Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1992

Volume 7, Number 4

[ Page 4395 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

J. Tyabji: I would like to introduce in the gallery today an excellent nanny, Sabina Brown, and somebody's three noisy children. Please make them welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today is Mr. William Davies, who was the Public Health minister in Saskatchewan in 1961 when medicare was finally put in place. I would like to ask the House to make him welcome.

C. Serwa: I take great pleasure in introducing a former member of this House, fondly remembered and known by the nickname "Thumper" -- Jim Rabbitt.

B. Simpson: I'm honoured to introduce a long-time worker from my constituency, Andy Serink, and his wife, Vera. I welcome all members to give them a round of applause.

Oral Questions

QUALIFICATIONS OF TRADE
REPRESENTATIVES

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. In February last year the Premier said that all B.C. trade offices around the globe were being reviewed and a report was due in two months. Will the Premier, in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, commit to table that report this afternoon in the House? Can he tell us if the report condones the appointment of minimally qualified NDP party loyalists?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the members of this House are aware how important exports are to the B.C. economy. To that end the Minister of Economic Development and I have carried out a thorough review of both the Economic Development, Small Business and Trade ministry and the Trade Development Corporation. I can tell you that with the changes taking place, the trade offices are going to be far more focused and have an ability to help British Columbians export their fine products and services around the world.

G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't hear whether or not the Premier is intending to table the report. I assume that in the spirit of freedom of information he will do so.

With regard to the London office, I note also that the Premier said he was looking to put in someone with a hard-nosed business development background. Given the current person who's been appointed, that doesn't seem to apply. The Premier says that he has to cut a $300 million deficit from his budget. In the interests of the hard-working women and men of British Columbia who have to pay for these types of things, will he commit to review Mark Rose's four taxpayer-funded pensions, his $90,000 taxpayer-funded salary, his $24,000 tax-free allowance and the taxpayer-funded Mercedes and chauffeur?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am sure the member is aware that the agent general in London has had a $26,000 cut from the previous agent general. I think that the member is aware that the person is now over 65 and is a hard-working person who is entitled to the pensions he has paid into. As a matter of fact, on the B.C. pension, of which he was a member here for a number of years, he is only receiving that part which is his own money.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reality is that that gentleman is receiving $170,000 of taxpayer money from this province. I think that's a shame.

Hon. Speaker, the same member who now occupies that post has said that it's called jobs for the boys; it's called patronage; it's called pork-barrelling. Will the Premier admit that that is exactly what he's doing, exactly what he is engaging in, and will he commit to review those taxpayer-funded perks that he's given to his friends?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member should be aware of the homework he has done and the sources he is quoting when he holds up newspaper articles on the hard-hitting questions he's asking. I have made it clear that we need an experienced person in communicating and understanding the importance of the $2.5 billion to $3 billion in forestry products that are being questioned. That whole market is being questioned. I'm sure the member over there is far more interested in the tens of thousands of British Columbians who are employed in the forest industry -- whose livelihood depends on our pulp, paper and lumber products being sold in Europe -- and that those jobs be maintained. I think he should be more interested in those kinds of questions than in an agent general who is a qualified British Columbian, who is working for British Columbians and who is receiving $26,000 less than the previous agent general in London.

SUPPORT SERVICES FOR ABUSED YOUTH

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Does the minister have the same strong commitment today to supporting abused youth as she did when she was a member of the opposition?

Interjection.

The Speaker: The Minister of Social Services has answered the question.

R. Neufeld: The minister has been in charge of Social Services for 13 months. Why has she not committed the necessary dollars to fund the Helpline for Children, Zenith 1234, and to advertise it through radio and TV?

[ Page 4396 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I want to bring to the member's attention a number of announcements that we made last year and a number of very committed and hardworking people in the field right now who are working to support families and young people. We have invested an additional $25 million in family support for young people in this province, and we're seeing the results of that work today, as we speak.

R. Neufeld: It's obvious that the minister is not aware of the Zenith 1234 number, or does not want to commit to continue it.

My second supplemental. The interministry child protection strategy implemented in 1983 hasn't been updated for a few years. Does your ministry have plans to update this valuable strategy for helping the abused children of the province?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to start off by telling my ministerial assistant, who is viewing this in my office, that I did not ask the member to ask these questions. I also want to tell the member that I will be making a ministerial statement after question period, which will elaborate on a number of very exciting initiatives underway in this ministry.

B.C. TRANSIT DEFICIT

W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Finance. On June 18 the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour was appointed by some mystifying selection process to the board of B.C. Transit, good until July 1 of '92. Given Mr. Georgetti's convictions that the provincial deficit should be doubled or even tripled if necessary, is the minister concerned that he might take the same approach with the $20 million transit deficit?

Hon. G. Clark: No.

RELATIONSHIP OF LABOUR LEADER
WITH GOVERNMENT

W. Hurd: My last question then to the Minister of Labour. The Premier has noted that there will be no more backroom deals on labour legislation. Could the Minister of Labour confirm whether he has had any of these backroom discussions with the BCGEU with regard to a new minimum wage in the province?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: No.

MR. GEORGETTI AND THE GOVERNMENT

W. Hurd: My last question is to the Premier. Last December and during this week's B.C. Fed convention, Mr. Georgetti indicated that he wants to forge a closer relationship with the government, including being considered an equal partner to the Premier. For the benefit of the House, can the Premier advise what Mr. Georgetti's role is in respect to his government, and whether he is an equal partner at the cabinet table after this week's B.C. Fed convention?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm very pleased to respect and to have the acquaintance of somebody of the calibre of Ken Georgetti, who is one of the great leaders in this province. And I was pleased that he agreed to co-chair the Premier's Summit on Trade and Economic Opportunity in this province with Mr. Jim Matkin, one of the able business leaders in this province.

You see, that's the difference between this government and the Liberals. We want to get all British Columbians working together, not try to create confrontation like you are.

B.C. COAL INDUSTRY LOSSES

L. Stephens: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This minister has conceded that B.C.'s coal industry has lost money for the last four years. Can the minister tell us if this is the result of the Pacific Rim not consuming enough coal, or is it because of the debilitating costs and high taxes here in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Edwards: The problems of the coal industry are many, and it would take longer than I would be allowed in this question period to go into them. The concerns have a lot to do with the technology that has been introduced into the steel-making process in Japan and other steel-making countries. The consumer no longer needs the kind of coal that the coal areas produce for the best return.

There are a number of other things. Certainly the coal industry itself has said that it considers taxation to be a major burden. We are doing studies and have looked into that. We are in the process of developing a coal strategy for British Columbia which we've been working on, with a lot of public input, for longer than we would like. But of course, that has been sort of sidetracked by some of the other problems in the industry.

L. Stephens: I see that the minister is off to the Pacific Rim on a trip, and she explains that this is to advise the Japanese and Korean governments and industry leaders on British Columbia's development strategies for coal, minerals and energy resources. Given that the mandate of Dick Gathercole and the Energy Council was to assist in developing British Columbia's energy policies -- and I assume this is what you've been referring to -- and we haven't yet got a report on that, what will the Koreans and Japanese learn from this minister that the people of British Columbia haven't yet learned?

Hon. A. Edwards: The member referred to the Energy Council. Obviously, it will put together proposals for an energy plan which will include all sources of energy within British Columbia. That will, of course, come to the minister and be part of the policies that will be put together by the ministry and the government.

The point of the visit to Japan and Korea is to assure our two major customers for coal that we consider coal to be a major commodity in British Columbia, that we want to ensure that coal mining continues and that it is

[ Page 4397 ]

going to be continuing on a very healthy basis. As everyone knows, there is a major restructuring happening in the southeast part of the province. It seems that we need to make our customers very sure that we know what's going on, that we are on top of it and that we will continue to support the industry and workers.

L. Stephens: Attached to this news release is the information that British Columbia has adopted policies which allow coal-fired generation to compete alongside others to meet future energy needs. Are these the same policies that forced Fording Coal to cancel their planned facility in the Elk valley and move it to Alberta?

Hon. A. Edwards: Fording Coal did not cancel a project and move it to Alberta; that is inaccurate information. We have been very clear since coming into government that in dealing with independent power producers, any kind of power production will compete on a level playing field. We will be able to look at any proposal on the basis of economic, environmental and social costs, and coal as a fuel will be able to compete there as well. We are quite sure that anyone who thought that a coal plant could compete on that basis would have every opportunity to do so, and we would welcome them to do so.

HEALTH CARE CUTBACKS IN THE NORTH

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Health. A week ago last Tuesday evening in Prince George, well over 200 residents gathered to discuss at a public forum the devastating cutbacks that this government has inflicted on our provincial health care system. In the absence of the minister and both Prince George government MLAs, a staff person from the ministry was to attend; at the last moment, however, that senior person advised that he could not attend, leaving the forum with absolutely no government representation. My question is: why is the NDP government ignoring the health care needs of the north?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, it was unfortunate that there wasn't anyone there from the government at the meeting, but unfortunately the organizers neglected to invite either of the local MLAs to come. They invited me, but I indicated that I was already committed. There was never a commitment for the staff person, but they went ahead and advertised in the paper. Unfortunate, but that was what happened in those circumstances. We are certainly not ignoring the needs of Prince George citizens. In fact, we've made significant investments in that community in health funding, particularly in the community sector. I'm very pleased to announce that the latest information I have from Prince George Hospital is that the waiting lists are going down in that community. So there is an improvement.

Further, the two MLAs in that area -- on the government side -- have worked with the hospital board. I now understand that for the first time there is a labour-management committee working to resolve problems at the hospital. So I think that's very good service from this government.

Presenting Petitions

C. Evans: I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the NUC Education Society in Nelson, B.C. This petition represents 1,000 letters; as members know, we can't submit letters as petitions. Allow me to show you. These letters....

The Speaker: I remind the hon. member that in presenting petitions, it is allowable only to state the purpose of the petition and the specific request as succinctly as possible.

C. Evans: Very simply, the people signing this petition ask that Nelson University Centre get degree-granting status.

Ministerial Statement

B.C. CHILD PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Hon. J. Smallwood: In November 1991, I appointed a community panel to review B.C. child protection legislation. For a year, panel members met with individuals, families, caregivers, advocacy groups and aboriginal and ethnic communities across the province to assess the state of B.C.'s system for providing child support.

Tomorrow in Vancouver the panel will be formally presenting to the government two reports containing the collective result of 38 community meetings and over 1,200 submissions. These reports describe a system in severe crisis, which has too often failed the people whom it was designed to serve.

To those of us who have been closely involved in community advocacy over the years, this comes as no surprise. The current Family and Child Service Act was passed in 1981. There have been profound changes in British Columbia's economics and demographics since that time. Moreover, social values are constantly changing, and public awareness of issues such as family violence and child abuse has increased substantially. The system must change as well. B.C.'s current system has failed to significantly reduce child abuse.

Today we need viable alternatives to breaking up families under stress and separating children from parents in crisis. We need new solutions to family problems triggered by poverty, isolation, ignorance and fear. We need alternatives for British Columbia's children and youth who, through no fault of their own, are currently forced to spend part of their childhood in the care of the state.

In the past, ministry staff charged with protecting children from abuse had only two options under the law; neither of them was ideal. They could either leave the child in danger, or they could remove the child completely from the family. The community panel

[ Page 4398 ]

recommends new options, and more closely involves communites and extended families as partners in child protection and family support.

Madam Speaker, I welcome these recommendations. They support this government's commitment to reduce state intervention in family life and to empower individuals and communities to control their own destinies. The Ministry of Social Services has already begun to implement these new philosophies and directions. In April, I allocated $25 million of new money for family support initiatives. Ministry staff tell me that these funds have provided a valuable investment by supporting families under stress and helping them to stay together. Despite these shifts in focus from crisis intervention to family support, we will not shirk our child protection mandate. We will still remove a child from the home if there is no other solution. But from now on, apprehension will be the last resort, not the only resort.

The panel produced two reports. One is entitled Making Changes -- A Place to Start, and makes 162 recommendations for change in the way government relates to communities, to families and to children. The two aboriginal panel members produced a second report entitled Liberating Our Children, Liberating Our Nations, addressing the challenges of aboriginal children and families, with another 102 recommendations for change.

Although less than 5 percent of B.C.'s population is of aboriginal origin, over one-third of the children in state care come from First Nations communities. I believe every member in this House will agree that this is a tragedy. This must change. What people or culture can survive without their children? Through its recommendations the aboriginal report offers us an opportunity to start the healing process between native and non-native British Columbians; a healing process that I believe is long overdue.

The views of the broader population are reflected in a comprehensive report prepared by eight panel members. This report recommends ways of involving services to families and communities marginalized by poverty, and by linguistic, cultural and ethnic barriers. We are committed to communication and ongoing dialogue with these communities. Therefore summaries of this report will be provided upon request in Hindi, Punjabi, Chinese, French, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Government must recognize that poverty contributes heavily to child maltreatment and conflict within families. In fact, children in care are overwhelmingly drawn from the ranks of British Columbia's poor. I will convene a permanent income advisory council to counsel me on income assistance policy and its impact on our recipients. The public dialogue around the income assistance advisory council will be reinforced through ongoing consultation between ministry staff and community groups. Earlier this year my ministry was able to allocate $1 million to support small, community-based advocacy groups working on behalf of low-income British Columbians.

[2:30]

I'm confident that these reports mark a watershed in British Columbia's social policy. We're very clearly entering a new era. Families who need support are treated with dignity and respect. Social workers are given the flexibility and support to practise prevention before intervention. Communities work with government to find local solutions to local problems.

Copies of the two reports of the panel will be delivered to all hon. members tomorrow. They are large documents that represent a tremendous consensus-building effort by a very remarkable group of people. I urge hon. members to read these reports carefully.

Today's recession brings with it high rates of unemployment and increased numbers of families living below the poverty line. The stresses of family life can be overwhelming. Hon. members, growing numbers of your constituents are in crisis, many for the first time. I believe the community panel's report provides us with a blueprint for change, one that will carry B.C.'s society through the nineties and beyond. It will form the basis of new child protection legislation, which I hope to introduce into the House this spring. From now on, government will proceed in partnership with communities, not imposing policies from above and not trailing behind. Together we'll improve the lives of children and families marginalized by poverty and by linguistic, cultural and ethnic barriers.

V. Anderson: First of all, I would like to commend the hon. minister for the beginning that has been made. I know the hon. minister has been trying quite sincerely to move in the direction of recognizing the need within the province on behalf of the 20 percent or more of our population who live in poverty, both those who receive maintenance support and those who are the working poor, whose situation is also extremely difficult. I'm not sure whether both of those groups are included in this particular movement. I trust they may be, but I'm not sure. We will have an opportunity to read for ourselves.

One of the concerns that I have, in hearing just what was presented today and without having a chance to read the document, is that it does not, on first hearing, seem to be as broad as it might be. I would have hoped that it might have been an interministerial statement that would have included Health, Education and Economic Development.

My understanding from those persons in the community is that they wish to be working for themselves. They wish to have jobs and not be dependent on anyone else for their incomes. There are some cases where they may be, but the majority of them wish to be self-supporting. This also goes for those who are physically or mentally challenged. They wish to have the opportunity to support themselves.

Along with whatever else we do, changes in labour legislation are required in order to support them in their ability to do this. This involves changes in educational opportunities, so more of them can have the opportunity to move from where they are to where they would like to be. Changes in the system will not solve their problems, because the problems these people face are systemic; they're in the whole system. They are in the totality of what we do, not what we do in one department. Unless we come forward with a whole

[ Page 4399 ]

interministerial statement, we are not really going to meet their needs. We are putting on another band-aid.

I commend the hon. minister for the new focus on families and for trying to respond to the needs of families as a unit, not as children and adults separate from one another. When she talks about extended families, I presume that grandparents are going to have a new consideration and a new place in family support systems. They have been asking us for that opportunity and that privilege.

We are also talking about prevention before intervention. But we need to intervene at the first sign that a family is going to break down. There needs to be a change and a re-education -- at the front level and within the system itself -- of the people who deliver the system. May I suggest that we take the lead of business and the good-host program? I was thinking just the other day that perhaps we should ask for the good-host program to be involved in working with the departments of all our ministries, with the recognition that the customer is right, and that our duty is to serve them. It is not their duty to kowtow to the rules and regulations that we have put before them in the past.

There needs to be a major change. I commend the intent here, but I suggest that it may be only a minor change. It's not altogether a question of money. If we put our focus on money, I think we're going to miss the reality. When we have an opportunity to read the recommendations, I trust we will discover that the majority of the recommendations deal with change to the whole system of how we deal with people, and in response to that, provide the money through the system, which means that they don't have to be in these difficulties in the first place.

I commend the hon. minister for a start in moving in the right direction, as she has been doing. I question whether it's far enough or whether we have dug deep enough into the system itself, which one ministry cannot do. It will have to be a combined activity of the whole government and the whole Legislature.

R. Neufeld: I would like to assure the minister that I don't have a pipeline into her office, and I didn't know that she was going to bring this forward today. But had she sent the speaking notes around earlier today, I can assure her that the question might have been a little different. We would have known beforehand what the ministerial statement was going to be about.

I am pleased that the minister had the meetings -- I knew they were taking place -- and has come forward with a statement of how her government feels social services, children and people in need are to be treated from now on. It's an issue that affects each and every one of us. I have those problems in my constituency, and when I'm in the city I see them an awful lot more. I can appreciate, after having been here for the amount of time I have.... It's more in the forefront for me than it was before. I can see that it is a bigger problem in the cities than it is in rural B.C.

I also want to remind the minister and others who are listening that if we continue on the road we seem to be going on, where we're discouraging investment in the wealth-generating parts of our province, the problems are going to get so big that we're not going to be able handle them. They have to work together.

I was pleased that the member from the Liberal caucus talked about an interministerial statement, such as the one that came out in 1983 on child protection. Actually, British Columbia was the first province in Canada to formally combat child abuse with the introduction of the child protection act in 1965, which was updated in 1979 and again in 1983. I appreciate that times have changed an awful lot since 1983. All of us know that times have changed and that an update is needed and will be appreciated. I agree with my friend from the Liberal caucus that combatting child abuse and poverty should be an interministerial commitment. Of course, our children are our future, and I think each and every one of us has to remember that.

I thank the minister for bringing it forward today. I look forward to reading it. I'll hurry off and tell my assistant that I wasn't having lunch with you today after all.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui is rising on what matter?

P. Dueck: The same matter.

The Speaker: The Chair will need to receive guidance from the House. It is our practice....

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member. Leave has obviously been granted.

P. Dueck: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I feel rather lonely not having the opportunity to respond to some of these ministerial statements. However, I appreciate you giving me that opportunity.

I would like to thank the minister for giving me the ministerial statement in advance so I could look at it. I too want to congratulate and commend the minister for taking this initiative. In my former life I had some experience in this ministry. I don't want to criticize the minister, but at that time this particular minister had all the answers. I just hope that some of the answers you had at the time can be implemented at this time. That was meant as a compliment.

This panel that has reviewed the whole issue of child protection and violence in families is very commendable, and I hope that the options which will come forward in this particular report are options that can be implemented -- that it won't just be dollars thrown at it. Twenty-five million dollars is a big amount of money. I'm not opposed to using money in this area as long as it is worthwhile.

Poverty is only one element of this whole situation, and I think we should not forget that. I know that there's much more violence and child abuse in families today than perhaps there was many years ago. On the other hand, perhaps it's more open now. We hear more about it as people are willing to talk about such a problem, whereas at one time perhaps it was kept

[ Page 4400 ]

behind closed doors. I have a great empathy for families that go through crisis and where family violence is the order of the day. There are many elements or many reasons why this is so. I hope that this report will answer some of those questions. Why is there family violence? Why do we have children in crisis? Why do they have to be apprehended? If we can find a solution and get that situation in order, children will not have to leave that particular family or environment. I know that at times it has been very difficult to leave children in situations where the danger was, in fact, that they could be harmed.

[2:45]

If we can get to the root of it.... I think that starts in grade school, high school and university. I don't think enough emphasis is put on how to conduct a family and how to look after finances in a family. We learn a lot about highfalutin things which are very important, but often the very simple part of parenting is just touched upon. Really, there is not very much education in that area. So I'm hoping -- and I give full credit to anyone who tries to solve these problems of child apprehension that rather than intervention we have family support, so that we don't need the other that goes with it.

Thank you again for giving me this statement in advance. I appreciate that very much and I wish you a lot of luck with it. I think that this should not be a parochial thing. When we talk about families, about children in crisis and about abuse in families, I don't think that either side of the House should take it as them and us. We're in this together, and we want to solve these problems.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 84; E. Barnes in the chair.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 28 is, of course, the section that deals with the provisions for dependent contractors. I know the member for Surrey-White Rock intends to canvass it a little more extensively as far as it relates to the forest industry, but perhaps the minister can give us an outline of the intent behind it. We've certainly read the comments in the green book, the report that was tabled, and the reasons for bringing it forward. Perhaps the minister can make some comment on the purposes behind this brand-new section.

Hon. M. Sihota: The section currently before the House permits the certification of dependent contractors. In the previous legislation they could only have been brought into an existing certification. This change permits them to form their own bargaining unit.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister would be willing to outline how the cause of good labour relations will be aided by in fact defusing the bargaining climate and allowing the potential for so many competing or peripheral unions to be involved in a single workplace. I'm thinking of a situation which might occur with the construction of a pulp mill in the province, where there are a number of contractors on site who may appear during the course of the project. Can the minister advise the committee of what concerns he may have, or what concerns the labour review panel might have had, about the potential for the labour relations climate to be afflicted by such activities as small bargaining units picketing entire projects in the province, like pulp mill projects, resulting in numerous applications to the Labour Relations Board and the possibility of picketing and work disruptions? Can he amplify for the committee on the rationale for this rather significant change as it concerns major construction projects, such as pulp mills and bridges and other contracts, in which a number of contractors appear on site over a period of months or even years?

Hon. M. Sihota: The concern about multiple certifications or bargaining units on the same work site, I guess, can be a concern. It would seem to me that if the hon. member has concerns about picketing and strikes, it would be appropriate to deal with that with regard to the provisions in the code for strikes and picketing. We anticipate that there are opportunities here for workers in the logging industry to achieve certification, but we don't think it will be particularly disruptive to the forest or fishing industries.

W. Hurd: Since it does represent a significant change in the existing legislation, has the ministry studied the potential impact of this change in terms of how dependent contractors will deal with this particular section of the act? In the minister's opinion, would it be an inducement for them to form their own bargaining units as opposed to their practice in the past which might have been to be certified into the existing union environment? Surely when you're dealing with a pulp industry contract, for example, for a major rebuild of a pulp mill, where there could be as many as 1,100 contractors and dependent employees on site.... I'm just not convinced or sure how this particular section will not result over the long term, as certifications take place, in the potential at least for more disruptions in the workplace. Given the significant impact that this particular change in the legislation could have on those types of large projects which are so important to the provincial economy -- pulp mill projects where $400 million or $500 million may be spent on modernization to meet environmental guidelines and so forth -- it will have the effect of endangering the workplace with a number of unions, where only one, two or three might have been required or necessary under the previous legislation.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, but hon. member, you're raising a fear, as you have often done, by pointing to all

[ Page 4401 ]

sorts of negative and catastrophic consequences. I guess it's your right to....

K. Jones: That's your job.

The Chair: Order, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale says that's his job. Well, that's fine.

K. Jones: Surely as an opposition....

The Chair: Would the hon. member who is speaking from his chair please come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: It ought not to be the place of this House to raise unnecessary fear. Section 28(2) allows for a variation of an existing bargaining unit, so the board can determine that it may be more appropriate to take a number of dependent contractors and place them in another bargaining unit. That would attend to the concern you have.

W. Hurd: In previous discussions on this bill, we raised the concern, with respect to the certification rules, about contractors appearing on site who may be in possession of union cards already. Obviously this provision in the bill would make it easier for these dependent contractors to be certified, and there would be little inducement for them to pursue the arrangements available to them under the previous section of the act.

Would the minister not agree that section 28, coupled with the easier certifications on a 55 percent rule, would act as an inducement for dependent contractors to form their own bargaining unit on a major construction site, rather than take the option that was available to them under the previous legislation? Aren't we dealing with a major change in the act here which will actually encourage and induce a larger number of individual bargaining units in the workplace, particularly on major construction contracts? Surely the minister recognizes the principle that the more bargaining units there are in the workplace, the more potential there would be for grievances in the normal ebb and flow of labour relations in the workplace.

I'm at a loss to understand how this particular right that is being transferred to dependent contractors will in any way aid the economy of the province and in particular the construction sites, where literally hundreds of contractors and employees are at work. I realize that, in practice, how this section is interpreted and how it is dealt with and evolves will be determined only over time. But the job of the opposition in this case is to study the sections of the bill and to assess the ramifications. It just seems to us on this side of the House that the more bargaining units that are induced into a major construction project, the more possibility there is for work disruptions and for a more unstable labour relations climate.

Has the minister assessed this kind of risk? Has the labour review panel assessed this kind of risk? Is he satisfied that this type of diffusing of the number of contracts and bargaining units in place on major construction sites will in any way assist the major contractor in meeting his goals or his timetables for construction?

Hon. M. Sihota: We do not anticipate that a plethora of new bargaining units will be created under this section. Section 28(2) mandates the board -- the board "shall" -- to determine what has to be done. If the hon. member would take the time to read that, he would realize there's the potential there for an employer to make an application to attend to the concern that he refers to.

In addition to that, hon. member, let me also say that if your argument is taken to its fullest, I guess you would take the view that dependent contractors ought not to be entitled to these bargaining rights. We disagree.

C. Serwa: In section 28 the definition of dependent contractors is very broad indeed. It applies equally to individuals who simply, for example, provide basically personal-type services to government as it does to individuals who have perhaps $100,000, or up to $500,000, invested in a particular piece of equipment. By accepting dependent contractors as falling within the qualifications for a unionized organization, is the minister suggesting that it is appropriate to bargain the total equipment rates as a dependent contractor?

[3:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: The parties can bargain on whatever items they want, whenever they want. I'm not going to get into the business in this Legislature of telling parties what they should or shouldn't bargain on. You know full well that anybody can take whatever they want to the table. Whether or not it's realistic or appropriate will be resolved through the collective bargaining system as we know it.

C. Serwa: I don't know that I'm very happy with that type of off-the-cuff remark about bargaining is bargaining. We're fundamentally looking at the work site, workers' wages and working conditions.

If this section goes through, we would find ourselves in a situation where let's say a person working in the bush with a $500,000 faller decides that he's not making an adequate sum with an hourly rate of perhaps $300 or $400, and he could shut down the entire logging operation to bargain a higher rate. It would have nothing to do with the workers' remuneration or working conditions. You have created an opportunity that was not previously available to independent contractors. Through this fine line that defines an independent entrepreneur and a unionized contractor, you've not only allowed them to set prices but also have given them opportunity to mandate and dictate those prices. There is no other opportunity unless there is some sort of negotiated settlement. So it's not a simple or inexpensive solution. One or two independent contractors can shut down a whole operation with this.

[ Page 4402 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: This is subject to, one, a determination with respect to whether or not there's a dependency relationship; two, a determination of whether or not the person is in a bargaining unit on their own or in a larger bargaining unit; three, the determination or ability of the employer to make an application under 28(2) with regard to that issue; four, someone then making a decision to go out on strike; and five, someone making claims of that nature. I suggest, hon. member, that if you read 28(2), the ill that you point to can easily be addressed through that provision.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister whether this provision is intended to do away with the concept of industrial unions.

The Chair: Please proceed, hon. member.

K. Jones: We're awaiting the response of the minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: I had to excuse myself from debate for a minute, but as practice allows in the House, other members of the executive council can take questions on notice, and I do have staff here. I'm sure that this is an interesting point of debate with regard to dependent contractors for all members. I'm sure that the questions will be taken on notice by staff, and we'll endeavour to answer them.

C. Serwa: Point of order. For important legislation such as this, this is an insult to the Legislature. If the minister is unable to attend, I suggest that the House adjourn and resume sitting when the minister is able to come back into the House.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, this is well-accepted practice. The minister has an extremely important item in relation to his Ministry of Labour portfolio which has to be taken care of. It's important to the entire province. We can take notes and take questions. I can assure the House and members opposite that the minister will answer the questions in due time.

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I move a motion that the House adjourn for 15 minutes to allow the minister time for his break.

The Chair: The proper motion, hon. member, would have been that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Do you wish to put the motion in light of the fact that the minister has returned?

Interjections.

The Chair: The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following motion:

On section 28.

K. Jones: I'll wait for the noise to be reduced.

I'll ask my question once again to the hon. Minister of Labour, now that we have his attention. Is this particular section intended to do away with the concept of industrial unions?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure that there is a place for industrial unions in society.

K. Jones: Could the minister explain to us what place he sees for industrial unions, with the concept that they represent the entire sector of that workforce rather than breaking them up?

Hon. M. Sihota: There has always been a place in society for unions like the IWA or unions representing the fishing sector. There's nothing in this section that would prevent that from happening.

K. Jones: I still belong to an industrial union. One of the concerns we had in the past was the establishment of independent certifications within the area of independent contractors. One of the great divisive parts of the process that we faced was the fact that certain segments, often professional groups such as computer operators and MIS people -- management information services -- were in many cases under independent contracts and not easily certified. Is it the intention of this clause to allow those groups to be certified by the union involved, independent unions or perhaps their own association?

The Chair: The hon. member for Vancouver Hastings rises on section 28?

[ Page 4403 ]

J. MacPhail: I'd like to make a few remarks to the House on section 28. I am interested in the comments that the member opposite made over the issue of the potential erosion of the industrial union sector. I'm pleased that he is showing concern in that area; however, I have a very different view of this section.

As most of the members in this House know, I have had experience within the labour movement organizing unions and contributing, from a working person's perspective, to the economy. I might say that section 28 will smooth out many aspects of the economy of British Columbia, while at the same time give collective bargaining rights to working people who make a major contribution to the economy but have been denied these rights over the past few years.

Let me clarify a few points about section 28 in terms of the intent of the legislation that I hope will alleviate some of the concerns of the member for Surrey-White Rock, who I know has an extensive and honourable labour background.

[3:15]

K. Jones: Surrey-Cloverdale.

J. MacPhail: Surrey-Cloverdale. All right. Surrey-White Rock doesn't, that's right. I'm sorry. I stand corrected. Surrey-Cloverdale does.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

J. MacPhail: There are a few things I might point out in terms of how I see the intent of this clause unfolding. First of all, we mustn't be too afraid of the wide-ranging application of this clause. Of course, the new Labour Relations Board will have to determine exactly what a dependent contractor is and whether he or she is a dependent contractor or not. Secondly, in terms of establishing the relationship that....

C. Serwa: Point of order. This is absolute nonsense, hon. Chair. This is second reading debate in Committee of the Whole. We're going section by section, but this is second reading debate and absolute nonsense on the part of the government.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Point of order. It's a well-known practice that members on any side of the House have the opportunity to express themselves on a particular point or clause. This hon. member is just taking her place in the debate as other members have taken their place in the debate, so I think it should be allowed to continue, hon. Chair.

J. Tyabji: On the same point of order, I think that all of us on this side of the House have tried very hard to stay relevant to the committee stage of each section as they go along, and I'd ask that the government members use the same rules.

The Chair: The point is well taken, hon. member. Is the member for Surrey-Cloverdale rising on the point of order?

K. Jones: On a point of order, my question was directly to the Minister of Labour. It was my intention to have a response from the Minister of Labour, not a surrogate response....

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The point of order is to do with the relevancy of the debate by the member who had her place. Those points are well taken, and I would ask that the member please proceed and continue strictly relevant to section 28 with her remarks.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, hon. Chair. I am trying to make my remarks relevant. It may be due to the lack of experience in the area of industrial relations that the members opposite don't recognize the relevance. This is a very important section. It's a technical section, and my remarks are addressed in a technical fashion.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale has, on more than one occasion, interjected from his seat, and I would ask the hon. member to please refrain from interjections in that manner.

J. MacPhail: The interpretation of the application of section 28 will be left to the members, the vice-chairs and the chair of the Labour Relations Board. The vice-chairs or the associate chairs, as they will be newly named in the legislation, will determine not only who a dependent contractor may be, but the relationship of that dependent contractor to the employer for which the certification has been applied. It will not be an employer-employee relationship that we should worry about -- eroding the aspect of other bargaining units, as the member for Surrey-Cloverdale has suggested. The current legislation permits the certification of dependent contractors only where they can be varied into an existing certification of employees. This change permits dependent contractors to form their own bargaining unit. As a member who has had experience with dependent contractors trying to become certified, I must say that I am pleased. Over the last two decades in this province we have seen major shutdowns over this issue. Certainly the member for Surrey-Cloverdale has had experience of this right within his own riding, where dependent contractors who have had major industrial relations issues with the people who pay them have not been allowed to have a collective bargaining relationship with those employers. They happened to be truckers at the time. Truckers did major convoys into the city and major closures of roads, all to assert their right to exercise a collective bargaining relationship with the employers they received their paycheques from. This section will take care of that situation, and it's good news economically for British Columbia.

Where certification already exists for a group of employees of the same employer, the board is required to determine whether, for collective bargaining purposes, the most appropriate bargaining unit should be

[ Page 4404 ]

the group of dependent contractors on its own or a bargaining unit merged with the existing certification. It gives a great deal of flexibility for the overall industrial relations climate within this province. It also allows a greater sense of fairness for those who make major economic contributions to this province to have their wages and terms and conditions of employment established in a fair and open manner, like the rest of us who have employers in this province. That's good news for the economy of British Columbia.

This change will open the potential for certification of many workers in logging, roadbuilding and food delivery who are dependent contractors now. This change will bring B.C. legislation into line with several other jurisdictions, by treating dependent contractors in the same way as other employees in terms of certification and determining appropriate bargaining units. We are not breaking new ground across Canada; most other jurisdictions allow stand-alone certifications for dependent contractors. So finally, once again, this piece of labour legislation brings British Columbia into line with the rest of Canada. I think that is good for us.

The issue of the dependency of a contractor on a specific employer is one that will have to be considered by the board prior to allowing certification. If we're in a situation where a dependent contractor is determined to have more than one employer-employee relationship, the board would examine the nature of an employer-employee relationship and whether that should be allowed a stand-alone certification.

There is also consideration for the large number of dependent contractor bargaining units which could be formed in some industries that use dependent contractors exclusively and extensively. I must say that we on the government side have experience with that kind of economic relationship, and I'm sure some of my government colleagues will be able to expand on that a little bit more in this good debate on section 28. For this reason, the proposed legislation gives the board the discretion to vary dependent contractors in an existing certification if it is appropriate to do so, and gives the board the authority to make necessary adjustments to integrate the dependent contractors into the bargaining unit.

I see section 28 as one that will bring some order to the industrial relations situation within British Columbia. There has been a gap in the application of collective bargaining rights in British Columbia, and that's made it very difficult for employers to do their business in a stable economic climate.

Interjections.

J. MacPhail: I'm a little bit dismayed that the members opposite don't see the economic benefit of this particular section and that they don't understand the technical ramifications of section 28. I think it's appropriate for us to assume that section 28 will be good news for employers. In the review, employers sought this as an item that would bring stability to the labour relations climate within the new Labour Relations Code.

I might say that I can give some information to the House about who else defines and allows dependent contractors in stand-alone units. The Canada Labour Code includes employment of dependent contractors in its definition of an employer. Other jurisdictions, such as Newfoundland, Ontario and Saskatchewan, include reference to dependent contractors in their definition of employee. In other jurisdictions, despite the fact that dependent contractors may not specifically be defined or mentioned, boards have had the discretion to include such individuals as employees within an appropriate bargaining unit, and in fact have done so.

I hope that we will very soon be able to pass this section and bring about good, stable economic relations in British Columbia.

L. Fox: On a point of order, we're wasting valuable taxpayers' dollars during this time.

The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order. The committee is sitting, and the order of business is section 28. As long as members are in order they can debate this matter.

The member for Okanagan West on a point of order?

C. Serwa: It's partially a point of order. I'd like to make a suggestion, hon. Chair. This is a very important and very controversial section. May I suggest that we proceed beyond section 28, with the opportunity to come back to it when the minister returns?

The Chair: Hon. member, that matter is up to the committee, not the Chair.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I assume that the opposition believes in parliamentary democracy and that government members, whether they be in cabinet or not, are permitted to speak to certain sections of bills. My colleague is taking her rightful place. My colleague happens to be an expert in these fields, and I believe she is entitled to speak on any section she wishes. If that offends the members across the way, then so be it.

L. Stephens: We are here to debate Bill 84, and the minister is not in the House. We are here to do the people's business. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Hon. member, that motion is not acceptable; it has been moved. It is out of order. It was negatived.

D. Miller: I wanted to make some comments with respect to this section. I'm mindful of the fact that the minister is not in the House. I'm also mindful, having participated as a member of the opposition party for the last five years, that I have frequently offered comments on sections of bills when the minister responsible for the bill was not in the House -- always based, of course, on the premise that officials were there and would take note and that the minister would respond in due course. I would offer that advice, although it is not my place, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4405 ]

Secondly, with respect to the particular section, it is a new section, and I think it begs for some reasonable debate about why this change has been brought forward. I want to offer some observations on what I consider the need for the section and, again, hope that the minister will respond in due course.

First of all, dealing with the forest industry.... Well, let me go back a little further than that. I'm going to relate a circumstance, and the answer I want to hear back from the minister is to the question: could the provisions in section 28 of Bill 84 have alleviated this type of situation?

[3:30]

Specifically, some members might recall the situation in building the highway system in Richmond, a series of overpasses and cloverleafs designed to improve the traffic flow in that area. The contract was awarded to.... If I'm not mistaken, I think the last name was Unger; two fellows were involved. I recall that the former Minister of Tourism was well acquainted with them. The truckers who worked on that project did not have a collective agreement, although as individuals they may have been members of the Operating Engineers or whatever. There was no collective agreement in force with the contractor that the government had awarded the contract to for the construction of this series of overpasses. It was a critical project. The independent truckers failed to reach an agreement independently with the prime contractor and, as a result, withdrew their labour independently. They couldn't collectively, because they were not afforded the protections that other working people might have had under the provisions of the labour legislation at that time. So they independently withdrew their labour. I recall that there were endless parades of dump trucks and gravel trucks, etc. But the net result was that the highway project was delayed, I think, by more than a year. If I'm not mistaken, it probably ended up costing the taxpayers of British Columbia more money, not to mention the inconvenience and the difficulties with traffic flow in that particular region. So given the kind of disruption that can take place, even though those independent truckers were not eligible to apply collectively for joint certification, it seems to me that the provisions of this bill, had they been in force at that time, might have offered some mechanism to resolve that dispute in a timely fashion, as opposed to the lengthy delays that took place and the enormous costs to the taxpaying public of British Columbia. I offer that as one example. I certainly would appreciate hearing some response from the minister in due course.

Secondly, I want to talk about the changing nature of work. All of us are aware that there has been a change in the nature of work. It's not a change brought about exclusively by technology. More and more we see a trend among employers of hiring people on contract, rather than hiring a collection of employees whom they pay on an hourly basis and who have the opportunity to unionize if they so choose. There's also a trend toward people working out of their homes. I don't speak in opposition to that trend, because it offers new opportunities, particularly to women who may have larger responsibilities to children that often restrict their entry into the workplace and their advancement to higher levels.

I'm not necessarily speaking negatively of it, but this trend towards contracts with individuals as opposed to a collective group denies those individuals the right to bargain collectively for some of the fundamental things that trade unions bargain for, whether that be hours of work, wages, pension benefits or a whole range of issues. It seems to me that this trend might deny individual contract workers the opportunity to realize the collective strength of their fellow workers -- which is really at the heart of trade unionism -- in terms of trying to bargain for the issues I've talked about.

I don't think we should be too eager -- as I think the opposition parties are -- to dismiss the need to afford the protection of labour legislation to other workers, including this emerging group of workers, simply because they may work in different circumstances. So my question specifically is: would this section of the bill provide an opportunity for these types of people to make application for certification on a collective basis? I don't think the opposition should so easily dismiss this group of people, because it is clearly a growing trend. Again, I want to reiterate that I'm not speaking negatively about that trend, because there are actually some positive attributes to that kind of independence. Working people always relish the opportunity to act in an independent manner and to make a contribution to the greater good of whatever form of employment they might be in. That's a specific question that I would like to have answered with respect to section 28.

Finally, I want to talk about the forest industry. Perhaps it relates more to the trucking example I talked about earlier, but clearly it's an important issue. I should say that when I addressed this issue as a member of the opposition....

A. Warnke: Point of order. I always, of course, listen with interest to the member for North Coast. In fact, the member for North Coast raises some interesting questions.

The Chair: I forgot to say, hon. member, that you are rising on a point of order.

A. Warnke: I am rising on a point of order regarding standing order 61(2), hon. Chair. The question of relevancy is important here, because the member for North Coast, whom I respect, had put a particular question to the minister -- not to any other member, incidentally. Since it was a specific question given to the minister, and since the minister is not here to respond specifically to that question, there is a question of relevancy in this context that I wish you would consider, hon. Chair.

The Chair: The point of order is certainly appropriate as far as relevancy is concerned, and I would ask that the member make sure his remarks recognize standing order 61(2).

[ Page 4406 ]

D. Miller: Perhaps the Chair would advise whether or not that interruption affords me more time to pose some further questions with respect to....

The Chair: Please proceed, hon. member.

D. Miller: I'm certainly mindful of your direction to be relevant, hon. Chair. I did think I was being relevant. I've now described two particular scenarios and posed two specific questions, which I expect to hear back on in due course from the Minister of Labour. I suppose I should issue a caution to the opposition that if they want to get too specific on relevance, it cuts both ways, boys.

Interjections.

D. Miller: I'm sorry -- ladies and gentlemen.

My final question has to do with the situation that exists in....

A. Warnke: On a point of order, it is unparliamentary to issue threats, and to say that there should be a caution to opposition members is, I think, inappropriate.

The Chair: If the hon. member in any way impugned the integrity of any member in the House, would he please withdraw.

D. Miller: Mr. Chair, I certainly had no intention of impugning, nor do I think I did impugn, the motives of any member of this House. We are all hon. members, and I'm....

The Chair: The member withdraws any, if there were...?

D. Miller: Yes, I certainly withdraw. I don't know what it was, but I'd be happy to withdraw it.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

D. Miller: Of course, Mr. Chair, you realize it's very difficult to stick to one's subject when there is constant interruption. Perhaps the vicious heckling threw me off. I was trying to make my third point.

An Hon. Member: What were your first two?

D. Miller: The opposition is heckling me unmercifully. I'm having difficulty speaking above the din, and I really would like to get on and make the points which I think....

The Chair: Please do, hon. member. I would appreciate it if all hon. members would please come to order.

D. Miller: The third scenario I want to describe and ask a question about at the end relates to the forest industry. As a previous member of the Forests Committee, I can say that we travelled the province extensively, listening essentially to the complaints of the contracting community -- particularly, I might add, to the complaints of the independent truckers, the logging-truck owners. We heard testimony in Prince George, for example, from individuals who came forward and said: "I've got a contract with this specific company. Under this contract I can barely eke out an existence. I'm working 16 hours a day driving. I'm spending four hours a night trying to monkey-wrench my truck to keep it going. This is just a terrible way to live, and what we would like" -- this was the request put to the committee and ultimately to the government -- "is some protection. We would like some levelling of the playing field, so that we can negotiate with the prime contractors a decent set of rates in terms of the work we're doing and some of those other things. Right now there's not a level playing field. We're at the mercy of the prime contractors."

That was a compelling argument, and as a result of that, the committee made some recommendations which were subsequently put into legislation -- Bill 13, if I'm not mistaken -- which did afford some measure of fairness, I suppose, or some measure of opportunity for those independents to negotiate and obtain an agreement that was a little more satisfactory.

I guess one of the questions that had to be asked was: why should the state intervene in the relationship between...?

The Chair: Hon. member, I'd advise you that the time allotted has expired.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I think the member has given us some useful information on this section, and I would certainly wish for him to continue and be given that opportunity.

[3:45]

D. Miller: As I was saying, the thrust of the legislation was to afford this protection, and one of the questions that came out -- a legitimate one that I think we need to ask ourselves as legislators -- is: why should the state intervene in the relationship between two independent businesses? What role does the state have? Ultimately the justification in the forest industry related back to the fact that we own the resource and we allocate it, in most cases, to the prime contractor. In terms of the division of power or the relationship of power, it is clearly uneven. If protections are afforded in legislation to the licensee, then it seemed reasonable that we should extend similar kinds of protections on down to the people they contract with.

My question relates very specifically to.... Given that these new protections have been put forward under legislation, and given that there has been at least one example that I'm aware of where these independent truckers that I've described tried to certify.... They in fact applied to the labour board for certification -- in the Nelson region, I think -- as a means of trying to resolve their problems, and they were turned down. They were denied certification. Given that Bill 13 is in place and that section 28 is in place, I'd be interested in

[ Page 4407 ]

observations from the minister about how those two might interact. If independent contractors who have the protection offered by Bill 13 or other legislation were to avail themselves of section 28 of the labour code, would they forgo their right under Bill 13? I think there's some really interesting questions around the application of these two separate pieces of legislation.

Interjection.

D. Miller: No. Hon. Chair, I'm responding to a question here.

Bill 13 is in force and in place. I think the question is the interrelationship between the application of the two bills, presuming Bill 84 passes with section 28 unamended. It seems to me that we've taken some moves previously and we're now offering a further opportunity. I suspect that the independent truckers may not want to avail themselves of section 28, on the basis that there might be some loss of their independence. I'm not certain, but I think there are some very interesting discussions that could take place with respect to how this section might apply.

Hon. Chair, I've described -- I think very briefly -- three scenarios. I have posed three specific questions at the end of each one of those. Again, I look forward with interest to receiving some responses to these questions, which I hope are important.

J. MacPhail: I'd just like to continue to add to my colleague's discussion about this issue. I think it's an important discussion that we are having with the minister, but it certainly is something for us to consider. I hope that the members opposite are aware of the fact that when we are looking at this section, we are actually correcting a longstanding discrimination against certain workers within this province. Most of us know that the issue of the certification of dependent contractors has existed in legislation since 1973. The former New Democratic government did institute the right for dependent contractors to certify in that labour code. However, there was an error made, and I think, in retrospect, that those associated with that legislation would admit that there was an error that gave rise to discrimination. This section technically corrects that discrimination.

Let me explain it to you. There has always been the right for dependent contractors to certify if at their place of employment another bargaining unit existed. So it's not as if we in any way objected to dependent contractors having the right to bargain collectively, but only those in a situation where an employer had another bargaining unit that could certify. That meant that you could have two side-by-side employers and one who had....

K. Jones: On a point of order, I wish to point out that there appears not to be a quorum in the House.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I will just confirm that.

I believe there is now a quorum. Would the hon. member please continue.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure there will be more people coming into the House for this important debate when they hear what we're speaking about.

As I was saying, it created a situation of discrimination. If you had one employer on one block who had dependent contractors and that employer had another bargaining unit at her place of employment, those dependent contractors were allowed to certify. But if you had a situation where there were a group of dependent contractors and the particular employer had no other bargaining unit certified there, those dependent contractors....

K. Jones: On a point of order, hon. Chair, I bring to your attention once again the absence of a quorum in the House.

The Chair: We now have a quorum. Would the hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings please continue.

J. MacPhail: As I was saying, in a situation where on one end of the block you have an employer who has other bargaining units in her place of employment, those dependent contractors can certify. Under the legislation existing since 1973 and in the current legislation, if at the other end of the block you have an employer who does not have another bargaining unit certified at her place of employment, then those dependent contractors were denied the right to join a union. It is clearly discriminatory, and in retrospect I believe it was an error on the part of the drafters of that piece of legislation back in 1973. So it's important for us to understand that section 28 corrects a discriminatory aspect of the right to bargain collectively, the right to certify and the right to determine your wages and working conditions within British Columbia.

I know that many of the questions that were posed by the hon. member for North Coast require an answer, but there are technical answers available to his concerns. He does bring up certain situations in which he questions whether there will be the opportunity for certification. I would suggest that they will be allowed to certify in the situations outlined by the hon. member for North Coast, as long as several factors can be proven: that the dependent contractors are indeed employees; that the dependent contractors have established a relationship with a particular employer; and that the new Labour Relations Board has determined those aspects and those legal entities. I think that it will correct a lot of circumstances of discrimination that have existed in British Columbia.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Order, please. Would the hon. members who are carrying on conversations inside the chamber please do so outside, so that we may continue the business of the committee.

K. Jones: Hon. Chairman, I finally get a chance to come back to where we started. I thank the acting acting parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour and the acting acting acting parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour for their bafflegab or whatever it was. But I'm hoping to get a response....

[ Page 4408 ]

The Chair: Hon. member, we are on section 28, and I would ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the section.

K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chairman. I was just getting to that point when you interrupted me. I was going to point out the fact that I had asked a question of the Minister of Labour, and I got responses from.... I heard other people speaking, but I didn't really get any responses to my question. I was expecting an answer from the Minister of Labour. It's very clear that the question of independent contracting in section 28 is an intentional vehicle to force unionization on professionals and middle management people without their having much say as to whether they want that certification. When a company is small, a practice used in certification, which has been used throughout history, is bringing two union organizers in at the company's start-up. You get certification on the basis that out of the three employees, two are union organizers who also represent 66 percent of the vote. They automatically get certification. That certification continues as the body that is certified continues to grow. This is easy to do, particularly with this type of legislation, which has section 28 facilitating it.

This is a vehicle that is not going to be well received by those people who ultimately may be certified when they truly wish to consider themselves as independent contractors, as professionals, who do not have the desire or the need for a union organization to represent them. This is unusual to the thinking of those people who have been so closely attached to the labour movement, but there are people out there who do not feel that they need certification. Unions cannot always provide benevolent supervision. What people desire in any organization is what's best for them. If they choose to be in a union or association, that's fine. I fully honour their right to choose. That part of it is perfectly appropriate, but it has to be based on the people having a fair opportunity to make that choice. When you have an independent contractor or other small body providing for that, such as this clause provides for, that is not being truly democratic. We really have to look at the intention behind this. It is for that reason that we are asking our questions of the Minister of Labour.

I don't know if the Minister of Labour is off at the B.C. Federation of Labour convention as their guest speaker or what.

[4:00]

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The hon. member knows full well that that is an inappropriate line of debate. I would ask you to please speak to the section and be relevant in doing so.

K. Jones: It is of great concern to us that we are unable to have the gracious input from the person who is bringing this bill forward. We are expected to accept the input of surrogates. I don't really think that surrogates can possibly represent the....

The Chair: Hon. member, you are expressing your views about a situation.... I can appreciate your feelings. But that's inappropriate under this section, and the Chair is not in a position to permit you to use this debate for purposes other than those intended. So I would ask you to please address section 28.

K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chairman. It's very difficult to address the section, as you've requested, when there is no one to give us a response to the questions we have. We need clarification on this, and it's impossible to get clarification if there isn't an appropriate person here to answer.

I'd like to further point out that this section leads to the potential for third-level, fourth-level and perhaps even fifth-level managers to be incorporated into the collective bargaining process. That was probably the intention, as was identified earlier in the definitions of "employee" and "dependent contractors" -- which is the title of this particular clause. It is pretty evident that that's the case.

The previous speaker noted that there was supposed to be some economic benefit to this. I wasn't quite sure which source of economic benefit the hon. member was speaking about. It would appear that she was talking about an economic benefit for employees. I know that most independent contractors currently working in different job situations usually have a much better contract than they would have if they were certified, because then they would come under a collective which has a range of wage scales and they would be a small segment under that wide range of scales.

One of the sections here literally gives the opportunity to the board.... Again, the board would be appointed by the minister. Therefore it would be a socialist board, one that benefits unions. It would not be an independent board. It would be making decisions in the interest of union certification. Therefore that type of situation would lead to a complete lack of confidence in it. It would lead to industrial disputes, because the smaller representative groups that are going to be certified under this dependent contractors section would be unable to have a clear voice in the overall decisions of their certified unit.

For example, take the situation of the B.C. Tel technicians, where I was previously. They have constantly had a great deal of difficulty with the fact that their concerns and needs were not being considered by the entire body of the union, because there was a much larger voice, and it is a collective decision as to what should be bargained.

L. Fox: A point of order on a quorum count.

The Chair: There is a quorum, including the Chair.

Would the hon. member please continue.

K. Jones: As I was saying, in the situation where a segment of the workforce has a special interest under a collective agreement, maybe because of their technical nature or the fact that they happen to represent a certain segment of specialists, they will not have a true voice in the entire determination of the contract.

Hon. Chair, I think we lack a quorum.

[ Page 4409 ]

D. Streifel: Point of order. I direct the Chair's attention to the standing orders, where it's not a requirement to call for a quorum. It's up to the discretion of the Chair. I believe the member for Prince George-Omineca left for frivolous and....

The Chair: The practice in the House has been to respond when any member brings it to the attention of the Chair or the Speaker that there are insufficient numbers present. I intend to determine whether there is in fact a quorum. There is indeed a quorum, counting the Chair, at the present time, hon. member.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not rising on a point of order, hon. Chair, but to answer some of the questions.

The Chair: You will have the opportunity when the member for Surrey-Cloverdale completes his remarks.

K. Jones: I'm sorry that I gave the impression to the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- acting House Leader -- that I was finished.

I would like to point out that one of the great difficulties in having a small special interest group forced into a certification situation is that they don't really have a voice, because they're overwhelmed by the much larger voice of the larger body that is representing the collective. This provision gives two alternatives: it provides for the certification of an independent bargaining unit to represent those people; and in the second clause it also provides for the imposition of certification by the board or the inclusion of this group of people into an existing certification. Therefore they could become amalgamated into one unit where their interests would be lost, since it wouldn't be a homogeneous representation that they would be forced into.

We've been trying to clarify the Minister of Labour's true intent in bringing forward these clauses and the basis under which he brings this type of legislation before the House. Until the minister is present in the House to give us his opinions, it's impossible for us to continue this debate. We need the minister's presence here and now. Hon. Chair, I think it is very appropriate that we be given the courtesy of having the presence of the Minister of Labour. It is insulting to us all.

The Chair: I've asked you in the past to please address the section before you. I'm hoping that you will appreciate the difficulty you create for the Chair when you insist on discussing the presence of the minister rather than the section.

K. Jones: I have posed a series of concerns and questions. I am not putting the Chair in a position.

Interjection.

The Chair: I understand the Government House Leader is attempting to get the floor in response.

Hon. R. Blencoe: On section 28, hon. Chair, a number of important questions have been asked by the member. In light of the fact that my colleague the Minister of Labour is on extremely pressing government business at this point, which is important to the province of British Columbia, it is quite appropriate for another member to answer or to take those questions on notice and on behalf of my colleague get back to you with the appropriate answers that you request.

On the question of forced certification of professionals.... I believe that was a question the member asked: does section 28 force certification on professionals? Quite clearly, hon. member, the answer is no. The legislation defines them as employees and allows them the same rights as other employees have. I would point out to that member that under this legislation, the Labour Relations Board has the discretion and the ability to work out these kinds of issues.

On the question that you raised in terms of integration, hon. member -- a good question -- I refer you to subsection (2)(b). If you take a look, it states that the board shall "ensure that reasonable procedures have been developed to integrate dependent contractors and employees into a single bargaining unit." If you read that clearly and investigate the section, I think that takes care of your concern about integration.

If other members have questions, I will do my best to answer them; and if I can't, I will pass them on to my colleague.

K. Jones: It is indeed difficult to have the other members of the government -- and very difficult to have government backbenchers -- speak for the government in response and to have questions relayed to the minister for response at a later date, when the date they come back may be after the debate.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. Would you please address the section.

K. Jones: Yes, I am doing that. I'm trying to point out to you the difficulty, in response to the minister's statement that he would pass on our concerns to the Minister of Labour and then respond back to us, that the response back to us would come after the debate, and therefore we wouldn't be able to bring that information into the debate. Is that the intention of the Chair?

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair is not involved in the debate. I'm just advising you of the guidelines that govern the Chair's role in this matter. I'm saying to you that under standing orders, you are required to remain relevant to a certain section when we are in committee. We are on section 28.

K. Jones: In response to the comment of the Minister of Municipal Affairs that section 28(2)(b) provides for reasonable procedures to be developed to integrate dependent contractors and employees into a single bargaining unit, I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour what is meant by "reasonable procedures." That's a very wide-ranging set of words.

[4:15]

[ Page 4410 ]

L. Fox: At the risk of being identified as part of this very expensive but perhaps less-than-useful exercise, I'll stand up and give my comments on section 28, similar to the government caucus leader and the member for North Coast, who had very long presentations that resembled second reading debate rather than debate on the clauses of section 28. It would have been extremely useful had the minister not had pressing business that's taken him from the chambers. I understand and appreciate that. Given the labour unrest that we have in the province right now, I'm sure the Labour minister is very busy.

It would appear to me that when section 28 was being drafted, there was little consideration given to the fact that 90 percent of new jobs in British Columbia have been developed by the small business sector. Many of them have done it through being independent contractors. They are initiatives of an individual who in many situations started out as one owner with a small machine, developed through contracts, and eventually developed into a small business where he hired up to.... In one particular initiative that I'm aware of, they now have 20-some employees.

This clause, as it stands right now, takes us backwards. We're looking at lumping more dependent contractors in with the employees when in fact the rest of the world is going in the other direction. The rest of the world is building a positive climate to encourage individual entrepreneurs to get out there, work hard and reap the rewards. But instead this government wants to limit that opportunity with section 28.

D. Miller: Well, is there a question here?

L. Fox: Well, I would ask a question, hon. Chair, if there was anybody in the House to answer it. But unfortunately the minister isn't here, and I recognized that already. I am taking the liberties that that member took. I will use up my 15 minutes and lay out my concerns with section 28 as he did.

There have been significant businesses built by individuals with an idea and the willingness to work. Many of them have done it through being a small independent contractor with industry as well as with business. And I say it again as I said it a few minutes ago, section 28 limits that opportunity. Now the individual will have to become unionized. That will limit him to a set work time and amount of money earned. Many of these people have made it because they've worked 12, 14 or 16 hours a day in many cases. They've made it, and provided opportunities for other British Columbians through their efforts. And this government is removing that effort and that opportunity with this clause.

Hon. Chair, once again this government and this minister show that they're out of step with the rest of Canada and the rest of the world. They're closing the doors for opportunity rather than opening them.

The minister -- or the previous Minister of Forests, now in the penalty box; now we recognize him as the member for North Coast -- identified this clause as a way to deal with the trucking industry in northern British Columbia, specifically in the Prince George region. Hon. Chair, this clause will not help the trucking industry within the Prince George region. If they certify it will, but to you and I submit through you to the minister that if the truckers certify, we'll have fewer truckers. Once again we will find ourselves in a situation where we're limiting the opportunities of individuals to work hard and reap the rewards of that work. When you look at it, you have to understand that people are independent contractors because of choice. They made that decision, in many instances financing their homes, financing all their assets in order to become an independent contractor.

D. Streifel: It's not "independent"; it's "dependent." They're two different words.

L. Fox: Dependent once this legislation goes through, but until such time as it does, they will be independent.

Interjections.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, now we're shouting definitions across....

The Chair: Order, please. Would the hon. member please continue and address his remarks through the Chair.

L. Fox: I believe I've been doing that, hon. Chair, and I'll continue to do the same. But one can't help but occasionally hear some of the rhetoric that comes across the floor. It's a difficult afternoon, and that's why I suggested earlier, at the risk of being part of this exercise, that I have to question whether or not it's useful. I stand here shaking my head.

As I was saying before, the business community and the contractors who are dependent on the industrial sector of this province have indeed been limited by section 28. I really only wish that I had the opportunity to have some.... Perhaps later if we get through this or don't get through this section before the minister is able to come back, we can ask some specific questions. But I am extremely concerned that we are not recognizing the real plight of these individuals. This government thinks that unionization is the answer. Yet this week we've seen three businesses publicly announce that they're leaving this province and moving to Alberta. It's this type of clause that is causing that. It's unionization that is causing that, to a great degree.

Interjections.

L. Fox: Yes, it is. Start a business.

I've had extreme experience with employees, hon. Chair -- all, I might add, non-unionized. All have done extremely well. Many of them today earn more than what we do as legislators, and they are still on my payroll. I am talking from a position of experience, experience through the school of hard knocks and investing my dollars in the same way many of these contractors invested their dollars, in terms of providing economic opportunity for myself and my fellow work-

[ Page 4411 ]

ers. That's what small business is all about: working together and getting it done. Putting these kinds of limitations on it is in fact going to severely reduce and limit those opportunities. I suggest, hon. Chair, that it is going to do away with what this classification suggests is a dependent contractor, because we won't have to worry about them. They'll all become union employees, and I suppose through that they will give some of their contributions to the re-election or next election of this NDP government.

Hon. Chair, I will sit down at this time and allow other members of the House to contribute to this very worthwhile discussion.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I'll make an effort to answer some of the concerns and questions of the member across the way. I suspect -- but I don't want to prejudge the situation -- that the hon. member is inadvertently, I assume, mixing "dependent" contractors with "independent" contractors. Let me just try and make a point, and the member can disagree or agree with me. It's my understanding that dependent contractors today are free in a free society to certify if they so desire, but....

K. Jones: On a point of order, I believe that we've already discussed and determined the interpretation of what a dependent contractor is. It was in section 2 or section 1. I don't think it's necessary for the minister to repeat what's already been discussed.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I believe the hon. minister is going to be relating his remarks to the specifics of this section in responding to the questions posed by the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Thank you, hon. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity. As I was saying, I believe the hon. member is mixing to some degree the description of dependent and independent contractors. My understanding is that dependent contractors under the law can certify, if they so desire. But the issue is not being able to do so as a stand-alone unit. It has been an essential question since 1983, one that has been brought forward on many occasions. So in terms of dependent contractors, certification is possible. We're just doing a further clarification in this section.

Independent contractors are clearly, as the term states, independent. Free choice is quite evident. They are self-employed; it does not affect them. If there's no employer, obviously there's no employee relationship. Therefore there's no dependency.

Now, hon. member, you may make whatever points you wish, but for the edification of all members, you may wish to indicate that there is some difference between independent and dependent contractors.

L. Fox: I couldn't help but listen with great attentiveness to the Minister of Municipal Affairs talking to us on labour relations. It was extremely interesting. I well recognize the difference between independent and dependent contractors. I think we all understand the significance of the difference. The problem is, of course, that under this clause, this whole legislation does away with the opportunities for independent contractors. We now put them all into the classification of dependent, because with the secondary boycotting and other issues that will be available, they will no longer have the freedom to do business with a union company unless they become a dependent contractor. That is the point that the minister is not recognizing and not admitting to.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You're wrong.

L. Fox: I am not wrong.

Some Hon. Members: You are wrong.

The Chair: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Chair: Please, hon. members. I would ask all hon. members to please refrain from speaking from their seats. I'd like the hon. member who has the floor to address his remarks through the Chair.

C. Serwa: I'll try to keep my comments to section 28, and I suppose I will address anyone in the Legislature who is willing to respond to the question.

My concern with this section is the fine line that is being crossed with the fixing of heavy-equipment rates by self-employed entrepreneurs who work the major amount of their time -- and that hasn't been defined; I'll be asking questions with respect to that -- for a large firm. It may be a natural gas firm, B.C. Hydro or an independent manufacturer. They may have $400,000 or $500,000 tied up in a piece of equipment. What is not clear to me is why the government should construct an opportunity for them to independently fix equipment rates. That's clearly what this section allows to happen. It's my understanding that labour legislation traditionally -- and I'm just using up a bit of amplitude here -- looked after working conditions and wage rates for employees. That's fundamentally the purpose of this legislation. Now we advance to legislation that gives self-employed entrepreneurs, who may work most of the time for one large firm, the opportunity to bargain independently and to set heavy-equipment rates.

[4:30]

The danger here -- and it's a very important danger to recognize -- is that with the protection they have, not only can they shut down the whole operation, since this large, expensive piece of equipment is key to the operation of the company, they can virtually hold the company to ransom with no exposure to the free market economy. If it's in the forest industry, it may be a feller-buncher. It may be a gravel truck, and there are many independent gravel truck owners in the province who traditionally work for firms at paving through the summer.

My fundamental concern is that this legislation all of a sudden blows the lid on the free market economy and on any sense of discipline. If I'm an independent contractor who happens to be a poor equipment

[ Page 4412 ]

operator, not only will I wear out lots of parts -- cutting edges or blades -- and have major breakdowns with the piece of equipment, I can destroy that piece of equipment in very short order. So I can say that because of my ineptness as an operator, I should earn more. If I'm in the unique position where I can hold a company up to ransom, then I presume I can get more.

The reason for this section clearly escapes me -- absolutely. Perhaps one of the members in the Legislature would care to respond.

A. Cowie: I have a question to the acting minister; I believe it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the present time. I'll direct it in particular to municipal or government employment, so that he might be able to answer.

From time to time the government employs architects, engineers and even landscape architects -- heaven forbid -- to do work for the Ministry of Forests, Municipal Affairs, Parks or whatever. This is a method to supplement their own staff. There is no point because of the type of work they're doing.... It might be specialized work like environmental analysis or visual analysis, where they wouldn't need a lot of staff on board, so they employ these people. I would fear -- I would like to hear from the acting minister first -- that this may be an attempt to unionize this very valuable group of people who belong to professional associations. I hope that it isn't an attempt to unionize these people.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, my colleague is back, but let me try to quickly answer this question to the best of my ability. It's my understanding that....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: To the best of my ability. Perhaps, hon. member, you might wish to listen instead of comment. You might learn, hon. member.

As I answered earlier, there is no intent in this legislation or in this section to force certification on professionals. But as the hon. member knows, even professionals, if they so desire and they collectivize and make a decision based on the rules and on the labour code, can form a union or certify. But please be assured, hon. member, that this legislation is not forcing certification on professionals. They are like anybody else and have free choice. This legislation is based on free choice, and I think you can rest assured that this legislation does not impact on the areas that you're concerned about.

A. Cowie: That will certainly reassure a lot of people I know in my riding who would be impacted by the legislation if it were interpreted that these people should unionize. There is certainly no need for these professionals to be unionized, even though all these professions are unionized if they work for municipalities. I have long thought it completely unnecessary for a person making $60,000 or $70,000 a year to belong to or be protected by a union.

The minister is back, but this might be more appropriate for the Minister of Housing. This is regarding manufactured-home construction, which I believe the minister will put a lot of emphasis on in the next little while, since it's mostly done by the private field. It's perhaps the only way you can get affordable housing these days -- or one of the ways. I expect that report to come in very soon.

The trend in manufactured homes or manufactured-component homes is to have one union. I have no problem with the union, but I would think that section 28 would be going in the wrong direction. If you go down to the States, for instance -- they're a little bit ahead in this field -- you will find when you walk into a plant that it's all one union. The plumbing people are doing plumbing; the electrical people are doing electrical work; but then they shift around because it can get a little boring. They can all do each other's jobs. It's a very efficient way to conduct business. I would hope that this section would not encourage these various sections to split off and form their own independent unions. It would certainly be going against the trend that one can find in that industry and against the economy. I would like some comment on that and have to some confidence again in dealing with that.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I said yesterday, unions have to make sure that they're also relevant to their workers. If certain work practices make more sense from the employees' point of view, as well as the employer's point of view.... Let's use the employee example you talked about. Clearly they should endeavour to make flexible arrangements in collective agreements. There is nothing in this legislation or section that will prevent that kind of flexibility from occurring should that be the will of the bargaining unit. Section 28(2) gives discretion to the board to make some determinations as well.

F. Gingell: I was most interested in listening to the questions and the discussion from the member for North Coast, who specifically brought forward the instance of the truckers in Richmond. I think it was while they were building the Gilley interchange and the problems there. I would be most interested in the minister's response. It would seem to me that we presently have a situation where the prime contractor has offered subcontracts to a series of independent or dependent contractors. It would seem that perhaps the difference between an independent and a dependent contractor may well be in the number of companies that they work for. I have a concern that if there were a series of, let's say, truckers operating their own trucks and moving sand, all of whom have agreed to move sand from point A to point B for a certain amount per yard; it is normal for the prime contractor to receive these bids from the subtrades before they make their own bid for the prime contract. The prime contract bid is their estimate of the work they will be doing themselves with their own staff plus the bid price that has been given by dependent contractors, such as truckers. There has been a free market arrangement. A tender offer went out, the subcontractors responded with a specific price, and that

[ Page 4413 ]

is the price the prime contractor used in making his own bid for the work.

What could happen now could create absolute chaos. The dependent contractors could join together, form a bargaining unit and, in the process of the negotiation of the first contract, try to completely throw out the bid they made on the work that got them into the position of being the dependent contractors of record. The prime contractor could well be facing substantial increases in the per-yard cost of moving, say, sand from point A to the job site, and the prime contractor would not have any recourse. I don't think the prime contractor would be in a position to pass this additional cost on to the government. We all know that contractors in this day and age work on very narrow margins. It's a difficult world for all of them. I'd be most interested in the minister's response to that concern.

Hon. M. Sihota: You would have to deal with the question of dependency at the outset. If, in the scenario that you outlined, you have a series of relationships where an independent contractor is contracting with a number of employers, the person would have to meet the first test of demonstrating that they're dependent on that one employer. That test may not be met if they aren't dependent on that one employer but are independent contractors.

F. Gingell: No, the scenario I was trying to paint was a single-truck owner who made a bid or accepted an agreed contractual rate for the movement of sand. He has only himself and his truck. This is the kind of situation that section 28 is specifically aimed at, but it seems to me that by agreeing with three or four other independent truckers, each of whom are, at this moment, working for only that one contractor, we open up a great big door. As an example, the Gilley interchange requires a great deal of sand to be moved, and it's going to take many months of work. This really puts them in a position where they can go back and reopen the financial arrangement between themselves and the prime contractor. The prime contractor is in the position that it was this price that was previously bid that was the foundation or cost he used to develop his own bid for the prime contract. It seems to me that he would be in a position to, in effect, renegotiate it and force the per-yard rate up, at the prime contractor's cost, in a manner that it couldn't be recovered.

[4:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: I guess a lot of things are possible. As I said earlier on, I'm not going to deal with hypothetical situations. There are some remarkable elements in that hypothesis. It should also be noted, on the other side of the coin, that right now you could have a contractor contracting with a number of people and, as it turns out, they're all unionized. You may have one independent contractor -- let's say a trucker -- who may have agreed to something $3 or $4 an hour less, and the employer may be obliged under current legislation to bring that up. These different situations, I'm sure, can arise. The hypothetical situation that the member gives is somewhat exaggerated and remarkable. In any event, yes, it may happen, and the board would have to deal with it. They'd have to deal with (a) the dependency and (b) the bargaining unit that would be appropriate.

F. Gingell: It wasn't me who brought up this particular example; it was the member for North Coast. In the course of his discussion on section 28, he was concerned about the additional costs that that particular dispute relative to those dependent truckers raised -- I'm fairly sure that it was the Gilley interchange work. He even indicated that there were substantial additional costs to the government as the owner of that project. I must admit that while I was listening to that, I failed to understand why the prime contractor would be in a position to move those additional costs on to the owner, because in the normal course of events those types of contracts are unit price bids. They are estimates on the number of yards to be moved, the number of cubic yards of asphalt to be laid, the number of tonnes of rock to be put into place or whatever. I'm wondering and interested if the minister, in the creation of this section and the way it has been worded -- I'm recognizing that that particular situation was a very major issue in recent years -- has given any thought to the cost problems of the contractor who would sit between a fixed unit price arrangement with the government as the owner and now having an ability, through the use of section 28, to in effect renegotiate the subcontractor's pricing.

D. Miller: Of course, it's always preferable, I suppose, to pose your questions directly rather than through another member, although I do appreciate the member for Delta South picking up on the points that I raised a short time earlier. Indeed he may have been the only member of the Liberal caucus who was listening to the points I was making.

But let me try to frame the question for the minister. To illustrate my point, I used as an example the protracted dispute and the undue, lengthy delay in having that highway completed. I pointed out that the dispute was essentially between independent truckers and a contractor, and that those independent contractors had no opportunity -- and in fact no legal right in any way -- to withdraw their labour other than acting as individuals. I'm asking whether this section of the bill might not afford the opportunity in those kinds of difficult circumstances which appear to be unresolvable, and where the contractor is intractable, for a speedier resolution of the dispute; and in this particular instance, whether it would have allowed that critical public project to proceed more smoothly -- the member for Delta South was obviously frustrated at the extensive delay in that. That was really the context of the questions I posed. It appears to me that section 28 does indeed offer that opportunity. Perhaps the minister could simply confirm that in a very brief response.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would never find myself in disagreement with what the hon. member says. I know that the two of us are on entirely the same wavelength, and therefore that's my answer to his question.

[ Page 4414 ]

F. Gingell: Carrying on with the same scenario of circumstances where a group of dependent contractors running their own trucks have voluntarily entered into a subcontractual arrangement with the prime contractor and after work has started have joined together, under the provisions of section 28, as a bargaining unit -- perhaps with members of their own dependent truckers of Richmond or whatever association -- and been certified, they now get into the question of the first contract. Of course, one presumes -- and the minister answered earlier -- that everything is negotiable, so I would presume that in this particular case the negotiation would be based on a per-yard basis or on the number of running hours on the truck or some other means.

But surely, by them taking this action, they suddenly have gained all of the control. The prime contractor now has a certified bargaining unit, and it may be a very small one, they having created their own organization of 20 or 25 independent truckers, all of whom are working on this one job -- 25 different individuals working out of their homes and owning their own trucks or that part of their own trucks that doesn't belong to the bank. Suddenly the hammer has moved absolutely into their hands. Not only can they force a renegotiation of the price, but surely they are now in a position to stop any other dependent contractor who previously bid on the work but didn't get it because they were too high. By creating certification of the unit, haven't they estopped the prime contractor from going to any other contractor to get this work done? Only the members of unit whatever it is, the Richmond dependent truckers associations, Local 172.... Surely once that bargaining unit is certified, nobody else can do that work. This is a terrible situation, because all the people who previously bid on the work lost it because their price was fractionally high, or whatever. They are all estopped from doing this work unless they can force their way into the union. If they can force their way into the union, I guess they would be in a different position. But that may not be possible. It would depend upon the bylaws.

We could have important provincial work being done by, say, the Ministry of Highways, and all of a sudden the whole thing could come to a grinding halt. The only way of getting past that would be for a new rate to be negotiated on this very important portion of the work. The Minister of Highways isn't going to want to pay this cost, because he has accepted a semi-firm price from the prime contractor, which will subsequently be calculated based on the number of cubic yards of sand that have been moved or the number of cubic yards of peat that have been taken out to build the roadbed. The whole thing can just come to a stop, and the province can be held to ransom. It could create a situation that I believe was never intended by this minister.

I certainly think it's appropriate to ask the minister for a fairly broad discussion on this issue, to cover the matter in some depth and detail, because I'm sure that members on both sides of the House will want to have assurance that the Minister of Finance will not be faced with the problem of putting more money into the contract or the contract won't get done. The prime contractor will not want to go into bankruptcy.

The prime contractor may, with this type of legislation and having thought the whole thing through, be unable to get a performance bond. Insurance companies may be take a very questionable attitude towards giving performance bonds when they suddenly realize that if the independent contractors, which are the subtrades, are not unionized at the start of the project and if the collective agreement doesn't have long enough tenure to carry through to the end of the work, an untenable situation can easily result. I'd be most interested in the minister's response to my question.

Hon. M. Sihota: Interesting scenario, but let me tell you this, hon. member: so long as there was an existing bargaining unit, these opportunities have been available to dependent contractors. Nothing has changed. This practice has been in existence for 20 years. We've just changed one discriminatory aspect of it. Prior to this there had to be an existing bargaining unit, and we've removed that requirement -- that's all.

F. Gingell: But it is surely that which has opened this door. It is surely that which allows a bargaining unit to be of only these dependent contractors, without all of the other people added in, that opens the door to the scenario I've painted. If these dependent contractors were simply a part of some other trade union, they would have to get all the other union members onside. There would probably already be a contract in place. But the circumstances change the moment they can create their own bargaining unit all by themselves. If they create their own union -- and there's no reason that they wouldn't, because there aren't any unions at the moment that would fit this scenario -- there's an absolute guarantee that they have that work. It can't go to somebody else, even though they know perfectly well that dependent contractors move from employer to employer as jobs come and go. I would be interested in a response from the minister in dealing with my concerns about the single bargaining unit -- the one that is not a part of some other trade union.

[5:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: You're right that the one variable that's different in this legislation from the previous legislation is the fact that we have eliminated the discrimination to which I referred earlier.

F. Gingell: I'm really quite surprised that he's having a happy chat with the Minister of Finance. I'd have thought that the Minister of Finance would be the one person who would have a tremendous amount of concern about this situation. I'm just horrified that one could face this situation and the Minister of Finance hasn't woken up to tell them: "Hold on. Wait. Let's just look at section 28 again before we pass it."

If I may, I'd like to bring up one other matter, and that is the question of professional employees, which was touched on by my friend from Surrey-Cloverdale. This government, as governments before them, found that a very satisfactory means of looking after certain

[ Page 4415 ]

services is to hire professional people on an independent contract basis. I'm trying to think of the right term. There's a term you use for them. Anyway, my son does this. He's a clinical psychologist who does a lot of work for the provincial government in the area of adolescent sexual abuse. It is simply not appropriate for professional workers, who are unquestionably under this definition of dependent contractors, to be unionized. There has to be a relationship between the ministry they work for and themselves that gives independence. They are required to make judgments that they are held responsible for. They are required to write reports to the courts for sentencing or treatment purposes -- and to parole boards and those kinds of bodies. This clearly requires them to act in a manner that is not an employer-employee relationship. They have to be independent.

But it would seem, as a result of the questioning of my friend from Surrey-Cloverdale, that in fact they could fit quite clearly within section 28. This simply shouldn't be used for that purpose. The provincial government shouldn't try to create a set of circumstances that will result in independent professional people having to be members of a collective bargaining unit to be able to perform these functions.

There are all kinds of things that are involved. First of all, they don't want to do this work eight hours a day, five days a week. If you were dealing with such issues as adolescent sexual abuse, you simply could not work on that for a 40- or a 50-hour week. You need to do a little bit of that work here and then do something entirely different somewhere else, or else you will lose your sense of balance and understanding.

So I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would be good enough to respond to this question: does the minister not think that it is appropriate that professional employees should be specifically excluded from this section, even though they may qualify under the general understanding of dependent contractors?

Hon. M. Sihota: First, if the question is simply with regard to professional workers, I certainly have no difficulty with professional workers being involved.

Secondly, the hon. member should be mindful that in the examples he uses, he has to recognize that the matter of dependency and the appropriateness of the bargaining unit would be matters that the board would have to consider under section 28.

F. Gingell: I really don't have any more questions relating to the professional issue, but there was one more subject that I would like to go back to. It's the question of the dependent contractors, whether it may be moving logs by truck, moving sand or running a backhoe or a scraper. The front section of the act that deals with definitions indicates a relationship of dependency being required, dependency between one person -- who for these purposes shall be called an employer -- and a second person, who may well own equipment and is dealt with as a dependent contractor. There isn't any part of this definition that deals with any length of time or any scope.

It is, I believe, normal for a trucker, for instance, to get a particular job. He is just one truck and one driver and he monkey-wrenches it himself and he goes from job to job to job. One job may last three weeks and the next job may last 13 months, and he certainly wasn't, in my mind, a dependent contractor in the three-week period, although that was the only person he was working for. I mean, there isn't the kind of long-term relationship between the trucker and the prime contractor that creates dependency, but if it is 13 months, that may then very well qualify. Does it many any difference? Does the period of time that the work is expected to take create any difference in the question of whether this person is dependent or not? If it does, I would be interested in the response of the minister to let us know how long a period of time, how firm a relationship and what sort of history of subcontractor relationship between one person and the other would be necessary to create a dependent contractor situation.

J. Weisgerber: When we last discussed this legislation a great deal of the discussion by the minister surrounded hypothetical situations, so I hope he will bear with me while I develop a hypothetical situation and then see if he could give me some answers that would arise from it. It would seem to me that with the issue we're facing here with the possible certification of dependent contractors, the minister has indicated that the difference under this legislation would be that where the employer, if you like, was not organized, there is now an opportunity for his dependent contractors to certify.

So if we have a company -- perhaps a distribution or warehousing company -- that contracts its trucking to three or four independent trucking contractors, some of whom work almost exclusively for the employer and others work for a series of different shippers, could the minister tell us, for a start, whether each and every one of those truckers would then be eligible to join together in a union? Or could only those truckers solely dependent on this employer form a union, without the involvement of the independent truckers working for a number of employers? How would you decide what made up the bargaining unit and what rules would apply on certification?

Hon. M. Sihota: The test to establish dependency is very easy. I think the example you used was independent shippers. The board would have to determine the degree of dependency to see whether they met the test sufficiently enough for them to make a determination that they are a dependent contractor. Then they would have to make determinations as to the appropriate bargaining unit.

J. Weisgerber: I have a couple of questions that would flow from that. If all of them were part of the bargaining unit and were unable to reach a satisfactory union agreement with the employer, what remedies, other than to meet the demands of these independent contractors, would the employer have?

Interjection.

[ Page 4416 ]

J. Weisgerber: If the employer is not certified, the dependent contractors are. Is there an opportunity to use other trucking firms? Or is he restricted to dealing with those members who are in the bargaining unit?

Hon. M. Sihota: He can use outside truckers, if that's the thrust of your question. He can use outside truckers or carriers if he wishes, so long as he negotiates that kind of provision with his own dependent contractors. [Laughter.] I know you were surprised with the way in which I structured that sentence, but I couldn't resist putting it that way.

J. Weisgerber: I doubt very much whether we'll see many of those contracts, but indeed we might.

Let's examine the other situation where a number of dependent truckers organize, and those who have, over time, provided a portion of the trucking service are not deemed to be dependent, and therefore do not form part of the bargaining unit. In the event of a strike, does the employer still have the opportunity to use those independent contractors that have been part of his traditional business practice?

[5:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: Assuming that he has been certified by dependent contractors, then the answer to the question is that he would also be covered by other provisions of the legislation, including section 68, the anti-scab provision. Therefore that would prevent him from going outside his own bargaining unit to get the work done.

J. Weisgerber: If I understand correctly, would the relationship of a number of truckers who have been serving an employer for ten or 15 years -- some of whom are dependent and some who are not, and some of the dependents or all of the dependents certify and those who are independent don't -- be considered to be replacement workers, or scab workers, under the act?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me remind you that that's a scenario that can develop under the existing legislation. Secondly, I think I've gone as far as I can with your hypothetical situations without fettering the discretion of the board in terms of making some determinations with respect to section 68.

J. Weisgerber: My point in raising these questions was that while I believed the legislation was brought forward with the intent of somehow serving the small dependent contractors, what you may well have done is convince those people who generally deal with small dependent contractors to look for other ways of obtaining those services, either by providing their own services and eliminating the relationship or entering into relationships with others who are not going to be dependent. The net effect of this may well be to reduce opportunities for individuals in those occupations that have traditionally been in a dependent contractor relationship.

I'd suggest to you that while your efforts here may have been motivated by the best of intentions, the effect will be to make life more difficult for small dependent contractors. Contract opportunities will become more difficult for them, because most of those businesses would, by definition, represent a reasonably small part of the overall business operation. It would seem to be reasonable and logical for an employer not to jeopardize his entire business operation because of the possibility of one or two dependent contractors certifying and therefore tying up an essential part of the business. I don't think this section has been thought through very carefully, and by bringing it in, you provide a disservice to the people you intend to provide a service to.

Hon. M. Sihota: I remember Bud Grant, who used to be the football coach of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and the Minnesota Vikings. He probably never thought his name would be mentioned in the British Columbia Legislature. He used to say that every time they changed the rules, the first thing he used to do was go to the rule book and try to figure out how he could get around the rules. I guess all I can say, hon. member, is that if there are any unintended consequences, we will deal with them through the section 3 provisions that we have for advisory panels.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure that that's a very satisfactory answer, to simply suggest that if we've overlooked something or made a mistake, then we will look for some other remedies. I believe that this section will seriously disrupt the relationship between dependent contractors in British Columbia and the people they serve, in many ways that would be -- I want to say "coincidental," but that's not the word -- an offshoot of this legislation, where perhaps there is no intent on either part.

F. Gingell: Consequential.

J. Weisgerber: "Consequential," my friend down the way says. