is too much to expect anything that is forward-looking in

terms of providing basic minimal standards of employment from that

government. I don't think that we could expect much more than just a

catchup to what has already taken place across the country.

The

minister stated, Mr. Speaker, at some point outside the Legislature at

a press conference that he would stake his seat on the matter of

whether or not domestics and farmworkers would be covered by this

legislation. That is a big improvement. True, they are now covered by

this statute, but I was not convinced in the opening remarks of the

minister today when he introduced second reading of this bill that full

coverage of the minimal standards will be extended to both domestics

and farmworkers. Right after he mentioned domestics and farmworkers, he

hastily added that there will be exemptions by regulations.

am not convinced by the minister today that both domestics and

farmworkers will be entitled to the same basic benefits that other

people who work in this province will be entitled to under this

legislation. He talked about the prob-

[ Page 4024 ]

lems

with piecework, holiday pay and overtime pay. These are regulations and

problems that people within his ministry are now working on.

want the minister to assure this House again today — at least for the

first time, because he didn't assure the House before — that domestics

and farmworkers will have the coverage that other workers are entitled

to and that, in fact, he will stake his seat as Minister of Labour to

ensure that that basic coverage is extended to them.

I'm

hoping that when the minister winds up second reading.... I urge him to

give the assurance to this House and to all of the people who are

working as domestics and farmworkers in this province that they will

have that basic coverage.

Mr. Speaker, one of the glaring

omissions in this particular statute relates to modern industry, in

that we are seeing mass layoffs across the country. We have seen what

has happened with Inco workers; we have seen the major problems that

exist now in the auto industry, and yet there is absolutely nothing in

this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that recognizes the problems of

automation, economic problems, or whatever, that would cause mass

layoffs or plant closures. There is nothing in there. I don't think the

minister even recognizes that the problem exists. Certainly there is

other minimal employment standards legislation across this country that

has recognized that problem, that has recognized that mass layoffs take

place, that people are thrown out of their homes, that they lose their

jobs. They've invested years and years of service in a company and are

put out on their ear.

In Quebec, for instance, recognition

has been given to that particular problem, but here we don't even have

a passing reference in Bill 36 to the problems associated with plant

closures and mass layoffs. There is nothing here, and I think the

minister has been very negligent in not coming to grips with that

particular problem.

I mentioned that this was catchup

legislation, but in some parts of Canada legislation already exists

which in fact improves on the statute that we have in front of us

today, even though we waited all these years to receive this statute.

For instance, New Brunswick and the Canada Labour Code provide that

written notice for termination of employment be given after three

months of employment, but this statute requires six months of

employment before notice is given. Now surely, Mr. Speaker, if we're

introducing new legislation today, the least we can do is reach the

standard of New Brunswick and some of the other statutes that currently

exist throughout Canada.

One of the things that disappoints

me about the legislation is that an employer is required to give each

employee at least 32 consecutive hours free from work each week or to

pay the employee double time during that period. Now this is the same

length of break that was in the previous basic employment standards —

or, as it was called, labour standards — legislation for this province.

Certainly, in my view, that basic 32 hours should have been extended to

48 hours, so that people would have a clear two days which they could

call their own. That already exists in some other provinces — for

example, in Saskatchewan that provision exists. So we've had no

improvement there whatsoever.

Now that the coverage apparently — and I'm saying this very carefully,

because we don't know what those regulations are going to contain — has

been extended to farmworkers and domestics, I'm wondering if the minister

has discussed with the WCB commissioners the matter of extending compulsory

WCB coverage to both domestics and farmworkers in B.C. If not, I certainly would

recommend to the minister that domestics and farmworkers receive that basic

coverage as well. By the way, Mr. Speaker, that was a recommendation that was

made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who then sat as the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour — that WCB coverage be extended to those two areas.

Another

problem with the legislation, as I see it, is that there has been no

provision for reinstatement of an employee who has been wrongfully

dismissed. Many of these cases require more than just a payment; they

require actual reinstatement, because the employee has perhaps worked

for many years for a company and for some reason or another has been

wrongfully dismissed. I believe that they should have that right to

reinstatement, not just notice or whatever — sometimes they're just

given notice. If it's a wrongful dismissal, then I think he should have

the right to make some appeal so that he can be reinstated. Mr.

Speaker, I have an amendment on the order paper to that effect and will

be discussing it further at that time.

There are no

penalties whatsoever in this legislation for those employers who defy

the minimum wage or the general holiday regulations, and I think that's

an omission on the part of the Minister of Labour. That means that

there is no incentive for an employer to comply with whatever minimum

wage or general holiday regulations are established. The only penalty

for non-compliance is for the board to order the employer to pay what

he should have paid in the first place, with no additional penalty. So

all he has to do is pay what he already owes, and there is no incentive

in those instances to ensure that.... There is no penalty for those

employers who violate the basic minimum wage provisions or the general

holiday regulations.

Maternity provisions. Again, this is

just a catchup to what is happening in other parts of the country

today. But there is an amendment on the order paper which concerns me,

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the maternity provisions, and that is that

it is an offence to violate the maternity provisions that exist in this

legislation. But because the minister has introduced an amendment on

the order paper, the board can't issue an order where there is a

violation of those provisions. So we have a catch-22 situation. It's a

violation on one hand, and on the other hand, through the amendment

introduced by the minister, the board is not going to have any power to

do anything about it because it's not going to be able to issue any

order. I don't understand why the minister would have taken that

retrograde step. I'm hoping that in winding up second reading he can

make some comment on that.

The establishment of the

section

with relation to farmworkers and those people who employ farmworkers is

one that I'm quite pleased to see. Farm labour contractors should have

been covered under this legislation a long time ago. The violations

that have existed there — the exploitation of farmworkers in this

province — we should never have permitted in this country of Canada. It

was an incredible situation where people went unpaid, proper records

weren't kept of the hours that were worked, charges were made for

transportation to and from work which were exploitive, UIC payments

weren't even made on the part of the employees — just an incredible

list of exploitive measures that were conducted in that

section of farm

labour contractors.

I suggested last year that a system of bonding and licens-

[ Page 4025 ]

ing

be established for these contractors. Last year the then Minister of

Labour indicated that there were too many problems with that particular

approach. I'm pleased that whatever problems there were at that time

have been overcome and that the minister has included a provision for

bonding and licensing of these contractors. I hope that eliminates the

exploitation that's taking place there. But I'm wondering how long it

is going to take the minister to come up with a system of bonding and a

method of licensing. Are these provisions going to be ready by the end

of the year, for instance? What sort of bonding is he looking at? It

seems to me that because some of these farm contractors employ many,

many people a $50,000 bond would certainly not be unreasonable in some

instances — in fact I think it would be minimal — to ensure that farm

workers are in fact paid if there is some violation by the farm labour

contractor.

I'm not sure whether or not the issue I want to

raise next should come under the basic employment standards, but I

thought I would raise this issue with the minister to get his comments.

I'm not sure whether it should be a separate statute or whether it

should be Workers' Compensation Board regulations, but a situation has

been brought to my attention which certainly is not covered in this

particular Bill 36 that we're discussing today. This is a situation

where there are no minimal standards required for the temperature under

which employees are sometimes forced to work in a building, for

instance. These particular persons complain because they are often

forced to work at extremely cold temperatures. They talk about the

temperature dropping below zero degrees Fahrenheit, and yet the

employer is not obligated to provide any source of heat whatsoever for

the employee. When people are required to stay at a machine and are not

able to leave to go to a source of heat to get warmed up — the

lunchroom or whatever else — it can be a very unpleasant, difficult

situation for employees. I'm wondering if the minister has thought

about where it should come in and whether in fact the minister might

consider including it in these basic minimal standards. I suppose the

same could go for extreme temperatures on the other side of the scale,

where employees suffer because of intense heat.

There are

some sections in the old legislation that have been omitted in this

legislation, which, again, is retrograde. For instance, it was

necessary before that employment agencies notify prospective employees

who were being sent out to a job somewhere or other that there was, in

fact, a labour dispute in progress. That particular

section has been

eliminated. I think it's a mistake on the part of the minister, and I

think that as a result of that you're encouraging strikebreaking in the

province. I don't think the minister would want to be a part of that —

at least, I'm hopeful that he would not. I strongly feel that the

minister has made an error there in those particular sections — there

are two of them — and they should be returned to the statute.

