1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 11

[ Page 12791 ]

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the distinct pleasure of introducing someone from the

state of Punjab, India -- the state in which I was born and raised. Raja Nurinder Singh

happens to be the Minister of Public Health and Civil Aviation. He's sitting right behind

me. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

I have some other introductions of the people that are accompanying him, if I could

continue for a moment.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Thank you. Accompanying him is his executive assistant, Mr.

Bhag Singh -- he happens to be in the gallery. As well, there is Rajinder Singh Bhela.

He's the secretary of the Khalsa Diwan Society, the oldest pioneer society of the Sikhs

which has struggled on behalf of the community over the last hundred or so years for

equality and dignity for all of us. I want the House to please give both Mr. Bhag Singh

and Rajinder Singh Bhela a warm welcome.

C. Hansen: About half an hour ago I had the opportunity to welcome 20 grade 5

students from Crofton House, and they had some great questions for me. They've had a tour,

and they're in the galleries now for question period. They're here with their teachers,

Vicky Harris and Mark Fischer, and six parents who are accompanying them. I hope the House

will make them all very welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I too would like to join my colleague the Attorney General in

welcoming our visitors from Punjab, India. Mr. Raja Nurinder Singh, as you know, is a

minister in the Punjab cabinet, and he's here to talk about the issues of trade and health

technologies, as well as transportation infrastructure technologies, along with his other

colleagues.

I also want to point out that we're working with the Punjab government to bring a

delegation from the Punjab government back here to British Columbia in August, so we're

looking forward to that. I would like to ask the House to please join the Attorney General

in again welcoming the minister from India and his colleagues.

S. Hawkins: I think I'd be remiss if I didn't add the official opposition's

welcome. We've been quite honoured in the last month or so to welcome visitors from the

Punjab, and it certainly is a privilege and an honour to welcome this hon. minister and

the delegation that's accompanying him.

Hon. I. Waddell: I too would like to add my welcome to the visiting delegation,

because the gurdwara is in my riding. But I rise . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Ross Street Temple is in my riding, and I'm pleased to welcome

the guests.

Yesterday I welcomed, as you'll recall, hon. Speaker, many of the directors of the B.C.

Festival of the Arts, which started last night with a great gala in Victoria. If I might,

I'd like to add one who's in the precincts today. Would the House please welcome Armeda

Spada McDougall from Coquitlam, who's a new member of the board of directors of the

Festival of the Arts Society.

C. Clark: If you noticed that two members of the press gallery today are looking

especially happy, it's partly, I'm sure, because they're so looking forward to question

period, and also perhaps because the Leafs won last night. But we have two birthdays up

there for two big Leafs fans -- Mike Smyth is celebrating . . . .

An Hon. Member: His 64th.

C. Clark: I won't say. And Shane Fox is also celebrating a birthday. I hope the

House will wish them both a very happy birthday.

[1415]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have an introduction to make today. A longtime friend of mine

is visiting from Ontario. His name is Don Tisdale, and we've known each other for over 20

years. It's interesting, because we have a mutual friend who is also an MPP in Ontario,

and Don was telling me that in the upcoming Ontario election, he will be voting for this

MPP -- who is a provincial Liberal, I might add. And he told me that when he moves back to

B.C. -- which he is doing in the next six months -- he's moving into my riding, and he'll

be voting for me in the next provincial election. Will the House please make Don welcome.

S. Orcherton: I just noticed in the gallery an old friend of mine, a community

and social activist who resides on Saltspring Island. She works tirelessly on behalf of

people in the Gulf Islands on their issues -- and, indeed, on behalf of people on

Vancouver Island in general. I'd ask the House to make Ms. Irene Wright welcome.

The Speaker: I have one introduction from the Chair. In the gallery we have a

very special guest from Alberta, Rob Reynolds, who is the Law Clerk for that province.

He's here to have a look at what happens in British Columbia. Welcome.

Introduction of Bills

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 69 be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This act makes changes to statutes administered both by the

Ministry of Education and by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

It contains amendments to the Architects (Landscape) Act, the College and Institute Act,

the Independent School Act, the

[ Page 12792 ]

Institute of Technology Act, the Private Post-Secondary Education Act, the Royal Roads

University Act, the School Act and the Technical University of British Columbia Act.

Some of the amendments are necessary to streamline processes for public post-secondary

institutions and for school boards. Other amendments are more substantive in nature. The

amendments to the Architects (Landscape) Act revise the objects of the British Columbia

Society of Landscape Architects, as requested by the board of directors of the society.

The College and Institute Act amendments repeal out-of-date provisions relating to program

advisory committees and collective bargaining. The amendment to the Independent School Act

allows the inspector of independent schools to streamline the process of issuing

independent school teaching certificates. The Institute of Technology Act amendment

updates and corrects provisions relating to program advisory committees and to the

acquisition and disposal of land by BCIT. The amendment to the Private Post-Secondary

Education Act exempts Canadian public post-secondary institutions from registering under

that act.

The act also amends the School Act in a number of ways. It allows school boards to

conduct meetings through electronic means. It removes from the School Act the requirement

for delegate members for the Francophone Education Authority, and it also amends the

School Act to permit year-round schooling by enabling scheduling, through a local school

board, of a school calendar that continues past June 30 or starts before September.

Finally, it also amends the School Act to protect the welfare of children by exempting

information relating to a report of child abuse or neglect from a child's student record.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the Education Statutes Amendment Act be placed on orders of

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

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

Oral Questions

B.C. FERRIES CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

D. Symons: Yesterday during question period, the Minister Responsible for B.C.

Ferries stated: " . . . there has been a long period of time with no

capital construction program . . . . "

[1420]

Now, I know -- we all know -- that the minister is new to NDP party ranks, but coming

from the ferry-dependent community that he does . . . . I think, and we think,

that he should know that the current Premier's ten-year capital plan for ferries was

announced in 1994.

Will the minister admit that his own adopted government's -- and I'm not sure which

side adopted which side there -- ten-year-capital plan was an absolute failure and has

actually put the corporation in a worse financial condition?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yesterday the members opposite said that they had a leaked

document, which was made public on May 3 at a very public meeting of the coastal councils.

Yesterday they laughed and laughed when I said they needed to have a lesson on how to read

the numbers. They said that 5.5 percent and 14 percent were increased projections,

whereas

if they'd read it yesterday, they would have seen that it was $5.5 million, which is 1.5

percent. They couldn't even read the document they had in front of them, so if anybody is

a disaster in this House, it's those members opposite.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

First supplementary, the member for Richmond Centre.

D. Symons: I'm hurt to the quick, really. I don't think the minister can point

to anywhere where I said that those numbers were percentage figures -- nor any of the

other comments he made -- because I did not.

The now Premier and then minister responsible for B.C. Ferries stated that the ten-year

capital plan will " . . . provide the ships and terminal facilities needed

to meet these pressures." Not only did this plan not provide the necessary ships to

rebuild the fleet, in addition, it has driven B.C. Ferries into bankruptcy. Will the

minister admit that his government has been hopelessly incompetent at managing the B.C.

Ferry Corporation?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yesterday we learned that the members opposite are trying to

pressure this side to increase ferry fares for coastal communities -- outrageous.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Today we are now hearing them say that they would rather not

have any construction done in British Columbia on capital construction programs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: No matter how much that member opposite . . . . And

frankly, I'm a little surprised that they would use up valuable question period time when

Ferries estimates are about to proceed. If that member would like to simply review the

record in terms of the numbers of people who are now riding ferries and the ridership,

that member would know that the B.C. Ferry Corporation has met a huge challenge in terms

of increased ridership. We are going to have a construction program that will meet their

needs, and they'll be built in British Columbia, whether those members want it done or

not.

[ Page 12793 ]

B.C. FERRIES FARES AND SERVICE

C. Clark: No, the minister didn't say yesterday that he was going to raise fares.

He said he was going to rationalize them. What does that mean? For a B.C. Ferry

Corporation that his government has crippled with debt, it can only mean they are going to

increase fares, decrease service and cut routes.

Will the minister tell us today what he means by rationalization? Will he tell British

Columbians, instead of hiding behind these cute

definitions? Will he just tell them which

routes he is going to cut and which routes are going to be hit with the big fare increases

he's got planned?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, come to order.

Hon. G. Wilson: I find that a somewhat amusing question, because if the member

had been paying attention to what's been happening over the last number of months, the

member would know that . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . first of all, this government has committed to

no fare increases, at least until April of 2000. That's number one. Secondly, we've made a

commitment to no reduction in service, and that's something that we're honouring -- no

reduction in service. And thirdly, that member would know that we now are funding the

ferries, as an extension of the highways, with a tax on gasoline tax -- a major departure

from previous funding programs. So that member should get up to speed and keep up with

what's going on.

[1425]

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, first

supplementary.

C. Clark: Well, according to my read of the last couple of months, here's what's

happened: when the minister was on this side of the House, he used to say he wanted to

roll back ferry fares, then he rationalized his way across the floor, rationalized away

all his principles, and now he says he wants to rationalize B.C. ferry fares. Will he tell

us -- instead of standing here dodging the question, telling us that he stood for this

when he was over here, he stood for this when he was over there, and now he stands for

something called rationalization . . . ? Will he just tell British Columbians:

which routes does he plan to rationalize? Which fares does he plan to rationalize? And in

the end, which services does he plan to cut?

Hon. G. Wilson: There is no rational explanation for the members opposite; that

much I'll grant you.

Let me say it very slowly and carefully for the member so that she understands. We have

said there will be no fare increases, at least until April 2000 -- none. That's a freeze.

That means none.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. It's very difficult to hear the answer.

Hon. G. Wilson: Secondly, we said there will be no reduction in service, and we

have honoured that. Now, I don't know which part of that the member doesn't understand,

but when we say no fare increases, no reduction in services, this side of the House means

it -- rather than that side that would pressure us to increase ferry fares, because that's

what they are after.

B.C. ROLE IN CARBON TAX PROPOSAL

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Federal and provincial transport ministers have apparently been discussing a 30- to

40-cent-a-litre increase in the excise tax on gasoline -- in essence, a carbon tax.

Details of this outrageous proposal were spelled out last week by Alberta Transportation

minister, Walter Paszkowski. Federal Transport minister David Collenette said: "Hey,

the idea didn't come from us." So my question to the minister is: did this

harebrained scheme come from British Columbia? Or were you simply willing co-conspirators?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, that harebrained idea came from the B.C. Liberals.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. H. Lali: Well, again, if the members want to use up their question period

time by heckling, then so be it. I can stand here for the next ten minutes.

I want to thank the hon. member for Peace River South for his question. That was one of

the ideas that was floated by one of the transport ministers. The fact of the matter is

that it's not a position that the B.C. government supports, nor does this transport

minister. It's an idea thrown out by one of the other transport ministers. It was

certainly unanimously rejected by all of the transport ministers from across the country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The Chair recognizes the member for Peace River

South, first supplementary.

J. Weisgerber: Well, first of all, you've got to wonder why, then, the details

of this had to be leaked by the Alberta Transportation minister. We know that the Minister

Responsible for the Public Service has been on this carbon tax kick for years. The

minister from Esquimalt-Metchosin wants a carbon tax. He wants British Columbians to pay

more for gasoline. He wants British Columbians to pay more for natural gas, and he doesn't

care a whit about the effect of that on northeastern British Columbia. Indeed, he waves

his hand -- waves his hand like this.

[1430]

[ Page 12794 ]

Does this minister really expect us to believe that he went to Ottawa and contradicted

his friend and mentor on the issue of a carbon tax?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members. All members, please. There are a lot of

conversations going on in the chamber right now. It's very difficult to hear both the

questions and the answers, and I think that's partly why we're here -- to listen to some

of these.

Hon. H. Lali: I'll tell the hon. member. We went to Ottawa to the council of

transport ministers meeting to put forward, again, the position that B.C. put forward a

year ago. B.C. had the pen to write a paper on behalf of all the transport ministers

across the country on a national transportation investment strategy. I went there to

re-emphasize that, and for the first time we had some positive statements coming out of

the Transport minister for Canada.

They are actually now talking about east-west links in terms of improvement to the

transportation infrastructure. Mr. Collenette, the federal minister, also stated that he

would not be interested in any tolling on the Trans-Canada Highway system unless there was

a toll-free alternative that would be provided along that route. Those are the kinds of

issues that we talked about. For the first time, we have the federal government actually

talking about them in a positive way, as opposed to rejecting them out of hand.

EFFECT OF AQUACULTURE MORATORIUM

ON COASTAL COMMUNITIES

J. van Dongen: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Last September the

Fisheries minister said there would be a decision on the salmon-farming moratorium by the

end of the year. In November the Premier said the decision would be made in a few weeks.

In December the Public Service minister said that it would be sometime in February. Now

we're told that the moratorium will remain in place indefinitely. My question to the

Minister of Environment is: why does this government continue to break its commitments and

continue this job-killing moratorium, despite a recommendation by the salmon aquaculture

review to proceed?

Hon. C. McGregor: There has been no decision taken yet on the matter of salmon

aquaculture.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. C. McGregor: But, it's odd that that side of the House shows no concern for

the many environmental impacts that the aquaculture industry can have . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. C. McGregor: . . . on coastal areas. In fact, we had a

significant -- in fact, the most significant . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. C. McGregor: . . . environmental assessment in the world,

frankly, on the question of aquaculture and its potential impacts on the environment: the

use of antibiotics, the effect on marine mammals, the need for us to deal with the

questions of waste as the waste falls from net-pens. We took the environmental challenges

very seriously, unlike the other side of the House, and we are taking the time to

appropriately review those before any decisions are taken.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: In response to the minister, the salmon aquaculture review, which

cost the government over $1 million, addresses all of the environmental issues. In

addition to that, a recent poll shows that 69 percent of British Columbians support the

expansion of fish farming. We also know that the unemployment rate in the fisheries sector

in B.C. is 32 percent. Over 13,000 fisheries jobs have been lost since 1996. Clearly some

of these unemployed people could find a positive future in fish farming.

My question to the Minister of Environment is: why are B.C.'s coastal communities

paying the price for a division in the NDP caucus that has resulted in the moratorium

lasting over four years?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated in my previous answer, we are continuing to

consider the policy questions related to . . . . It is an excellent point,

hon. member. In fact, while the member opposite talks about how the public supports fish

farms, I'd like to further suggest that the public has, as their highest value, their care

of the environment. In fact, hon. Speaker, it is irresponsible for the members on the

opposite side to take a view where that would be ignored at the expense of the environment

and at the expense of the protection that this side of the House holds important, as do

all British Columbians.

[1435]

Ministerial Statement

AGREEMENT WITH McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm pleased to report that Canada, British Columbia and the McLeod

Lake Indian band have agreed to adjourn the litigation brought by McLeod Lake more than

ten years ago. The parties have been able to come to a negotiated agreement, settling a

longstanding dispute over outstanding McLeod Lake claims to treaty benefits and aboriginal

title, a dispute that resulted in a ten-year injunction against logging in the area

claimed by McLeod Lake. The result of the negotiation is that members of the McLeod Lake

Indian band will now become signatories to Treaty No. 8, a historic treaty signed in 1899.

The agreement releases British Columbia and Canada from the litigation the band filed in

Clearly this demonstrates that it is negotiation and not litigation that is the path to

reconciliation of past grievances with first nations peoples. This agreement was

negotiated as a settlement to litigation and therefore was not negotiated as

[ Page 12795 ]

part of the B.C. Treaty Commission process. It includes land and cash only and does not

include issues associated with governance, wildlife management, fisheries management and

taxation. Canada will provide $9.3 million to a trust capital account in the band's name,

in satisfaction of Canada's obligations to the band under Treaty 8 to satisfy any

outstanding claims and to provide economic development opportunities.

The province will provide approximately 20,000 hectares to Canada to be held as reserve

lands for the benefit of McLeod Lake. This will be in addition to the band's existing

reserves, which currently amount to almost 240 hectares. The band will then be able to log

the land, providing economic benefits for both the aboriginal community along with many

spinoff benefits for the surrounding communities as well. Under the agreement, McLeod Lake

forestry practices will have to meet or beat provincial forestry standards. McLeod Lake

has also agreed to establish a $1 million rectification trust fund to address any possible

deficiencies in forest practices that might arise in the future. That is good news from

both the McLeod Lake Indian band and the surrounding communities.

McLeod Lake will also receive interests in eight Crown-owned sites, each one being one

hectare in size, in the form of a notation of interest. These notations of interest will

identify McLeod Lake band members' interests in hunting, trapping and berry-picking on

those sites. B.C. will also offer to sell to McLeod Lake at fair market value

approximately 127 hectares of land. McLeod Lake will hold these lands in fee simple.

Additionally, Canada and British Columbia will each provide $1 million to the McLeod

Lake Indian band to cover a portion of the band's costs in resolving this longstanding

dispute. All three parties will initial the agreement within the next three months. After

it is initialled, the agreement will be ratified by the band within 45 days, by the B.C.

government within 30 days after McLeod Lake ratifies the agreement and by Canada within

three months. The three parties will formally sign the agreement following ratification.

In the meantime, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs will post a draft agreement on the

ministry's web site so that it is available to the public. In addition, provincial

negotiators will continue to meet with advisory committees that have been providing advice

to the province on these negotiations. These committees include representation from local

government, forestry companies, trapping associations, guide-outfitting associations as

well as community members. The province is committed to resolving any third-party issues

that may arise from this historic agreement.

This agreement is another example of how negotiations can meet everyone's interests.

McLeod Lake Indian band will now become signatories to Treaty 8 and will receive the

benefits of that treaty. Canada and British Columbia will resolve longstanding litigation

that will achieve certainty in the region. People in the area will reap the benefits of a

more prosperous McLeod Lake community and greater certainty over the land and over

resource use.

In closing, I want to offer my congratulations to the McLeod Lake Indian band and in

particular to their chief, Alec Chingee, for his leadership in reaching this most historic

agreement.

[1440]

The Speaker: In reply, I recognize the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I want to begin by expressing my congratulations and the

congratulations of all members of the opposition to Chief Alec Chingee and the McLeod Lake

band for years and years of perseverance in negotiating this agreement with the province

We are talking about an adhesion agreement. McLeod Lake Indian band wants to become a

part of Treaty 8. The negotiations to achieve that end have been the subject of litigation

and have lasted for long, long years. Regrettably, on more than one occasion in the past,

the McLeod Lake Indian band thought they had reached an agreement with the governments,

but the governments changed their minds and changed their positions and forced the band

into litigation. On more than one occasion, the spectre of a provincial government

negotiating in bad faith has been raised. I sincerely hope that that spectre and this

dispute are behind us. I want to acknowledge that with all of this history, the McLeod

Lake band has then done something which is truly significant by persevering to reach this

agreement.

I also want to commend the McLeod Lake Indian band for having been forthright with the

public about its goals and its aspirations throughout this process. Those goals and those

aspirations have been reasonable and fair. Now, I have not seen the proposed agreement. I

look forward to the opportunity to review it. As an adhesion agreement, I would expect to

see that the band has accepted the same approach to certainty as was taken in Treaty 8. I

expect -- as the minister has indicated -- that self-government arrangements are not a

part of this agreement. In other words, I hope that there are no surprises.

Given the minister's statement, today is a day to express all our congratulations to

the McLeod Lake Indian band for the hard work they have done, for the perseverance, for

the patience and for the endurance that they have shown in reaching an agreement to settle

this longstanding matter.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: I too want to extend congratulations to all of the parties. It

was in 1982 that the McLeod Lake band first decided that rather than pursue a

comprehensive land claim, they would pursue adhesion to an existing treaty. That's an

option that's available to not all of the bands in British Columbia but in fact a limited

number of bands who find themselves to the west of the Rockies but within the arctic

watershed, which many people who have studied the original authorities given to

negotiators take to be the area in which Treaty 8 should have been negotiated. So it's

bands within the arctic watershed in British Columbia who still have the opportunity.

There are bands like Fort Ware and Ingenika who may well, if it is their wish, decide to

abandon a comprehensive claim and pursue adhesion to Treaty 8. That's the background.

In 1982, McLeod Lake started this process. They've been in court a number of times with

both governments. They've been there at times at their desire and at times because

governments have pushed them there. At the end of the day -- and it's really nearly two

decades, a short time in land claims negotiation . . . .

Nonetheless, I think it's quite a satisfactory resolution. What the band has achieved

is what the prairie bands

[ Page 12796 ]

achieved -- essentially, 128 acres of land per person to a maximum of 640 acres or one

section of land for each family. Some of the other conditions within the treaty have been

modified. The net result is that the McLeod Lake band has considerably more land than the

Nisga'a and only a very small amount less cash than the Nisga'a achieved. They don't have

self-government or an enshrined form of self-government.

[1445]

What that should tell us is that despite all of the statements we've heard that British

Columbians would never support any treaty or that those people who were opposed to Nisga'a

would oppose every treaty . . . this in fact puts the lie to that. That's

because it's very clear that those people in the McLeod Lake area, in the Mackenzie area,

were quite willing to accept a treaty with larger amounts of land and a relatively similar

amount of cash, and that the real friction point in this debate in this province has been

around a third order of government.

Now, members may not like to agree with that, but I would suggest that the acceptance

of the Sechelt band in its treaty and the acceptance of McLeod Lake, both of which don't

include a third order of government . . . . This suggests to me that that's

where the friction point is. That's what governments are going to have to resolve in a

better way than was done with Nisga'a if there's going to be broad public support.

Let me say in closing that I think the agreement is inferior in some ways -- even

though it's 100 years old -- to Nisga'a. I don't particularly like the idea of "hunt,

fish and trap as formerly." I think it lacks definition; it lacks precision. I think

Nisga'a is much better in that respect. Also, I do note that despite the claims from

members across the way that no aboriginal band would ever accept "cede surrender and

release" language, this adhesion in fact has that old language. McLeod Lake band has

found a way to wrap their mind around it.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I'm sorry?

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I don't know. I'm sorry. Those hecklers will have to either be

louder or clearer in their heckling.

Madam Speaker, let me close by saying that I believe that there's broad community

support for this decision, and that should be the ultimate test. If the McLeod Lake band

is happy, if their neighbours are happy and if there is going to be greater certainty and

prosperity as a result of it, then I say to this minister and the government responsible

there: congratulations. I say to the federal government: congratulations. Most

importantly, I say to Chief Chingee and his predecessors: congratulations.

Tabling DocumentsThe Speaker: I have the honour to present report No. 1 of the

auditor general for 1999-2000. It's a follow-up on performance audit and review.

Orders of the DayHon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply.

For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Minister

Responsible for B.C. Ferries and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In this chamber, I

call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the

estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

[1450]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(continued)

On vote 39: ministry operations, $24,045,000 (continued).

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have an opening comment to make today; I think I've done

that in our last two sessions. Instead, what I will do is simply take a moment to

introduce the people here with me. On my immediate left is Marg Arthur, who is Deputy

Minister of Labour. On my immediate right is Mr. Gary Martin, assistant deputy minister

for labour programs. Next to Gary Martin is Don Cott, assistant deputy minister for labour

relations. With that, I will defer to my colleague.

K. Krueger: A warm welcome to the people the minister just introduced. They're

probably getting tired of seeing me, but I'm happy to have them here with us. I'd like to

start by asking permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Krueger: I didn't notice these gentlemen until just before these estimates

began. But in the gallery with us we have three distinguished representatives from the

Thompson-Nicola regional district, including the chair of the TNRD, Rick Morgan, who's the

area director for part of my constituency; Mr. Rino Elverhoy, who's been very active in

bringing the film industry to the Kamloops region; and Mr. Bill Walton, who is a city

councillor. I would ask that the House please make them welcome.

[1455]

By agreement, the minister and I will be dealing first with issues around the

employment standards branch. Once again, I want to thank the staff present for the

excellent briefing materials that were provided to the opposition, including a copy of the

Ministry of Labour's "Strategic Goals and Business Plan, 1998-2001." There are a

lot of laudable commitments in this document. Under the heading "Ministry Goals and

Key Strategies," there are commitments to a productive work environment, as well as a

healthy and safe work environment for British Columbia workers. Second, there are

commitments to promoting a prosperous economy that creates jobs and enhances workers'

abilities to balance work and family responsibilities. Under that there's a subnote:

[ Page 12797 ]

"Review the provisions of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) relating to hours of

work and compensation systems. This review would focus on ways the act could be modified

to promote job creation, the balancing of work and family responsibilities and providing

greater opportunities for youth employment. Consultations would take place with key

business and labour stakeholders . . . " as well as with other specific

ministries.

And thirdly, it says:

"Promoting a healthy, balanced labour relations climate and harmonious

relationships between employers and workers."

A couple of pages down, under "Key Success Indicators," there is a bit of a

disclaimer. It says:

"In developing key success indicators, it is important to note that the ministry's

actions are often not the determinative factor in the success of the ministry's goals. For

instance, economic factors, such as market prices in effect for B.C. resource commodities,

interest rates, the health of the stock market and the value of the Canadian dollar will

affect the labour relations climate, the enthusiasm of employers to provide safety and

family-friendly measures in workplaces and the health of pension plans more than a

ministry's planned initiatives. A specific ministry initiative might be successful in

isolation, but unable to impact on a host of nationally or internationally driven

factors."

Well, that disclaimer being accepted, nevertheless it is certainly possible for the

ministry's policies and practices to impede a healthy economy. If we move in the wrong

direction, if we're perceived to be out of balance or oblivious to the interests and

concerns of business and job creators in the province, it is certainly possible to have a

very negative effect on the attainment of the very goals that we've just outlined. There

are many in British Columbia who would argue that that has been happening for the last

eight years.

The document goes on to say: "However, with this caveat, the following indicators

are provided to demonstrate some measure of the success in achievement of the ministry's

strategic goals. Further development of additional indicators will continue." The

ones I'm particularly noting are: " . . . (

b) promote a prosperous economy

that creates jobs" -- and it lists some measures; and " . . . (

c) promote a healthy, balanced labour relations climate." Interestingly, under (

c) there

are a number of measures that the government has listed. I won't read them all into the

record because I don't want to take unnecessary time. But there's a dearth of

management-related input measures -- that is, measures that one would expect to have been

generated by management. They seem to relate more to what organized labour might have put

forward as key measures. I wonder if the minister would comment on that. If he doesn't

have the document, I'd be happy to read further into the record.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I'm just referring to the same document the member is:

" . . . (

c) promote a healthy, balanced labour relations climate."

My reading and rendering of that particular

section is the first one that says: " .

. . number of employment standards sector agreements arising out of

consultations." I would suggest that that is as much a management contribution as it

is a worker contribution. Similarly, the ratio of stoppage duration to time worked by paid

workers -- again, I think that very much belongs to the management side of the equation,

just as much as it does to the labour side. The other two, I think it's probably safe to

say, are, if not neutral, at least . . . . I don't think it's fair, frankly,

to suggest that those come from labour and therefore it is only the worker's side of the

equation that we as the ministry are indeed responding to -- if that's what the member is

suggesting.

K. Krueger: Actually, what the member is meaning to suggest is that it would be

good for all of us if the ministry focused on ensuring that it is listening to business

input as well. If business wants to put forward key measures by which the ministry might

measure its progress toward its goals, I hope that the minister will be receptive. In

fact, I hope that will be invited, and I'd like to see evidence of that over the coming

months.

[1500]

An example of businesses, organizations, that have been negatively impacted by the

Employment Standards Act and adherence to the act and regulations was raised by my

colleague the member for Richmond East yesterday. She has asked me to provide the minister

with the opportunity to elaborate a little further. Specifically, that example related to

societies for handicapped adults -- work that they have done in the past in their

organizations and for their employers, who tend to be non-profit agencies; crafts that

they did and manufacturing that they were involved in -- things that they did that they

really enjoyed and that were very much a vital part of their day; that built their

self-esteem and sense of self-worth and that helped them develop the sort relationships

that we all prize in our work life. These are things that they are being shut out from

doing by their employers' inability to adhere to the measures of the Employment Standards

Act.

The minister commented that a substantial length of time was provided to these

organizations but that apparently they were unable to comply. That's understandable,

because if the products produced were paid for by the hour, they would probably be too

expensive for most consumers to be interested. This seems to be an area where I think we

would all have the same interests, including keeping those people enjoying those

occupations and busily occupied, if it's something that they want to do. I wonder if the

minister -- with the advisors he's enjoying today -- could provide a little more detail

and a little hope in that direction.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I'm delighted to do so. First of all, let me make it very,

very clear that the ministry has indeed accepted as its duty to work closely with that

community to see if we can't solve the problem. The problem, let us be very clear, is that

although we want to help adult handicapped people and give their lives meaning in the

sense of being attached to a job -- even though that job may not be measurable and meet

the standards that the rest of us talk about -- we nevertheless have to balance our desire

to do that for those people with the danger of exploitation of those people. That's what

we've been trying to do.

Accordingly, then, we've been working for three years. We allowed that particular

sector to have a variance, in effect, of three years -- a holiday -- with a view to

getting itself sorted out and organized and meeting with our people to work out some kind

of adequate relationship so that both parties' interests would indeed be protected. We're

still committed to doing that. Indeed, I'm happy to report that we are now actively

working on that situation. We have, in fact, arranged for a consultant to work with that

particular constituent group, and we're hopeful that the consultant and the parties will

be making recommendations by the summer.

I want to again just make it very clear to members opposite that employment standards

are in no way designed to impede or interfere with a healthy economy. They simply say that

you can't have a healthy economy if it's based on

[ Page 12798 ]

exploitation of workers. It's always a balancing act, and I am well and truly familiar

with this particular universe, because I happen to have one of those centres in my

community -- the Clay Tree Enterprises people, who I know very well. They're very dear

friends, and I understand the marvellous job they do in the community in terms of

providing a dignified and meaningful work experience for their clients. But by the same

token, I'm aware of what can happen if you don't have scrupulous people -- if you have

people who tend to treat those disadvantaged and disabled people as cheap labour.

So again, it's a balancing act. I'm confident we're going to find the appropriate

balance between those two points of view, and I thank the member for raising the matter. I

hope I've answered his question.

K. Krueger: That is helpful. Will there, then, be an extension of the exemption

while this process is ongoing?

[1505]

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't answer definitively yes or no, but that is certainly an

option that will be considered as we see the consultant's report.

K. Krueger: What then happens with these organizations and these people in the

meantime?

Hon. D. Lovick: They can simply carry on. Most of them won't have any likelihood

of being in trouble until the fall. I believe that's when the three-year period is up, in

fact. So there is a period of grace there. We don't need to worry too much.

K. Krueger: Obviously the government would be well aware of its own deadline.

Certainly paying heed to the cautions which the minister expressed, which drive some of

the considerations of the Employment Standards Act, particularly with regard to vulnerable

people . . . . Of course, one could say that all workers are vulnerable to

unscrupulous employers. We recognize that constraint very much. Were there abuses of

handicapped people ongoing in British Columbia? Have such situations been documented?

Hon. D. Lovick: We are certainly familiar with some complaints that have been

made, yes.

K. Krueger: I'm happy with those responses, and I think that the many people

that are concerned about this issue will be too. We'll be looking for the accommodations

to be found, and I'm sure that they can be.

Moving from that to a bigger-picture perspective, one hears concerns around the

province that people think that the Employment Standards Act is an attempt by this

government to establish a form of provincewide collective agreement for those who aren't

necessarily unionized yet. I wonder if the minister would comment on that assessment of

the act and its regulations.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would just point out that employment standards, alas, are very

much minimum standards. I don't think any self-respecting trade unionist would say that

minimum standards are the equivalent to a collective agreement and a real contract.

K. Krueger: In my previous life, at the outset I worked with a collective

agreement like this, and I noticed recently that it's more like an inch thick. These

things do tend to grow over time; everything starts somewhere. But perhaps the minister

would . . . . Accepting what he just said -- that by no means does the

Employment Standards Act embrace everything that he would expect these days in a

collective agreement -- is there a basis for people having the concern that this act is

drafted as a preliminary provincewide collective agreement?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to that is no. I would just remind the member

that when Mark Thompson carried out his review -- as the member will recall, a quite

detailed review of employment standards -- he considered that option, went through the

analysis and concluded that no, it was simply not a satisfactory option.

K. Krueger: The act is seen by job creators to be incredibly complex and

difficult. I'll just read a quote from very sophisticated people that I was speaking with.

As I mentioned in the ITAC estimates the other day, which the minister sat in on, I'm

surprised by the very unhappy feelings in the Construction Labour Relations Association

member companies and the building trades unions, considering that such effort was put in

last summer to provide legislation which I thought they were substantially behind. Of

course, that doesn't include the Employment Standards Act. But the statement on this from

people in that construction industry is: "Nobody knows what the law is, because the

act is such a mess. It requires

interpretation by lawyers who say, 'I think it says this,'

but it is internally inconsistent in many ways."

The input I'm receiving is surely being received by the minister also. I wonder: what

ongoing efforts are there to address concerns like that and to update the act to deal with

them?

[1510]

Hon. D. Lovick: It isn't clear to me if the member is referring to the construction .

. . . I think he's talking about CLRA, the Construction Labour Relations

Association, and their member contractors. Refresh my memory. I thought they were talking

about the Labour Code, not about employment standards legislation. More specifically, they

were talking about Bill 26 and what we did to the Labour Code last year. Is that correct?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Okay, so that was an illustration in a generic way, then. All

right, fair enough; I understand.

Let me deal specifically first with the Employment Standards Act. We have been working

for some time now to make it more user-friendly, to coin a phrase. In addition, I'm happy

to note that it has been rewritten in plain language. One just has to compare the older

version with the contemporary one, and one will see that. That doesn't mean, I hasten to

point out, that we have arrived. The reality is that much of what the member and I may

take to be straightforward and readily understandable isn't understandable in a world that

doesn't deal with that stuff on a regular basis.

I think that across government and across the ministry I can also make the same claim.

For example, the member will recall that when we were talking about workers compensation

issues and occupational health and safety last night, the new

[ Page 12799 ]

occupational health and safety regulations for the province have been rendered

effectively into a single, very small pamphlet. What I've said on two or three occasions

and will repeat now is that that is, to all intents and purposes, all the small business

person needs to know. They don't need to know about the 1,400 or whatever regulations

there are in total. If they have that little document, which is very readable and very

user-friendly, they will be okay. That's all they need to know.

One can extrapolate from that, I think, that that is indeed our commitment as a

ministry -- to try to pick up on the very point the member is making. We ought, it seems

to me, to try as a matter of course -- as regulators and as government and as legislators

-- to make what we do, and what the rules are, simple and accessible and eminently

readable.

K. Krueger: In appreciating the minister's comment about the attempt to simplify

the language, many people find the King James version of the Bible almost impossible to

read, yet it's infinitely easier than the Greek. That's certainly an apt comparison, I

think, for a lot of small business people in British Columbia when they look at our

legislation -- again referring specifically to the Employment Standards Act. Did I hear

the minister suggesting that a similar document to the one we discussed in Workers

Compensation estimates is being prepared for small business with regard to the Employment

Standards Act?

Hon. D. Lovick: That document already exists.

K. Krueger: Well, the documents that exist haven't been making their way to

restaurateurs and people who have to live within the act. I know it would not be the

ministry's desire that people would inadvertently contravene the Employment Standards Act

and give rise to complaints. We're going to deal with workload issues shortly. What

efforts are being made to get a simple explanation of the expectations of employers out to

the employer community?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that copies of that document are in fact being

mailed out almost on a daily basis, because there are those requests for information. As

well, the information is available on the web site. What we do as well is send copies

directly to all of the various employer-group associations -- the representative groups --

and we give them as many copies as they wish so they can in turn share those with their

members.

K. Krueger: What I was driving at was that I think it would be good to be

proactive and provide these documents to employers in advance of complaints, rather than

being complaint-driven. Obviously not everything the minister was referring to had to do

with complaints, but I'm a little crestfallen that Patti Stockton isn't here today. I

enjoyed the briefing we had with her. I want to refer to some of her answers, and it would

be good if she were here for confirmation -- although Mr. Taylor can certainly help with

that.

[1515]

I asked in the briefing meeting about the status of the backlog. Ms. Stockton's answer

was that the backlog had been up to 20 weeks, with five months elapsed time between when

someone first phoned in a complaint to the 1-800 number and when a file was opened. That's

not until work is done on it, but when it was actually opened. She said that the time now,

at worst, was down to 13 weeks, but that's still an awfully long time. It was plain to me

that Ms. Stockton had been doing yeoman service in attempting to deal with this issue, yet

13 weeks is clearly something that nobody accepts as far as government's response time to

complaints through a process that government has initiated. I'd like the minister's

comments on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I'm pleased to note that the member acknowledges the

exemplary work done by Patti Stockton and her colleagues in the branch -- and very few of

them, I might add. I share with him the concern that this is an inordinately long time,

even if we have reduced it significantly in the last short while.

However, let's not have any illusions about why that is the case. I mean, the reality

is that governments everywhere -- and certainly this province is no exception -- are

confronted with that phenomenon, where people are saying: "You should reduce the size

of government" and "You should reduce the size of the civil service" -- and

so on. Indeed, I would point out ever so delicately that this is the position taken by the

opposition in this chamber on a regular basis. So let's simply recognize that actions have

consequences. If you do decide to cut the cloth according to the measure available, then

clearly there's a price to pay. The price to pay is that we don't provide the service as

quickly as we would like to.

I would be happy if the member would be willing to stand up and tell me that he, on

behalf of his colleagues, is quite prepared to say: "But yes, the Ministry of Labour

should have a budgetary increase of X thousand dollars, so we can hire the required people

to expand the 1-800 line service." But I don't think he's going to do that.

K. Krueger: Of course, it's probably not politically correct anymore to say

there's more than one way to skin a cat. But reduction of the volume of work done by

employees is an even better alternative than hiring more employees.

Before I carry on, certainly it's always a good idea to use people's correct names. I

don't know why I refer to Mr. Martin as Mr. Taylor sometimes, but I apologize. It's a bit

of a Freudian slip there. I was thinking of someone else.

When we talk about reducing the size of government, we can do that by reducing the size

of work that government takes upon itself and puts upon the employer and employee

community. For a long time the B.C. Liberals have been advocating legislation that is more

results-oriented than process-oriented. The Employment Standards Act is an example of

heavily process-oriented legislation.

I think that it has come to the minister loud and clear from the business summits that

have been conducted around the province by the government and been initiated by business

itself that investors, job creators and businesses in British Columbia are crying out for

a reduction in regulation and red tape and for an opportunity to come up with working

arrangements within their workplaces that are flexible, that are tailored to the needs of

their employees and their particular type of business and that do not spell out

chapter

and verse, thus and so, the way business shall be done for everybody in British Columbia.

It's commonly referred to as a one-size-fits-all approach and commonly understood not to

work.

So what we would like to see is a change in the Employment Standards Act that provides

for considerably more flex-

[ Page 12800 ]

ibility, rather than the minister appealing to the opposition or anyone else for more

staff. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm always skeptical when anybody tells me we should reduce the

size of the work, if that is really code for saying we should somehow reduce the

standards. I hope that's not intended by the member; I would like to believe it isn't.

What we're doing at the moment is indeed trying our level best to satisfy the concerns

that the member raises -- all right? -- to make sure that we don't have an overburden of

regulation and unnecessary regulation. We're trying to do that. Thus we have various

sectoral committees looking at particular parts of the larger economy through the lens of

employment standards and with a view to determining whether the old regulations are

absolutely necessary or whether we can in fact relax them somewhat to achieve the end that

the member talks about.

[1520]

We've done that in high-tech; we've done it in agriculture; we've done it in gas and

oil; we've done it in the film industry. I mean, there are a number of those initiatives

that we have carried out -- however, guided above all by the fact that we're not, in the

name of making somebody's business dealings easier, going to do it by exploiting workers.

That's the bottom line, and it's one that I'm not about to retreat from -- nor, I hope,

would members opposite want me to.

On his point, though, about protecting the rights of employers as well as others

involved in the system, and that maybe in fact there is too much process, I would just

point out to him that one of the reasons for the rather elaborate process spelled out in

employment standards legislation is precisely to protect employers. In an earlier

incarnation, I am advised that employment standards tended to be a bit of a kangaroo

court. You know, the employer would come in and didn't in fact have anything resembling

due process and, rather, was sort of guilty until proven innocent. The effort, then, was

to make it scrupulously fair, with the emphasis being largely on protecting employers who

might be accused of doing something they ought not to be doing.

So I don't dispute the member's conclusion. I think we probably share the same desire

that we ought to be trying as much as we possibly can to simplify and expedite and make

sure that the regulatory burden isn't overly onerous. But having said that, I want to

emphasize that what we've done has been largely to respond to the interests, in this case,

of employers.

K. Krueger: The minister has listed some examples of sectors of industries

within B.C. where the government has decided to allow more flexible working arrangements,

and the minister has referred to those with pride. I think that they should be an

encouragement to the minister and the government and all of us that indeed employers value

their employees and that there are ways of dealing with abusers -- if abusers appear -- as

the exceptions that I believe they are. I think that already in British Columbia,

employers place high value on their employees as their best assets in their work

organizations. That will increasingly be the case, as I think that we're going to face a

shortage of employees in the coming years as the so-called baby-boom generation moves on

into retirement.

So if it has worked in those sectors, why wouldn't the government have confidence that

it would work in all sectors and that those people or organizations that might be abusers

-- deviants of some form -- could be identified and dealt with as those examples arose?

Having had such a positive experience in the sectors which the minister listed, why

wouldn't the government want to do it for everybody?

Hon. D. Lovick: To coin a phrase that the members from the opposite side are

fond of using, one size does not fit all. The reality is that what might work in one kind

of workplace will demonstrably not work in another. That's point one.

The second point is that we should have no illusions that what we have done in those

sectors has been a huge, significant change. Most of us would say, quite frankly, "Is

that all?" when we look, at the end of the day, at what has been accomplished. My

point, I guess, is that . . . .

Let's take high-tech, for example. The solution we came up with -- or what we hoped

would be perceived to be a solution -- has not been greeted with universal approbation, to

put it delicately. There are a number of people who think that we did a terrible thing,

that we should never have interfered there. Some -- on both sides, I might add -- have

said: "You've taken away the rights of workers, and people are going to be victimized

as a result of doing this." And people on the other side have said: "You didn't

go far enough, and what you did in fact doesn't amount to anything." The same debate,

by the way, occurred in the agriculture sector.

I've met with a number of different people in other sectors raising concerns. Where we

can accommodate their legitimate concerns without, as I say, jeopardizing the rights of

workers, we will do so. But I know that some of the things that have been presented to me

just in the past year, and before that to other ministers in this role, are things which,

quite frankly, we will categorically reject. We have people, for example, who still argue

the case that what we need to do to stimulate the economy is have lower-than-minimum-wage

jobs for younger people. We have said: "Absolutely not. We won't do that."

[1525]

We have encountered people who, effectively, say: "You don't have to have anything

in terms of a guaranteed call-out. Rather, you will be there at the beck and call of an

employer whenever he or she so wishes." We have said: "Absolutely not."

It's a matter of ongoing negotiation, and each sector is obviously unique and specific. We

have made it very clear that we will work with the sectors. Indeed, that's what the

sectoral initiative is about. But I wouldn't pretend for a moment that we have ways to

solve the problems of every sector. I wouldn't pretend that at all, and I hope I haven't

suggested otherwise.

K. Krueger: Returning to the fact that the current situation apparently is that

it takes 13 weeks, in a number of offices, to answer a 1-800 message from a person who has

a complaint under the Employment Standards Act, and adding to that the fact that the

briefing made it clear that their ideal response time -- their goal -- is to get a

complaint resolved in about six weeks . . . . That's considered to be ideal;

and it's probably reasonable, given the legislation that they're working with. But it can

take up to a year to resolve the complaints.

Further, it emerged in our briefing meeting with Ms. Stockton that one of the factors

that makes the resolution time

[ Page 12801 ]

stretch out -- that causes the delivery of the desired result to take longer -- is a

slow report time. When you look at the fact that just the intake system, all by itself, is

causing a 13-week delay -- therefore, by that logic, putting the new claim into one of

those categories of more difficult claims just because it's over three months old --

surely all of us should be looking for ways to resolve this incredible backlog problem.

The minister has made it clear -- and I agree with him -- that the government doesn't view

more staff as the answer. I've suggested that streamlining the work and cutting the

regulation may be the answer; in fact, I'm convinced it is the answer. Perhaps there are

other answers. I know there is a lot of brainpower in the ministry, and I'd like to know

what efforts the minister and the ministry are making to alleviate this unacceptable

backlog.

Hon. D. Lovick: A couple of things. Number one, the member, following his

briefing with Ms. Stockton, will be familiar with the fact that we have tried to make the

1-800 line into an automated service for some. The intention there, of course, is to deal

with all of those cases which can effectively plug the lines and plug the service, when

really all they want to know is something very specific; they're after something

absolutely factual. If, of course, you're in the position then to be able to say on the

phone -- and as much as we all hate those machines that tell you to push 1 for X and push

2 for Y . . . . If you can get a certain percentage of people to respond to

that phone message, frequently you can deal with their cases instantaneously. They can go

and get plugged into information about a particular thing, like holiday pay -- when it is

owed me, and how I get it, etc. -- and in a five-minute phone conversation the case is

over. That's something we have been working with and, I gather -- and perhaps Patti

Stockton discussed it with the member -- with some success. That is working, not for

everybody but certainly for some.

[1530]

Another strategy that has had some success is what is called a kind of front-end

loading, for want of a better term. That's based on the notion of finding out from the

call very quickly -- and doing an analysis -- what the nature of a concern is or what the

nature of a complaint is. Using the judgment of the employee in the office, frequently you

can determine: "Oh, yeah. This is not going to be a complicated one. This won't be

difficult. If we deal with this right away, we can probably deal with it in very short

order." Therefore it won't get caught up in that larger problem the member referred

to that becomes the backlog that gets more and more difficult.

Those kinds of things and other creative strategies as well . . . . I don't

know whether Employment Standards has actually put in that kind of budgetary request yet,

but I know they have been looking at the case management system, like what WCB does.

That's the call centre thing we discussed the other night, where the person on the other

end of the line is plugged into the personal computer and can instantly call up the entire

file and therefore can answer just about any question that could be raised. That saves us

a huge amount of time in diverting calls, putting people on hold and saying: "Well,

we'll get back to you." So a number of those kinds of initiatives are underway, and

we're hopeful that they -- individually as well as cumulatively -- will take us some

distance toward solving the problem.

B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to introduce 29 bright, energetic and

inquisitive grade 5 students from Greendale Elementary School in Chilliwack, along with

their teacher, Ms. Minato, and 18 parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Krueger: The first goal and key strategy that we referred to in looking at

the business plan for the ministry was a healthy, safe and productive work environment for

British Columbia workers. One of the facts which emerged in the briefing meeting -- and

not surprising at all to somebody with a public sector background, knowing how dedicated

people feel when they fall into a backlog situation such as the one we've been discussing

-- was that quite a number of employment standards branch personnel have felt it necessary

to take stress leave from their employment. Clearly, if we're attempting to provide a

healthy, safe and productive work environment for all British Columbia workers and if

people in this branch are obliged to go on stress leave because of the workload and the

problems -- even considering the technological advances that the ministry just discussed,

which I applaud -- what else can be done to right this situation?

Hon. D. Lovick: In responding to this question, I think I'm in danger of getting

into micromanagement, as if I were actually sitting there doing it.

The short answer is obviously the better management of staff, but I think probably what

that means is some greater sensitivity and some understanding of the nature of the work,

which, it would certainly seem on the face of it, is indeed conducive to stress. If you're

dealing with people who are arguably among the lowest-paid in our society -- people who

have not been treated well by the system and who go to Employment Standards because they

have nowhere else to go -- then I think it's safe to say that some of their calls will not

the exemplar of patience and understanding: "Please, could you help me out, sir or

ma'am?" It'll be, rather, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it

anymore," or something like that. If you're on the receiving end of that kind of

call, it's obviously not a nice thing.

However, having said all that, I can give the member one bit of comfort, I think, and

that is mainly to advise him that, based on the information I have been given, the stress

leave and the numbers of people requiring time off for stress problems has indeed been

decreasing. So we're clearly doing something right.

K. Krueger: Perhaps we could get specific about that. What is the percentage of

unplanned absenteeism in this branch and in the ministry in general?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'd like to ask the member if he would let me have that on

notice, and I'll get back to him. I'll get him that information. I don't have it with me.

K. Krueger: Obviously, if I could get it sooner rather than later, we might have

further questions that would naturally flow from that. I'd appreciate it.

[1535]

While by no means being a micromanager, Ms. Stockton had taken upon herself the huge

project of reviewing every

[ Page 12802 ]

file in the Victoria office of the employment standards branch. The oldest that she

found was 500 days old -- clearly not something that any organization would be proud of.

The comment slipped out of somebody's mouth in the briefing meeting -- and if I remembered

who it was, I wouldn't name him, but I appreciated the honesty -- that resource allocation

decisions are political. The staff has actually decreased this year from last year by only

two people, but my understanding was that that was necessary in order to provide two

people to the minister's staff. I think there are some good reasons for that, as well,

since the minister had two ministries previously. He might want to comment on that,

because I'm sure that employees have feelings about it.

But if we're not going to add workers to this branch, then I think we must reduce work.

That dovetails with the call from the small business community and the business community

in general. Why would we have more regulations than we could possibly enforce? As Martin

Luther King put it: "Let freedom ring." Let people have a chance to demonstrate

that they're good employers who aren't going to abuse their employees, and deal with the

ones who are exceptions, rather than deal with everybody across the board in the same way.

So for the benefit of the employees of the branch themselves, would the minister

comment further on that workload issue that's creating such stress? That kind of stress is

a treadmill, and it's blighting to people. There's no way out of it. If nobody's going to

change the type of work they do or the expectations of them and nobody's going to add

resources, stress is the result.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the member is absolutely correct when he quotes somebody

unnamed as saying that resource allocation is political. Of course it is; it's ultimately

a decision . . . . You decide where you're going to put scarce resources,

which of course is also a good, simple definition of economics.

But I think the important point to know, then . . . . I'll try to be very

brief. The member should know that when we went through the last round of budget

allocations, trying to figure out, you know, what we could do in terms of that inexorable

process of cutting and downsizing that we seem to be confronted with, my particular

priority in the ministry -- and not universally accepted by all those whom we serve -- was

the 1-800 line.

My reasoning is simply because those are the people who are not represented by a union.

They don't have anybody else to protect their interests. They are, alas, all too typically

low-wage earners and the people, sadly, thereby most vulnerable to, you know, the vagaries

of the workplace and to unscrupulous employers. Therefore what we did was succeed, quite

frankly, in maintaining that operation in an essentially intact way. So I'd like to make

that point first. You're darn right it's a political decision, and in this instance the

politics for me was that this particular constituent group had top priority. So the member

might like to know that. Now, I'm probably going to get in trouble with some others who

said they should have had that, but so be it.

I want to make very clear, though, that there was no shift of staff from there to my

office. That didn't happen; that's just not the case -- okay?

The third point I want to make is that we need to recognize what the calls are that

come to Employment Standards. They are complaints. And a huge number of those complaints

are about people who feel they have been aggrieved and mistreated, if not directly abused,

in the workplace. You know, it's not a matter, generally speaking, of people just asking

for some simple information. It's a complaint. If they're asking for information, it's

about how they can pursue a complaint. "I didn't get my holiday pay" -- right?

-- "I didn't get my appropriate severance agreement," etc.

[1540]

In 1998-99 the employment standards branch received 17,000 complaints across B.C. We've

done a pretty good job. We've reduced the backlog by about 30 percent, but the reality is

that it's an ongoing battle. Much as we like to romanticize the workplace and assume that

there are very few nasty pieces of goods out there who do mean things to their workers,

the reality is that there are some pretty awful people out there, and they appear with

depressing regularity. So I'm a little concerned when people are trying to tell me:

"Well, you know, maybe we could just back off on the regulations, and maybe we don't

need to police the workplace quite as much as we do, because after all, most people are

pretty decent." No, that's not the case. Unfortunately, for every story about a good,

enlightened employer that we hear -- and I agree that the preponderant majority, in all

likelihood, certainly are -- there are also, horribly, sadly, a whole bunch of other

stories that illustrate precisely the opposite reality. I think I've dealt with the

member's question.

K. Krueger: Those poorer employers are the ones we should be focusing on, in the

opposition's view. We should be exception-driven, rather than policy-driven. That's a

point that we're trying to make.

The minister has said that the input is by complaint. Certainly that makes sense;

that's what we would expect. There are obviously a large number of people out there

waiting their 13 weeks, because they have specific complaints. They have another complaint

by the time they've had to wait 13 weeks to get their call answered and their file

initiated. Does the minister know how many of those complaints disappear during that long

wait? How many of those files never get opened because the people just give up?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that we do get to them all. Before we emblazon

across the sky the notion that 13 weeks is somehow characteristic, let me break it down a

little bit. The backlog in Abbotsford, for example, is six weeks. In Port Coquitlam, it's

zero. In Surrey, it's four. In Courtenay, it's two weeks. In Cranbrook, it's zero. In

Kelowna, it's four. In Nelson, it's zero. And there are some others that are closer to the

13. I certainly don't deny that. But it isn't as if it's across the entire system. The 13

weeks, rather, is the worst-case scenario.

K. Krueger: Apparently five months was the worst-case scenario not that long

ago. I think it's Patti Stockton's good efforts that brought the situation around --

noting that disparity between offices. Ms. Stockton did indicate to us that there is some

transfer of files from offices that are overloaded to offices that are caught up. I would

hate to hark back to my personal previous history too much, but ICBC dealt with this

problem years ago by initiating a dial-a-claim service where the input's accepted at one

point, and appointments are made for people at the offices where space exists to

accommodate them. Is that something that this ministry is looking into?

[ Page 12803 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: We can't accept that model entirely, alas, simply because the

offices for employment standards are too far apart. It isn't as if you had them in

communities as regularly and as accessibly as, say, ICBC.

K. Krueger: Yet many of those files probably don't involve necessarily seeing

the complainant -- at least right off the bat. Perhaps that's something the ministry and

the branch could look into and consider, even if the initial stages of the file were

conducted by the office that's caught up. It might provide relief to those harassed

offices and, also, better service to the complainants.

I asked Ms. Stockton for a copy of the procedures manual that is provided to employees.

Her response was that the branch has bookshelves of procedures manuals. It came down to

the fact that there is nothing really concise and helpful to hand to new recruits. It

sounds as though the branch is struggling with the very same problem that business and

investors and job creators are struggling with -- that is, just a paper colossus, a huge

amount of red tape to thrash through, to the point where people are so busy trying to put

out the fire that they're unable to focus on what's causing the fire.

I think that this branch is too under-resourced with the current workload -- especially

if there's no willingness to reduce the regulation -- to ever cope with that problem

itself. Once again, I think that that's a case and an example in point for a

reconsideration of whether all of the regulation is necessary and whether it ought to be

applied to all businesses.

[1545]

I want to read the minister a brief comment from Suromitra Sanatani, the chair of the

Coalition of B.C. Businesses, who says:

"I am writing to commend both . . . [the minister and the hon.

Advanced Education minister] for the changes announced today which exempt high-technology

industry professionals from certain provisions of the Employment Standards Act" -- as

we discussed earlier. "The Coalition of B.C. Businesses encourages the government to

expand its work with specific industries towards a more flexible approach to employment

standards. In terms of what is really needed to boost the economy and job creation, the

positive steps taken this far are modest, but nonetheless important.

"As well, further to our conversation in Victoria yesterday, we wish to reiterate

our call for more fundamental reforms to the Employment Standards Act aimed at providing

greater flexibility for all industries. The reality of today's economy is that the vast

majority of small and medium-sized businesses in B.C. do not fit into the inflexible

pattern envisioned in the current act and its regulations.

"The success of these businesses and their ability to create and sustain jobs

depends on the ability of individual employers to create mutually beneficial, flexible

workplace standards with their employees. Businesses where work patterns are

customer-driven, highly entrepreneurial, seasonal or project-oriented are being hampered

by many of the rigidities in provisions governing hours of work, overtime, minimal

call-ins and statutory holidays.

"This issue is a top priority for B.C.'s small and medium-sized businesses.

Inflexible labour legislation is widely recognized as an impediment to new business growth

and our province's economic renewal. Broader-based employment standards reforms are

absolutely essential to allowing small and medium-sized businesses and their employees to

reach their true potential.

"We strongly disagree with the claim that flexible standards somehow mean lower

standards. The continuing decline in B.C.'s rate of job creation in the private sector

over the past number of years is ample evidence that inflexible labour legislation is

hurting the ability of B.C. businesses to compete and to create the jobs that support

families and local communities. It is time for the government to work with small and

medium-sized businesses to create the policy climate that will help reverse this

trend."

Ms. Sanatani goes on to express hope that the Coalition of B.C. Businesses will be

hearing from the minister in a positive way with regard to those requests. Judging by the

answers thus far today, there doesn't seem to have been much movement. That letter was

written in February, and we're now three months and a little bit past that. Did the letter

initiate any response that the minister hasn't talked about today?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member opposite covered a lot of ground, so let me deal with

each of the points briefly.

First of all, on the matter of one office getting overloaded and all of that . . .

. What we do, as a matter of course, is ship files out to other offices. If, in

fact, there is a major backlog in one, then it is commonplace to ship them elsewhere.

That's one way of dealing with . . . . Also, just to clarify for the record,

it isn't the complainant that staff would typically see. Rather, it's the employer. They

will go and visit the worksite where the complaint originated.

Regarding the matter of information for new recruits, certainly there are efforts to

brief and to provide people with that basic training. But I would just point out to the

member that it's incredibly complicated and difficult, because people in the employment

standards branch have to deal with every sector of the economy. That means, of course,

learning a whole bunch of different rules and procedures. It's not one simple job that you

can get and then it's the end of your training kind of thing.

I also want to respond -- again, charitably -- to the argument that the member seems to

be presenting. It says that you can't meet the demands -- so he says, and I think I'm

being fair to him -- therefore what you should do is reduce the requirements. I want to

just put a little pressure on the logic of that. I think that's a little bit tricky: if

you can't meet the demands, reduce the requirements. That's sort of being like a teacher

in high school who says: "You know what? Nobody in this class learned to do

multiplication. But they all aced addition. They can all do addition, and they can even do

division. So guess what. The next test we do, we're going to make sure that they don't

have to do multiplication." That's the problem with that argument. Sure, we aren't

meeting all of the demands for service as well as we would like, but to suggest that the

solution to the problem is to change the rules of the game, I think, is questionable -- to

say the least.

[1550]

Regarding Suromitra Sanatani and the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, I have met with

Suromitra and her colleagues on a number of occasions. We have also exchanged

correspondence. The reference to inflexible labour legislation in her letter . . . .

I would simply point out that I don't think that is the case. I don't think the record

bears that out. Indeed, insofar as employment standards are concerned, there are a number

of options currently available under the legislation to employers who are seeking greater

flexibility in employment standards. For example, they can request a variance from the

employment standards branch, they can make application to the tribunal for an exclusion,

they can participate in the ministry's informal sector negotiation process. We are trying

to do our very best not to be absolutely inflexible. I think the important point is that

we have sent a clear message to all: "Yeah, we will try to work with you."

However, when somebody

[ Page 12804 ]

comes in and says, "These are the demands. We want an end to minimum wage. We do

not think that there should be a minimal call-out period," or something, then

obviously the room for negotiation is not sufficient to bother having a negotiation.

K. Krueger: With regard to the minister characterizing the opposition's argument

in that way, I put it to him that what we are saying is: "Trust the majority. Deal

with the exceptions." We wish that this government would stop this failed approach of

imposing an encyclopedia of rules across the board. It didn't work in the forest industry

with the Forest Practices Code, and it doesn't work with regard to employment, through the

Employment Standards Act.

The way Ms. Sanatani put it in that letter she sent to the minister on February 5, 1999 .

. . . Speaking for the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, Ms. Sanatani said: "We

strongly disagree with the claim that flexible standards somehow mean lower

standards." Neither the Coalition of B.C. Businesses nor the B.C. Liberals are urging

low standards, rather accommodation and flexibility and sensitivity to the needs of

workers and their employers and the opportunity for people to be able to work among

themselves and arrive at mutually satisfactory work situations, rather than imposing

regulations and thereby becoming so tied up in red tape that neither the branch itself nor

the employers feel able to get their real work done.

The minister mentioned variances. One of the statistics that Ms. Stockton gave us was

that wait times for variances to be processed tend to be between one and 13 weeks. I

wonder if the minister considers that to be an acceptable time frame.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, that isn't an acceptable time. But I would offer this to the

member opposite. If, indeed, those sectors would come to us with a concerted presentation,

as opposed to individual employers, then obviously we could probably deal with the concern

more expeditiously than we may be doing at the moment.

I also want to just note that the exceptions -- to use the member's term -- are those

who come to Employment Standards. There are approximately 190,000 employers in this

province. We get about 17,000 complaints to the employment standards branch. I would put

it to the member that those are indeed the exceptions rather than the rule. The category

we're talking about, in fact, already establishes the category the member thinks we should

be talking about.

Second, I would point out that everything the coalition has asked for is in fact a

relaxation of existing standards. They may not see that as in any way prejudicial to the

interest of workers, but the fact is that it's a relaxation of employment standards.

[1555]

K. Krueger: Yet there may well be good and valid reasons for those relaxations, and

they may well be negotiated between those employers and those employees for value in other

areas, just as unions do in negotiating collective agreements.

The statistics the minister quoted in that last answer suggest that less than 10

percent of the businesses of British Columbia are creating the problems. My point

throughout this stage of our estimates debates has been that it would make more sense to

concentrate on those than on the other 90 percent. If they are able to deliver good

results and their employees are happy across the board and no complaints are being

generated by them, then why not free them up to explore new ways to do business in 1999

and into the next century, rather than subject them to these constraints? It's not

something to be feared to allow different standards. It doesn't mean they'll be lower

standards, and apparently those 90 percent-plus of B.C. employers aren't the kind that

abuse their employees or take advantage, because they're not generating complaints. So I

think, in a way, the minister has helped me make my point: that it would make sense to

provide for the very flexibility that Ms. Sanatani is asking for, and that in fact she's

right. We're not looking for lower standards; we're looking for flexibility.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I guess one person's flexibility is another person's lower

standards. I think maybe we simply have to agree to disagree on this.

I want to point out to the member two things, though. Number one, he said: "Why

can't we simply sit down and negotiate that?" I would point out that that's an option

that every employer has with her or his employees -- to sit down and say: "Look, what

can we agree to? Do you want to meet me partway?" That's how unions get formed.

Frequently they can work out collective agreements in which Employment Standards obviously

doesn't enter the picture, because they have set up their own agreement which they

consider as preferable. Employment Standards, generally speaking, kicks in if and only if

there isn't a collective agreement. So that's one point.

Second, I want to simply, again for the record, remind the member of this: the most

common complaints to Employment Standards come from the very sector that Ms. Sanatani and

her colleagues are usually coming to talk to me about, and that's restaurants. That's

where most of the complaints about violations of employment standards originate from. I

don't think we want to get into the action of sharing horror stories, but believe me, I

could tell the member some.

I want to remind him of the fact that employees who aren't protected by a collective

agreement, who only have that legislation and that branch out there, are frequently scared

spitless, especially in an economy where jobs are not that plentiful. They will take

things from an employer and from a workplace that they shouldn't, by any rational

calculus, but they don't want to say anything for fear of losing their job. That's a

commonplace thing. Young kids who go to school and who don't get paid -- they're not going

to say anything, because they need the part-time work. Those are common, common phenomena,

alas, in our society.

Employment Standards is there to try and protect those interests, the interests of

those people. It doesn't do it, perhaps, as well as it should. I wish we had more

resources to ensure . . . . I wish that more people were indeed fairer and

more sensitive to the needs of their workers, but the reality is that the workplace is,

sadly, frequently a place of exploitation, a place of abuse. What Employment Standards is

designed to do is to prevent that as much as possible and also to punish those people who

are guilty of abusing their workers.

K. Krueger: Referring back to the beginning of the minister's answer, why should

it be necessary for employees to join a union to have a right to sit down with their

employer and arrange alternative provisions to those spelled out in the

[ Page 12805 ]

Employment Standards Act? Why should it be necessary to join a union for that?

[1600]

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I think the reality is that employees, unless they do band

together to protect their own interests by forming a union, generally speaking, history

tells us, aren't treated very seriously. Now, I am prepared to acknowledge that there may

be exceptions -- voluntary associations and so forth that have a good relationship with an

employer. I'm not suggesting for a moment that people in a workplace need to join a union

in order to negotiate something with their employer. I think it's probably preferable, but

they don't have to do that. There are probably some employers out there who have worked

out those kinds of arrangements with their workers. I suspect, however, that they're

decidedly a minority.

K. Krueger: Is the intent of the Employment Standards Act, then, to advance the

cause of the unionization of the workforce in B.C.?

Hon. D. Lovick: No.

K. Krueger: Well, the minister and I see the world from very different vantage

points, obviously. That's the way it looks to people in British Columbia who have to work

with this massive rule book, against their wishes and those of their employees, and that's

the way it looks to me.

We'll leave the employment standards branch now, unless the minister would care to make

a further comment. I'd like to discuss the Labour Relations Board. But I'll give the

minister an opportunity, if he wishes, to discuss that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, the employment standards branch is designed, as I

say, to protect those individuals who are, generally speaking, the least advantaged and

the poorest paid in our society. If we lived in a more perfect world where all employers

were kind and understanding and said, "We will pay you everything we owe; we will

treat you with dignity and with respect," then two things would happen. Number one,

probably we wouldn't need employment standards legislation -- and I suppose, conceivably,

we would also not need trade unions. The reality, however, is that the workplace, alas, is

too often one in which the unequal power relationship turns into a position where the ones

with the most power tend to exploit and take advantage of those with less power.

The state's recognition, the state's decision for over a hundred years in this country,

is that there ought to be some minimal standards that people should be allowed to be

protected by so they will not be exploited. That's why every province in this country has

employment standards legislation and why the federal government has legislation. It is a

minimal standard -- I want to emphasize that -- and certainly not the standard where .

. . . I don't think any of us would want our children to be thinking about having a

career in a workplace governed only by employment standards legislation.

K. Krueger: I'm not attempting to have the last word here. But if we have a

situation where there is such onerous regulation, such tight control, that over 90 percent

of the employers in British Columbia are identified as good employers who don't generate

complaints, yet they're locked into this, and the employees of the other 8 or 9 percent --

whatever it works out to -- have a 13-week wait or previously a five-month wait to have

their complaints dealt with, the credibility of government suffers. And that's not a good

thing for any of us.

The Labour Relations Board -- another issue of credibility. The board was hugely

well-respected 12 years ago. Former Premier Bill Vander Zalm made his radical moves and

his mistakes with regard to the LRB, and the NDP, in the minds of many people, have made

the situation worse by swinging the pendulum in the way that they have swung it.

In the wrap-up to this ministry's estimates last year -- July 29, 1998 -- this minister

had these comments with regard to the impartiality of the Labour Relations Board: " .

. . if it is perceived to be otherwise" -- than impartial -- "by too many

people, we have a problem. We need to address that, and I propose to do that." Those

were almost his last words before summing up that the people of the province had been well

served by the debate, and I think they had been. But issues about the perceived partiality

of the Labour Relations Board had been raised during those estimates, and they've

continued to be raised ever since.

[1605]

There's a whole different atmosphere around the Labour Relations Board and labour

relations issues in this province than there was 12 years ago. And there's an urgent need

for action to restore the credibility of the LRB -- dramatic action. There's perceived to

be a lack of knowledge in the LRB compared to the way things used to be and certainly a

lack of balance. We've seen a judge, Judge Ian Pitfield, criticize the chair of the LRB,

Mr. Keith Oleksiuk, and ban him from a dispute that he had involved himself in --

obviously improperly in the judge's view.

We had a report by Mr. Brent Mullin, which I know the minister had made comment about

in the media -- first in one direction, then slightly the other. But obviously it was a

report that concerned the minister at the time. The report -- it's entitled "Towards

a Progressive Labour Relations Board" -- says:

"In particular, the board has alienated the employer community. The board has

itself thereby created the circumstances and pressure for potentially yet another pendulum

swing in British Columbia labour law and legislation."

Breaking off the quote there for a moment, I want to go on record that the B.C.

Liberals have no intention of a violent pendulum swing in this area. We're already on

record with the changes that we have committed to make. We're not looking for violent

pendulum swings, and indeed it's within the power of this minister to correct the problems

we're talking about here during his time as minister.

Mr. Mullin went on to say:

"Given the importance of labour relations to the businesses, employees and economy

of British Columbia, this demonstrated inadequacy of the board needs to be addressed. The

failure of the board in fact arises from basic structural and other fundamental matters .

. . "

He lists them:

" . . . the composition of the board; the integrity of the board's

adjudicative processes -- clouded by the use of board positions to develop arbitration

careers; the independence of the adjudicators -- recently interfered with by the executive

of the board through the reappointment process; and the need for vision and leadership at

the board. These matters need to be addressed. They should have the benefit of the full

discussion and input of the community."

[ Page 12806 ]

There have been editorials to that effect -- and not just one. We see them in the

leading publications of this province. I see the minister smiles, but certainly I think we

all pay attention to what editors suggest when they see this kind of news crossing their

desks. The Province editorial of December 1, 1998, for example, summed up this way:

" 'In addition to creating an apprehension of bias, the fact that Mr. Oleksiuk

entertained representations from one of the parties and imparted those representations to

a vice-chair without hearing from the other party constituted a departure from the

requirement that all parties be heard,' said the judge.

"It's one of the many reasons why B.C.'s" -- this is no longer quoting the

judge; this is the editorial comment -- "business community lacks confidence in the

board. Our Labour Code says the chair cannot be removed until such time as someone brings

an act or resolution before the Legislature. Labour minister . . . " --

and the minister is named -- " . . . that time is now."

That really wasn't a new point of view. On May 22, 1998, the same paper had started its

lead editorial this way: "To understand why entrepreneurs and investors are skittish

about hanging up their coats in B.C., we need look no further than our union-cosy leader

at the labour board."

The Vancouver Sun editorial of November 6, 1998, sums up this way:

"Employers have been demanding for months that . . . " -- again,

the minister -- " . . . shake up the LRB. [His] response, which he gave

again this week, is to say he is concerned by the allegations and will look into the

situation. History suggests he will do nothing. But if the government wanted to signal it

is listening to the business community, it would replace Mr. Oleksiuk."

[1610]

Well, last year an internal committee of the Labour Relations Board, made up of the

chair and two associate chairs, recommended that the appointment of two vice chairs not be

renewed. The two vice-chairs in question were Brent Mullin and Brigid Lumholst-Smith. Both

of these vice-chairs had come from the employer side in the labour relations community and

were known as strong representatives of the employers' viewpoint at the Labour Relations

Board. The committee recommended that their appointments not be renewed, on the basis that

they had each already served two consecutive three-year terms and the board needed

renewal. The employer community suspected otherwise and protested that the appointments of

these two vice-chairs were not being renewed because they had resisted some of the efforts

by the chair of the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Keith Oleksiuk, to issue decisions which

tilted the LRB jurisprudence towards the unions. Despite these protests, the Minister of

Labour accepted the recommendations and did not renew those two appointments.

I understand that an internal committee of the Labour Relations Board recently decided

that it would recommend to the Minister of Labour that the appointment of Hans Brown,

another vice-chair, not be renewed. Mr. Brown, as is commonly known, is an NDP insider and

formerly a member of the NDP provincial executive, who I believe had his terms at the LRB

split by a shot at election as an NDP candidate. Will the minister heed the recommendation

of the Labour Relations Board and not renew the appointment of Hans Brown?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thought that the member was in fact going to ask me for Keith

Oleksiuk's resignation, but instead he is now asking me to accept Keith Oleksiuk's

recommendation about some resignation other than Oleksiuk's resignation. He is in fact

asking me to accept Keith Oleksiuk's recommendation. Is that correct? On the one hand, he

effectively says that we should get rid of the chair of the Labour Relations Board, but

then he is also asking me to accept a recommendation of the chair. Is that correct?

K. Krueger: We haven't talked about what the minister should do with Mr.

Oleksiuk yet. I thought we would deal with the issue of Mr. Brown first. And certainly if

the minister would rather deal with the issue of whether Mr. Oleksiuk ought to remain at

the helm first, I'd invite him to do that. So either or both, one at a time or together,

Mr. Minister -- through the Chair: what do you intend to do about these gentlemen?

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, all I can tell the member at the moment is: wait and see.

He'll find out in the fullness of time, as the parliamentary phrase goes.

I want to simply point out, though, that I don't believe that it's appropriate at all

to be talking about people by name in this chamber and suggesting that they should or

should not be appointed to any given position because of the political membership card

they happen to be carrying. I think that's a dangerous practice.

K. Krueger: If the situation had been dealt with prior to these estimates, we

wouldn't be dealing with it here. It was the minister who brought up the question of Mr.

Oleksiuk's future when I was asking about Mr. Brown, but certainly I'm concerned about

both of them. I remind the minister of his commitment on July 29, 1998: " . . . if

it is perceived to be otherwise" -- than impartial -- "by too many people, we

have a problem. We need to address that, and I propose to do that."

We've already experienced the fullness of time. People throughout this province think

it's long past time that this situation was dealt with. I would like the minister's

assurance that these issues are going to be dealt with promptly in order that credibility

can be restored to the Labour Relations Board.

Hon. D. Lovick: Two points. The first one is that the member should not retreat

from the point he started to make about the chair of the board. He read into the record a

number of things suggesting that I as the minister was remiss because I hadn't replaced

the chair of the board, and then when I ask him if that's what he's advocating, he seems

to run for cover. I don't think that's, quite frankly, appropriate. Better to fess up, it

seems to me.

[1615]

Regarding the second point, the substantive point about the impartiality of the board,

what I said about a year ago I think was correct. I think it is still correct today --

namely, that there is a problem if the board is perceived not to be impartial. I accept

that. The problem we have, however, is how you fix it. The difficulty is that the

challenge about impartiality, the challenge of bias, comes from both sides. That's the

predicament. It isn't the case that it is only one group of people who are arguing that

Mr. Oleksiuk, the current chair of the Labour Relations Board, is biased and that he is

pro-labour. Rather, I could give the member a very large stack of complaints from labour,

accusing Mr. Oleksiuk and the board of being pro-business. My conclusion, when I look at

all of those files and consider all the arguments that are presented -- including Brent

Mullin's paper, which I read carefully after my first

[ Page 12807 ]

interview . . . . Then I gave another one based on some knowledge of the

thing. My conclusion essentially is that there is a problem. There is a problem with

perceived bias, but the problem is that both parties in the debate perceive that the bias

is against them. The conclusion to that is probably that the board is carrying out its

duties somewhere in the middle, where it ought to be.

K. Krueger: I suggest to the minister that the conclusion is that if neither

side is happy with these two individuals, which is my understanding as well . . . .

If a judge has had to criticize the chair of the LRB for inappropriate behaviour, it's

hardly a situation where it's not obvious what the decision could be. I hope the minister

isn't telling British Columbia -- telling this House -- that he intends to leave things as

they are, because it just is not acceptable.

My impression is that Mr. Oleksiuk is bunkered down and trying to ride this situation

out, that neither the unions nor the management side wishes to appear before Mr. Brown and

that it's urgent that the minister deal with not just this perception but the reality that

the Labour Relations Board is not impartial with these people in position. They should be

removed. There is a recommendation from the LRB with regard to Mr. Brown. That's why I

asked about it first. Will the minister comment on his intentions with regard to Mr.

Brown?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe, Mr. Chairman, I already answered that question. I

said that time will tell what we will do. I'm not about to say what I propose to do or not

do about that reappointment, or that possible reappointment.

I want to make two points, though. The first is that the court case the member refers

to . . . . I think that for the record and for the public interest it should

be noted that the court suggested that the overall impartiality of the tribunal -- the

labour relations tribunal -- was not compromised in that case. It is true that they

pointed to the chair and said that what he had done was inappropriate, but they also

underscored the point that the overall impartiality of the tribunal had not been

compromised by that case. I think that's worth noting.

The second point I would make is just that I am not aware of any complaints by anybody

involved in dealing with the Labour Relations Board about the judgments or the

impartiality of Mr. Brown. I have never heard any of those. I have certainly heard them

about other members of the Labour Relations Board.

K. Krueger: Whether they're questions of judgment or whether they're questions

of competence, if there are concerns about the LRB being able to do its job, I am sure

they're concerns that are reaching the minister's ears. Certainly they've reached mine.

The entire labour relations community is looking to him for an early resolution. It's

absolutely essential that this board have credibility.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: When the minister says, "What?" I suggest that the

solution is replacement of the two individuals we've been discussing. If you have a

problem with the leadership, if you have a problem with a judge having suggested that the

leader behaved inappropriately . . . . Normally one would expect a leader to

consider resigning voluntarily in that situation. If that isn't done, then the minister

has the power of appointment and should deal with the situation.

[1620]

Of course, this whole question and concern of the partiality of the Labour Relations

Board is part of a larger picture of a labour relations climate which investors and job

creators in this province believe has been heavily slanted in favour of the union

positions. One very pertinent example of that is the provisions under the Labour Relations

Code for certification versus the provisions for decertification. Under this government's

Labour Relations Code, if a union is able to get 55 percent of the employees at a

workplace to sign union cards, the union is automatically certified without a vote.

However, if 55 percent of the employees subsequently sign an application for a

cancellation of the union certification, the board does not automatically decertify the

union. This concern has been profiled so many times that I know it has come to the

minister's ears. Perhaps he would comment on that very clear example of why British

Columbians believe that an obvious double standard exists with regard to the code itself

and the LRB.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the predicament is that the question is a complex one. I

would simply say, for the moment, that I think if the member were to review the

literature, he would discover that . . . . I shouldn't say that he would

discover; he perhaps knows already. He would come to the same conclusion that I, and most,

do -- namely, the comparison between the certification and the decertification is a false

comparison. Right? They aren't the same. When you decide to join something, you're taking

a positive action. You're committing to do something for the future. When you decertify,

you can get petitions, I suppose, that can be in the heat of the moment or something, and

people will say: " Well, maybe we can scare them or something by raising the issue

that we're unhappy."

Again, as I say, the issue is rather complex. Suffice it to say for the moment that I

think most people in the trade would agree they're entirely different, and therefore

perhaps different rules pertain.

K. Krueger: Speaking of what is done in the heat of the moment, let's talk about

certification for a moment -- particularly the certification of small businesses in

British Columbia. My understanding is that it happens about once a day, on average, in

British Columbia at present that an employer experiences certification.

The time lines are very tight. The provisions against the employer speaking to its

employees during that time are very onerous. Things happen so quickly that in the case of

a small business severely under-resourced in comparison to the large union it may be

dealing with, it's a David-and-Goliath situation, and certification can happen almost

before the employer knows it. That is, again, perceived as an example of how biased the

labour laws are in this province. Has the minister given consideration to expanding the

time frames available to an employer to deal with a certification process?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no, I have not done that. Indeed, I understand the

time frame is essentially consistent all across Canada.

K. Krueger: My intent is to proceed with a line of questioning with regard to

the implementation of the provisions of

[ Page 12808 ]

Bill 26 since the legislation was passed last summer. However, I had a commitment from

the minister that when the staff who weren't available yesterday to deal with the GVW

issue under ICBC were here, we would proceed with that. So I'm at the minister's pleasure,

at the moment, as to which matter we proceed with and when.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for that intervention. My understanding is

that we will probably do so a little bit later. What I suspect is happening is that

somebody is watching this debate. Some poor soul who doesn't have a life, I guess, is

watching what we are discussing here. Therefore they will take what we are saying into

account, and we'll say that we are ready whenever they wish to be here. I'll simply advise

the member when I get some word from outside that somebody is available, and we can deal

with it then.

[1625]

K. Krueger: Certainly that's fine. If there are people who watch Hansard

television, they must wonder what we're talking about sometimes. It's like invoking the Phantom

of the Opera. But we'll look forward to the arrival of this resource.

Before I move on to the fallout from Bill 26, I'd like to quote from Ms. Sanatani again

with regard to the impartiality of the Labour Relations Board. Hopefully, the minister is

already thoroughly familiar with this. A survey was done of B.C. businesses, and the

outcome was that there is an impression of bias on the part of B.C. businesses who've had

to do with the Labour Relations Board. I'm quoting from Ms. Sanatani's

article summarizing

the survey. She says: "The survey found a majority of small and medium-sized

businesses feel they are getting biased treatment at the LRB. Of the 200 businesses

interviewed, 53 percent said their hearing process lacked neutrality. One-fifth said the

LRB was 'not neutral at all.' " That's 20 percent.

She says: "Imagine running your business with the slogan 'Shop here! Half our

customers are dissatisfied.' " She goes on to say: "Because smaller businesses

lack the resources of bigger firms, making the LRB more efficient and less costly should

be a priority." I think that is manifestly true. "The survey also found numerous

complaints that the LRB should do a better job of keeping small employers informed about

its policies, procedures and processes." Skipping forward, she says: "The root

of the problem is a fundamental imbalance in the labour law itself and the need for a more

balanced vision of B.C.'s labour laws."

In summing up, she says: "The time has also come to give employers greater freedom

to communicate to employees about the potential impacts unionization would have on their

businesses. The government's tilting of the balance of B.C.'s labour laws since 1993 has

paralleled the decline in the provincial economy. A more balanced approach is needed to

restore economic confidence, investments and jobs." Going back to an earlier part of

her editorial, Ms. Sanatani said: " . . . any perception of bias, whether

felt by a small business person, a union or a worker, is unacceptable. The system should

be 100 percent neutral."

Referring back to the established goals of this ministry and the key strategies,

strategy B and goal B was promoting a prosperous economy that creates jobs and enhances

workers' ability to balance work and family responsibilities. Here we have the chair of

the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, who is also the vice-president for B.C. and Yukon of the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business, telling us that the government's tilting of

the balance of B.C.'s labour laws since 1993 has paralleled the decline in the provincial

economy. How does the minister respond to that?

Hon. D. Lovick: I was sort of expecting a question about the survey some time

ago. Indeed, I thought it might even make it into question period, but alas, it never did.

This is the second survey that Ms. Sanatani and her colleagues have released. In this

case, the sample they used was somewhat smaller, and I'll leave it for those witnessing

this debate to decide why that is the case. The Labour Relations Board provided the

coalition with a list of more than 1,000 employers who would have had some kind of

dealings with the LRB in the sample year.

The coalition then, I understand, mailed questionnaires to these firms. They received

200 in reply. Most people who are in the survey business agree that a mail-back

methodology is inherently biased, simply because those who return the mail in surveys are

generally those with the most concerns. Those concerns, needless to say, are usually of a

negative variety. Obviously then, given that methodology, it's not too difficult to

predict the result. Indeed, we had the same results on the last survey.

[1630]

Given Suromitra Sanatani's stated position on numerous occasions in the press and

various editorials and letters that I have read, it seems to be the same theme repeated

many, many times. I would point out, though, that the people that are being surveyed are

those who have effectively been dealing with the Labour Relations Board, feeling that they

are threatened with being unionized or feeling that somebody else -- i.e., in this case,

the LRB or government -- is interfering with their right to manage their business as they

wish. Inevitably, those people are going to regard the LRB with less than enthusiasm and

complete approval.

I think it's absolutely fair to say -- and I'm not pointing the finger; I'm simply

describing the logical calculus -- that the majority of people surveyed, given that

methodology and given that audience, are very likely to be those who don't have a great

deal good and complimentary to say about the Labour Relations Board. So why are we

surprised? Indeed, I would say that if we were to give a survey to all the trade unions

that lost decisions -- in other words, the board decision went against them -- I'm sure

that many of those would also be quite prepared to suggest that there's something wrong

with the LRB; it's not serving their needs very well.

Finally, I would just make the point . . . . Well, not finally; there's one

other point I want to make too. I would also note that results obviously depend on the

nature of the questions asked and precisely how those questions are framed. I haven't seen

those questions, so I'm not about to accuse anybody, but I suspect that the questions are

indeed framed in a way that it's pretty clear what answer is being solicited.

Finally, I would note this -- and it's a point we made not very long ago, too. One

conclusion that I take from this survey and indeed from conversations that I have had with

various people on both sides of the divide is that there is a climate of polarization in

this province, alas. I'm disturbed by that, because I don't think we benefit much from it.

Rather, I'm committed to doing what we can to foster cooperation between employers and

employees, because I think that's

[ Page 12809 ]

something that in the long as well as in the short term will be better for all of us.

K. Krueger: Given the minister's obvious suspicions about the survey and how the

sample was chosen and how the sample chose whether to respond or not and how the questions

were phrased, and recognizing the fact that the Labour Relations Board is a tremendously

important institution in this province and that it certainly has a list of everybody it

has dealt with and certainly has the resources and the technology, has the Labour

Relations Board, then, done its own survey about customer satisfaction, if we can refer to

it as such?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not aware of that.

K. Krueger: I wonder if we might have the minister's commitment to order that

that be done, preferably by an independent party, and to make the results public. I've

come in contact with so many interesting people while having this portfolio. Some of them

have been international trade lawyers who tell me that their clients who come to them for

their expert opinion on the many considerations of bringing their money to British

Columbia and setting up business will ask them, at the point of the interview where they

deal with labour laws and the fact that they could be certified by 55 percent of people

signing a card without ever having a vote and without being able to hear from their

employers about the employers' side of the proposition . . . . Those clients

will say: "Why would anybody do business in this province?" And that's a

concern.

If that concern is fortified by lawyers in good conscience having to say to those

international clients, "We see the LRB as a tremendously biased organization, and

frankly, we can't give you any hope or comfort that you're going to be treated fairly

there," then we have a gigantic problem. We know that. I think, again, that the

minister, for all his admirable zeal to defend the people and organizations that he

chooses to defend, nevertheless accepts that the perceived non-balance in labour law and

its application in British Columbia is hurting this economy.

So would the minister consider ordering a survey to be done where he has no such qualms

about the methodology or the delivery?

[1635]

Hon. D. Lovick: The matter of the survey first, Mr. Chairman. The LRB is not

involved in a business providing a service where customer satisfaction is paramount. It's

not like ICBC, for instance, or any other provision of goods and services. It is, rather,

involved in an adversarial system. It puts itself between two opposing forces. Its job is

to say: "One side, we agree with; the other, we disagree with." Accordingly

then, it's not about to make too many friends. The best we can hope for is that people

will believe they have been treated fairly. My experience is that most people, when the

decision goes against them, will find it difficult to say they have been treated fairly.

They would rather believe that somebody didn't really hear them or unders