2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 53)

Hon. G. Plant

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 56)

Hon. G. Bruce

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Hats Off Day

R. Lee

Ten things you didn't read in the newspaper

P. Bell

New era for B.C.

K. Krueger

Oral Questions

Crown prosecution policy in spousal abuse cases

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets

J. Kwan

Hon. R. Neufeld

Resolution of physicians' dispute

K. Krueger

Hon. C. Hansen

PNWER conference and U.S. softwood lumber duty

P. Bell

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

J. MacPhail

Funding for heritage language programs

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Abbott

Petitions

J. Kwan

Tabling Documents

B.C. Assessment, Annual Performance Report for the Year 2001 and a Report on the Creation of the 2002 Assessment Roll

B.C. Assessment, financial statements, 2001

Petitions

R. Sultan

Tabling Documents

Information and

Privacy Commissioner office annual report, 2001-02

Point of Privilege

Premature disclosure of the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process draft report

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, third report

B. Penner

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48)

(continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

Reporting of Bills

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48)

Third Reading of Bills

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48)

Motions on Notice (Motion 33)

Third reading of Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48)

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Bruce

Royal Assent to Bills

Agricultural Land Commission Act (Bill 21)

Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26)

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28)

School Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 34)

Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38)

Protected Areas Forests Compensation Act (Bill 39)

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 40)

Forest (First Nations Development) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 41)

Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 42)

Office for Children and Youth Act (Bill 43)

Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 44)

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 46)

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48)

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 50)

Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51)

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58)

Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401)

Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402)

[ Page 3749 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm delighted to introduce today for the very first time three

employees of the Ministry of Education who, although they worked for the

ministry for many years collectively, have never been introduced in the gallery

and have never visited the gallery. They are Paige MacFarlane, Deb Naubert and

Terry Foster. I hope the House will please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Plant: I have the honour to welcome into the gallery today four

extraordinarily hard-working people who work for me in the office just down the

hall from here and have come a hundred feet or so to see in person what they

have heard about for a long time. I'm hoping that the House would please

welcome, from my office, Gail Dawson; Christine Willows, the administrative

coordinator; Michele Obara, my executive assistant; and Joan Dick, my

ministerial assistant.

[1405]

Brice: It gives me great pleasure to introduce six members of the B.C.

Hospital Maintenance and Trades Workers Association. In the gallery are

president Dave Pellerin, vice-president Ed Mol, Dave Law, Myrle Peters, Jim

Barrett and Ray Melville. Members of this House had the privilege of meeting

with them today, and we discussed how we can work together to improve the

delivery of health care in British Columbia. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House a very good

friend of mine, Jassa Grewal, who, along with Tom Peach, Russ Burtnick, Norm

Blain, Paul Keenleyside, Del Virk and Lorraine Gordon, was very instrumental in

my election campaign. With Mr. Grewal in the gallery this afternoon is his

daughter-in-law Simmerjot Grewal and, from England, his niece Kulbinder Dosanjh

and his granddaughter, three-year-old Serena Dosanjh. Would the House please

make them very welcome.

MacPhail: I have the privilege of welcoming a whole bunch of friends today.

Some of them are very young, and some of them are older, and I will leave it up

to the House to determine whom are which: Melanie Vogels, Pye Fernstrom, Rose

Dacosta, Patricia Little, Susan Baker, Jim Sinclair, Geoff Meggs and Bill

Harper. I thought you'd laugh. I hope everybody will make both my new and my old

friends welcome.

Trumper: Today in the precincts we have students from Alberni District

Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. Frank Holm. The high school, this last

weekend, celebrated its fiftieth anniversary of being in existence. I would ask

you to please make these students welcome.

S. Orr:

I have the privilege today of having lots of people come visit us. Firstly, I

have a young UVic Liberal called Trisha Girard. She's not only a young UVic

Liberal; she is also a member of the Cree nation, who is spending her summer in

a first nations aboriginal internship program.

I also have

21 grade 5 students from St. Andrew's School with their teacher, Ms. Brown.

Also, I think there are about 25 grade 4 students with some parents from Hampton

Community School, also with their teacher, Ms. Forshaw. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Stewart: It's my pleasure today to rise to introduce Maxine and Gordon

Wilson from Coquitlam — the Gordon Wilson from Coquitlam — and their friends

from England, Dianna and David Barfield. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I've been under a tremendous amount of pressure in this session this

past while, because very early on I introduced a guest, a friend, and some of

you were fairly biting and wondered whether I actually had more than one friend.

At that time I told you that I had ten. The other day I introduced my ninth

friend, and today, hon. members, I'd like to introduce to you my tenth friend.

My friend is close to me. He comes all the way from Thailand. I had to search

far and wide to find my tenth friend. If the House would join with me in making

Noor Hossain from Bangkok welcome here, not only in British Columbia but in

Canada, I would certainly appreciate that very much. Would you please make him

welcome — my tenth friend.

[1410]

Mr.

Speaker, I was on a roll. I actually found two more friends beyond the ten, and

the pressure is truly off now.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Be gentle. Be gentle.

With my

family are friends of my children, Rob Pickerings and Jennifer Young, and if you

would please make them welcome, my eleventh and twelfth friends, I'd appreciate

that.

Hon. L.

Reid: I would ask this House to please join with me in bidding a very fond

farewell to my executive assistant, Rhonda Dashevsky. She has performed

outstanding service to this Legislature and to my office over the past year, and

I would ask the House to wish her every good wish as she goes forward.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge some

special guests visiting British Columbia from Mongolia. The Hon. Chimiddorj

[ Page 3750 ]

Ganzorig, Minister of Industry and Commerce for the government of Mongolia;

Mr. Bat-Erdene, the Department of Geology and Minerals; Mr. Badamsuren, director

general of a major Mongolian mining company; Mr. Herlen of the Mineral Resources

Authority; His Excellency Mr. Batsukh, Ambassador of Mongolia to Canada; Mr.

Bardach with the embassy; and, lastly, Mr. Jim Cambon, the honorary consul for

Mongolia, out of Vancouver.

During

their stay in British Columbia, I hope that the minister and his delegation have

the opportunity to discover many of the opportunities that we have here in

British Columbia, and we look forward to developing a very good working

relationship with the minister and his delegation. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to advise the House that Pat Samson of Hansard

Services is retiring today after 11 years of service as a console operator for

committee meetings and as a tablet operator here in the chamber.

Pat

travelled extensively with travelling committees, working long days to set up

the microphone systems and be ready for the members' arrival in various cities

and communities across our province. She was the first one to rise in the

morning and the last one to call it a day to ensure that the equipment was ready

for members.

On behalf

of the Legislature, I wish Pat and her husband, John, good sailing as they

depart on their retirement journey.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that Bill 53 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: Mr. Speaker, Bill 53 will strengthen human rights in British Columbia

by reforming the machinery of human rights to make it accessible, timely and

affordable for complainants, respondents and taxpayers. This bill incorporates

the results of extensive study and consultation, and it is being introduced now

to encourage further discussion before debate in the fall.

For too

many British Columbians, complainants and respondents, the processing of a human

rights complaint has been a bureaucratic nightmare out of a Franz Kafka novel.

It's too complicated, it's inefficient, it's too slow, and it's too expensive. I

have seen no credible defence of the status quo.

We are not

proposing changes to the substantive protections in the code, but we are

proposing changes to the institutions which are intended to make those

protections real. For the first time, complainants will have direct access to

the Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal will continue to be fully independent.

It will be given enhanced powers to handle all aspects of complaints filed under

the code and will emphasize mediation and settlement — in short,

problem-solving rather than adjudication as the preferred means of resolving

complaints.

In keeping

with this new structure, the bill proposes the elimination of the Human Rights

Commission and the Human Rights Advisory Council. Education, research and

promotion of human rights protection can and will be undertaken by government.

The new model includes funding for a clinic to provide education and training as

well as legal advice and support to parties.

[1415]

Mr.

Speaker, this bill will create a human rights system that is strong, effective

and affordable for all British Columbians.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 53

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.

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

Hon. G.

Bruce presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that Bill 56 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm pleased to introduce the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No.

2), 2002. This bill amends the Workers Compensation Act to reform the systems

appeals processes and structures.

This bill

reduces the number of levels of review and appeal of Workers Compensation Board

decisions from three to two. It imposes statutory limits on the length of time

an injured worker must wait for a final decision. Cases will be in appeal for a

maximum of 11 months versus the current 30-month average for all three levels

— a reduction of almost two-thirds in the time taken to complete an appeal.

establishes an internal review function at the board, focused on enhancing the

quality of initial decision-making.

This bill

establishes a new appeal tribunal, independent of the Workers Compensation

Board, to serve as the final level of appeal for workers and employers

[ Page 3751 ]

on the majority of workers compensation matters. It makes WCB policy, as set

by the board of directors, binding on the workers compensation system.

I'm

introducing this legislation today for debate in the fall session of this House.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 56

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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) HATS OFF DAY

R. Lee:

This Saturday is Hats Off Day in Burnaby. Originally, the Heights Merchants

Association in Burnaby began Hats Off Day in the mid-1980s for customer

appreciation.

Since that

time it has grown into one of the largest celebrations in the lower mainland,

bringing together more than 20,000 people and showcasing many local community

groups and organizations.

The

celebration begins with the Hats Off Day parade, now in its thirteenth year, led

down Hastings Street by the Vancouver and Seattle motorcycle drill teams.

Participants include the Burnaby fire department, the Chinese lion dancers,

marching bands, community groups and many others.

After the

parade the street festival begins. People can experience different ethnic foods

as cultural associations cook up foods from their homelands. While they eat

their lunch they can also enjoy the music of over a dozen different musical

groups.

For the

first time ever, this year's Hats Off Day will include a collector car show

displaying at least 80 hot rods, classical cars and specialty cars from Europe.

These rare vehicles from the 1920s to the 1980s will definitely attract many car

enthusiasts and spectators from all over the lower mainland.

As the

parade marks its thirteenth birthday, next Tuesday also marks the thirteenth

anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. On June 4, 1989, thousands of civilians

and students in the pro-democracy movement were killed by machine guns and tanks

in Beijing, China.

In Canada

we are fortunate to be able to participate in events such as the Hats Off Day,

having the freedom of peaceful assembly.

[1420]

Hats Off

Day is a testimony to the community and human spirit. I commend all the

organizers, including Gilmore Community School, the Heights Neighbourhood

Association and the Heights Merchants Association for this great multicultural

event.

TEN THINGS YOU DIDN'T READ

IN THE NEWSPAPER

P. Bell:

Some members know I produce a weekly e-mail entitled "Ten Things You Didn't

Read in the Newspaper This Week." Well, here are the top ten of the

"Ten Things You Didn't Read."

No. 10. A

little-known fact. The Nechako basin, which incorporates the Prince George,

Cariboo and Bulkley ridings, contains over five billion barrels of oil. This

represents almost 30 percent of the estimated oil reserves in B.C., and oil

companies are showing interest.

At No. 9. A

quote from the 2001 annual report of Northgate Exploration Ltd. Speaking of

B.C., they say: "Those benefits include a favourable political, regulatory

and business environment."

At No. 8.

Did you know that 8 percent of the people in B.C. pay almost half of the

personal income tax in this province?

At No. 7. A

number of new test wells are being drilled around the province exploring for

coalbed methane — a whole new industry in the offing.

At No. 6.

In our first year of office over 7,000 regulations have been eliminated, making

it easier to do business and invest in B.C.

At No. 5.

According to the recent Gallup Poll, 59 percent of the people in this province

believe that what we're doing today will make it easier to invest and grow in

the province of British Columbia.

At No. 4.

Already this year in the first four months we've created over 40,000 new jobs in

British Columbia, with fully one-third of all the jobs created in Canada in the

month of April.

At No. 3.

B.C. moved from the least-favoured province to invest in, in 2000 and 2001 to

the third most-favoured province in all of Canada.

At No. 2.

Since July of 2001 the average wage in the province has increased by 4.6

percent, the second highest in all of Canada, comparing that with an average of

only 3.1 percent. From '97 to 2001 we were dead last in Canada.

And the No.

1 thing you didn't read in the newspaper this week: we accomplished this in just

our first year, and we have three more great years to go. We're back on the map

in B.C., and we're ready to grow.

NEW ERA FOR B.C.

Krueger: As the spring session of the Legislature closes today, we celebrate

a successful year of beginning new approaches, fulfilling promises and launching

a new era of hope, opportunity and prosperity.

This

Saturday the most beautiful girl in the world will take her wedding vows in

Kamloops. She is my daughter Keturah Anne Krueger, and for the past 20 years

she's given me incredible joy — the joy a man only gets to experience through

the privilege of being the father of a girl. I've been utterly captivated by her

since the moment she was born. Keturah and her husband, Joel Neustaeter, will

make their home in British

[ Page 3752 ]

Columbia. They were in Alberta for awhile — pretty scary for me — but

they've decided to build their lives here in Canada's most beautiful province.

I'm so

thankful to be part of a government which is moving resolutely, competently,

skilfully to restore our province to its natural position of leadership in this

country. I grew up in B.C. knowing that I could become whatever I chose to, and

I want that for my children and everyone else's in this province.

Fathers

don't get to say much in the traditional wedding script, I've been thinking.

Katie and I have always teased each other a lot, so I've been toying with the

notion of ad-libbing. Perhaps instead of the usual that her mother and I do, it

could be a little dissertation on how it takes a whole village to raise a single

child, and how the B.C. Liberals are creating a whole new and improved village

for Katie and Joel and their children. However, I doubt that I would survive the

prank, necessitating a by-election and expenditures of taxpayers' scarce

resources, so I may stick with the script.

I do want

to express gratitude, though, to the Premier, the cabinet and my caucus

colleagues for keeping our promises, working so hard and making the changes to

bring the bright new era to British Columbia so that young people like our

Saturday newlyweds can pursue their dreams and build their lives in the province

we love.

[1425]

Oral Questions

CROWN PROSECUTION POLICY IN

SPOUSAL ABUSE CASES

MacPhail: According to this government's own statistics, B.C. has one of the

highest rates of violence against women in the country. In 2000 over 10,000

spousal abuse cases were reported. In B.C. we have policy that says Crown

prosecutors must file charges in virtually every spousal abuse case. It's gained

the strong support of the police and the justice system at large.

So I'd like

to ask the minister responsible for women's services: is he aware of any plans

the government has to change this policy that would give Crown prosecutors more

discretion in the laying of charges in spousal abuse cases?

Hon. G.

Plant: The criminal justice branch is indeed looking at policy around the

criminal practice of British Columbia with a view to making a good thing better.

If the member opposite has ideas for how we can examine and, if necessary,

reform policy such as the violence-against-women-in-relationships policy to

ensure that we do, in fact, have a criminal justice policy that works to prevent

violence against women, I would welcome her suggestions. I would welcome the

suggestions of all members of this House and, indeed, the suggestions of all

British Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: I'm afraid that offer comes far too late, because the policy is

already being changed. On May 2 B.C.'s Crown prosecutors were told at a

conference in Harrison Hot Springs by senior ministry officials to expect this

policy to change. Apparently, a zero-tolerance policy for spousal abuse costs

money to enforce, money which this government is unwilling to give, so the

prosecutors will be given discretion.

This policy

change is a huge step backwards for victims of spousal abuse. To the minister

responsible for women's services: does he agree that victims of spousal abuse

should not be further victimized by an Attorney General who is more interested

in balancing his own budget than he is in ensuring British Columbians have

access to justice?

Hon. G.

Plant: I had the good fortune to attend that conference in Harrison Hot

Springs, and what I heard was completely different from the member's

characterization. What I heard was a statement of a commitment to ensure that

Crown counsel policies are relevant and modern, work and do the job they're

supposed to do. Yes, it's time to look at all criminal justice policy. It's

always timely to ask the question whether our policies are working, including

the policies with respect to laying charges in cases of spousal abuse.

I repeat my

invitation to the member. If she has ideas for how to improve policies to ensure

that they do what they are intended to do, which is to protect women from abuse

in British Columbia, I welcome her constructive participation in this important

discussion.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: It's not surprising that this Attorney General heard things

differently than virtually every other lawyer attending that conference. It's

not surprising, given his relationship with the legal profession these days.

It's surprising, though, that he would get up and defend a weakening of a

zero-tolerance policy in this province which is recognized across Canada. It was

this Attorney General that cut funding for victim assistance to provide help and

support to victims of spousal abuse. Is it any wonder that women are worried

that he's going deny them justice?

The

minister responsible for women's services won't answer the questions. So, to the

Attorney General: if the Attorney General is saying this direction is not

occurring and if he is once again disagreeing with his colleagues who did attend

the conference, will he rise up today and assure victims of spousal abuse that

he won't let abusers off the hook by watering down B.C.'s get-tough prosecution

policy?

[1430]

Hon. G.

Plant: As I said in the first answer, as I said in the second answer and as

I'll say in the third answer, the goal of any policy review is to determine how

we can make the policies that exist work better to serve the purposes they are

intended to serve. That is the goal in

[ Page 3753 ]

this policy review. The goal is to prevent spousal abuse in British Columbia.

The goal is to have a criminal justice policy that responds appropriately to

spousal abuse by ensuring that those who commit crimes are charged, accused and

convicted of them.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Plant: My goal as Attorney General is to ensure that we have a criminal

justice policy that will do exactly that.

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS

J. Kwan:

Is it any wonder that the legal profession has lost all confidence in this

Attorney General?

One of the

Liberals' core campaign promises was not to privatize B.C. Hydro's core assets,

including transmission lines, or to engage in deregulation — in its New Era

document, page 9. A large number of municipalities have voiced their opposition

to the privatization of Hydro, and an overwhelming number of British Columbians

agree. Many British Columbians are worried that this government plans to break

that promise. It doesn't help matters when some big Liberal backers are

suggesting just that. The B.C. Gas president, John Reid, whom I'm sure the

Premier will be seeing tonight at his fundraiser, says he loves to buy them. The

chamber of commerce president, John Winter, agrees.

To the

Minister of Energy and Mines: will you help clear up some of the confusion and

promise British Columbians, like he did during the campaign, that he will not

break up and privatize or deregulate B.C. Hydro, including transmission lines?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The goal of this government is to continue to have Hydro provide

the lowest possible prices in British Columbia so we can use that as an

advantage to encourage industry to settle here and create jobs in the province.

We've been

working very hard to get to that end. I want to say again to the member opposite

— they've asked the question before — that this government is not going to

sell the core assets of B.C. Hydro.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

For months the government's been sitting on the energy policy task force

recommendations, and British Columbians are very worried about what they may

contain. They don't want to see the Premier do to Hydro what they have done to

the health care system.

understand the Liberals' plan to release the report and act on its

recommendations in the middle of the summer. To the minister, once again: will

the minister commit, when the report is finally released, to ordering a full

public consultation process before any changes are made to B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: We will be releasing the energy task force report at the same time

as we put forward our views on how we'll continue to keep B.C. Hydro at a

competitive advantage in British Columbia, to continue to supply the lowest-cost

electricity we can to all British Columbians, whether they live in northeast

B.C., southeast B.C. or Vancouver Island. We will continue to work to that end.

What we plan to bring forward will benefit the province immensely.

RESOLUTION OF PHYSICIANS' DISPUTE

Krueger: I have a constituent, Mr. Alan Parkes, who has cancer. He knows he

has cancer — that's been confirmed — but he needs diagnostic procedures

which have several times been delayed because of the doctors' failure over

recent weeks to put their patients' interests first.

Mr. Parkes

and his family are afraid for his life. We want to see these procedures done.

Can the Minister of Health Services give us an update on the doctors situation?

[1435]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I had a conversation with Dr. Heidi Oetter immediately prior to

coming into the chamber at 2 o'clock. The BCMA executive met this morning to

give consideration to a proposal that had been reached yesterday between the

government negotiator and the BCMA negotiator. I am pleased to advise the House

that the BCMA executive is recommending approval of that proposal.

I think

it's unfortunate that thousands of British Columbians, like the member's

constituent, have been denied access to care over this last number of weeks.

Throughout this, we as a government have always put the interests of patients

first. I also believe that most doctors in this province also want to make sure

the interests of patients are put first.

recognize that most doctors are frustrated by problems in our health care

system. This being close to the first anniversary of the swearing-in of this

government, I can say we have made considerable progress toward putting our

health care system back on track. Much of the work we're doing actually reflects

recommendations coming from the BCMA through their policy document called Turning

the Tide .

I am very

anxious that we can move forward, that we can begin to work with doctors to fix

the system to make sure that individuals like the member's constituent can once

again count on the health care system to be there for them when they need it.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has a supplementary

question.

Krueger: Mr. Parkes was a rancher throughout his working life, a very

hard-working rancher in the Cache

[ Page 3754 ]

Creek area. He has a beautiful family, and they're very successful. Everyone

has been hurt terribly by what he's going through. Can the Minister of Health

Services tell us whether this means a full and immediate resumption of services

to patients, and whether the doctors will do something to try and catch up on

the problems that have arisen? What exactly does this mean in the very short

term for people like Mr. Parkes who are suffering?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The BCMA will be recommending to their members throughout the

province to discontinue the job actions. Clearly, there is going to be a backlog

of surgical procedures that had been cancelled during this time. The health

authorities throughout the province, working with the doctors, will be trying to

do everything possible to ensure that those individuals get access as quickly as

possible to the care they were counting on.

PNWER CONFERENCE AND

U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER DUTY

P. Bell:

In two weeks, B.C. will be participating in the annual meeting of the Pacific

NorthWest Economic Region in Oregon. This conference will provide an opportunity

for B.C. to have its voice heard amongst the American community with similar

issues and concerns. Goodness knows, we have enough issues and concerns right

now with the Americans. Can the Minister of State for Intergovernmental

Relations tell us what he hopes to accomplish at this meeting?

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Indeed, British Columbia will be well represented at the

conference. We'll have four MLAs representing us, along with the member for

Chilliwack-Kent, who is the incoming president of PNWER for the coming year. The

conference will be an important opportunity for us to meet with both legislators

and private sector representatives from Alaska, Alberta, Yukon and the northwest

states.

Some of the

issues they'll be talking about are the 2010 Winter Olympics bid, since a lot in

the tourist industry from the Pacific northwest are very interested in

collaborating with British Columbia on that; cross-border electrical

transmission, both internationally and between states; ensuring the smooth flow

of people and goods across the border, preclearance and the Nexus system; and

also looking at security after September 11, particularly around the cruise ship

industry that is so critical to the tourism industry in British Columbia.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for…. The Chair recognizes everybody. [Laughter.]

The member

for Prince George North has a supplementary question.

P. Bell:

It's tough to get by me sometimes, Mr. Speaker.

Last week

the crippling duties….

MacPhail: I'm just worried about the glare.

P. Bell:

The glare. Yep.

Last week

the crippling duties on Canadian softwood lumber came into effect. Can the

Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations tell us whether he'll be using

this forum to educate the Americans on the impact of these devastating duties

not just on British Columbians but also on the American public?

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: It will provide an excellent opportunity. We're expecting

over 200 American legislators to be there — state Senators, state

representatives — who can bring our message to their federal representatives.

It not only affects our forest-dependent communities but the Americans who are

the homebuyers out there and the consumers in America. We have to bring that

message to them.

[1440]

I believe

that the 27 percent duties that are going on it will increase the price of a

home in the United States by $1,500. That translates into about 450,000 American

families that will not qualify for mortgages. We've got to get that message

through to them.

FUNDING FOR

HERITAGE LANGUAGE PROGRAMS

MacPhail: School boards across the province are struggling to meet the needs

of students in the face of budget cuts imposed by the government. Valued

programs are being eliminated because of these cuts, despite what any government

cabinet minister may say.

I have with

me here 10,000 cards addressed to the Premier and the minister responsible for

the heritage language program, calling on them not to cut this program. There

are 30,000 students studying heritage language who, as of this fall, will have

their program cut.

To the

Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services: will he stand today and

commit to these 10,000 students and parents who have written to him that this

valuable program will be restored this autumn and that there will be no funding

cut? A simple answer, please.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm really honoured that the Leader of the Opposition has provided

me with an opportunity to respond to her last question of the entire session.

It's an honour, particularly given that the information with respect to the

heritage language program has been up on the website since January 17, when our

service plans were announced.

I was

disappointed that during 23 hours of estimates on my ministry, this issue never

came up. Certainly it was one I was looking forward to talking to, but I'm

pleased that at the last moment this has come up on the opposition leader's

radar screen as an issue.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 3755 ]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The issue is around the program. It's a $170,000-a-year program.

What we do with that is provide grants up to $1,000 a year per school. The

program will run through to '03. We have had to make some difficult decisions.

Again, to

recall, it took 120 years for this province to get $16 billion in debt. The last

government in ten years in office more than doubled the debt in this province to

$37 billion.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Abbott: We've had to make some difficult decisions as a consequence of the

spendthrift ways of the former government. This is one area where we have had to

make some difficult choices. We have, and we look forward to a brighter day and

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

Kwan: I rise to table a petition. This petition has been signed by 723

parents in Vancouver. These parents, along with 13,000 others, have written to

the Premier, have banded together to form SOS, which stands for Save Our

Schools. They are deeply concerned by the devastating and unprecedented budget

cuts the Vancouver schools are faced with over the next three years, and they're

calling on the government to restore education programs.

Tabling Documents

Hon.

S. Hagen: I'm pleased to table with the Legislature today the annual

performance report for the year 2001 and a report on the creation of the 2002

assessment roll and the financial statements for the year ended December 31,

2001, for B.C. Assessment.

Petitions

Sultan: I present to the House a second petition, opposed to the closing of

Capilano Care Centre. There are 1,553 signatures on this petition.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the

office of the information and privacy commissioner for the period April 1, 2001,

to March 31, 2002.

[1445]

Point of Privilege

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. I gave notice

earlier today. The point of privilege is with respect to the premature

disclosure of the draft report of the Special Committee to Review the Police

Complaint Process. On Tuesday, May 28, 2002, members were first made aware of

the premature disclosure when an

article appeared in the Vancouver Sun

quoting the Chair of the committee providing the information that the committee

had decided to provide severance to the former police complaint commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when I learned today that this was exactly the

recommendation of the committee to the House as tabled this morning at 10 a.m.

I have

conferred with the opposition member, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, for the committee, who had a number of telephone discussions with the

Chair of the committee in the days leading up to the disclosure, and at no time

was there a discussion of providing the Chair the latitude to make this

statement to the media prior to reporting to this House.

Common

practice would dictate that I, as a member of the House, have a right of

privilege to expect that such reports not be disclosed until tabled in the

House. I know that the Speaker will rely upon the much-reviewed authorities of

Erskine May and Maingot, and I expect that the second report from the Committee

of Privileges, session 1984-85, entitled Premature Disclosure of Proceedings

of Select Committee , would be examined.

This is

separate and apart from my concerns expressed earlier, on May 28, that

disbursements had already been made prior to these recommendations having been

adopted by the House. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, your ruling, which you made

yesterday on that matter, of May 29.

In keeping

with the procedure on raising a matter of privilege, I am tabling a copy of the Vancouver

Sun

article and a copy of the report, as well as a copy of the motion which

I intend to move should you find that a prima facie case has been established.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I will take that under advisement and rule

on your point of privilege in due course.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I just reserve my right to provide input on that as

well.

Mr.

Speaker: So noted.

Reports from Committees

Penner: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills for the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament. I move that the

report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Penner: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt

the report.

[ Page 3756 ]

Leave

granted.

Penner: I move that the report be adopted.

Mr.

Speaker: You've heard the motion.

On the

motion, the Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: I understand that this is a debatable motion. My remarks in

opposition to this report will be brief. Those who are interested in the detail

of my concerns expressed here may view the Hansard of various meetings of

the committee.

I suffer

under no misunderstandings of the process. I know that at the end of the day,

this report will be adopted by this House. My concern about this report,

separate and apart from my concerns about the conduct of this matter in

committee, here in the House and in the newspapers, is focused upon the

deficiencies of this report before us. Specifically, the report makes no finding

of fact. It does not establish that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

was the leak. It does not establish that she indeed did breach privilege.

[1450]

As well,

the report fails to respond to the precedent that Ms. Kwan has laid out in her

attached submission, including the following, which I quote from the second

report of the British House of Commons Committee of Privilege, 1984-85:

"One

probable source of some leaks is inadvertent disclosure by a member. Some

members naturally discuss the work of their committees with other members,

with their own staff or with others who may have relevant advice or

experience, without intending publication, but others may not have the

appropriate respect for information of this kind that they have been given

in confidence, and published leaks result."

Nor does

this report address the findings of that very same committee from which I just

quoted that it would be unjust to punish a person who was the inadvertent source

of information that was subsequently published without that person's knowledge

or intent. Instead, the committee finds that the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, without finding of fact, is guilty and should therefore be penalized.

It's a penalty that, if one reads the Hansard , she has already

voluntarily submitted to. It is a pity that the report proves that the matter

has been an enormous waste of all of our time.

Mr.

Speaker: Further comment? The matter is debatable. The member for

Chilliwack-Kent.

Penner: I would just like to note for the record that the matters raised by

the member opposite were presented to the committee. The committee took those

comments into consideration. The report has been presented to the House, and

that reflects the view of the committee.

Mr.

Speaker: Further comment? Question is adoption of the report.

Motion

approved on division.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued committee stage debate of Bill 48.

Committee of the Whole House

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 48; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:54 p.m.

section 11.

[1455]

MacPhail: Just before we left the debate and adjourned for lunch, the

minister was expressing his views on how serious he thought the situation was

around farm labour contractors. I had a chance to think about those comments,

and I want to give the minister an opportunity to correct what could be a

misapprehension on others' parts: that in no way was he targeting any particular

part of the farm labour community — was he? — in his comments.

Hon. G.

Bruce: No. I'm just recalling that conversation. I think you had spoken

about the agricultural community and some of the problems therein and the

concern that those people, as the agricultural sector, wouldn't be left with any

less protection as a result of the direction that we're taking here. The point I

was trying to make, clearly and loudly, was: no, just the opposite. I intend to

make sure that in the agricultural sector, where there have been concerns, they

fully understand the employment standards they need to work and live to and that

the people working in the agricultural sector know what their rights are. I did

also acknowledge, in that aspect of things, the educational side that would go

along with that.

MacPhail: This is the

section that deals with the issue that no longer is

there the same level of protection for farmworkers to get their wages. The part

of the act that tied responsibility for the payment of wages to farmworkers to,

both jointly and separately, the producer and the farm labour contractor is now

gone or greatly weakened. As long as the producer, or farmer, can show that he

or she paid the farm labour contractor, then the farmer, producer, is off the

hook.

The only

reason why I raise this is that it is one of the roles that was so wonderfully

performed by the employment standards branch — to take on this issue. They

have a stellar record in this province about ensuring that farm labourers have

every benefit paid to them, even where there may be widespread abuse. The

[ Page 3757 ]

employment standards branch did an excellent job of that. I am very concerned

about the fact that with the culmination of both the repeal of these two

sections and the huge cuts in the ministry of employment standards, that

protection will no longer be there.

The reason

why I asked the minister that he wasn't targeting any particular aspect — or

any particular group of farm labour or producers, for that matter — was

because we have to protect so carefully against any other aspects creeping in

around tackling this issue, when there's now no longer legislative protection

and when it's only going to be up to the government to protect against this.

I'll be clear. One has to protect very carefully so that any vigilance against

this matter, to protect against abuse, has to be vigilance across the whole

sector and not just target one community.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Point well taken. There are a couple of things I want to be clear on.

It's understandable that we would have a differing of opinion. I happen to think

that what we're doing here will strengthen the issue. I'm not sure if you're

still talking about

section 10 or 11, but the two of them must be taken into

consideration as both. One is a paper process, and one is results-based.

More

important, though, as I had mentioned before in regards to my comments prior to

lunch, is the fact that the penalty

section is greatly strengthened in what we

are attempting to do in this instance. The educational side, as I have

mentioned, we are going to continue and enhance upon.

[1500]

I'm not

sure that one could say we were…. Actually, you couldn't. We haven't been, in

the past years, as successful at dealing with this problem as one could have. As

I was mentioning earlier, I think that's how one approaches things. I see us

currently dealing with symptoms rather than the problem. Clearly, we intend to

deal with the problem. As I had mentioned, my Deputy Minister of Labour, along

with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who has already met with one group….

Well, groups — the farm labour contractors and producers. Also, the Minister

of Agriculture and myself have been in discussion with federal officials, as

well, on the other two parts in respect to HRDC and Revenue Canada.

This is an

issue of great concern, but there could very well be — and I suspect there are

— concerns of other sectors where we will be watching closely in respect to

making sure that vulnerable people in the workplace are adequately and well

looked after in respect to protection, not subject to abuse by employers.

Excuse me.

I should have mentioned earlier on, as an introduction, that I have with me this

afternoon Mr. Ed Wall, who is an industrial relations officer. He's in the

office in Nelson and has 15 years with the ministry. He's a former director of

communications for the ministry, and the last ten years with the employment

standards branch. He, too, has been here and been instructive in helping to

reshape employment standards as we attempt to go about rebuilding the economy in

the province of British Columbia.

Section 11

approved on division.

section

MacPhail:

Section 12 amends the provision for hours of work that currently

exists. It repeals, actually, the requirement for hours of work notices to be

posted. That section, which is now gone, required employers to post a work

schedule for the employees and required them to give 24 hours' notice of a

change in shift. Failure to do so meant that the employee was entitled to

overtime pay for the changed hours worked.

So this

gave employees some abilities to plan their lives. It was a straightforward and

very easily enforced provision. Well, let me try not to prejudge. What reason

was there for completely eradicating this?

Hon. G.

Bruce: This is a seldom a central issue in an investigation and rarely, if

ever, is it the subject of enforcement. It's just one more way for us and the

changes we're making here to increase flexibility. It clearly wasn't an issue

where one is looking at it from an enforcement standpoint. Some of it is

problematic in regards to shifting and posting of shifts.

Again, as I

say, it was rarely a main issue in regards to the workload and the

investigations in the past.

[T. Christensen in the chair.]

MacPhail: Pieces of legislation are more than just legal documents about

breaches. They're about ensuring that people understand what they can expect in

terms of rights and in terms of standards. Every single change that's taken

place in this legislation is to keep working people further in the dark, under

the guise of: "Oh well, nothing ever happened with it." Nothing was

ever…. I guess the minister is saying, although my information is not that,

that we didn't have complaints, so why bother?

It's a bit

of a piling-on effect here, I must say. We're not going to require that the

terms of the employment standards have to be posted at the work site. We're not

going to require the employer to post a work schedule. We're not going to

require them to give 24 hours' notice of a change. All of this is changing

fundamentally the ability for working people to plan their lives.

[1505]

I know this

is such a small piece. You'd think you can just flick it away. One might think

it's just easy to flick away, because it seems so unimportant to some of us. But

I also happen to know that there are people that have not one, not two, not

three but four jobs that require them to juggle their lives. Those jobs are

non-union jobs. They're jobs that are regulated by the employment standards.

It's a nightmare sometimes for them to have to plan. Do they need the four jobs?

Unfortunately, yes, they do, because the four jobs add up to a decent wage.

[ Page 3758 ]

All this

means is — it's not one to spend a lot of time on — that, once again, those

at the bottom end of the income scale are going to have to just work that much

harder at managing their lives and making a decent wage. That's what the repeal

of this

section means.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Not at all. It's got nothing to do with that. We definitely have two

different philosophical views as to how you build a healthy and vibrant

workplace.

We come

from the perspective that 95 percent or more of the employers in the province of

British Columbia are good employers and that they understand the need to have a

healthy and vibrant workplace. With that, you need to treat your employees

fairly and as part of the team. Any successful operation will attest to that.

Because of that particular process or philosophical view, we also have the other

view that you go and deal with those that would be the so-called bad apples. You

deal with them pointedly and strongly.

I come back

to that whole aspect of things. An employer who wants to hold their employees

and keep them in their operation — and, as we talked about earlier on, simply

the most important aspect of a business is keeping your employees and keeping a

happy workplace — is not going to allow for the abuse relative to scheduling.

They will post their schedules. This doesn't stop anybody from posting a

schedule. It doesn't stop anybody from posting the employment standards. They'll

continue to do that.

Where we

intend to concentrate with respect to the enforcement side…. Legislation and

law is just that. There are laws there, and they're made. We want to strengthen

the important parts of that. That is what I was mentioning earlier on in regards

to the payment of wages and stat holidays — that where there are those

employers who have taken advantage of employees by non-payment of wages, they

will be dealt with in a stringent and severe manner, considerably differently

than what was in the Employment Standards Act prior to the changes to this

legislation that we're bringing forward.

MacPhail: What this government believes in is cutting all sorts of slack for

employers and none for employees. The minister says: "Don't worry. We're

going to enforce this in a way, because there's the toughest penalties on

record." First of all, now the penalties will only arise where there's a

complaint, after the self-help kit is exhausted and there's an investigation.

Then a penalty may be awarded.

[1510]

This

section had a built-in penalty for non-compliance that actually said to the

worker…. It was a penalty that made perfect sense. The benefit of the penalty

went to the worker, not into the government coffers, which is what these

penalties now do — the enforcement penalties that the government keeps lauding

as being wonderful.

What this

section said is: what's the problem? Post the schedule. Post the hours of work,

and give 24 hours' notice of a shift change. Is that so unreasonable? Doesn't

that kind of make good sense for people who are juggling their lives? Then, if

the employer didn't do that, the employee was entitled to overtime pay for the

changed hours. That's what it was. The reason why it probably rarely needed

attention is because that penalty was enough to say to employers: "Oh God,

I guess I'd better give proper notice to my workers."

Now what we

have gone is any sort of balance, in a way. All of that is taken away — the

impediment to employers, the cautionary note to say, "You know, being a

good employer means that you post notices, and gosh, if you don't, then the

penalty isn't going to be on the employee; it's going to be on you, Mr.

Employer," because there are consequences to this. People have to arrange

their lives. If they don't have four part-time jobs that they're juggling,

perhaps people have children that they have to attend to in terms of proper

notice. Lack of proper notice from the paymaster, the employer, has all sorts of

consequences flowing from it for the worker herself. Now all of that is gone.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, absolutely not. There are several consequences.

The first

of which is the fact that employers today will tell you one of the difficult

challenges they have is hiring and keeping employees. An employer who is not

going to treat them fairly and give adequate notice in respect to scheduling is

going to soon find they don't have employees working for them, which is going to

be an incredible challenge.

We've heard

that — and I know the member opposite has mentioned the whole aspect of skill

shortages in the economy and the challenge with that — with even the simple

demographics of what people are projecting, as people start to retire through

this baby boom, the vacancies in regard to jobs in the province will be some

700,000 over the course of the next ten years. As I was mentioning earlier,

clearly a balance is starting to come back in regards to the fact of that,

between the issue of jobs and supply and demand of such. That is one of the

strongest ways of balancing and trying to give more leverage in respect to

employees: by them having an adequate supply of jobs that they can choose to go

to.

The very

person that the member opposite was talking about, who may be working at four

different jobs, could have not just one job to work with but could have a choice

of maybe three or four other jobs — full-time jobs. That is a result of a

strong economy. That is the result of British Columbians investing in their

businesses and their community. That is the result of outside investment

returning to the province. That is extraordinarily, incredibly important from

the aspect of balancing up on the issue of jobs and the issue of leverage for

employees.

Where we

will go to relative to this bill, as we move through it…. The member opposite

has mentioned several times that one must take all of this in the en-

[ Page 3759 ]

tirety and reference it to Labour Code changes in WCB and also in changes

here, relative to the rest of the bill. We will talk in

section 37 about

flexibility for these very people who have the opportunity for greater

flexibility in scheduling to meet the needs of their own personal life

situations. We'll come to that in

section 37.

But you

know, the whole aspect of these changes we're making and the issue of balance in

there for employees…. We see that as the economy strengthens, it certainly

helps in strengthening the leverage from the standpoint of employees.

[1515]

MacPhail: My only concluding comment is that there is a fundamental

difference between how this government views flexibility and who gains from

flexibility. The mere fact of referring that, "We don't need to worry about

this, because later on there's greater flexibility," because an employer

can cut individual deals with individual employees about outrageous hours of

work, isn't nearly an answer to the protection that's lost under this one.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's be clear on this. This is about the posting of a work schedule.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, I guess I would prefer — not "I guess"; that's what

we're doing — that we spend our resources on challenging and correcting those

employers that are taking advantage of employees by non-payment of wages — the

real, central issue — and making sure that they're properly looked after.

That's what we're intending to do.

In respect

to posting a schedule, a good employer will be posting those schedules. We don't

happen to believe that needs to be enshrined in legislation. We think, just by

virtue of what's going on in the workplace, that employers will be posting their

schedules so they can keep their people and give them adequate notice in the

aspect of their schedule.

Section 12

approved on division.

Section 13

approved.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 14 deals with the reduction of daily minimum hours of work from four

hours to two. Employees will now only be guaranteed two hours of salary for

coming in to work. Of course, this is especially harmful, in view, for younger

workers and those who are in the food service industry, who will undoubtedly be

called in to work two-hour shifts at peak times only. At minimum wage, an

individual can expect to receive $12 for coming to work, after they've paid for

their transportation costs.

Could the

minister explain why this change was made? How is this change meant to benefit

employees?

Hon. G.

Bruce: We looked at cross-comparisons in Canada and found they varied

between one and three hours. There were a number of different call-outs. British

Columbia was clearly the highest at four.

We had also

heard, in respect to the restaurant industry and people that worked there,

particularly students, that the four-hour minimum meant that they usually worked

a split — some. Where they would be quite happy to work the two hours at

noontime, like 11 to 1, they weren't particularly fond of looking to come back

for the 5-to-7 shift because they were studying. We looked at that and thought

there was good reason in that respect.

The other

point that I'd like to make is in regards to

section 37, which will flow to the

flexibility agreement. Where one was to sign a flexibility agreement that would

be beyond eight hours, their minimum call-out would be four. In the standard

employment arrangements right now, the minimum call-out would be two hours. If

you were in a flexibility agreement and scheduled for more than eight hours,

then your minimum call-out would be four.

J. Kwan:

The minister doesn't have to go out into the workforce and be called in to work

at peak times only for two hours and have to incur all the transportation costs

to go in there and make only 12 bucks after that. The minister doesn't have to

do that, but young people today have to do that. Real workers today would have

to do that as a result of this change. In my view this does not actually benefit

young people.

The kinds

of analyses that the minister talks about. I wonder what kind of specific

analysis the minister has to determine how this amendment and other changes to

the labour policy, like the introduction of the $6 minimum training wage, would

actually help low-income earners. Or does it actually hurt low-income earners?

Hon. G.

Bruce: First of all, I want to be very clear: the $6 an hour was not meant

to be a training wage. It was meant to be a first-job entry wage level. That's

what that was meant to be.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, it's not a training wage.

Interjection.

[1520]

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, it's not being used as a training wage. It's a first-job entry

wage level. It was focused in respect to grade 10, 11 and 12 students as a way

of trying to encourage small business employers to try and make some jobs

available.

Now, I'm

not going to revisit ten years of disastrous economic policy in the province,

but I will point out, just if the member opposite did happen to forget, that

small business through the past ten years, particularly in the last seven or

eight, went through the most disas-

[ Page 3760 ]

trous period that they've ever faced in British Columbia. They weren't

actually robust and vital. They weren't actually investing and expanding. Of

those businesses — and keep in mind there are 360,000 businesses in the

province — 98 percent of them have 50 or fewer employees, and a very, very

large percentage of that have 20 or less. These are small operations that are

trying to survive. By the policies of the hon. member's former government, the

NDP government, these were businesses trying to survive. In fact, they provide

virtually the economic backbone of the province. It's about a million jobs that

they represent.

Just think.

If they'd had enough confidence and inspiration to be able to invest and expand

in their businesses and create not hundreds of jobs but one or two jobs in

regards to their operations, you'd have had another 700,000 jobs in British

Columbia. But after the policies, not only the business policies but the Forest

Practices Code and a whole host of things, that the former administration, the

NDP government, brought into effect in this province absolutely thrashed the

economy, absolutely thrashed small business…. I could go on at length on the

other sectors that you thrashed. Now we're paying for those very poor policies

of the past.

We've had

to make some changes. What we're doing here in this aspect is trying to inspire

small business to find a way to regain some confidence and to invest in jobs. By

virtue of allowing a first-job entry-level wage, we are hopeful they'll take

advantage of that and provide some first-time employment for young people.

It's ironic

that we would have government, through our school system, develop a program and

have counsellors, through the courses in K-to-12, go out and speak to employers,

asking employers to take on young people for job experience, which is a great

and noble thing to do, and then not pay them, when in fact it was in the past

that small business employers actually provided that whole realm of career

opportunity, if you like, or job experience not for free but for payment of

wages to those very young people.

The

policies of the last ten years simply took all that away. Instead of having the

small business employers contribute in such a way that they paid full wages to

those young people coming to work, we now put it back to the taxpayer to

actually pay that program and not pay the young people any wages but then pay

somebody — a counsellor or somebody within the local school district — to go

out and try and arrange all that when it was happening very nicely, quite

frankly, within the small business sector — part of their contribution.

Small

business makes a huge contribution to the development of communities and the

economy of British Columbia. This was very much a focus during what we're coming

from — a very difficult economic time — to find ways to inspire the small

business community to hire some people.

J. Kwan:

You know, the minister's just trying to run the clock with his rhetoric. What we

know is that this is a gift to the Liberal government's financial backers, a

gift to the service industry people, a gift to the hospitality industry people.

You know

what? Just this week it was broadcast on television on the News Hour that

12 percent of businesses are not going to be hiring this summer, 25 percent of

businesses will be laying off this summer in this new era of prosperity, 50

percent said it was going to be status quo, and 13 percent said they didn't know

what they were going to do. This is under this government's policy, and this is

the result this summer for young people.

[1525]

For the

minister to say, "Oh, it's all the bad NDP's fault," and that what we

must do now is to take wages away from young people and give it to industry is

somehow the right thing to do…. Well, if that was supposed to work, how come

the numbers are not reducing?

There have

been tons of studies — and I don't want to spend the time to go into all of

the studies — suggesting that reducing employment standards does not help the

economy. We haven't got the time because the government has decided to bring in

closure on this bill and on all the bills that were before the House this week.

We haven't got that much time to debate each and every single

section in detail

already, as it were, and I'm not going to spend all of the time bringing forward

all the studies. The fact of the matter is: this minister is providing a gift to

his financial backers, and he's taking it out of the pockets of low-income

earners.

Hon. G.

Bruce: You know, that's…. I'm not sure. Is "balderdash"

parliamentary — or whatever? That is just simply not the case.

An Hon.

Member: Nonsense.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It is nonsense. Thank you.

The fact of

the matter is the former administration did thrash the economy. I would love to

be able to snap my fingers, as would this government, and not just have it turn

around tomorrow at the snap of the fingers, but it would be nice to just be able

to forget that past ten years. Unfortunately, we can't. Unfortunately, with that

past ten years, when you have a situation where you have had policies that came

from the former NDP government that were actually not just neutral but were

actually anti-business, anti-investment and drove business out of British

Columbia….

Now, let's

get that straight. When you drive business out of the province, you drive jobs

out of the government. They're actually one and the same. I'd like to just make

that equation: business and jobs. They're actually one and the same. They're

extremely important. When you chase a business out of British Columbia, guess

what goes with that business when it leaves. Jobs. Guess what else goes with

that. Taxes. Guess what else goes with that. People. What virtually happened in

the province was that through the policies of the former NDP administration, the

policies were such

[ Page 3761 ]

that you were just thrashing the economy in the province.

We came

back after that election and had to then start dealing with one problem after

another left over by the former administration. What we're having to do is do

things to try and inspire and instil confidence in the investment community and

in the small business community, so that they can once again look to have the

confidence to expand their businesses and to get on with providing jobs in

British Columbia.

These steps

we've taken here provide the flexibility that's necessary, both from the

employers' and the employees' standpoint. I will give you this: it is a total

and complete philosophically different approach to the workplace from what the

former NDP government did in the past ten years. We know we had to do that,

because we know what you did, what the former administration's policies did to

the economy of British Columbia. They thrashed it. If we carried on simply doing

more of what the former administration had done, we would continue to drive the

economy into the ground.

I will give

the opposition this. These are fundamental philosophical changes in how the

workplace will work in the province, because we know that the past ten years

didn't work, and we're confident that this type of flexibility and the changes

that we're making, in its entirety, will once again instil confidence in the

business community that provides jobs for everybody in British Columbia.

J. Kwan:

You know, Mr. Chair, I wasn't going to drag up all of the studies that proved

the minister wrong, but I will bring up one. He's full of rhetoric, and he does

not know his facts. Let me just share some factual information with this

minister.

[1530]

This is an

article written by David Fairey: "Six Bucks Really Does Suck, According to

Youth Employment Statistics." Here's what the

article itself says. I'll

quote some parts of it. The facts only — not just the opinions, but the facts

as they stand. Maybe it will enlighten the minister just a little bit.

"Statistics

Canada publishes monthly estimates of youth employment and unemployment

based on their labour force survey. According to Statistics Canada, B.C.

youth, 15 to 24 years of age, unemployment rates over the six months

November 2001 to April 2002 were significantly higher than over the same six

months in 1999-2000 and 2000-01" — when the previous administration

was in government.

"In

fact, the B.C. youth unemployment rate in every month since November 2001

has been higher [in the last six months] than in the…previous two years

before the $6 minimum wage. The average monthly youth unemployment rate over

that six-month period was 13 percent in 1999-2000, 13.7 percent in 2000-01

and 14.8 percent in 2001-02. At the same time, B.C. youth employment levels

have been lower on an average monthly basis since November 2001 — 268,600

— than in the same period in 2000-01 — 271,500.

"These

higher B.C. youth unemployment rates since November 2001 are not explained

away by increases in the proportion of youth looking for work; i.e., higher

participation rates. In fact, over the same six-month period since November

2001, monthly youth participation rates at 58.5 percent on average were

lower than in the previous year, 2000-01, and the year before that, 1998-99.

Compared to the same six months in 1999-2000, youth participation rates

since November 2001 have been the same.

"Also,

to the extent that youths tend to find their first jobs in service

industries, the higher rates of youth unemployment in B.C. since November

2001 are not explained by declining employment in the services sector

because services sector employment overall for all age groups has remained

fairly constant.

"It

is generally acknowledged that in October and early November 2001 when the

new, first job, entry-level minimum wage was about to be introduced, many

employers delayed hiring new employees or laid off young workers so that

others could be rehired at the lower minimum wage. Statistics for November

2001 in fact show a significant drop in youth employment. As a consequence,

a higher youth unemployment rate occurred in November 2001 — 15.3 percent

— than in every previous November since 1997.

"Therefore,

the preliminary verdict must be that the new $6 minimum wage for first-time

job holders has failed B.C.'s youth and not increased youth employment

levels or reduced youth unemployment rates. Six bucks really does suck

because wages have fallen without a rise in employment."

Hon. G.

Bruce: That's great fodder. I appreciate that very much, but….

J. Kwan:

That's the facts.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I would love to see the substantiation of those facts — of how many

jobs and how many people weren't hired because of the fact that the $6 was

coming in. It would be really interesting to see the evidence. Is this that

somebody walked down the street and sort of thought about maybe they were going

to get a job and didn't get a job? The factual evidence of that….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Member, the minister has the floor.

Hon. G.

Bruce: We do know that British Columbia had one-third of the jobs created in

Canada right here in British Columbia in this past year. Little things are going

in the right direction. After ten years of being thrashed, there are some lights

that are starting to shine once again in British Columbia. Instead of people

turning the lights out as they left, people are actually coming back and

starting to turn the lights on again.

There are

some positive things. Of course, earlier this afternoon we heard the top-ten

list there by the member from Prince George. They were good-news items indeed,

so things are looking up.

[1535]

In respect

to this

section — and I'm sure you'd like to get back to it — in regard to

the two-hour call-out

[ Page 3762 ]

for the four-hour call-out, the employment standards branch in the past….

In fact, I've got some variance notices here from March 28, 2000: minimum daily

hours paid will be no less than the actual time worked or one hour, whichever is

greater.

That was a

variance that came out of the employment standards branch prior to our

administration taking over. There were practices of below the average of the

four hours or the two. There was another one on December 4, 2000. I mean, these

are examples. You were probably wondering about changes we were looking at

making, of why we were changing the variance or why we were changing the minimum

call-out from four to two.

The fact is

that there were variances that were issued prior to us taking over. There's

another one here. It was two and a half hours. Another one was three and a half

hours, so there is some history to that. As I had mentioned earlier on, we were

looking to be in a position where we would be more reflective of what was taking

place across Canada. I do want to point out to the hon. member that if you're on

a flexibility shift and you work more than eight hours, your minimum call-out,

in fact, is four.

Of course,

as you move through this in regard to overtime, overtime will still continue to

be paid. I'm sure the opposition would like to canvass that issue in detail in

regard to overtime. If you are not on a flexibility agreement and you work over

eight hours, just as the case is right now, you're paid time and a half. You

would continue to be paid time and a half for any hours after that.

There is a

change. Currently, when one got to their eleventh hour, after eleven they would

then be paid double time. Because of our flexibility agreements….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, not on top of the time and a half. They'd be paid double time.

Now,

because of the flexibility agreements we have, and we're basing them on a

40-hour work week and then 12 hours that one can sign on, we've said that double

time kicks in for everybody after 12 hours. I know that these other aspects all

fit together. They're all part of a package, as the members opposite have

mentioned — when we look at all three parts and at these parts here relative

to employment standards — of trying to inspire again and build confidence

within the workplace so there can be jobs for lots of people, and not just one

job each but a job that they can pick and choose.

Alberta has

been a very prime example of that. You want to talk there, again, about minimum

wage. They don't pay minimum wage in Alberta. Do you know why they don't pay

minimum wage in Alberta? It's because they have to pay more than that. The

economy is hot, and there are lots of jobs. In fact, I know one employer there

who's a friend of mine, who actually pays a bonus per hour for people just to

show up in the workplace there in Alberta.

All of

these things tie together, and I'm replying to your question of two to four.

They all come together in trying to inspire and improve the economic performance

here in the province.

J. Kwan:

The opposition will not be supporting this

section of the bill. The minister can

close his eyes, close his ears and not look at reality. The facts are before

him, but in spite of that, he refuses to acknowledge that the opposition will

not be supporting a

section of a government bill that takes away money from the

low-income earners, particularly hurting people who are in the hospitality

industry, in the food service industry, by requiring them to go to work for two

hours and making potentially as much as $12 for that day's work.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I want to be clear. It's not taking away money from anybody. I mean,

this is the difference of a call-out, and in most instances employers will be

scheduling more than the four hours. They're looking to have continuity in

employees. We come back to this whole balancing thing of employees and employers

and to the whole notion that you've got to build a happy and healthy workplace.

You do that by giving hours.

The

Chair: Shall

section 14 pass?

J. Kwan:

By division.

The

Chair: Deferred division on

section 14.

Sections 15

and 16 approved.

section

The

Chair: I understand the minister has an amendment on the order paper in

respect to

section 17.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move the amendment to

section 17 standing in my name on orders of

the day.

[SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed

section 37 (6) and

substituting the following:

(6) An employer under this

section who requires,

or directly or indirectly allows, an employee to work more than the hours

scheduled for a day during the period of the agreement must pay the employee

(a) 1

1/2 times the employee's regular wage for,

(

i) if fewer than 8 hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over 8

hours, or

(ii) if

8 or more hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over the number

of hours scheduled, and

(

b) double

the employee's regular wage for any time worked over 12 hours that day.]

[1540]

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

Speaking to the amendment, the amendment that is significant here essentially

refers to a subsection that is being added, which says that if eight or

[ Page 3763 ]

more hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over the number

of…. Actually, I should read the whole thing, because you have to put it into

context to understand what it means.

Section 17

now reads as follows:

"An employer under this

section who requires, or

directly or indirectly allows, an employee to work more than the hours

scheduled for a day during the period of the agreement must pay the employee

(a) 1½ times the employee's regular wage for, (

i) if fewer than 8 hours

were scheduled for that day, any time worked over 8 hours, or (ii) if 8 or

more hours were scheduled for that day, any time worked over the number of

hours scheduled, and (

b) double the employee's regular wage for any time

worked over 12 hours that day."

The

substantive piece here that the minister is amending is to say that a person

would not actually get 1½ times the regular wage if eight or more hours were

scheduled for that day and any time worked over the number of hours scheduled.

That's the

change that the government is bringing forward. You know, the minister says he's

not taking money away from low-income people. He is. This entire bill speaks to

the government taking away overtime pay, reducing overtime pay, limiting

overtime pay and taking away scheduling that talks about overtime pay —

protections for employees in the farm industry and for other industries and for

children. All of this adds up to taking away rights for employees and for

workers in the field. The only protections that this bill that the government is

looking at affords are rights for the employer.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's be clear. Currently, if an individual works more than eight

hours they would get time and a half for the ninth hour, time and a half for the

tenth hour. They would get double time, then, for the eleventh hour and double

time for the twelfth hour.

The change

that we're making is that under the new legislation, an employee on an

eight-hour

schedule would get time and a half starting after the eighth hour

worked, but the difference would be they wouldn't get double time until they

worked the twelfth hour. That's the only change we're making in that respect.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Pardon me?

J. Kwan:

…that's good?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, because we're building the flexibility schedules, which we

happen to think are very good, what we've done in that instance is that if you

were….

I'll use me

as an example. If I was to be scheduled to work four ten-hour days, I would not

receive overtime until I worked my eleventh hour. If it was a particularly busy

day and the employer said to me, "Look, can you work that extra hour,"

I'd work that extra hour. I'd get time and a half. If it was an extraordinarily

busy day, as the economy will bring us here in British Columbia, and I'm now

working past my twelfth hour, in the twelfth hour, then, I'll start to get paid

double time.

Really,

what we're talking about is that one-hour change here. More importantly, though,

is how that is drawn. That's drawn because of the fact that we're trying to

improve and allow the flexibility agreements to be put in the workplace so

employees and employers can work out arrangements which are best for them in

their lives and their businesses.

The

Chair: Shall the amendment to

section 17 pass?

An Hon.

Member: On division.

The

Chair: Division is deferred on the amendment.

section

J. Kwan:

On to the main

section on

Section 17 is the amendment that the minister

talks about as creating flexibility. It is now the code word for government in

every ministry: "flexibility." Some have coined it as the new

"f" word — flexibility. What it does is take away rights from

people.

Here's what

amendment 17 does.

Section 17 allows for the employers to enter into averaging

agreements with the employees. As a result of this amendment, the eight-hour

work day and 40-hour workweek will no longer exist in British Columbia. Instead,

employees can look forward to working ten-hour work days or 16 days in a row

without receiving any overtime.

[1545]

While the

minister seems to think that employers and employees will mutually agree to

enter into such agreements, I fear that employers will be able to impose such

agreements upon their employees because there is an imbalance of power within

the workplace. That is how it is. The employer has more power over the employee.

Yet the government is bringing this forward, saying that somehow this is good

for the employee.

What

safeguards are in place to ensure that employees aren't forced to adopt

averaging agreements? What safeguards are in place to ensure that the academic

schedules of children and students are not adversely affected by averaging

agreements? Will children under 15 be able to enter into averaging agreements

with employers if the parents of the children consent? If so, isn't this an

inappropriate situation for the child?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It would probably be good to look a little bit about what's in the

workplace today before one climbs all over this particular issue, not

understanding it, perhaps, or not understanding what's going on in the

workplace. Under collective agreements, and there are numerous…. These are

just a few examples. We've got numerous collective agreements where the

eight-hour day was, a long time ago, negotiated to offer flexibility and

different shift schedules.

[ Page 3764 ]

Nurses are

one. They work and can do under contract a maximum of 144 hours in a four-week

period. That would be a 7.2-hour work day, but this can be altered on mutual

agreement. Police work two 12-hour days, two 12-hour nights and then four

consecutive days off. That, I would think, would be flexible and different than

an eight-hour day. Firefighters have two 12-hour days, two 12-hour nights, then

four consecutive days off. They actually average 42 hours per week on that.

Here's an

interesting one: BCTV employees. The standard workweek consists of five

eight-hour days, but they have an optional workweek that consists of four

ten-hour days. In the forest industrial relations they can

schedule as long as

the principle of the 40-hour week is maintained over an averaging period.

Fording Coal Ltd. union, United Steelworkers of America, has four days on and

four days off, a 12-hour shift

schedule and a work cycle of eight or six weeks,

with weekly hours averaging 42.

Now, those

are collective agreements. I'll give you that. They're collective agreements.

This would be the question you were going to ask me: what about people that

aren't covered under collective agreements?

With the

high-tech workers, it was known that there needed to be changes in the high-tech

industry to build it here in British Columbia. They went to time and a half

after 12 hours in a day or 80 hours in two weeks — flexibility. Silviculture

workers have either up to nine days of work followed by two days off or ten days

of work followed by ten days off. That was flexibility. Long-distance truck

drivers have double time after 60 hours in a week. That would be different. Taxi

drivers have double time after 120 hours in two weeks. Oil and gas field workers

have time and a half after 40 hours a week, double time after 80 hours a week.

All of

these that I've just listed, every single one of those, are examples that were

under the former NDP administration. What in fact are we doing here? We're

taking what's happening in the workplace and trying to allow and afford the

flexibility within the workplace so that employees and employers can work

together and make the arrangements which are best for them.

Here's a

few variances you might be interested in, which were under the former

administration. This particular application was for 14 consecutive days of work.

An Hon.

Member: Fourteen?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Fourteen, at 12 hours a day, followed by 14 days consecutive rest.

That would be a flexibility agreement. That was a variance that was asked for

under the former administration and was approved. Here's another one: 28 days of

work at ten hours per day.

J. Kwan:

The branch approved those.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Absolutely.

J. Kwan:

That's the point.

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, it's not. You are absolutely right, hon. member. They were

approved….

Interjection.

[1550]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Hon. member, you are helping to support exactly what I'm coming to.

When we talk about this one of 28 consecutive days of ten hours per day, that

was approved. When we talk about this one here — four full-time employees

being permitted to work a

schedule of 13 hours per day for three days, followed

by three days off, followed by 13 hours per day for three days, followed by five

days off, and repeating every two weeks — that would be a flexibility

agreement. I think the reason they did that is because they wanted to work

things out between the employer and the employee. When was that done? It was

done under the former administration.

Here's

another one. Full-time employees may work up to 80 hours in a two-week period,

Sunday to Saturday. The 80 hours in two-week period includes all hours worked in

the field or office or combination thereof. That was flexibility.

Here's

another one: three 12-hour shifts in the first week, followed by three 12-hour

shifts and one eight-hour shift in the second week on a

schedule which repeats

itself every two weeks, averaging — guess what — 40 hours over two weeks.

The point

being, before we put our hair on fire and all this sort of thing, this is

exactly what was going on in the workplace. Rather than have big government,

which is a total philosophical change — and I will give you that in spades; we

do not wish to be big government, like the former administration was big

government — we wish to give the employers and the employees the opportunity

to work things out in a way which is best for them, without having to go through

three and four and five weeks of bureaucratic process to get a sign-off of the

very types of things we're talking about being able to do under the flexibility

work weeks.

You know

what? You know what, hon. member? Before you….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I want you to hear all of this. It's extremely important.

J. Kwan:

Maybe you should listen to your branch staff.

Hon. G.

Bruce: In fact, I have listened to my branch staff. The point to be made….

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Listen, the point to be made of that is I have had…. This morning,

during the initial period, there were two other industrial relations officers

here

[ Page 3765 ]

that have joined me at the floor because of the fact that they have been part

of trying, with us, to build an employment standards act that makes sense for

the twenty-first century. It's a new era in employment standards in the province

of British Columbia, and I don't mean that in any cliché. I mean that in

reality.

The point

in all of what we're attempting to do here is to simply reflect what, in fact,

your administration, the former administration, was putting into practice, only

they believe that there be all sorts of bureaucratic government red tape to get

it there, and we're saying it's up to the employers and the employees to get on

with doing just that.

R. Masi:

I seek leave from the House to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Masi:

On behalf of the member for Delta South, it's my very great pleasure today to

introduce 30 grade 7 students from South Park Elementary School accompanied by

their teacher, Mr. Brown. Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

If the minister wants to visit history, let's visit history accurately and see

what is before us. You know what? The minister, I know, likes to think:

"Oh, it's just the opposition. They'll just say no to just about anything,

and somehow they've got some strange philosophy attached to their brains, and

therefore they can't depart from the issues at hand that the government is

introducing."

Let me just

put on the record here not the opposition's perspective with respect to this

change and not the opposition's perspective of what the old act was but, in

fact, someone who was part of the branch — an employee of the branch — who

quit the branch because this individual could not stomach what this government

is doing and their attacks on employees.

Let me just

put this information here for the minister.

[1555]

"In

the old act there were two ways workers could be required work hours beyond

these without being paid overtime — that is the eight-hour-a-day,

40-hour-a-week time period.

"One

was for the employer and the employees to jointly apply to the branch for a

variance. These would be investigated by the branch to ensure that the

proposal was genuinely supported by both parties and that it was consistent

with the purposes of the act. Variances would usually be issued for a period

of a year or two allowing for a built-in review should the parties want to

carry on with their special schedule.

"The

second method was through the adoption of a flexible work schedule. These

were the most common special schedules, such as four ten-hour shifts per

week or three 12-hour shifts per week, and could be adopted within the

workplace so long as there was some record of a democratic decision having

been made by the employees affected.

"There

are three things to note about the new averaging provisions. First, they

allow a far greater range of schedules than the old rules did. In fact, many

possible schedules permitted under these provisions would never have been

granted had they been submitted under a variance application to the branch.

Some examples: two hours per day, six days per week; six hours per day, six

days per week; ten hours per day, 16 days in row; etc.

"Second,

these agreements are designed to operate between an individual employee and

the employer. These take away the one strength that the employees had under

the old flexible work

schedule provisions — that is, the requirement that

there be some democratic process involving all of the employees before a

schedule could be adopted. Individual employees will either agree with the

employer's proposal or will be looking for work elsewhere.

"Third,

the

section is extremely long and complex. It will be difficult to comply

with and will be difficult to enforce."

This is not

made up by the opposition. It's someone who worked within the branch, with long

years of experience. They know what "flexible schedule" means. They

know the flexibility that is required in the workplace, and there was provision

in the old act to allow for exactly that but with some protections for the

employees. That is the operative difference here. Now those supports and rights

are gone.

You know,

the minister can say, "Well, gee, under the previous administration there

were flex hours and so on and so forth," but you know what? That was

reviewed by the branch. It was approved by the branch, and most importantly, it

was recognized that there be a democratic decision-making process for the

employees. That's what was in the act, but now all of that will be gone.

It's not

the opposition who are saying: "Boy, we should be concerned about

this." It's someone who's had a history of working with the branch, not

just with the previous administration but the administration before that. It's a

non-partisan point of view, looking out for the best interests of employees.

I'd like to

know from the minister: during the consultation that he said he's engaged in,

did any employees ask for this change to be made?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Well, thank you. I'm glad you want to revisit the consultation

process. During some of your second reading notes that you mentioned on the

consultation process….

First of

all, I want to be clear. There were 267 submissions that came in during that,

but there were some that came in late. We took those particular submissions and

dealt with them, even though some of them were a little bit late. One, the

submission from the Canadian Bar Association, was received three months after

the deadline, and it was considered.

What's

interesting about this one is that the Leader of the Opposition read that into

the record the other

[ Page 3766 ]

night as if to say that all of what they were talking about was, in fact, in

the legislation. But of the 16 points raised by the CBA, 11 of them were not

listed in the legislation. We didn't bring about those changes. Changing the

current law which prohibits employees from agreeing to provisions of work

differing from the Employment Standards Act — in other words, opting out of

the Employment Standards Act — we said no to; that wasn't on. That's what the

Canadian Bar Association had written, and we agreed with them.

Changing

the current law which sets minimum standards for work schedules and overtime to

permit employees and employers to negotiate their own work schedules and

overtime does not reduce the minimum standards, and we made sure of that.

In regard

to these issues here, changing overtime premiums of one and a half and two times

the regular wage rate, we just spent about 15 minutes canvassing that issue. In

fact, as the truth is known, as it's written, we're in agreement with the

Canadian Bar Association. Changing the current time limits for filing complaints

with the branch from six months from the date of employment termination to

three…. It stays at six months, as the Canadian Bar Association had asked us

to do. We did that.

[1600]

Changing

the current law, which has no time limits for filing complaints within the

branch, if an employee is still employed, to three months from the date of the

alleged offence…" No change in respect to the filing time. That in fact,

of course, was what we did, and that's what the Canadian Bar Association read.

Changing

the current law governing employee termination provisions to permit employee

termination as a result of economic changes and/or contractual requirements….

No change.

Changing

the current law, which provides for payment for length of service on termination

to be referred to as severance pay for clarity…. No change.

Changing

the current law making severance pay payable after three months to being payable

after six months…. No change.

Changing

the current law requiring advance notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice,

for groups of employees to eliminate these group termination provisions…. No

change.

Changing

the current law requiring employee termination for just cause to eliminate

just-cause termination…. No change.

Changing

the current common-law definition of just cause…. and I could go on. No

change.

My point is

that you spent the other evening reading that into record as though all of those

changes were being brought about, and in fact, they're not in the legislation.

The

consultation process. We had, as I mentioned, some 265 or more submissions that

canvassed a fair extent of employment standards. We're bringing through those

changes which we think were appropriate to once again bring employment standards

and build an employment standards act that is more reflective of the

twenty-first century.

MacPhail: The minister is using this opportunity to revisit second reading

debate. What the minister fails to point out is that there's no question that

many of the Canadian Bar Association's complaints against initiatives — the

balloons the minister flew — were not in the legislation, but there was a heck

of a lot of stuff in the legislation that no one possibly thought was going to

come in.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

Perhaps we

could actually continue on the debate at committee stage. In order to assist the

minister in focusing on committee stage debate, I'm going to propose an

amendment to this section. Mr. Chair?

[Section 17 is amended by adding the text highlighted by

underline and deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough:

37(1) Despite sections 35, 36,(1) and 40 but subject to

this section, an employer and employee, who has been employed for a

minimum of 30 calendar days, may agree to average the employee's hours

of work over a period of 1, 2, 3 or 4 weeks for the purpose of determining

the employee's entitlement, if any, to overtime wages under subsections

(4) and (6) of this

section and wages payable under subsection (8) or (9)(b).]

This

section of the legislation will be used as a hammer, not a tool, by many, many

employers. This

section about using work agreements, making hours of work

agreements on an individual basis, will, I predict, in a substantial number of

situations be used as a hammer.

There was

nothing wrong with the old system. There was nothing wrong if the minister

wanted to streamline it administratively. Instead what the minister did was

eradicate all of the protections of understanding that hours of work have to be

done by all of the people at the place of employment. Now the government could

pick off one employee against the other.

I don't

know whether my colleague has addressed the issue of the new worker who has to

work 500 hours at minimum before she can get the salary increase, the

minimum-wage increase, from $6 to $8 a hour. It may very well be a condition of

employment for those 500 hours that a worker sign an agreement for hours of work

that would be against what would be in her best interests.

All this

amendment does, Mr. Chair, is say this. Again, we're in this complex situation

of amendments to the amendment. This amends

section 37(1) of the old act that

says now: "Despite sections 35, 36(1) and 40 but subject to this section,

an employer and employee" who has been employed for a minimum of 30

calendar days "may agree to average the employee's hours of work over a

period 1, 2, 3 or 4 weeks."

[1605]

Why this?

Why are we adding those words? Who has been employed for a minimum of 30

calendar

[ Page 3767 ]

days? Here's why. We don't want to make the agreement a condition of

employment, a condition of getting the job in the first place. All this says is:

"Yes, yes. The employer has a right. We acknowledge that the government

goes in a direction that's far different than the current legislation in saying

that the employer and the employee can make individual agreements on hours of

work now. But an hours-of-work agreement should not be a condition of

employment, because that's too much pressure. It's unfair. It's too much

pressure on whether it's a right qualification for getting the job — an

individual hours-of-work agreement. It's absolutely too much. I'm sure the

minister was, well….

This is

about….

Interjection.

MacPhail: I understand that.

This is

about not taking the opportunity to coerce an employee into accepting an

averaging agreement. This amendment minimizes the ability of employers to coerce

employees to accept these agreements. Therefore, these agreements cannot be

negotiated until after the worker has been employed for 30 days.

There is

much that could be used as coercion in the ability of the employer to make these

individual agreements. I could foresee — and I'm almost leery to put this on

the record for fear that it would actually be used — an employer saying:

"You're a new worker. You're getting the six bucks an hour. You've got to

get 500 hours in. I'll guarantee you the 500 hours as long as you agree to do

those 500 hours working 80 hours and then taking another 80 hours off." I

can see that. I can see that happening.

What's a

person to do? What's a person to do who's in Port Hardy right now, where the

unemployment rate is skyrocketing because of the softwood lumber dispute? What

would prevent a young worker who has to earn more for her tuition now from being

coerced into doing that? All this amendment does is say that the individual

arrangements for hours of work can come into full force and effect once the

worker has been on the job for 30 days.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I appreciate the spirit in which this amendment has been presented. I

don't agree with it. That wouldn't surprise the member opposite. I understand

that.

What we're

attempting to do…. We are attempting, very much so — and I make no bones

about that — to improve the flexibility within the workplace for both the

employer and the employee to be able to work out arrangements which are best for

them. If the operation, as you're coming to work there, has been moving into

four ten-hour shifts — and I alluded to this in my days as a bartender….

When I worked as a bartender, I worked four tens. Now, when I actually went to

work at that bar, there was a collective agreement. That was the order of doing

business there. I went there, and they worked ten-hour shifts. That was part of

the collective agreement, and I worked that. I didn't go there looking to work

eight-hour days or six-hour days; I went there looking to work ten-hour days. I

looked to work there on a shift of four tens. That's what happens on the aspect

of a collective agreement.

If you went

to work now with a flexibility agreement…. If you went to work for an

operation which is not covered under a collective agreement, but you were going

to be working four tens and that's how that operation was going be, I believe we

have a better way of protecting the interests of those employees. It shouldn't

be how long one works there.

What we've

said in the legislation — and it's an important part of the legislation — is

that we've changed the statutory holiday provisions back to a qualification

period if you're on a regular eight-hour-a-day shift. That now means — and

this is what it was prior to 1995 — that you have to work 15 of the previous

30 days to get the statutory holiday, except if you work a flexibility agreement

— which means outside of the five eights formula — and you sign a

flexibility agreement. Then you get statutory holiday pay for all of the stat

holidays. So if I was going to go to work and was only going to work one 12-hour

shift a week, I would get all stat holidays paid at that 12-hour basis.

[1610]

understand exactly where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from, what she's

attempting to do, and I appreciate that, in an effort for balance. I believe

that with the direction we've taken with this legislation, there is in fact a

balancing caveat there. If an employer is going to look closely in regards to

having employees sign flexibility agreements and making sure it is good for all

parties — because that employer is going to be paying all statutory holidays

— that is very much a balancing aspect relative to the flexibility agreements,

which I think supersedes the proposed amendment to this bill.

Amendment

negatived on division.

The

Chair: Shall

section 17 pass?

MacPhail: By division.

The

Chair: By division, and the division will be deferred.

Section 18

approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 19 deals with overtime wages. This change, Mr. Chair,

changes — reduces — when overtime is available. Daily double time is now

after 12 hours instead of 11; weekly double time — I'm talking about when a

worker works overtime — which used to kick in after 48 hours, is eliminated

entirely. Someone could now work 84 hours per week and not receive any

[ Page 3768 ]

double time. They would get time and a half for hours over 40 hours. Who

asked for this?

Hon. G.

Bruce: In our cross-comparisons of how British Columbia stacked up in

regards to other jurisdictions, we were the only jurisdiction in that respect,

after the 48 hours, that paid the double time. Quite frankly, to the hon.

member, we are very cognizant of the world market and of competing jurisdictions

both to the east of us and to the south of us. Now, when I say the south, I'm

just simply meaning across the 49th parallel.

In that

respect, first of all, the impact of that is not extensive, but there is an

impact — absolutely. From the standpoint of our view of trying to make sure

that our workplace and all of those aspects together — labour relations;

Labour Code changes; WCB, changes we've made there; and now in employment

standards — reflect also what is going on in the rest of the jurisdictions in

Canada and to the south of us in the United States, particularly in the state of

Washington.

MacPhail: My last comment is that once again people earning minimum wage or

people without the protection of a collective agreement will have less money in

their pockets, working the same as they may have…. They'll have less money in

their pockets after this legislation is passed than they did before. Somehow,

when you implement flexibility or competitiveness, for this government it always

means less money in the pocket of working people.

Section 19

approved on division.

Sections 20

to 22 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This amends statutory holiday pay, and I remember quite clearly

that there were administrative problems with the application of the provisions

under the act that's now being amended. However, as always, this government

takes a sledgehammer to a flea. A little bit of a problem with administering how

to pay a person on a statutory holiday — fair enough; that could have been

corrected. But what does this government do? It takes a big sledgehammer and

goes back to, I guess it was, the model in the 1980s.

[1615]

What the

original act said was that all employees are entitled to statutory pay, and

statutory pay for full-time workers who worked regular hours was a full day's

pay. That means that if your assignment was to work on statutory holidays, you

got full-time pay for working that day.

What does

this bill do? Let's see how it improves it for working people. The amendment

makes it more difficult for employees to qualify to receive statutory holiday

pay. An employee must work at least 15 of the 30 calendar days preceding the

stat. In effect, this means no statutory pay for anyone working less than four

days per week. That's what this means.

I know that

the minister had a previous stint in this Legislature. He may yearn for those

glory days, and he's got them back, Mr. Chair. This is exactly what it was like

in the 1980s — this legislation.

There were

improvements made upon that, with the concept in mind that working people have

just as many commitments that are made more difficult when they have to work on

a statutory holiday as do others. Getting to work is more difficult. Why? The

public transit system operates on different hours. Getting child care on a

statutory holiday is more difficult. What the legislation said before was that

if you work a statutory holiday, it's recognized as a special day. Society

operates differently on that day; therefore, you get recognition for that. Now

you have got to be almost a full-time worker in order to get statutory holiday

pay.

It's

interesting that there are many workers that have to depend on transportation to

get to work, such as the ferry system. There could be all sorts of different

requirements there. There are different rules, and the quality of life is

different on a statutory holiday. That's why we have legislated statutory

holidays. Those that work were just meant to get that recognized.

I pity the

poor workers in the riding of Nelson-Creston if they have to go to work on a

statutory holiday. Their transportation on the inland ferries is cut, and

they've still got to get to work. There's no acknowledgment whatsoever that

there's going to be any premium compensation for having to cope with that.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I think it's important to note again the aspect that with the stat

holiday pay, anybody that signs a flexibility agreement, employer and employee

together, automatically gets all the stat holidays. The hon. member's totally

correct in respect to the employment standards as it currently exists. You would

have to work 15 of the previous 30 days to get stat holiday pay, but if you do

sign a flexibility agreement — and there's a quid pro quo there — then you

would get the aspect of all stat holidays.

How does

that compare, in a cross-comparison, in Canada? In Alberta you would work 30

days in 12 months, and you'd have regular review of schedules for up to a year

to get stat holiday pay, but you'd be disqualified if absent without the

employer's consent on the regular work days before and after the holidays. So

you actually have to work before and after to get the holiday. It's a nightmare

of administration. In Ontario it's a little bit different — regular scheduled

day before and after. You had to work the day before and the day after to get

the stat. In Washington State they actually have statutory holidays, but they

don't pay anything for them. In Oregon they have statutory holidays, but they

don't pay anything for them either.

[1620]

On balance,

when you look at what we've done here and where we're at relative to the

competitive side with Alberta, Ontario, Washington and Oregon, we're middle of

the road. Our flexibility arrangements,

[ Page 3769 ]

though, I think, are more progressive and in fact in this instance provide

the employee with some protection by virtue of the balance of everybody getting

the statutory holiday pay if they sign a flexibility agreement. That, I think,

helps to balance the whole aspect up.

MacPhail: Averaging hours of work to determine stat pay penalizes workers

who take time off because of illness, injury, medical appointments and a variety

of other important reasons. Why has the minister decided that these individuals

are not entitled to receive stat pay?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It just comes back to the average formula that we have here, that you

have to have worked 15 of the previous 30 days.

MacPhail: Well, you know, it's like we've got something to our heads. I

wanted to say…. Well, I won't use a violent analogy, but we've got just

moments left to discuss these matters.

My question

was about exactly why the minister has chosen that particular avenue. I'm

telling him that that penalizes people from being able to be ill, injured, have

the necessity to go to a medical appointment. Now, if those people exercised

literally those rights to be able to stay away from work when they're ill, they

lose their stat holiday pay as well.

I also

note, once again, that this Liberal government has chosen to modify employment

standards to the lowest common denominator in the country.

Here's

another premise that I want to ask the minister about. It is absolutely to many

employers' advantage to have part-time workers. Many employers take full

advantage of having a part-time workforce over a full-time workforce for

flexibility. Now, by virtue of the fact that an employer may organize his or her

workforce in that fashion, the worker bears the brunt of not having access to

statutory holiday pay. It completely erodes the principle that exists across

this country of recognizing that working on a statutory holiday is different

than working at any other time.

Once again,

there's no quid pro quo. There's not a quid pro quo where it says: "Okay,

employers in this new modern era are organizing to have greater part-time

workers, but we're not going to take away the hard-fought benefits of statutory

holiday pay." That quid pro quo doesn't exist anymore. The employer gets

his or her flexibility of a part-time workforce, upon which most families can't

support themselves, but the worker loses out any hard-fought benefit for

statutory holiday pay.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I think, in fact, just the opposite will happen. Of course, therein,

the future will be the determining truth of that. I think that by virtue of

allowing for flexibility agreements, you'll actually find employers and

employees working out arrangements which are better for them all, which will

actually help in greater full-time for employees.

In respect

to the stat holiday, I think there's kind of a reversal in this as well. By the

changes there, I believe we'll encourage employers to

schedule more part-time

workers on the stat holidays, which will give more full-time workers that stat

holiday off and give more hours to the part-time worker, which I think will

actually add up to more than what they're getting.

[1625]

appreciate you don't subscribe to that. I happen to believe that those types of

changes will work. Again, the hon. member has stated numerous times today and

prior to today that one must look at all of these pieces together. She is

absolutely correct.

Just

looking at this

section here, one must look at all these pieces together, as

well as the change we're making in employment standards, to see the direction

we're taking and whether in fact it's going to be better for employees. Quite

frankly, I believe that with the changes we're making here, it will strengthen

and improve the economy in itself. It will create more jobs and, I think,

strengthen the position for employees.

The

Chair: Shall

section 23 pass?

MacPhail: By division.

The

Chair: Division is deferred.

Sections 24

and 25 approved.

section

MacPhail: This is an amendment to the current Employment Standards Act that

changes pregnancy leave rules. The change under these amendments, I say, takes

away pregnancy leave. The original act allowed a woman to take maternity leave

according to a

schedule that met her needs. Amendment 26 fails to consider that

pregnant women have important reasons for dividing their maternity leave. This

amendment demonstrates that, really, it was probably drafted by a bunch of boys.

I don't know whether that's true. I wonder whether it was….

An Hon.

Member: Or girls.

MacPhail: Sorry — drafted by a bunch of men.

The

amendment doesn't in any way take into account the flexibility that different

pregnant women need in the management of their children. I'm just wondering. If

flexibility is so important in other parts of the legislation, why is it that

the legislation has now been amended to take away the flexibility of pregnant

women to determine what maternity leave

schedule suits their family needs?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I would like to assure the hon. member that it was not a male that

drafted this section. In fact, it was a female.

I'd also

like to point out that where this actually occurred was in 1999 in the

amendments to the legisla-

[ Page 3770 ]

tion. The word "consecutive" was inadvertently left off. Prior to

that, in 1995, under the former administration, the word was in there. The exact

word in that legislation was in there.

In 1995 it

was in there. In 1999, under some amendments that were made by employment

standards — and God bless them both, but it was both a female drafter and a

female policy adviser — they inadvertently mistakenly, not intentionally, left

the word off. We put "consecutive" back in, and again I will refer to

the fact that it's a female drafter that has made sure the word is back in

there. It's simply restating and clarifying the position as it was meant to be

and had been and will continue to be in the act.

MacPhail: Yes, I'll well aware of that history, and you might know that it

wasn't changed under the previous government. What's the application of that

now?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Now, I'm going to be clear on this. I don't want to be testy, but in

fact, the word "consecutive" was in there in 1995. The word fell out

in 1999.

MacPhail: I know that. I know that. I said I'm well aware of the history.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Okay, okay.

MacPhail: And it wasn't put in by the government after 1995.

Hon. G.

Bruce: That's right, and it was inadvertently not put in. That was not this

administration; that was a former administration. It was just a slight error.

Nothing untoward was meant by it. Now you want to ask how it is implemented.

[1630]

There is no

loss of flexibility in this. The word "consecutive" has been included,

and they've been advising all employers and employees since 1999 that the weeks

must be taken consecutively. It has been applied that way since then, even

though inadvertently the word was left off.

MacPhail: There's been no challenges to that?

Hon. G.

Bruce: No.

Sections 26

to 38 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This amends the original legislation around investigations. This

is the part where the branch previously, under the original act, had to

investigate all complaints. Was the change here…? Let me just describe what

the change is. Under this legislation, the branch doesn't have to investigate

complaints. The branch simply has to accept and review complaints. The branch

has no obligation to accept or review a complaint if "the employee has not

taken the requisite steps specified by the director in order to facilitate

resolution or investigation of the complaint." Therefore, employees who are

not aware of the details of the act may be denied assistance by the branch.

Are these

changes fiscally driven because the staff have been cut at the employment

standards branch?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The mandate of the director is to ensure that employers comply with

all requirements of the act.

Section 76 provides the director with the ability,

where the