The

other area where the minister has failed, in my view, relates to the

concept of employees' wages coming first in any demand through

bankruptcy or a company going into receivership. What the minister has

done in this particular statute is to enshrine what is known as the

Homeplan decision, whereby employees — under one

section of this bill,

where there is land and a mortgage involved — do not have first call on

the moneys that are left following a receivership or bankruptcy. I know

the two are different and one is federal and so on, but that's a whole

other issue. But I do want to bring this to the attention of the

minister during second reading. It is essential, in my view, that the

wages of employees come first. They are the ones who put out the work

and effort, have families to feed, mortgages to meet, car payments and

all of these other things. For them not to have first claim is an

error. That Homeplan decision, I know, was a supreme court decision,

but it was based more on inadequate wording in the previous statute

than on the concept that employees' wages should come second. It's a

mistake, Mr. Speaker, and I'm hopeful that the amendment that I have

introduced on the order paper will be accepted by the minister.

The

minister spoke about enforcement. You know, over the years one of the

biggest problems with enforcing these basic standards has been that

people are unaware of the standards and don't know how to proceed even

if they are aware that they are not being paid the minimum wage — or

whatever other provision in the statute is being broken. I don't think

that the minister has come to grips with the problems related to

enforcement of what are really basic, minimal standards for employees

in the province. Has the minister considered any way of ensuring that

the standards are understood by both employees and employers, that the

procedures for notifying the new Employment Standards Board are made

known to everyone in the province who works under these basic standards?

foresee that there are still going to be severe problems in terms of

employees working under conditions that are even minimal. In other

words, they will work below those conditions because they are unaware

of what their basic rights are. I know it's a problem, Mr. Speaker.

It's not an easy problem to overcome. But it's one which I feel the

minister and his ministry should address. I'm not convinced that the

new Employment Standards Board is going to improve that area at all.

Finally,

I think most of the discussions surrounding this bill will come up in

committee stage. There are a number of amendments proposed by the

minister, and a number proposed by myself. But we see, in

section 105

of this statute, more power being assumed by the cabinet again. This is

typical of the way in which this government has proceeded, statute

after statute after statute. The minister admitted this morning, in his

opening remarks, that the cabinet will be given more power and that the

director of the new Employment Standards Board will have less power.

You know, we're arriving at the stage where everything's going to be

done by that cabinet. They're going to run a dictatorship over there,

Mr. Speaker. There's no question about it. I object to the fact that

the authority to grant exemptions or regulations is now given to

cabinet entirely and taken away from the director. That's not the way

we should be operating in this province. Why do we set up these

employment standards boards? Why do we set up all of these other

agencies and boards, if the cabinet is going to make all of the

decisions? A dictatorship, Mr. Speaker — that's what it's becoming.

This statute is another example of it.

MR. GABELMANN:

The important debate on this bill will not take place here in the

Legislature. The important debate on this bill will take place in

cabinet, if, in fact, cabinet takes the time to debate the bill when

the regulations attendant to it are presented to a subsequent cabinet

meeting. And that, primarily, is my objection to this legislation.

I'm going to support it; it's progressive legislation. As the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said, it brings us up to

[ Page 4026 ]

about

1975, and for that government that's not bad: only five years behind.

Although there are a variety of issues within the legislation that

concern me, the essential element that the public should understand and

that the people who will be protected by this legislation or covered by

this legislation — those are two different things — should understand

is that in fact the rules and regulations under which they work will be

debated not here in this Legislature, where they should be debated, but

in cabinet when the minister brings the regulations to the cabinet for

approval. I find that wrong in principle.

I appreciate why

the minister has done it. It's complicated legislation. It's

particularly complicated when it comes to farmworkers and domestics;

I'm well aware of that, Mr. Speaker. In 1974 and 1975 I spent

considerable time studying and reporting on this particular problem. In

fact, I was chairperson of an all-party House committee. We spent

several months travelling around this province, soliciting and

receiving views from a variety of people: farmers, farmworkers,

domestics, people who are concerned with employment of domestics. By

unanimous decision of an all-party committee, we were able to come up

with some pretty good recommendations about how these things could be

done in legislation.

We accepted the fact that there are

different employment conditions on farms than there are in factories.

We accepted the fact, as repugnant as it is to some of us, that there

is a necessity for there to be piecework. The principle appalls me, but

the realities are such that it's important and necessary in some

agriculture industries. We accepted that; it was a compromise I made in

terms of my own position on the issue. We accepted that there are times

when farmworkers have to work a long day and a long week, and there are

times when they have to suddenly stop work and suddenly start work

without very much notice. We accepted those kinds of problems and many

others. But the committee was able, through its report, to make

recommendations to this House in 1975 that dealt with those problems by

legislation, and that's how they should have been dealt with.

The

minister and his predecessor and his ministry have had five and a half

years since the introduction of that report to find a way to enact by

statute the recommendations of that all-party committee. This

legislation does not do that. This legislation has been hailed as being

a breakthrough for farmworkers and domestics because it now covers

them. That's not true, Mr. Speaker. The minister, through

order-in-council, can have the cabinet exempt farmworkers and domestics

or any category or any portion of farmworkers and domestics, should he

choose. This legislation has been hailed in some quarters as saying,

for example, that domestics are now covered by labour legislation and

they are protected. But they're not. They're given an eight-hour day,

but what happens in the other 16? What happens relating to the charges

that an employer can impose upon that domestic worker for room and

board? There are no limitations, no rules; nor is it implied that they

will even be developed in the regulations. That's if, in fact, the

regulations proceed to cover these people.

Judging by the

comments that float around these buildings and float around this

province, even if the minister is in favour of making sure that

farmworkers and domestics are fully covered, he will lose that fight in

cabinet. He certainly would lose it in full caucus. That's been clear.

Even though it's five years out of date, the minister is ahead of his

caucus and ahead of his cabinet, and for that some small measure of

credit should be given to the minister, but I'm predicting here and now

that he will lose some important battles if he decides to take them on.

He will lose some important battles in making certain that all workers

in this province are covered by minimal labour standards, or employment

standards. I want the minister to assure me that I'm wrong. If I'm

wrong I will get up in committee and acknowledge that ten years from

now, when you've proven it. Mr. Speaker, that is my single major

concern about the bill: the fact that it allows the real decisions to

be made outside of this legislative chamber.

If I may take

just a minute to deal with that point, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an

increasing number of bills being introduced into this House that are

taking away from this Legislature the right to make decisions and

putting it into the cabinet. That's wrong on a number of counts. All

the people's representatives should discuss the legislation under which

they live. We'll live with the majority decision of this House, but all

the people who are elected to represent the population out there should

be making those decisions, if only because the discussions and the

decisions in cabinet are private. I might modify or downgrade my

criticism if the press were allowed into cabinet meetings when you have

these discussions so that the public can know what's going on. That

doesn't happen. I'm not sure the press should be in the cabinet room.

Since they can't be and they aren't, those decisions should be made

here in this House. That, Mr. Speaker, is my objection to this

legislation.

As I said earlier, it would have been

reasonable legislation in 1975. In 1975 it would have been the

pace-setter for this country, in the same way as in 1973 labour code

legislation was the pace-setter in this country. As the member for

Comox has indicated, on several counts we are now behind other

provinces in this country in labour standards. That's not appropriate

for a highly industrialized, highly organized, progressive province

such as the one we live in. We should be the pace-setters in labour

matters. With this bill we're not.

It is difficult to debate

the bill, because, as I said, it doesn't provide us with all the

information we need, because that will be in the regulations.

introducing the bill the minister said something that puzzled me.

Perhaps I haven't understood it; if so, I stand to be corrected by the

minister. In discussing one particular aspect of the bill I think he

said in effect that where the collective agreement is better than the

legislation the collective agreement shall apply.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN:

If the minister, in discussing the overtime issue, didn't say that, I'd

like him to clarify that in his conclusion of the debate. Nowhere in

the statute can I find what an employer does when there is a conflict

between this legislation — which is the law of the land if it passes —

and the collective agreement under which he operates. My approach to

this kind of legislation is that the collective agreement should apply

in all instances — that where there is conflict between the collective

agreement and the minimum labour standards, then the higher benefit,

which is usually through the collective agreement, shall apply. The

minister needs to clarify that because that becomes complicated. What

happens when there is argument about which is the higher benefit, the

standard or the collective agreement?

My personal view is that the collective agreement should

[ Page 4027 ]

apply

and that this legislation is just to fill in the cracks for those

people who have not yet been fortunate enough to fall under a

collective agreement, rather than these very minimal standards.

The

member for Comox has discussed the concern that I think all of us on

this side of the House have about termination notices. It's behind the

times; it's not adequate. It's certainly not as good as in some other

jurisdictions and it's not nearly good enough for this province. The

termination notice should be upgraded dramatically in this bill, and I

hope that that will happen — if not in amendments this week or

subsequent to this week, certainly in the next session of the House.

another issue, the supreme court made a decision some time ago that

affected payment of wages as the first priority when a business goes

under. The minister has not dealt with that supreme court decision. The

minister has not ensured in this legislation that workers get first

priority, as I read the legislation. Workers should get first priority

on the money that comes out of a firm that has gone belly up. The first

responsibility in our society is to make sure that those people who

work get paid, and the bill does not do that, as I read it.

any collective agreement there is provision for reinstatement for

wrongful dismissal. That is a basic labour standard. It's not in this

bill, and I don't understand why. What this bill is or should be, Mr.

Speaker, is a collective agreement for those people who haven't yet had

the opportunity to negotiate their own collective agreement. To leave

out an essential element of a collective agreement — reinstatement for

wrongful dismissal — is to have an incomplete collective agreement. I

don't understand why the minister has decided not to include that

essential element. Why, Mr. Minister, have you taken the

section that

doesn't allow employment agencies to strike-break out of the earlier

legislation? It's gone. You have a perturbed look on your face, but

it's gone; that

section is gone. Employment agencies can now send or

direct workers to strike-bound operations, and that, too, is wrong.

That, too, is a basic standard that should be upheld here in this

province.

My final point is not the most important point,

because the most important point is that this bill is done by

regulation. Enforcement and information are essential. First of all,

those people who work in those sectors of our society that are not

covered by trade union agreements do not have daily, weekly or even

periodic contact with a business agent or staff representative of a

union. Therefore they are not regularly kept up to date with the nature

of their collective agreement. It happens in the normal workplace

situation where there's a union. There are study sessions and all kinds

of training and informational educational programs to make sure that

all the workers in the plant understand what the collective agreement

guarantees them. Here we have a collective agreement for those people

in our society who do not have unions.

The minister must

make certain that these people who are covered by the collective

agreement that he is imposing on them have business agents or staff

representatives to make them aware of the nature of their collective

agreement. These are people who do not have trade unions. Without that

information provided by a business agent — or, in this case, a member

of the ministry staff — those workers have nothing. Without knowledge

there is no power or ability to protect your own rights. It is

absolutely essential that the staff in the ministry be upgraded. I mean

that in two senses. It should be upgraded in terms of numbers and their

attitude as to what their job is. Their job is to act as the business

agent acts on behalf of the collective agreement. They are not there to

be an impartial arbiter between management and labour, because the

government has taken on the responsibility through this legislation of

providing a collective agreement for those people. Therefore they must

provide them with the wherewithal to enforce that collective agreement.

Those officers of the department, in conducting their business and

doing their work, must remember that their responsibility is to the

enforcement of this collective agreement, and in order to enforce the

collective agreement those people covered by it must be informed about

it.

Those are two important tasks essential to the working

of this legislation. In doing that, some of those staff people in the

ministry must be able to speak a variety of languages and have a budget

that allows them to print leaflets describing benefits in a number of

languages. As so often and historically has happened in this society,

those people who are new to our country and not familiar with either

our laws or customs or language are the people who end up working in

areas where this collective agreement applies for them. We therefore

must have a much larger budget than is now presently available to the

ministry so that people can be informed in their own language by the

staff and literature prepared by the ministry.

I'll leave it

at that, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to support the bill, because by Social

Credit standards it's only five years old, and that's not bad. Most of

his colleagues are 10 or 15 years behind, but he's only five years

behind. For that reason I'm going to support it, but there better be

some amendments in the next year or two to bring this up to what should

be British Columbia standards in 1980 or 1981.

MS. BROWN:

I too would like to express my concern about whether the rights

outlined in this legislation on behalf of working people are going to

be extended to cover domestics and farmworkers. It's because I'm afraid

that this bill may be a cruel hoax that I thought I should give the

minister a bit of history — a little bit of background — about the

struggle that women who have worked as domestics down through the years

have been involved in, in terms of trying to get decent working

conditions and decent wages for the job they do.

One of the

oldest women's groups in this country, the Council of Women, which was

formed in 1896, gave itself as its very first task working on behalf of

domestics — women who worked in the home — that they had decent working

conditions, that they were paid decent wages and that they did in fact

receive their wages.

I don't know if you can cast your mind

that far back, Mr. Speaker, but back in the beginning, before the days

of washing machines, vacuum cleaners, floor polishers, dishwashers and

that kind of thing, it was almost impossible for a household to exist

without having hired help.

Also, back in those days, when

employment for women was unheard of — and of course, if the woman was

of a "genteel" or an upper class.... What families would do would be to

invite single women from Great Britain to come to this country to live

with them and to be their household help. A number of the young women

who came to this country were actually sent here by their churches and

enticed here by other churches who felt that they were single and were

not going to be married. So the safest thing for them

[ Page 4028 ]

would

be to live with a household, assist with the household chores, and in

exchange get room and board and a very small remuneration. This was

back in the 1800s in Canada.

But it soon became apparent,

even to these churches and other women, that these women were being

exploited: that they were working very long hours, that their living

conditions were in many instances totally unsatisfactory, and that

their wages were very, very low, and in many instances they didn't

receive them. That is why the Council of Women, which was an

organization of women right across Canada, when it came into existence

gave itself as its first responsibility — its first priority, its first

task — working to improve the status of these women who were working in

the homes as domestics. The struggle has been going on since then.

This

really is the first piece of legislation in this province which we hope

is going to see an end to that struggle. It would be a very, very cruel

hoax if in fact when the regulations came down we discovered that this

particular group of workers were going to be exempted from some of the

rules, regulations and rights outlined in this piece of legislation as

it applies to workers. The interesting thing that's happened to

domestics is that they are no longer confined only to the private home;

in fact what we have is a group of workers, also designated as

domestics, who are hired in long-term care through the Ministry of

Health and as homemakers through the Ministry of Human Resources. These

are people who essentially do the same kind of job as domestics do in

the private home but in a public place — in hospitals, in long-term

care facilities and in the homes of senior citizens who can no longer

take care of themselves. They are paid by the government — by other

ministries like the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Human

Resources. When they are excepted from this legislation they are open

to exploitation not just by individuals but by the Ministry of Health,

the Ministry of Human Resources or employers who hire not just one or

two domestics but a number of people to do the job which is referred to

as "domestic work."

So I think that when the minister is

looking at his regulations and drafting his regulations he should take

into account that he is also looking at people who are doing "domestic"

work outside of the home. He's looking at the homemakers and at the

people in long-term care as well as the "nannies," the housekeepers and

the people who live in the home. He should also take into account that

more than 90 percent of these people are women. The whole problem,

which we have discussed on the floor of this House a number of times,

is about the poverty, the poor wages and working conditions that women

experience in the workforce, and it's certainly one that he should take

into account when he's dealing with this issue.

The other

area I want to touch on very briefly is a

section dealing with

employment of children. I certainly am concerned about that particular

section, in view of the amendments which the minister has introduced to

that particular section. I will be speaking in more detail about it

when the bill goes into committee.

It's not good enough just

to say that children under 15 can be employed if there is permission

from the director. There should be some kind of statement about the

working conditions and the workplace, and about the protection of

children who work. What we have are different ministries, all of which

touch the lives of children, and which are very clearly not speaking to

each other and not working out some kind of overall decisions affecting

the lives of children.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Before

the minister introduced this kind of legislation he should have

probably discussed it with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), or at least taken a look at things like legislation for the

protection of children to ensure that this act included the kinds of

protection that children should have in the workplace. We're hearing

more and more about the kinds of pesticides and other kinds of

herbicides which are dust, and pollutants being used on the farms where

most of the children work as berry pickers and these kinds of things.

There is no statement in the act in terms of ensuring that no children

should be hired in an environment which is deemed to be unsafe; that

should have been included in this particular piece of legislation.

The

other thing we have is a letter from the farmworkers themselves,

talking about how unsafe the working conditions are, even for the

children who are not working. They related to us a story of four deaths

in the lower Fraser Valley during the last two weeks. This was dated

July 30, 1980. They talk about three boys being drowned in a gravel pit

and one infant being drowned in a bucket full of water. All of these

children had been left unattended while their parents were working in

the fields. They are wondering why it is that the legislation does not

include some prerequisite that at least the farm labour contractors, if

not the owners, should be required to ensure that there are decent

child-care facilities for these children who have to accompany their

parents to the field while the parents are working. This entire

section

section 50 in

part 6, dealing with children — is totally inadequate.

