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)

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 20

[ Page 13265 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Campbell: Today we have with us in the gallery three very special people: Dr. and Mrs. Kalman Joseph Roller and Mr. Geza Benko. Dr. Roller has just received an honorary doctorate of science from the University of British Columbia in recognition of his outstanding achievements as a scientist and as an educator, both here in British Columbia and at the Sopron forestry school in his home country of Hungary.

Dr. Roller came to British Columbia in 1957, fleeing the tyranny and turmoil of the Hungarian revolution, bringing with him almost 200 of his faculty, students and their family members. He came to the only country that would accept his entire faculty; he came to Canada. These students were allowed to complete their studies in their own mother tongue within the faculty of forestry at UBC. Dr. Roller continued on as the dean of the Sopron division of forestry within UBC's forestry faculty.

I should say, hon. Speaker, that Dr. Roller also brought along four excellent sons, two of whom played soccer with me on a regular basis and seemed to kick the ball past me more than I kicked it past them. I also want to say that it's great to see that Dr. Roller has been honoured for his perseverance, for his integrity and for his exceptional contribution to British Columbia, to Canada and to Hungary. I hope we'll make him welcome.

W. Hartley: Today we have a group of young visitors, some 30 grade 6 students, and ten adults and their teacher, Ms. Wilson. They're from Crystal Springs Elementary School, Bothell, Washington. Would members please welcome them.

J. Wilson: On Saturday I attended the funeral services of William Speare. Mr. Speare was the MLA for the Cariboo from 1957 until 1966. I would ask the Speaker to send condolences to his family on behalf of all members.

[1410]

The Speaker: As the Speaker I will be happy to do that on behalf of all members of the assembly. Thank you very much, member, for bringing that to our attention.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PRIVATE SECTOR ECONOMIC ADVICE

G. Campbell: Seven months ago the Premier announced his so-called economic A team. Then, last November, the business community across B.C. came together to prepare a blueprint for economic recovery. Today the business summit, representing 45 business groups and 95 percent of all private sector workers in British Columbia, graded the work of this government. The so-called A team got a whole bunch of Fs: an F in fiscal policy, an F in employment policy, an F in land use issues. It turns out that this is another NDP broken promise. This is no A team; this is the F troop.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Won't she admit that her government is bankrupt of ideas and that she doesn't have a clue about how to reverse all the damage that the NDP has done to B.C.'s families?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are different ways to stimulate the economy; there's no question about that. There is disagreement . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . in this province about how our economy should grow in the future. Our government has one view about how our economy, in the transition that it is in, should be stimulated and at the same time . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . protect the other values that British Columbians hold in very high regard. I must say that the business summit does not share the values that British Columbians attach to a strong health care system and a strong education system. There are two examples of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: We could have a disagreement around that, and clearly we do, but it is absolutely true that the business summit would have us cut the health care budget by 5 percent; it says that right in the report. Secondly, it would have us increase tuition fees and spend less on education and training. Those are but two disagreements. They're honest disagreements. We are doing everything possible to stimulate the economy and still protect those values that are held just as highly by British Columbians.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: It is staggering to hear a Minister of Finance say that this government is supposedly doing everything possible when our economy is in recession, when thousands of people are out of work, when 95 percent of the private sector employers in this province have said: "You are failing, you are failing. You are failing the families of British Columbia." Everybody in British Columbia wants an excellent education system and a health care system they can depend on. But most people understand that the only way to protect education and health care is through a strong private sector economy.

Just six months ago this Minister of Finance said that the business summit had come up with some constructive suggestions. Why does she always ignore the constructive suggestions of those who can make our economy work and fail the families of British Columbia instead?

Hon. J. MacPhail: What is very clear today is that this Liberal opposition supports massive -- over $1.5 billion -- tax

[ Page 13266 ]

cuts for corporations and the rich at the expense of health care and education. That's exactly the difference between the way we are choosing to assist the economy and what the business summit is asking for; that is the single most important difference. That opposition would cut taxes for the rich and large corporations by $1.5 billion, and they would have to cut health care and education spending in order to do it.

[1415]

We disagree with that. There are other ways. There have been other ways that we've invested in the economy, with great success. The member for Peace River North over there would have to agree that what we've done with targeted tax cuts for the oil and gas industry is working. Those members from Richmond . . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister. Finish up, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . would have to agree that what we've done for the film industry is working -- and more importantly, for tourism. We will continue to work. We will not sacrifice our health care and education system.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: It's interesting that the minister stands up and says that targeted tax cuts work. You know what? Tax cuts for the families of British Columbia will work too. This government's jobs and timber accord is a failure. This government's fast ferry fiasco -- and mismanagement of B.C. Ferries -- has been a failure. This government's budget, year after year after year, has been a failure. Its economic record is a failure.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: why does this government continue to ignore any positive suggestions from the private sector -- who can get the economy moving, who can support public education and health care -- and carry on this road to ruin that they've laid out over the last decade?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is actually much that we do agree on with the business summit, and there's much that we've delivered on. Unfortunately, they forgot to report on that, and I feel badly about that. The small business tax rate in British Columbia is now the lowest west of Ontario . . . . No! I think it's the lowest west of Quebec. We have done that. We have done much to assist the forest industry through its transition, and in the quiet moments, there is recognition of that not only by the forest sector but by the employment record and the delivery on the increased production of the industry.

I guarantee you that if this Leader of the Opposition were elected this year or next . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . and gave away $1.5 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy and the corporations, that would not change the Japanese economy one iota. That would not change commodity prices one iota. That would not have one iota of effect on our exports. I guarantee that, and that's why . . . . And at the same time, our health care system would be destroyed, and our education system would not meet the needs of our students.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's why it's important to keep this government in office.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

C. Clark: The Minister of Finance comes up with B.C. Liberal budget numbers the same way she comes up with her own budget numbers. She just makes it up. She invents it out of nowhere -- right? That's how she writes budgets. It was the business summit that said that you had to cut taxes, you had to fix the Labour Code, and you had to get to work balancing the budget. It was this Finance minister who said that they were constructive suggestions . . .

The Speaker: Order, members.

C. Clark: . . . and that she was going to get to work immediately on them. Now, six months later, we've got the report card, and it gives the minister an F in 38 out of 43 subjects. She's going to have to join the remedial math class next year.

The Speaker: Member . . . .

C. Clark: Why is it that this Finance minister said she was going to do something about what the business summit said, when in fact she never, ever had any intention of acting on any of their recommendations?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we will protect labour standards where it makes sense for working people in this province. Yes, we will protect environmental standards and make sure our land use policy meets the needs of everyone in this province. And yes, we will . . .

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . use tax dollars to invest in the future of children and young people in this province through education and training. And yes . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. J. MacPhail: And while doing . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . all of that, we will cut regulation and still protect our standards, unlike the opposition. Every

[ Page 13267 ]

time there comes a call for some way of damaging B.C.'s reputation, damaging B.C.'s economic prospects by denying people the real truth about what a good place B.C. is to invest in . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . the Liberal opposition will spread the rumour-mongering until it actually becomes their own Liberal truth.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're not going to do that. We're going to work in cooperation . . .

The Speaker: Time, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . and move the economy forward.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Well, let's talk about telling the truth. Let's talk about telling the truth about the budgets. Let's talk about telling people the truth about what real tax rates are. Let's talk about telling the truth about the fact that we're in recession and thousands of working British Columbia families are hurting because of what this government has done. Let's talk about that.

Let's talk about the B.C. Business Summit, which says that real after-tax income in British Columbia is down. Let's talk about the fact that the Finance minister stands up and says, "Things are getting better," when real working families have less money to put toward their mortgage and less money to put food on the table for their kids -- much less think about taking their kids on a vacation or something next year. How can the Finance minister stand up and credibly try and argue that things are getting better in British Columbia when working families are really doing far, far worse?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're actually very clear on our agenda. I think it is time for the Liberals to come clean on their agenda.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it's true: they do support the business agenda. That's true. They do support the business summit. They do support a billion and a half dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest in this province and for the large corporations. They do support cutting health care . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . and education. They do not support land use that meets the needs of every British Columbian. They would return to the sympathetic administration of the past. There's no question about that.

We reject that as a business strategy. We have cut taxes for middle- and low-income families. We brought in B.C. Benefits -- the family bonus -- for all low-income people in this province. There's not one helpful suggestion from the opposition. We have changed things. We've reduced ICBC rates. We've reduced B.C. Hydro rates. And still we're not giving enough away to the wealthiest of this province -- which is the Liberal agenda.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will continue, as will our entire caucus continue, to work with the business agenda, but there are many others that have strongly held views . . .

The Speaker: Minister, finish up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . in this province, and we will protect their interests as well.

GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICIES AND YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

B. Penner: Well, here's a helpful suggestion: cut taxes and balance the budget or, if you can't do that, call an election.

The business summit report says . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

B. Penner: . . . "B.C.'s unemployment rate . . . continues to trend above the national average and is also the highest among the provinces west of Quebec." Well, you don't have to tell B.C. students that. Only one-third have jobs this summer, and 6,000 fewer were working last month than in May of 1998. Will the Minister of Finance tell students why her government has pursued policies that will leave them jobless during the summer?

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are investing $34 million in youth employment this year. There are 11,000 more young people working this year than last year.

It's interesting to note in the business summit -- which they hold, I guess, as the Bible now . . . . It's a very important document, and it's very useful. But it is interesting to note that the business summit themselves said that the private sector is not doing nearly enough for employment training and educational opportunities on the job. In fact, they said: "Oh, we haven't had time to assess that, and we'll get around to assessing that." But the private sector isn't doing nearly enough.

We have expanded the opportunities for people to attend university in this province. Ten years ago we had the second-lowest participation rate, and now we have the second-highest participation rate. We used to have the second-highest rates of tuition a decade ago; now we have the second-lowest rates of tuition in this province.

[ Page 13268 ]

There is a real commitment -- through the minimum wage, through training opportunities, through our expanded access to education -- where we're working to give young people the best opportunity possible. It isn't this side of the House that's bankrupt of ideas; it's whatever comes out the morning of the day that is clearly a business agenda for the wealthiest that that opposition sees . . . as they are bankrupt of ideas. That's why it's important that we stay on this side of the House.

The Speaker: Members, the bell ends question period. I think there is a ministerial report.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: I'd like to table the 1997-98 annual report for the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Petitions

R. Neufeld: I present a petition from 303 residents of Tahsis: "We, the undersigned, would like to have the northern living allowance restored to our community of Tahsis, B.C."

I. Chong: I also have a petition -- 33 signatures from citizens of Victoria. The petitioners are opposed to the scheduled gypsy moth aerial spraying program and, specifically, the use of Foray 48B in urban areas. I would also like to mention that this petition of 33 signatures is signed by more than 25 University of Victoria scientists.

Speaker's Statement

The Speaker: Members, I have a statement that I would like to present.

I have had the opportunity to review the Blues of second reading debate on Bill 58 during last Thursday afternoon's sitting. The debate generated considerable heat and emotion with, at times, unparliamentary language from both sides of the House. The exchanges included personal attacks by both sides of the House, culminating in inappropriate remarks on a ruling of the Chair by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson with respect to relevance in debate.

The standing orders and the practice of this House are clear that no debate should be permitted on any decisions of the Chair, nor adverse comments thereon. The House must be protected from reflections on the Chair. It is the Speaker's duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate and to intervene when necessary. The Chair cannot allow unparliamentary language and behaviour, as was witnessed last Thursday, from either side of the House. I ask all members, from both sides of the House, to refrain from using personal allusions and to use restraint in characterizing the nature and actions of the members of this House.

[1430]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 58, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 1999; and in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading continued)

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to continue this debate on Bill 58 this afternoon with my support of the bill. Bill 58 is indeed a very important bill for a whole host of reasons, but there's one in particular that I want to delve into somewhat for the far-reaching implications that it has. Bill 58, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, changes the definition of spouse to include a person of the same gender -- a person who has lived in a marriage-like relationship with another person of the same sex for at least a two-year period.

In other words, Bill 58 extends pension benefits to the private pension plans. This is another huge step being taken by this government towards full equality for gays and lesbians in the province of British Columbia.

Last year, in a very large step well ahead of anyone else in this country, this government extended pension plans for same-sex couples to the public sector, including teachers, public service workers, college instructors and all municipal workers. This was the first of its kind in this country, and obviously a historic move. This year, again, it's clearly another historic move as the government now extends rights to more than a thousand private pension plans.

We're going to do this once again this year, despite the Liberal opposition. Once again the opposition has chosen to try to derail legislation which will advance full equality for gays and lesbians. Once again the opposition has shown its colours. It purports to be a friend of the gay and lesbian community, yet continually fights any progressive legislation that's brought forward. The official opposition always seems to find any means possible to fight the legislation that's been brought forward which advances equality for gays and lesbians.

This time there's a new twist -- by not even dealing directly with the same-sex benefits that are mentioned in the plan. Not one opposition speaker so far has even mentioned it. They have gone out of their way to avoid, out of their way to even mention same-sex. It's as if they can't even say the words. This time they're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in some other

section of the legislation and, at the same time, trying to find some smokescreen to hide the advances in this bill that will be made for the gay and lesbian community.

[1435]

What hypocrisy -- what complete hypocrisy! It's fooling no one. It's not fooling me; it's not fooling the government caucus. It's certainly not fooling the gay and lesbian community, and it's not fooling the public. This ruse is as plain as plain can be. Like the opposition that has been thrown up to the bills in the past two years by this opposition Liberal Party, gays and lesbians and the community won't forget this newest move -- but I'll return to that later, for I want to return to the importance of this legislation for the gay and lesbian community.

This is, as I've already said, another historic piece of legislation in the long, long march to full equality for gays and lesbians. Hon. Speaker, since the NDP was elected in British Columbia, things have turned about completely in society for gays and lesbians, as they are now recognized as full members of society. But to remind you and others of the history -- because now we almost take it for granted -- prior to the NDP forming government, the Liberal predecessors, the Social

[ Page 13269 ]

Credit Party, were actively hostile to the gay and lesbian community. There was no legislation protecting -- or certainly not enhancing -- the lives of gays and lesbians. It was impossible for gays or lesbians to get in to see a cabinet minister or even an MLA about these issues.

But all that changed when the NDP came to power. Finally a government that listened to the gay and lesbian community. Finally a government that respected the gay and lesbian community. Finally a government that gave hope to the gay and lesbian community. Finally a government that was willing to act and bring about progressive legislation in conjunction with the gay and lesbian community, a government that was willing to bring in legislation recognizing the need to both protect and bring about full equality for gays and lesbians.

So legislation was enacted by the NDP government to bring sexual orientation into the Human Rights Code. This was a historic move. What a huge step that was at that time, after so many years of being excluded -- and not just excluded but actively excluded by the predecessors of this opposition party, the Social Credit Party.

After so much struggle and rejection by the so-called free enterprise or capitalistic party, we had, for the first time, legislation that brought gays and lesbians into the mainstream, that brought some protection to gay and lesbian people, and then legislation that allowed the adoption of children by gays and lesbians -- another milestone, a huge milestone. Again, it was only because of an NDP elected government. It was certainly not because of what the predecessors to this opposition did, the Social Credit Party, and it was certainly not brought about by this opposition party.

Then legislation prohibiting the promotion of hatred towards gay and lesbians was enacted -- again, legislation only made possible because of this NDP government. This was followed in 1997 by another historic piece of legislation, the changing of the definition of the word "spouse" to include gays and lesbians -- another huge milestone. British Columbia was the first province in Canada to do so, and once again, the so-called free enterprise party -- now the Liberal Party -- as usual, as always, as far back as gays and lesbians can remember in B.C., rose up in opposition to the legislation.

[1440]

The Liberal opposition this time fought with all they had to block change or amend the legislation. They put up speaker after speaker to try to kill the legislation, which was so important to the gay and lesbian community, and which has subsequently been verified by the Supreme Court. And why? Why, we asked ourselves, would they fight so hard against full equality for gays and lesbians? Why would they fight so hard against this legislation? Well, they have a bunch of MLAs who will do anything to ensure that gays and lesbians never have equality in this society.

There's a handful of them -- about ten -- and they will do anything to make sure that legislation is not enacted. They somehow see gays and lesbians as lesser or immoral or unnatural or whatever it is their belief system has them . . . . They're a throwback to another age, kind of the flat-earth members of today's society. They have their beliefs, and they're welcome to them. They can state their opinions, and they're welcome to them. But thank God they'll not have their way in this Legislature -- not here, not anymore.

Those days are over, here in this Legislature; those days, I believe, are over in the rest of society. But they keep trying to influence that opposition party. They obviously have considerable sway in the Liberal opposition party, which is evident from the opposition that they've brought forth against every bill. They've managed to move this opposition to continually speak out in opposition to every piece of progressive legislation, even though those nine or ten will never stand up and speak their opinions on the matter. They hide, weave and dodge, but they won't get up and state their opinion.

They skulk in the background; they sneak around and try to get support in their own caucus to vote against this. It was the same thing last year, and we're seeing the same thing again this year.

After changing the definition of spouse two years ago, the government brought in legislation last year, as I said, that would allow pensions in the public sector plans for the spouses of gays and lesbians. This included municipal workers and college teachers. This was a huge step, and it's made a huge difference in the lives of hundreds of gays and lesbians and has brought equality for gays and lesbians much closer. Last year this was opposed by the very same group within that caucus. What a surprise that they would once again influence that caucus to come out in opposition.

Why would they oppose this again, even after the term "spouse" had been changed the year before? Well, of course, it's the same reason. It's the same bunch within the caucus that are influencing the caucus, that won't let go and that insist that at least the Liberal opposition make some fight against full equality for gays and lesbians.

[1445]

This time, though, something different is happening. They've decided to take a different tact. Not only have they decided to avoid it, but they're not even going to mention it. Let me remind you what tactic they used last year. Last year they decided to bring in some heavy outside guns. They happened to read in the newspaper of one particular highly placed Roman Catholic individual who was opposed. They decided they liked what he had to say, so they quoted him extensively. All of a sudden this individual, who has obviously made himself an antagonist in the gay and lesbian community, became the Liberal wise man, the one they're going to quote as an authority on gay and lesbian issues.

Now, they don't seem to care about any other religious leaders. No one else was ever quoted. No other bishop was quoted, no rabbis were quoted, no other priests were mentioned. Just this one individual was quoted over and over last year, as being the ultimate wise person on this legislation. They backed him entirely, and they used his rationale for opposing this legislation.

I just want to quote a little from a letter that was sent to all the MLAs -- the rationale that was used and was backed by the opposition party -- to give you some sense of the kind of views that come out of this rump group within the Liberal opposition party for being opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians. It stated:

"The proposed legislation" -- that is, to include gays and lesbians, same-sex partners, in the public pension funds -- "follows up on the B.C. policy allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and on the legislation which changed the legal definition of spouse by enlarging it to include same-sex partners. Both the adoption policy and the redefinition of the legal meaning of spouse are regrettable developments and will in the long term be detrimental to our society."

I've yet to hear one Liberal member stand up and tell us why changing the definition of spouse will be detrimental to our society or why allowing gays and lesbians to adopt will be detrimental to our society.

[ Page 13270 ]

The second point that's made -- "The proposed legislation further undermines the concept of marriage . . . . " I've not heard one Liberal member tell us how changing the definition of spouse undermines the concept of marriage. Maybe they really believe that, but I haven't heard. They don't seem to get up and talk about these things.

The letter goes on to say: "By nature, marriage is a union between man and woman for the purpose of their mutual enrichment and support and for the procreation of children." One could certainly argue that those are the necessary components of a marriage. But there are many couples who do not have children, and I would dare say that their marriage is just as rich as those with children.

"A stable union or a bond between two people of the same sex, whether sexually active or not, does not constitute a marriage-like relationship by any stretch of the imagination," so it's stated. According to who? I would dearly love to have the Liberal opposition get up and say a little bit about how they would agree or disagree with that particularly statement. "Biologically," says the writer, "such couples are simply not equipped to be husband and wife." I hate to say that same-sex couples are not trying to be husband and wife. However, it will be interesting, if the Liberals ever decide to discuss the issue of spouse in this bill, to hear them defend that.

[1450]

The letter goes on to say: "The proposed legislation will also further undermine the concept of family." Whose concept of family? How does this undermine the concept of family -- changing the definition of spouse? I wish the opposition would give us the wisdom they have to let us know indeed how we're undermining the concept of family. "This too is detrimental to the good of society," says the writer.

"It is a commonly acknowledged fact that children growing up in one-parent families are at a serious disadvantage in their psychological and social development." Boy, that's a real slap in the head to single-parent families. I might add that there are many single-parent families in this province.

Hon. D. Lovick: What about all those nuclear families that are abusive?

T. Stevenson: Abusive nuclear families -- that's another interesting concept that's not actually dealt with here.

Hon. D. Lovick: Really?

T. Stevenson: No.

"Will not the same be true," the letter goes on to say, "perhaps even more so, for children growing up with two 'parents' of the same sex?" All of a sudden, two parents of the same sex will have children who are even more psychologically damaged and will have a disadvantage far beyond heterosexual couples. This seems to be a bizarre argument and, frankly, an insult to many gay and lesbian couples who, of course, have children.

I'll skip over this because it's all in this kind of vein, and I so far haven't heard too much from the Liberal opposition as to how they feel and why they feel this person is their wise guru to quote continually when they are trying to block the legislation that we brought in last year.

"How will the government verify if the same-sex couples who apply for pension benefits" -- these are now, this year, in the private pension -- "are actually sexually active?"

An Hon. Member: What does that have to do with anything?

T. Stevenson: Well, you evidently have to be sexually active to get a pension, according to the opposition. I don't know how the opposition is going to verify this, but I guess some kind of an electronic eavesdropping device, listening.

Then we're asked: "What kind of stability will be required before a same-sex couple can apply for pension benefits?" Let me assure the writer and the opposition that it will be the very same as for heterosexual couples -- common law, two years. That seems to be fairly straightforward. That's what this particular Catholic individual has stated in a letter, and this is what was quoted so extensively. He's the individual who was used as the wise person for blocking the legislation or attempting to block the legislation.

But they seem to have completely overlooked another bishop -- this time in the Anglican Church -- who is also very highly placed. Here's what this individual, this particular bishop, said:

"I want . . . to express my support for your government's commitment to the equality of homosexual rights in British Columbia. You have no doubt heard from some people in the religious community expounding rather extremist homophobic views on this topic."

I suppose those are the ones that we just heard.

"I would like you to know that there are a great many members of my church who support your efforts to end discrimination against same-sex couples. Governments have a responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens, and I applaud your willingness to do so on behalf of homosexual people in our province.

"There is an argument being made by opponents of equality that the establishment of rights for homosexuals will weaken and destroy the family."

Now he's getting right into the heart of the matter -- this particular bishop.

"This is, in my view, a fallacy. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle but a fixed orientation, and cannot be transmitted like an infection. It is time that we recognized the legitimate desires of same-sex partners for the same rights in law as those enjoyed by heterosexual partners. Such a move could only strengthen families by enhancing the values of fidelity and permanence."

[1455]

Well, this is a very different point of view from the one that the opposition used to hammer the government last year in regard to this legislation. Here's a man who says that such a move -- i.e., changing the definition of spouse -- could only strengthen families by enhancing the values of fidelity and permanence. Amazing -- the very different positions that these two bishops have taken.

Then, of course -- juxtaposed to the opposition position on changing the definition of spouse and moving toward full equality -- there is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been very clear in a number of judgments, which I think the opposition has also decided to overlook and only to use the words of one senior Roman Catholic. Around the definition of spouse, Justice Cory of the Supreme Court has said:

"The definition of 'spouse' as someone of the opposite sex reinforces the stereotype that homosexuals cannot and do not form lasting, caring, mutually supportive relationships with economic interdependence in the same manner as heterosexual couples. The appellants' relationship vividly demonstrates the error of that approach. The discriminatory impacts cannot be deemed to be trivial when the legislation [that we currently have] reinforces prejudicial attitudes based on such faulty stereotypes."

I think that that's a very important piece to remember. We do deal, and have been dealing, with faulty stereotypes. These

[ Page 13271 ]

have been used to reinforce and to buttress those arguments that there should be no changes in law -- certainly not around the definition of spouse -- so that pension plans can be made possible and available to same-sex couples.

As we move to Bill 58 now, again we have the opposition in a completely different way deciding they're going to fight against same-sex pensions. Oh yes, they'll have a huge smokescreen -- they'll talk about something completely different -- but they won't deal with what's really happening for them: that is, a split in their caucus once again on same-sex issues. I hope that this time the opposition caucus might sit back and realize that their record has been a sorry one and that they'll change and vote in favour of it.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 58. Bill 58 is, I suppose, a form of omnibus act. It has a variety of sections that do a variety of things in the area of private sector pension benefits, and it also, in its consequential amendments, changes some of the public sector pension plans.

One of the challenges with an omnibus bill -- a sort of miscellaneous collection of amendment bills -- is to see whether there is any coherent principle that is underlying the bill as a whole, because of course in second reading debate, we are primarily concerned with the principle of the bill. There are some provisions in this bill that are not terribly offensive to my sense of how the administration of pensions in the private sector needs to be updated on an ongoing basis and made more efficient and effective.

But for my money, when you distil the 75 provisions of this bill to their essence, there is one provision in this bill that I think is the equivalent of the poison pill which the NDP so successfully manage to introduce into almost every one of their initiatives. It's hard to recall a miscellaneous statutes amendment act that didn't have something in it that was dressed up as an innocuous housekeeping change, but that in fact turned out to be a very significant and usually very dangerous or offensive change to the law.

[1500]

This bill is a lot like those miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, because buried in the plethora, if I can use that word, of changes is one provision --

section 48 -- which I think is particularly offensive. My colleague the opposition Labour critic spoke, when this bill was last being debated in second reading, on the reasons why

section 48, properly analyzed, is an attack on workers; it's an attack on pensioners. It's an attack on competitiveness. It's a provision which supports, I think, an unreasonable restraint on trade.

It's a provision that says to pensioners who thought they were investing in a pension -- who thought it was their money that was being invested by the pension plan, who thought it was their money that was being taken from their paycheques in a way that was going to ensure that it would be returned to them at a later date in their lives -- that actually it isn't really their money, because if they have the effrontery or the gall to wish to continue to work in related employment after they have taken their pension entitlement, this bill will give the managers of pension plans the right to suspend their benefits.

That, presumably, is the intention behind the regulation-making powers that are conferred upon the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by

section 48.

It would be difficult for me to improve on the critique that my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson launched last Thursday on

section 48. But let me say this:

section 48 is, all by itself, a reason to vote against this bill; it is, actually, the reason why I will vote against this bill.

Section 48 at the very least seems to me to be a mistake, in that it appears to have been put here without the complete and proper consultation with all sectors in the pension industry that should have properly been consulted when these kinds of changes were being made. Really, at the very least it seems to me wrong for the government to force this change through in this way, under those circumstances.

But if it is going to be put to us, if we as a Legislative Assembly are to be called upon to express our opinion on Bill 58 by voting over the course of the next day or so, then I will vote against Bill 58, as I believe the other members of my caucus will, because of

section

Section 48 is an attack on workers and pensioners. It is an unprecedented attack. It would, I am told, mark British Columbia as the only jurisdiction in Canada to give pension fund managers, by statute and by regulation, the authority to suspend benefits for someone who has worked throughout their career to earn those very benefits. I'm happy to join with my colleagues in voting against Bill 58.

I do, however, want to point out that this bill also contains some changes to the definition of "spouse." I acknowledge that the member for Vancouver-Burrard was speaking about those changes. I did not hear all of his remarks, but I think that his remarks, if I can judge by the

part I did hear, were probably generally consistent with the remarks that he has made about similar legislative changes in the past. That is, for the most part, the member doesn't attempt to explain or understand, in any detailed way, what the amendments will actually do; rather, the member focuses on larger issues of principle around discrimination and equality -- and those are good points to make.

[1505]

I note that during the course of his remarks, the member for Vancouver-Burrard spent most of his time dealing with a portion of, if you will, the public debate that took place last year, when the government amended the public sector pension plans by changing the definition of spouse in those four or five statutes that regulated the public sector pension plans. And, hon. Speaker, you will recall that last year we changed the definition of spouse in those statutes in a way that expanded the definition of spouse to include partners in same-sex relationships.

I found it interesting that the member for Vancouver-Burrard spoke at such length about last year's debate, because interestingly enough . . . . This, of course, is a point that the minister himself omitted to make during this remarks, and it's also a point that no one else from the government bench has yet made. The amendments which the government was so proud of last year when it introduced what I think was Bill 38, the bill that last summer amended the public sector pension statutes . . . .

The amendments that the government was so convinced were the right amendments to make and was so certain that they were exactly the correct way to resolve the public policy issues that were presented are actually being changed by this bill.

That's not unusual to people who follow this NDP government. Twelve months is an interminably long time for this government to attempt to foresee or plan for the future in any way. It doesn't surprise me that the amendments that the government made to the five public sector pension plans last

[ Page 13272 ]

summer are being amended here. But it does surprise me that the government -- at least, so far in this debate -- has not taken the time to point out to British Columbians that the things it did last year that it thought were the right things to do are in fact being changed. No doubt, if this party is still in government next year -- and who knows, we may still be in the same legislative session as we are now, and as we were last year -- the government will come and introduce yet more changes to the definition of spouse. But we'll have to wait for that.

This definition that's now put forward does, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard pointed out, extend the definition of spouse for the purpose of private sector pension benefits to persons who are living in a marriage-like relationship with another person for a two-year period immediately preceding the relevant time, even if those persons are of the same sex.

This amendment continues a pattern which the government began in 1997, when it first amended the Family Relations Act to extend portions of that act to encompass same-sex relationships. Then last year the government made the changes that I've talked about to the public sector pensions, and now this year the government is making changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which is the act that regulates private sector pensions. One might ask: where's the Wills Variation Act in this?

[1510]

My view is that the argument that the member for Vancouver-Burrard made about equality rights in relation to the definition of spouse would apply with equal force to a statute like the Wills Variation Act. In fact, my guess is that that argument would apply with considerable force to a number of statutes in British Columbia.

In fact, I would suggest that a principled approach to the issue -- I know it's not something that we've come to expect from this government, but let's use the words, just because they're good to put on the floor here -- of equality for gays and lesbians would in fact argue in favour of a government taking an omnibus approach to these issues rather than dealing with them as they do, in this sort of haphazard, topsy-turvy way of one statute every session or every summer -- one bill at a time.

Actually, hon. Speaker, you'll be interested to know that the B.C. Law Institute, which is the thing that the government created after it starved the Law Reform Commission to death . . . . The government gave the Law Institute a chance to study this issue. The Law Institute -- over the past few months, since last summer -- came out with a report and in fact recommended that the government look at an omnibus bill and that the government deal with the issue of equality for gays and lesbians in a principled, across-the-board way, rather than, I argue, as they're doing, in a sort of a statute-by-statute way.

It's interesting that neither the minister, in his introductory remarks, nor the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- at least so far as I heard him -- expressed any support for that approach. Apparently they're quite happy to deal with this issue in a sort of haphazard, topsy-turvy, piecemeal kind of way. That, I think, is indicative of what amounts, really, to an entire absence of principle in terms of the way the government is dealing with this.

Oddly enough, the omnibus-bill approach is also the approach recommended by the B.C. Human Rights Commission in a letter to the Attorney General, dated May 20, 1999, in which the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission urges the government to amend all of the necessary legislation to ensure that the laws of British Columbia do not violate the Charter guarantees of equality. But I suggest that it is unfortunate that that recommendation has not been discussed in the remarks from the government side to date.

So we are here dealing with one bill, one set of amendments and, frankly, the usual pathetic lack of explanation from the government about what the implications of this change might be.

The truth is that the expansion of the definition of spouse engages consideration of two kinds of issues: one is the issue of discrimination in the existing law, and the other is the question of how to fix that discrimination. On the first issue -- the issue of discrimination, the issue of equality -- we do have a very recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

It conclusively states -- at least in the context of the Ontario Family Law Act and, I think, for reasons that apply here as well -- that the creation of a set of rights and responsibilities that is available for common-law spouses of different sex but not available for common-law spouses of the same sex is discriminatory. It's a violation of the equality rights under the Charter.

I think that the general tenor of the arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada in the M. v. H. case apply with great force here, and they should cause all of us to look at, among other things, the Pension Benefits Standards Act and say: "Yes, that act is discriminatory." There needs to be a way of ensuring that pension benefits and standards are provided that do not violate the Charter guarantee of equality.

[1515]

That's the first half. The first half is the discrimination point. The second half of the issue is the remedy. How is it that the government should fix the problem? How is it that the Ontario Legislature, for example, in the M. v. H. case, should change the laws of Ontario to comply with the Charter guarantees? Well, in fact, the Supreme Court of Canada doesn't give an answer to that question. The Supreme Court of Canada does not, for example, say that the only solution to the equality issue is to do what the B.C. government -- the NDP -- propose doing here.

In fact, as I read the judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada makes it very clear that we have to avoid discrimination, that we have to uphold equality for all Canadians, including gays and lesbians in relationships that engender considerations of dependency and responsibility. We have to uphold equality for those persons under the law.

But there is more than one way of achieving that equality. There is more than one legislative technique that could achieve equality, and that's the issue of remedy. Now, the Ontario government is going to have to look at how it proposes to change the Ontario Family Law Act to comply with the requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada decision. The British Columbia government may well be doing the same thing in terms of all of the statutes of British Columbia that have issues in them that engage this question. But here we have one solution -- it is the government's solution -- and it is to bring partners in same-gender relationships under an expanded definition of spouse.

We've been here before. We were here in 1997 with Bill 31, the Family Relations Amendment Act, and Bill 32, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act. We were here again last summer when the government amended the five public sector pension plans. On each of those occasions I

[ Page 13273 ]

spoke about the opposition's perspective on those issues. I spoke about the fact that there are people in our caucus, as there are many British Columbians, who feel that there is something to be attached to the idea of spouse, something important to be attached to the idea of marriage that needs to respected at the same time and to the same extent, if possible, that we respect and uphold the Charter requirements of equality, fairness and dignity for all.

In an attempt to accommodate that diversity of interests, we have devised an amendment to create a term. The term is "domestic partner." It was a term that we introduced onto the order paper when Bill 31 and Bill 32 came forward in 1997; it was a term we again introduced last summer in the context of the public sector pension acts; and it's a term that we will introduce again in the course of the debate at committee stage on Bill 58, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 1999.

It is, if you will -- using the two-part analysis that I suggested earlier -- our remedy. It's a different remedy to deal with the problem of discrimination. Interestingly enough, it's pretty close to the approach that the B.C. Law Institute suggests ought to be taken. The B.C. Law Institute has a recommendation that says that the government should introduce a domestic partner act. I don't claim that our amendment will technically be completely consistent with what the B.C. Law Institute wants to do, but it's interesting to note that the B.C.

Law Institute finds that there is something in the idea of domestic partnership which commends itself to a consideration of these issues. The B.C. Law Institute was, in fact, responding to a request from the government that they look at these issues, and that was the recommendation that the B.C. Law Institute made in its report to the government.

I want to say one thing about some of the comments that the member for Vancouver-Burrard made and that I did manage to catch when I was here earlier. He was reading from something and talked about the idea of sexual activity. When he was doing that, I think his intention was to make some kind of a sick joke about the approach being taken by the opposition here: who would -- and how would one test -- the question of whether people are sexually active?

[1520]

It was at that moment that I realized that the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who certainly has the best of intentions in wanting to advance the cause of equality, really doesn't understand the issue and certainly doesn't have the least understanding of what it is that we have sought to do with our amendment. The amendment that we introduced last year does not impose a requirement of sexual activity into the idea of domestic partnership. Oddly enough, it is, in fact, the government's proposed change in the definition of spouse which, in my view, imposes that requirement.

That may be a detail that is beyond the purview of most people's interests in this, but since it was a point that seemed to strike the member for Vancouver-Burrard as being a subject of some interest, I personally found it somewhat surprising that he didn't realize that it is his bill and his amendment that introduce that question, not our amendment.

Really, what our amendment does is the very thing that the Supreme Court of Canada saw as being at the heart of the Ontario Family Law Act that it had before: that is, protecting the idea of economic interdependence that arises in close personal relationships and recognizing that when people enter into close personal relationships that create that circumstance of interdependence, it is right, fair, reasonable and proper for the law to impose obligations on the people in those relationships -- the obligations of the partners in such relationships to each other.

One person can't leave the relationship and leave behind someone who is incapable of supporting themselves because they have no workplace skills and who will, as a virtual certainty, unless the law steps in, end up on the public rolls as a recipient of welfare.

I think all of us in this House want to encourage responsibility. We want to encourage partners in what I might call economically interdependent relationships to honour the obligations that are created by those relationships. We want to do that, not just because it's good to have people keep their promises and honour the responsibilities they assume but also because it makes good public policy to create circumstances which encourage people to solve their problems with private means, rather than to force citizens onto the welfare rolls.

Now, that is something that lies behind what the government is doing here with its changes to the definition of spouse in Bill 58. It's also something that is entirely consistent with the idea of domestic partnership that we will be introducing when we come to committee stage debate on Bill 58.

I expect that we will be giving the government an opportunity to look at that definition and to consider whether it, too, would recognize that circumstances of economic dependency and interdependency exist in relationships that aren't just marriages, that aren't just common-law, different-sex spousal relationships and that aren't same-gender relationships but in fact include a range of relationships.

In my view, it's a good thing for the law to look at the extent to which it can protect the expectations, the reliance and the dependency in all those relationship and not just to expand the protection of pension legislation to partners in same-gender, homosexual relationships.

[1525]

I believe today -- as I believed when this issue first came before us in a different form in Bills 31 and 32 -- that the questions around the meaning of marriage and what it means to be a spouse are legitimate questions of conscience. They are appropriate questions for Members of the Legislative Assembly to examine as questions of conscience. Accordingly, when we come to committee stage debate on Bill 58 and to the definition of spouse in

section 1 -- which is where the definition issue arises -- I expect that members of the caucus of which I'm a member will exercise their right to vote freely as to their conscience.

All members of the caucus of which I am a member believe that the proper, the fairest, the most equitable and the broadest-based resolution to the issues presented by the definition of spouse in this bill is to use the tool of domestic partnership. We are all of one mind on that. I suspect that the government will not support that approach, and we'll deal with that as the issue arises in committee stage debate. But I want members of the government to know that while the issue of the definition of spouse is here, it's here the same way it was last year. It can be dealt with now, from our perspective, in the same way as we dealt with it last year.

But the real heart of this bill, the real issue in this bill, the real reason to vote against Bill 58, has nothing to do with the definition of spouse in

section 1. It has nothing to do with the issues that the member for Vancouver-Burrard and I have just canvassed. It has everything to do with the assault on workers' rights, the assault on pensioners' rights, the assault on the rights of senior citizens of British Columbia represented by

section 48 of this bill.

[ Page 13274 ]

Section 48 is the poisonous pill at the heart of Bill 58. It is, all by itself, a reason to vote against this government's attempt to amend pension standards legislation. It is the sneaking knife that twists in the back of anyone who ever thinks that this government has workers' rights at stake. This bill is all about protecting and honouring the favours that this government owes to the senior folks in the construction trades unions. That is what this bill is about, and it deserves to be opposed on behalf of all workers, all pensioners, all British Columbians. That's why I will vote against Bill 58.

B. Penner: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate on the principles behind Bill 58. I was troubled by the opening remarks of the Minister of Labour when he introduced second reading debate last Thursday, because I found that his remarks about the description of the importance of some of the provisions of this bill appeared to be deceptively obscure.

Similarly, the press release issued by the Minister of Labour on June 2 -- which was incorrect in stating that debate had started on that day, when in fact it had not -- did not mention until the very last paragraph on the second page the true importance of this bill. That has to do with allowing trade unions to suspend the early retirement benefits of people who are collecting from so-called multi-employer pension plans. That is a subject which will be of grave concern to workers and retired workers throughout British Columbia as they become aware of what's in this dangerous piece of legislation.

[1530]

We were privy, however, to one moment of candour, however fleeting, from the Minister of Labour. During a response from the opposition critic for Labour, the Minister of Labour shouted out -- and we all heard it -- that the reason that people who are retired want to work to supplement their pension income is because they are "greedy." He repeated that several times, saying that the reason people want to work to make a bit of extra money -- whether it's to look after their families, to save up for a vacation or to put their students through school -- is because they're greedy.

Well, I don't believe that there's anything wrong with somebody wanting to work. I also don't believe that there's anything wrong with somebody wanting to work harder and trying to get ahead.

I do have to thank the Minister of Labour for one thing. In his remarks last Thursday -- in that brief, fleeting moment of candour -- he reminded me of why I got involved in public life: it was this government's negative view towards people who were successful that told me that we need a change in the province of British Columbia.

If we think back to what the current Premier and then Minister of Finance did in terms of raising people's property taxes -- effectively trying to tax them out of their homes in Vancouver -- that showed what this government's view was towards people who had worked hard all their lives to save up for retirement. We saw that five or six years ago.

We had a person hired by this government -- Maureen Maloney -- who wrote a policy paper advocating that people should pay a tax on their wealth. What does that mean? Well, it would've meant -- and this is what she advocated -- that tax collectors would be given authority, without warrant, to enter people's homes and search them to see if they had properly disclosed, on their annual financial disclosure form, the value of their personal assets -- things like a stereo system, cars, perhaps even the clothing in their closet and the shoes tucked under their bed.

That told me, five or six years ago, what the true outlook of this government was in terms of British Columbians who want to work to get ahead. Rather than encourage people who are successful and celebrate their success and help others reach that same level of success, this government saw fit to punish people and adopt policies to restrict the ability of people to succeed.

That's completely wrongheaded, and I therefore am not surprised that British Columbia is the only province in Canada that's in a recession. We have the worst economic conditions of any province in Canada. That's probably why today the B.C. Business Summit issued a report card that is a damning indictment of this government's economic failures. They got Fs across the board on their report card. Pardon me; they got a couple of Ds and one C minus. The rest were Fs: an F in fiscal policy, because of their billion-dollar deficits; an F in labour and employment policy, because unemployment keeps going up; an F in land use issues; and an F in education, training and human resources.

The minister's comment last week that people who work are greedy shows that this government just doesn't get it. We need more people working in British Columbia, not fewer. We need more people succeeding in British Columbia, not fewer. We should encourage success, reward success and celebrate success, rather than not only turning our back on it but doing everything we can to actively undermine it, restrict it, punish it, tax it and drive it out of the province.

Bill 58 is clearly an open-faced attack on pensioners in British Columbia. In

section . . . . Before we get to that, let's just consider one other thing. The minister, in his opening remarks, said that this was merely a technical bill and that he didn't expect much debate. You know, this minister and this government have been known to be less than candid about their true intentions on several occasions. We all know that they've promised balanced budgets in the past, only to fail to deliver on those promises and drive up our debt as a result. The minister tried to make us think that nothing was happening with Bill 58 and that it wasn't something to worry about.

Certainly there hasn't been much happening in terms of this government's legislative agenda in the last few months. He'd be right, if that's what he was saying, because there was very little of significance happening in the last couple of weeks in this Legislature. The government promised an economic strategy to bring us out of our recession; we haven't seen it.

They said we had to cut off Nisga'a debate, using unheard of parliamentary procedures to prevent opposition members not only from speaking on the bill and asking questions on behalf of their constituents but from actually voting on individual sections of the bill. They brought in that kind of draconian, anti-democratic measure because, they said, they had important government business to get on with.

[1535]

What have we seen since then? The Range Amendment Act, and

an act to allow medals to be awarded to firemen -- truly a worthy cause but hardly something that seems pressing and substantial enough to justify terminating the democratic business of this Legislature as it related to the groundbreaking Nisga'a treaty.

In his remarks the Minister of Labour made no mention of the power being given in this bill to unions to suspend pension benefits. One wonders: how will those seeking to terminate those benefits know that someone is working? Will

[ Page 13275 ]

they have to hire snoops -- private detectives -- to follow pensioners around in their day-to-day lives and activities to see if they are working part-time or helping their neighbour build a fireplace in their house or doing a little bit of landscaping work? What measures will this government and the Minister of Labour take to see if people are working -- those greedy people, to use the term applied by the Minister of Labour?

I've got a suggestion for the Minister of Labour. We found out a couple of weeks ago that ICBC and the integrated traffic camera unit had gone ahead and bought ten more photo radar vans, which the Attorney General says he didn't want and didn't know about. We had the government commit to acquiring ten more photo radar vans when the government says they didn't want them -- which, of course, begs the question: who's in charge of the government?

Now that we as taxpayers are stuck with them, it's costing us $50,000 a year to pay the leases for those ten vans that we apparently don't want, according to the government, perhaps the Minister of Labour is thinking about putting those photo radar units to work, photographing workers or retired pensioners to see if they're out working and trying to get ahead. Perhaps that's one way they will snoop, to see if pensioners are working to supplement their incomes.

It's really true that with this government, Big Brother is watching you. Last week I was reminded of that when I went back to Chilliwack to speak to the Big Brothers annual recognition dinner. I have to tell you, though, that the intentions of that group are much more benign and benevolent than those of the government across the way, which is a malevolent Big Brother that's watching you. If they catch you, they're going to revoke the pension benefits that people have worked for, contributed to and earned.

Pension benefits are not a privilege; they're not a wage that can be clawed back. They are a benefit that has been earned by the employee as part of their employment. They're as much part . . . of their employment package as a wage that's been negotiated. Once earned, no one should be able to revoke that right, and yet that's what this government's hoping to do with Bill 58. And they want the opposition B.C. Liberals to go quietly -- never. We will stand up for pensioners' rights every time.

This is the thin edge of the wedge. They're saying: "Well, don't worry about it. It only applies to a certain class of pensioners this time, and we promise not to go and attack other pensioners. It's just this one group of pensioners who happen to collect so-called multi-employer pensions -- people who've worked for different employers over the course of their work history." Well, that's cold comfort, because there's a principle at stake here. Is a person's pension his or her own to do with as they see fit, or does it belong to the government or the big union bosses in British Columbia? I know what I think.

Those pensions have been earned by the pensioner through the course of their employment, and they should not be taken away, even if they do choose to work a little bit to get ahead or to help their kids get through college or university.

We heard today that unemployment for B.C.'s young people is up. There are 6,000 fewer jobs for B.C. students this year than there were a year ago. If you read the statistics from the labour force survey released last Friday, only one-third of B.C. students have landed a summer job this year. That means two-thirds of students don't have a job. Now, this government might not care. Maybe they're not interested, or perhaps they don't understand what it means to have to get a job to pay for your tuition.

I still remember having to work in the summer to pay for school. I was fortunate. I was able to get a couple of different jobs. Sometimes I had to work three or four part-time jobs over the course of a summer to save up enough money so that I could go to school. But this year in British Columbia we see that students are having a tougher time than ever, and it's a direct result of this government's attack on people who are trying to succeed -- through their high taxes, excessive regulation and increasing debt that's driving businesses out of the province. When businesses leave the province, so do the jobs.

[1540]

Frankly, a number of young people are having to leave the province too. We know that the member for Abbotsford raised the issue some weeks ago of a young person in his riding who had to go to Edmonton. He sent out at least dozens, if not hundreds, of résumés here in British Columbia. He wanted to stay here where his family is and where he went to school. B.C. taxpayers paid him to get an education at BCIT, but there were no jobs for him in British Columbia, so he had to go to Edmonton. What a shame.

I have friends that I've known since high school and before who have had to leave British Columbia to go to Alberta to find employment. It's not fiction. The government seems to think that these people don't exist. Well, I challenge you to pick up the phone and talk to them. I received an e-mail today from a gentleman in Edmonton who happened to come across my Internet web site and who said: "Good luck fighting the NDP." But he says, quite frankly, that it's too late for him. He's already left.

He's in Alberta, and he says: "Maybe you can make things better in a few years, and I'll consider coming back to B.C." In the meantime this person has pulled up stakes and left. I've never met this person before, but I will phone him today, after receiving his e-mail, to talk to him. I think it's a shame that people in British Columbia feel forced to leave the province of their birth in order to look after their families, but that's what's happening.

This government pretends to be a government that cares about workers, and yet here in Bill 58 we see provisions that are clearly anti-worker in their result.

Interjection.

B. Penner: I hear the Minister of Highways becoming somewhat interested in this debate. I think that's a good thing, because the more he learns about the dangerous provisions in Bill 58, the better the chances are that he'll oppose it, if he's doing what's right for his constituents.

Is the minister aware, with respect to the clarification of minimum vesting requirements, that Bill 58, if passed, disentitles many past, current and future employees of Highway Constructors Ltd. from the pension benefits that may otherwise have vested to their credit under several construction industry pension plans? That's what experts in the pension field are telling us. Now, pensions are a very complicated issue, so I don't assume that the Minister of Highways would know anything about that. That's okay, but he should take the

[ Page 13276 ]

time to consult with the experts in the field before running off at the mouth about the impact of this bill on people who are working to improve . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Careful, members.

B. Penner: . . . the highways in British Columbia. It's true: Bill 58 may disentitle many past, current and future employees of HCL from the pension benefits that may otherwise have vested to their credit under several construction industry pension plans. So much for helping workers; this government is directly attacking them.

Some comments have already been made about the process: that there was no exposure draft of this bill given to the insurance industry and the pension industry in Canada. That's wrong. That goes against the established practice across Canada with respect to pension bills. That's because pensions, as I've already stated, are incredibly complex. They take time to consider. The pension industry should be given time to consider Bill 58 and give the government constructive feedback.

Rather, this government prefers to drown out and ignore any constructive criticism. They just carry on. Is it any wonder that they're at 18 percent in the polls today, given their proclivity to ignore the public's views? Unbelievable. Is it any wonder that they got a failing report card today from the B.C. Business Summit? Is it any wonder that businesses are leaving British Columbia? Is it any wonder that 16,000 British Columbians voted with their feet last year and moved to Alberta -- 16,000 in one year -- trying to find a better life and a better opportunity, trying to find a job? Is that too much to ask for?

It shouldn't be. Under a B.C. Liberal government, we're going to start bringing those people back. Those moving vans are going to start coming the other way. We're going to be loading people up in Calgary, loading people up in Edmonton, loading people up in Saskatoon, loading people up in Toronto and London, Ontario, and bringing them back home, where they belong. We're going to bring those British Columbians back. We're going to do that with the best economy in Canada, rather than the worst, which the NDP's brought us. The record speaks for itself, and it's a dismal, damning failure -- the worst economy in Canada. Shame!

There are some more specific elements of this bill that I think are worthy of consideration. Since I always like to be as specific as possible, let me refer to

section 5 of Bill 58, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act. This section, if approved by the Legislature, would limit access to agreements relating to the investment of pension funds. How can that possibly benefit workers -- preventing them from having access to the agreements that their pension funds are signing on their behalf? It's anti-worker. Why shouldn't a worker be able to go and get a copy of the agreement affecting his or her pension fund?

[1545]

There's no answer from the government on that, because there is none. It's anti-worker. Read your own bill -- Bill 58,

section 5. There aren't too many pages in it; I think they can turn that many pages, hon. Speaker. Take a look at. It removes the right of access to investment agreements for workers. I hope somebody from the government side can explain to us how that can possibly be of any benefit to anyone, including workers. I think that more accountability -- more openness -- is actually a good thing, even for those who are in charge of the pension funds. More accountability is good. The pressure of public scrutiny is a good thing. This government, however, does not like public scrutiny, and perhaps that's why they're shielding the pension fund managers from that type of scrutiny.

There's another provision that caught my attention and that gives me some concern. That's

section 37 of the bill. Let me read

section 37(2): "Subsection (1) does not entitle a person affected by the partial termination of the plan to share in any surplus assets on the partial termination, but the plan may provide for such an entitlement."

Well, that sounds like a lot of legal gobbledegook, and it is. The bottom line is that it results in more uncertainty and will result in more litigation. Rather than requiring people to go to the courts to sort out whether or not they are entitled to some of their contributions or the surplus assets in a pension fund, the government should allow for an arbitration process so we're not clogging up the court system with these types of matters.

If the government had really thought about this bill -- had taken the time to consult with the industry -- it would have heard constructive suggestions like that. It's not too late. Here we are in second reading; we're about to go into committee stage, and I hope the government doesn't just tune us out when we provide constructive suggestions about how to make this bill better.

This bill is not perfect. We have known over the past couple of weeks that this government has not been perfect in its drafting of legislation, because one day we get a bill about the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and a couple of days later we get an amendment to that very bill -- a tacit acknowledgment by the government that they failed to properly draft the previous bill. We know that they make mistakes, and we hope that they will listen to constructive suggestions being put forward.

Hon. H. Lali: There's nothing constructive coming from you.

B. Penner: The hon. Highways minister seems to have a hard time hearing, because I've just made some constructive suggestions. Perhaps I'll have to send him a Hansard transcript.

Why not allow workers to get access to pension investment agreements and see what the pension fund managers are doing with their money? The Minister of Highways seems to think that pensioners and workers don't have the right. That's shameful. I think workers do have a right to know what's happening to their pension funds. Why doesn't the hon. Highways minister go and speak to his caucus colleagues and see if they can somehow amend this so that all workers can have access to the pension investment agreements and find out what's happening with their pension funds?

I want to say a little bit more about

section 37, because it creates uncertainty and will force recourse to the courts for people to clear up their entitlement to possible surpluses in pension funds. Not only does that happen because of

section 37, but I've been told by experts in the pension field that as a result of

section 37, certain pension members may be inap-

[ Page 13277 ]

propriately disentitled to a share in surplus assets. So we see the NDP bringing in a bill that may deprive pensioners of access to pension surpluses that they would otherwise be entitled to. By no stretch of any imagination can this be called a worker-friendly bill.

There is another example I wish to refer to, and that's

section

Section 43 requires workers to personally notify the employer if they want to take some of their money out of the pension fund. Again, I don't claim to be an expert in the field of pensions, but I've been told that in many cases employers frown on employees taking their money out of the pension fund. They're afraid that that's going to destabilize the fund, and employers don't look too kindly on that.

[1550]

Yet what is the government doing in this bill? They're requiring workers to go to the employer and personally notify them about their intention to withdraw their contributions. I submit that that will subject those workers to possible retribution from unfriendly employers. This is an NDP government doing that -- making workers vulnerable to possible retribution. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because what this government says and what they do are almost always two different things. But one would wish that once in a while they would actually stand up for the principles that they claim to support.

I want to dwell in a bit more depth on the problem here in

section 43, because it provides new criteria under which employers might access pension surpluses. Pension surplus withdrawals have been perhaps the thorniest and most contentious issue for the pension industry during the past 15 years or so. Intense pressure can be and has been brought to bear upon plan members to approve a surplus withdrawal proposal. If an employee withholds consent they may fear reprisal by the employer.

This

section requires employees to notify the employer of their consent or lack thereof. It would be far more preferable, from a labour relations standpoint, for employees to notify an independent third party -- perhaps the superintendent of pensions -- on a basis that is blind to the employer so that the employee doesn't have to make the application directly to the employer but, rather, through an independent third party. Again, I think this is an example where an exposure draft of this bill, Bill 58, would have been useful to the government. It would have helped the government.

Sometimes you think that this NDP government is intent on shooting itself in the foot. It's almost like they go out of their way to create more problems for themselves. Why not slow down the process and send this bill to the appropriate experts in the field, as is done everywhere else in Canada? Every other province in Canada sends pension amendment statutes to the pension industry for comment. Bring back those comments and fix up the bill -- because what you've just done in

section 43 is make workers more vulnerable.

An Hon. Member: How?

B. Penner: You've done it, and I've just described it. I guess I'll have to repeat it. Listen carefully; listen very carefully. I know that some of these words are a little big for you, but I'll try my best.

Pension surplus withdrawals have been the thorniest and most contentious issue for the pension industry during the past 15 years or so. Listen up: intense pressure can be and has been brought to bear upon plan members to approve a surplus withdrawal proposal. If an employee -- that's a worker -- withholds consent, they may fear reprisal by the employer -- that's the boss. You guys pretend to be on the side of the workers, but in

section 43 you're just making them more vulnerable to reprisal from their employer.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. member.

B. Penner: Hon. Speaker, I'd encourage members of the government to actually read their own legislation. Take a look at

section 43. You've got it under your desk right here. All the members have the bill available to them, but I doubt if they're reading it. Make the effort. Blow some dust off of your bill binder and pull out Bill 58. After all, that's what we're here debating. Take a look at

section 43, and you'll see that what I'm saying is correct. I challenge you to do that, if you dare -- through you, hon. Speaker.

Then, of course, we get to the issue . . . . This is the worst issue in the bill, in my view -- and that's

section

Section 48 is the

section that authorizes the termination of pension benefits for those pensioners who have the temerity to actually go out and work a little bit, get a part-time job, help out their neighbour fixing up their fireplace or their landscaping.

An Hon. Member: It doesn't do that at all.

B. Penner: Take a look at

section 48, and you'll see that it's in there. For the record, I'll read

section 48 because I think that's an appropriate thing to do -- to get that on the record.

[1555]

Section 48 adds a provision to empower the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- that's the NDP cabinet -- to make regulations allowing a pension plan to suspend benefits received by a pensioner who took an early retirement pension and is subsequently re-employed in the same trade or industry with an employer, doing the same line of work.

I'd like to refer to the debate from last Thursday, because we had an NDP member, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds -- who claims to be well versed in matters relating to union pension plans -- talk about this. Let's take a look at what he says the intention of the bill is. He says that they're "correcting an abuse that's taking place with pensions by early retirement." They're going to get rid of a "subsidy" so that people can't go back to work. And I quote: "A lot of people retire and then start up a little business of their own. I know lots of them are doing it.

I know lots of people that are retired, and they're doing all kinds of things. Hon. Speaker, you can do all kinds of things. All you can't do here is go back to work doing the same work that you earned your pension at -- the same trade, the same craft, or whatever you want to call it." So if you have a bricklayer who earned a pension as a bricklayer and gets hired by his neighbour to build a fireplace, that's in the same line of work. Why should that pensioner have his benefits terminated by this NDP government, when the NDP government doesn't live by those same standards?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The member for Chilliwack has the floor, and as you can see, his time is running out in any event.

[ Page 13278 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order so that we can hear the member who was recognized and has the floor.

B. Penner: That's what the NDP's own backbencher from Burnaby-Edmonds had to say about the bill. He said that it'll prevent you from going back to work in the same trade that you did before.

I have to think that that raises a double standard, because we have a Minister of Small Business and Tourism who is collecting an MP's pension after 14 years of service in the House of Commons -- and that's his right; he's earned the pension -- yet he's back here in the same line of work -- which is representing the public; he's an elected official -- and he's collecting a salary. By the NDP's own logic, those benefits should be terminated. It's the same line of work, yet under the NDP's bill, Bill 58, they will terminate the pension benefits of people who are in a trade and are going back to work in that same area of work. That is a double standard.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I encourage you to read

section 48. You've got Bill 58 under your desks, hon. members. Take a look at Bill 58,

section 48, or any of the other sections that I mentioned, like

section 5,

section 37,

section 43, and see how they are not only antidemocratic, they're anti-worker. You'll find out why the B.C. Liberals are standing against this bill: because we're on the side of workers; we're on the side of creating a better economy; we're on the side of pensioners who want to provide for their retirement and look after their families at the same time. In no way can I support this bill.

J. Cashore: It certainly has been interesting for me, over many years, to observe what happens from the inside when you're involved in politics with the two solitudes -- opposition and government -- and the statements that we hear each other make from time to time. There's no question, as we stand up and present the issues that we believe in and want to carry forward, that we present them in what we believe puts them in a good light. And very often the opposition, in analyzing it, tries to do the opposite.

But listening to the member who just spoke and listening to the members of the opposition who have spoken on this bill, this is spin-doctoring taken to an extreme, the likes of which I don't think I've seen in 13 and a half years.

It's fascinating to think that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has said that this bill strips pensioners of their right to earn money after retirement or to set up their own business. That is absolutely wrong. That statement is incorrect; it is not true. That statement totally misrepresents what is in this bill. Yet they believe, if they say it over and over and over again, that the truth of the matter doesn't really matter and that what does matter is what they can convince people out there it says, when it doesn't say that at all. That's what they think.

[1600]

The fact is that this will not affect those who go to work in other industries or occupations. This will not affect those who are managers or who start their own business. This will not become effective until a minimum-earning threshold is met. They have said, through the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, that 1,000 pension plans will be affected. This is not true, hon. Speaker. That is not a true statement. As a matter of fact, of the 1,000 plans registered in British Columbia, only 33 of those plans are multi-employer plans.

The member for Chilliwack should be ashamed of himself for standing up in this House and supporting the fact that that statement has been made, when he keeps saying: "Read it." Read it, hon. member. It does not say that; that is not true. The hon. member for Chilliwack, who at one point in his career wanted to be my ministerial assistant when I became the Minister of Environment, is saying, "Read the bill," yet he stands there, and he's quite happy to have the misinterpretation of what's in that bill go forward. Why is he doing that?

He is doing it because he wants the public to believe the misinterpretation that he's placing on that bill. That's why he's doing it. For that hon. member for Chilliwack that is going over the line. It's going over the line with regard to his role in the official opposition to appropriately present a critique. Give a critique, hon. member, but do not misrepresent what it says in here. I repeat: of the 1,000 plans registered in B.C. -- there are 1,000 plans registered in B.C. -- it is wrong to say, in your official documents and your press releases, that it affects 1,000 plans.

That is not correct, and it is not right to say that. You should not say that, hon. member. I'm glad, knowing this now, that you never did become my ministerial assistant.

One of the things that I think was extremely unfortunate about the comments of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson was that he referred to the superintendent of pensions. He misrepresented the role of the superintendent of pensions in going to court. He said that the superintendent went to court to argue against this clause. That is not true. It is not true. The superintendent is charged with upholding the law as it is written. The superintendent told the court that this is common practice. So again, there was a misrepresentation in what they said.

Why does the opposition want to wrap themselves in a process that makes it more difficult for new workers to enter the workplace? Why do they want to do that? They're trying to say that they're standing up for workers. That's balderdash. Why cast the bill in a false representation? Why say that it says what it does not say, and why say that it does what it does not do? Why do that? That's not your role as the official opposition. Your role is to provide an effective critique, but not to misrepresent what is in the bill. Why attempt to create fear, loathing and panic where that is totally inappropriate? Why preach that the sky is falling?

What most annoys me, of anything in the comments of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, is that he stood in this House last Thursday afternoon and misrepresented me and imputed motives to the fact that I left cabinet. In doing so, I think he does something that belittles what goes on in this House. If he wants to know my reasons for leaving cabinet, I'm available to talk to him. He could call me on the phone. We could sit down and have a chat. But to seek to impute motives to me and then wrap that into his rhetoric, I think, is really unfortunate and unnecessary. It's not true and it's not appreciated.

[1605]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in the debate in this House on Bill 58, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 1999. I know there's been a good deal of heat in the debate around Bill 58. I hope I can add a little bit of light, as well, to what has been discussed here.

[ Page 13279 ]

This is a substantial bill. It includes some 75 sections over 22 pages. It may well be -- and I'm no expert on pensions -- that some of the provisions in this bill are actually benign, beneficial. But as we have found, regrettably, in too much other NDP legislation, there is contained in these 22 pages, in these 75 sections, a classic NDP poison pill.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I'll direct the member for Skeena directly to the

section of concern, and that's

section 48. We've had a little back-and-forth in the House here about what this bill does or does not do. But it's clear enough what

section 48 does. I'll quote first of all from the legal text. Then I'll quote from the

interpretation, which is provided on the opposite page, to explain it.

This is subsection 48(

c) on subsection 74(2)(g)(ii): " . . . the suspension of benefits of a former member who has begun to receive an early retirement pension under a multi-employer plan and restarts work or service in British Columbia in a trade or industry covered by that plan but with an employer who is not a participant in that plan . . . . " It's clear enough, I think, that this will offer the cabinet the power to suspend the pension benefits of those who've taken early retirement and then return to work in the same work or service.

An Hon. Member: Cabinet has nothing to do with it.

G. Abbott: The hon. member says it has nothing to do with cabinet. Well, I'll direct the member to page 16, which is the explanatory note. If the member goes to

section 48(c), the explanatory note says: " . . . adds a provision to empower the Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- and that you can read as the cabinet -- "to make regulations that allow a pension plan to suspend benefits received by a pensioner who took an early retirement pension and is subsequently re-employed in the same trade or industry with an employer who is not a participant in that plan."

Now, hopefully, that clarifies the point the member opposite raised about what it's got to do with cabinet. It's got everything to do with cabinet. It says right in the explanatory note that this would "empower the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations that allow a pension plan to suspend benefits . . . . "

An Hon. Member: A pension plan to suspend benefits, not cabinet.

G. Abbott: Correct. It empowers the cabinet "to make regulations that allow a pension plan to suspend benefits" to a beneficiary; so that's clear enough. We've resolved one thing: in fact, this bill, if passed, will confer a very considerable power on the cabinet in relation to pension benefits in this province. I think that's an important starting point here.

[1610]

When we think about what's going on here -- a bill that empowers cabinet to allow the suspension of pension benefits to someone who has taken early retirement and then has the audacity to go back and want to work with a different employer, perhaps, but in the same area of work -- what would be the principle there? What would be the principle that underpins or underlies

section 48? This is a substantial change in the way in which pension benefits are being conducted in this province.

Evidently, the principle is that it is a bad and greedy thing to take an early retirement pension and then start working again; that seems to me to be the principle here.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I think the member for Skeena is agreeing with me. I think he is finally agreeing with me. I knew I would get through to him, as I always do in my remarks, but I didn't expect it this early, frankly. I'm delighted that the member for Skeena is coming around so quickly to an understanding of this debate.

An Hon. Member: He's actually applauding you right now.

G. Abbott: I thought I heard applause coming from over there.

In fact, when the Minister of Labour was discussing this bill, I understand that he used the term "greedy" in relation to undertaking this activity.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: No, apparently he did. Apparently it's in Hansard , so I guess we can all go back and look at that. I find that I don't have enough empty time in my day to actually go back and do that, but I gather that it was the comment: that it was a greedy thing to go back and work after taking an early retirement pension. Now we know -- at least, according to NDP logic -- that this is a bad thing, because this bill provides the cabinet with the power to suspend pension benefits where this supposed transgression occurs.

How and why would this become a bad thing? We know that it's a fine and indeed legal thing to take early retirement. Hopefully, we don't have any dispute in the House on that point. If people want to work hard, earn a pension and then take that pension early -- for whatever reason they feel is appropriate -- hopefully, we can all agree that there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's a very fine and good thing to do, presumably.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: The member for Skeena agrees again.

H. Giesbrecht: What is retirement?

G. Abbott: What is retirement? It's a very good question and one, I'm sure, which you'll amuse the House and inform the House . . . .

An Hon. Member: Lead by example.

G. Abbott: Yes, lead by example.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, members.

G. Abbott: So we know that it's a fine and legal thing to take early retirement.

This is a critical point, and I know the member for Skeena will want to hear this one. An early retirement pension is not a

[ Page 13280 ]

gift. It's not a gift that the government or a union or a society provides to the beneficiary. An early retirement is something that people work for and that they pay for. I heard in the earlier discussion the suggestion by the last speaker -- I believe it was the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville -- who said: "Well, it's not a thousand pension plans that are going to be affected here. It's only going to be 33." Frankly, if it were only one, it would be one pension plan too many; 33 is 33 too many, as far as I'm concerned, because the principle here is flawed.

We also know, in addition to knowing that early retirement is a fine and legal thing, that working is a fine and legal thing. We know that under the leadership of the current NDP administration, being able to work is becoming a more and more difficult thing to do in this province. That's for sure. It's increasingly challenging to find work in this province under the leadership of the NDP. However, work is a fine and legal thing. Yet somehow the combination of work and early retirement justifies, under Bill 58, empowering the cabinet with the authority to suspend the pension rights of anyone who has the audacity to want to supplement their retirement benefits with employment.

[1615]

Hon. D. Lovick: Wrong.

G. Abbott: That's exactly what it says. The Minister of Labour disagrees. But again, we talked about this at the outset. How else can we read

section 48? It adds a provision to empower the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- i.e., cabinet -- to make regulations that allow a pension plan to suspend benefits received by a pensioner.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: That's not correct. That's exactly what it means. If that doesn't mean that they have the power, then you're obviously reading less into it than what is there.

Obviously, to provide government with the power to step in and suspend earned pension rights -- which, in my estimation, is a vital element of personal property rights . . . . This is something which appears onerous, arbitrary and coercive. I think that what's contained in

section 48 is clearly all three of those things: onerous, arbitrary and coercive.

Could such a power be justified? Well, obviously this NDP government says yes. "Yeah, it's justified," they say. They claim -- and I think I've heard this not directly but indirectly from a number of members opposite -- that somehow this incursion into the realm of earned pension rights is justified. I certainly can't agree, and I know that none of my colleagues on this side of the House can agree. Clearly

section 48 of Bill 58 is arbitrary social engineering of the worse kind. That's clearly what this is.

Hon. D. Lovick: Social engineering?

G. Abbott: The whining and complaining of the Minster of Labour doesn't make it any better. Clearly this is a very arbitrary, very onerous provision, which I'm surprised that any government would ever consider, never mind a government that likes to proclaim on a regular basis its concern with worker rights. This clearly is moving in the opposite direction. This provision, this

section 48, is government deciding when someone should work, and it's government deciding where someone should work. I don't think it's an appropriate role of government to make that decision.

Hon. D. Lovick: It's enabling legislation, George -- enabling.

G. Abbott: Exactly. The minister says that this is enabling legislation. That's exactly why we should be concerned, because it opens the door, I think, for some horrendous actions by government in the future. I think it's dead wrong, what's being done here.

This legislation, and particularly

section 48, also leaves open the possibility of the worst sort of Big Brother mentality, entirely in conflict with the principles of a free and democratic society. What is Bill 58, and especially

section 48, going to mean to Joe Citizen? Well, I guess that if you're Joe Citizen and you are enrolled in one of the 33 pension plans which the government identified earlier . . . . If you're enrolled in one of those and if you've worked for 25 or 30 or 35 years in one of the trades that is covered by those 33 pension plans, you may decide one day that you're going to take early retirement.

After a year or two, perhaps either feeling a little bored or a little short of money or whatever -- it doesn't matter what the reason is -- Joe is offered either part-time or full-time work doing something in his old field, perhaps with a different employer. I guess it's with a different employer, to meet the terms of this. Fair enough.

[1620]

Now, would it be bad? Would it be hostile to the interests of society for Joe to accept that work? Here, I guess, we're going to have a difference of opinion across the floor, because the government clearly says: "Yeah, it's bad." They must say that. They've got to mean that, because that's what

section 48 is all about: that it would be bad for Joe, after accepting that early retirement, to go back and take on part-time or full-time employment in a related area.

An Hon. Member: And work for half the wage because he's getting a pension.

G. Abbott: The member says: "Yeah, it would be bad, because he's going to be taking half the wage." I guess that would be a matter of personal choice for Joe. Now should he . . . ?

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Obviously, where we're going here is the suggestion by the other side that everybody should make the same money set by the government. Again, the members opposite are never happy when people exercise personal choice. The folks across the floor here are only happy when something is centralized and bureaucratized, tightly controlled and tightly regulated. People exercising free choice is not something that fits well into their view of the world.

Would it be bad if Joe accepts that work? The NDP says yes. If Bill 58 passes -- and presumably it will; presumably the government is going to be exercising its legislative majority here again to pass this unfortunate provision -- and if Joe takes on the work and is apprehended by the pension police, he's going to see his pension benefits suspended for what might be termed his anti-proletarian activities in taking on this additional work.

[ Page 13281 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: His anti-pension-fund activities.

G. Abbott: His anti-pension-fund activities . . . . I see. He would be destroying his pension plan by taking early retirement. Well, if Joe was going to . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: No, no. By going to work while receiving the pension.

G. Abbott: Yes, exactly.

Hon. D. Lovick: Read it.

G. Abbott: I've read it. We know exactly what it says, and no amount of . . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, members -- through the Chair, please.

G. Abbott: All of this material in

section 48 is the worst sort of socialistic intervention in the social and economic life of this province.

Some would say: "We should be used to it. We've been seeing this kind of thing from this NDP government for the past eight years; we ought to be used to it." But that doesn't make it right. Whether you've endured an injustice for a year or a hundred years, it doesn't make it right. No amount of experience with bad legislation from this government is going to make this particular provision any more palatable. What's contained here is simply not right; in fact, it's entirely wrong in motivation and direction.

There is -- and I did hear this stated explicitly by one of the members opposite among the last couple of speakers -- a premise which underlines the thinking behind

section 48, which, I guess, underlies much of the NDP's socialist thought around employment and the economy, and that is the premise here. The generally unstated -- but occasionally stated -- premise which underlies

section 48 and which underlies much of what the NDP does is that there is a fixed and finite economic pie. That is the founding premise here.

[1625]

Further, I think the belief here is that when someone works, they diminish that pie rather than add to it, so if someone's working, they're taking away something from the economic pie rather than adding to it. It's similar in many respects to the thinking of the Luddites back in England centuries ago and the notion that if we could smash the machines, we could preserve jobs -- that machines were something that rather than create employment, destroy employment. I think the NDP are neo-Luddites, are modern-day Luddites . . .

An Hon. Member: Neo-socialist Luddites.

G. Abbott: . . . are neo-socialist Luddites. They believe that more regulation, more limits on personal freedom, more limitations on individual enterprise . . . . Somehow, if we restrict, if we regulate, we can protect those jobs that are left. That, I think, is at the core of the thinking here, and it's at the core of many of the things -- I won't go into them today -- that this government has tried to do in the forest industry and elsewhere.

And they're wrong. This bill is wrong, and it's part of the thinking that has taken this province from being number one in new economic development to number ten. This bill, Bill 58, is an assault on workers' rights, it's an assault on pension rights, and it's an assault on democratic rights. It's all of those things. This bill richly deserves to be defeated. We certainly are going to do our best to see this bill defeated -- in particular this

section 48 -- because it is wrong for all of the reasons that have been outlined. Just like the government that fostered

section 48 and brought it forward for our consideration in Bill 58, it deserves defeat, and so does the NDP government that sponsored it.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak, as my colleagues have, in opposition to Bill 58 for many of the same reasons that have been brought forward by preceding speakers. I want to commend the member for Richmond-Steveston for his thoughtful remarks about

section 1, which clearly lay out, I think in very plain language, where the B.C. Liberal Party stands. So I want to thank him for doing that.

Bill 58 is an attack on pensioners; it's an attack on workers. It's an attack on people who have contributed to a pension plan, for however long in their life, and who wish to take a benefit from that pension plan and who possibly are thinking about having to go back into the workforce to supplement their income -- or for many other reasons. Lord knows, when people retire in this province, the way the NDP have increased costs of living here . . . . You may have thought at the time you received your pension that you could live a fairly decent life, but you find out that that's not entirely true.

You do need to supplement it with some other form of revenue. One would then think: well, what would you do? It's not very likely, if you were at the pensionable age, that you would start something brand new and fresh. You would likely carry on with something that you had been used to, something that you had done for most of your life. That would be, I think, almost a normal course of action for someone to take in their retirement years, wanting to supplement their retirement with a bit of work.

[1630]

But it seems as though the NDP takes exception to those issues and to people who want to do those kinds of things. I know there are constituents who reside in the constituency of Peace River North, which I represent, who actually are on pension but do not have enough money to live comfortably or even to be able to put groceries on the table. They find themselves out working again. Heaven knows, the cost of living has increased a huge amount over the last number of years -- and specifically in the last decade -- by leaps and bounds.

There is absolutely no place that this government, in the last eight years that they have been in power, hasn't snuck into and somehow opened a door to be able to bring forward some piece of legislation, some piece of regulation allowing agencies and government to increase fees. Heaven knows, there isn't a fee in this province that hasn't been increased I don't know how many times. And there are a host of new ones -- some that one would never in their wildest dreams ever dream that a government would decide to sneak in and

[ Page 13282 ]

to take some more hard-earned money from those people out in the workforce and those that are trying to live on their pensions.

As I said, Bill 58 is a complete attack on workers and pensioners. It makes one wonder, when you think back to not so long ago -- but a long time ago in some people's minds -- to the last election, when we had the NDP government running on the slogan: "We're on your side." I remember seeing that constantly on the TV or in documents that were distributed around the province. The NDP were saying: "We're on your side."

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I guess people didn't realize -- as my colleague says -- that they really meant that they wanted to be in both of your pockets instead of just the one, as they were prior to 1996, and that they wanted to get into every part of your life. Every place they thought they could weasel in and weasel some money out, they've done it. They've accomplished it. And now, of all things, of all the weasel-minded things to do, we have them attacking people that take a pension.

Can you believe it, hon. Speaker? All they want to do is take a pension and then supplement it so they can buy a bit of milk and some bread at the end of the day. And what do we have? We have a socialist government that wants to come in and to now be able to say: "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We were on your side. No longer are we on your side. You've paid into that pension for the better part of your life, but you're not going to get one lousy part of it." I just wonder how the Minister of Labour would feel if government all of a sudden decided to jerk his pension. Can you imagine?

I would imagine that the Minister of Labour is registered in a number of pensions -- one in this Legislative Assembly, and one in the teachers pension fund, I would assume.

[1635]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: College instructors -- right.

If government were to come in and say, "We're going to just pluck that one out of there," I could just imagine the furore that would arise from that minister. Well, how about the poor pensioners out there that want to supplement their income? All of a sudden, it's fine for Big Brother to come in and say: "I'm sorry. You're working in the same line of work that you worked in before. We don't think it's fair that you should have your 20 bucks a month" -- or whatever it happens to be -- "so we're going to take that away from you. You can't have it." This is a government that says: "We're on your side."

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: It just amazes me when I stand up or when anyone stands up in this House and dares to disagree with the socialists. They just get so exercised about it, because they always think they're right. It doesn't matter whether it was the Nisga'a agreement . . . . If you happen to stand up and have a bit of a difference with one piece of the Nisga'a agreement -- my God! -- you're a racist. You just didn't understand. There's something wrong with you; you don't understand.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that I don't understand some of the socialist leanings that come from the government side of the House, and I have no intention of ever trying to understand them. I'm not built that way. I believe in free enterprise. I believe in people being able to go out and do things, being able to go out and . . . . If they pay into a pension all their life, they should be able to take some of those benefits, and they should be able to go out there and put their values to work and get some money for that without Big Socialist Brother coming in and saying: "You can't do that; that's wrong."

Some sections of Bill 58 are fine. It's typical of the NDP to bring forward a bill which has some good sections -- some sections that are needed to update . . . . Every once in a while they surprise the whole world, and they come through with a few things that are not all that bad. You've got to give them a little bit of credit, but you don't want to give them too much, because they'll take the whole thing. So here they go. They bring in a bill with . . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: You know, the Minister of Labour can wrap this up when I'm all done. I mean, he'll have the choice to stand up and wrap up the debate on this bill.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member has the floor.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, it's just amazing. Like I say, when you disagree with a socialist, they go berserk on you. They just think: "No one understands. Only I understand, and only I know." That's not entirely true. In fact, if you go to pension industry experts, they refer to this legislative move as draconian and appalling. That's how they look at it. I mean, you can take the politics out of it and say, "Well, okay, the member for Peace River North doesn't understand," but neither do a whole bunch of people that work in the pension industry.

So it's interesting to note that again we have the Minister of Labour over there trying to convince me that this is a good piece of legislation. Well, I'm trying to tell him that maybe just a few sections should be changed. You would think they could be -- how shall I say it? -- accepting enough, accommodating enough, to say: "Well, you know, the B.C. Liberals have accepted the whole bill pretty well carte blanche. They've accepted almost every portion of it, but there's one lousy

section that seems to get in the way. Maybe they've got a point. Maybe they have an issue, and maybe we should listen to that." But not a socialist -- it's all or nothing: "No one else knows; only I know."

[1640]

The bill gives the NDP cabinet authority to suspend pension benefits of pensioners caught working in an occupation from which they are pensioned. That is the crux of why we're opposed to this bill. I don't think that anyone should have that authority, much less a socialist. That's just plain wrong.

This whole business about Bill 58, we understand, has not even been put forward to the government's own test of the business lens. They haven't even taken it . . . . I think it was during the election. Or was it the budget afterwards, or was it just the last budget? I can't remember now. They said that they would not bring forward any legislation unless it passed the

[ Page 13283 ]

business lens. Well, by their own admittance, it hasn't passed the business lens. Should I be surprised? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because how many times has this government sat across the way and told us they would do something and did exactly the opposite? So it shouldn't surprise anyone on this side of the House that they wouldn't apply their own rules that they said they would apply to all legislation prior to it coming to the House.

This is a government that said that they were going to reduce the paper burden in British Columbia, yet we continue to see bill after bill come before this House that will actually increase the paperwork and the difficulty that business or pension people have to deal with.

There is another step that I am told is historically taken by any government before they make changes to pension plans, and that is that they take those anticipated changes out to the industry, they take it out to people that deal with these issues on a daily basis -- actuaries, all those kinds of people -- and they put it forward to them, something in the form of a White Paper, so people can actually see what they're doing. This was not done by this government. They didn't put out a White Paper. They didn't ask for input from anyone else other than themselves and a few they hold near and dear to themselves. They just wrote up the legislation and said: "This is the rule of law."

I understand that no other jurisdiction in Canada has this kind of authority to do the things that this government wants to do with this bill. You would think, if you were going to bring forward something in that broad a change to pensions, that you would first say: "We had better make sure we get this right. We had better put it out there to the industry, so we can get some good input. Possibly they might not agree with the White Paper we put out, and then at least we'll get the reasons from them about why they think it's not the right thing to do. Then we can actually come forward to this House with something that all parties could support."

[1645]

Wouldn't that be a novel idea for this group? Wouldn't that be something new? Wouldn't it be a good try, to use other people that maybe think differently than you but have some good ideas? That doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that they would have to put it out to the official opposition. I'm not asking for that. I'm saying that you put it out in the form of a White Paper. You take this bill, this legislation, much like it is, and you put it out for comment.

Why would something like this have to be done so secretively? Why would it have to be done in -- I don't know; where was it done? -- some room in this building before it hits the light of day? Why wouldn't a dramatic change like this deserve someone else from somewhere, maybe not even from within British Columbia but from across Canada. I'm sure there are all kinds of people -- and there are -- that are very wise in the ways of what we should be doing with our pensions. Why not take it out there to those experts, those people who have spent their whole lives dealing with pensions, and find out whether this kind of section,

section 48, is in fact acceptable to the general public -- to Joe and Josephine General Public? To the Minister of Health, would that be so wrong -- rather than to just sit here in the Legislature, have a table and have some of the NDP members, who have a strong union background, start telling us how pensions should be run? I don't think that gives them any more right than I have to say this is right.

I'm not an actuary; I'm not familiar with pensions. I want a pension someday. I'm no different than anyone else in this room. I'm human. I want to be able to provide for myself and my family at some point in time, and I want to do that with the understanding that I'm not going to have Big Brother all of a sudden someday say: "But sir, you can't have it. We're going to take it away from you." That is so wrong. It's no wonder that we have some seniors, pensioners, people who have taken early retirement, that are nervous -- and rightfully so.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member across the way says that I'm making them nervous because I'm letting them know what the heck's in the bill. Isn't that neat? So if the people didn't know that this section, where the government has the authority to jerk their pension, was in the bill, they wouldn't be nervous. That's right, they wouldn't be -- because they wouldn't know until it took place. That is wrong. That is a socialist movement that's wrong, that shouldn't happen in this country of ours.

It's absolutely unbelievable that that member over there would say that I'm making people scared because I'm letting them know what's in a piece