I certainly am very disappointed that the minister did not introduce

amendments and expand that particular section. It should not just say:

"You may work if you are under 15 as long as there is permission by the

director," but should spell out very clearly the kinds of working

conditions and the kinds of protection for children who work or

children who accompany their parents when they go to work in the fields.

Finally,

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to that of the previous two

speakers about the amendment as it affects the maternity leave

section

of the act, and to say that I certainly am opposed to that. I hope it's

a mistake, and that the minister intends to add an amendment to the

amendment to delete that particular section, but we will certainly be

dealing with that in more detail when the bill goes into committee.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, I too, along with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, would

like to add my concern regarding the serious omission of not having an

occupational health and safety

section to the bill. If you look at

where unorganized workers are working, many of them are working in

clerical jobs — for example, in the financial industries, banks, and so

on. If anyone has ever had contact with people regarding their problems

working in the clerical area.... Although one would not ordinarily

think of them, some of them are very specific — for example,

temperature. The conditions of the Factories Act really do not apply to

people working in office settings. Sitting working at a desk all day at

a temperature of, say, 52 or 55 degrees can be very uncomfortable,

whereas working in a factory setting in a pulpmill or in the forest

industry, in a mine or what have you, is a totally different situation.

So there is a whole range of occupational health and safety forces and

[ Page 4029 ]

influences

that affect unorganized workers in clerical areas, in farms and in

domestic settings that really are not addressed in any way in this bill.

The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds is quite correct in pointing out that there

is no address whatsoever to the question of pesticides and herbicides —

the right of a worker working in an unorganized area to refuse to work

and to be protected in his or her refusal to work if they feel that

their health would be in jeopardy in that employment. I think

unorganized workers are very vulnerable in that area, and I think the

minister must be aware that even organized workers.... That is really

on the frontier of labour management relations — when an organized

worker refuses to work because he deems the work environment to be

hazardous to his health. There is no language within these labour

standards that affords an unorganized worker that kind of protection.

For

example, there are many areas in the United States in the agriculture

industry, which is very affected by herbicides, pesticides and other

kinds of chemicals, where workers are concerned about their health, and

justly so. There are many diseases that seem to have a chemical origin.

But here in British Columbia the farmworkers in the Okanagan and the

Fraser Valley are not afforded any protection whatsoever under this

bill to go to the farmer and ask: "What chemicals are being used? In

what way should they be handled to protect our health? Should we have

protective clothing?"

their first language. They are intimidated in their employer-employee

relationships. That whole area is not addressed in the bill.

would like the minister to take under advisement an amendment adding an

occupational health and safety guarantee for unorganized workers. It

should be a standard, basic right of all working people, whether they

fall under a formal collective agreement or under the protection of

this minister's ministry. Their health should be protected by law and

they should be afforded formal procedures with which to bring forward a

case or legitimate concerns regarding things that may be damaging their

health. I think that is a legitimate, valid proposal to the minister. I

hope he will take it under advisement.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

There have been a number of items raised, and I don't know whether or

not I can get them done before 12 o'clock. As a general observation on

some of the comments which have been raised by members of the

opposition as to the application of the legislation, the fact is that

the proposed legislation applies to everyone. There seemed to be some

emphasis placed on farmworkers and domestics. Now I appreciate why the

concern has been expressed, because they were two particular areas

which required attention. I don't think that is in dispute. So perhaps

there has been an emphasis placed on them to the detriment of others.

When

we talk about regulations and exemptions where required.... As the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) put it — and very well, I

thought — about the difficulties he had on the commission in which he

was involved, with the difficulties of piecework during holidays and

various things like that, sometimes there are exemptions. Of course,

these exemptions must apply to all; there are other industries as well.

acknowledge the point raised by my critic involving mass layoffs. But I

would also ask that we raise something else, and this was a matter of

some discussion, I can assure you. I think that if we were to look into

a department within our ministry involving manpower and consultative

services, and cooperation between the federal and provincial

governments when in fact there is an industry shutdown.... I think the

most recent example was Ocean Falls. In this day and age I think you

will find, through industry and the trade unions involved, that there

is a great deal of cooperation when some of these problems meet us on

the horizon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Yes, I have raised the matter of the WCB with respect to domestics and

farmworkers, and this is a matter of dialogue now; I can't say anything

more about it at this time.

There are a number of items, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not sure of the pleasure of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suggest that the member at this time adjourn debate.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada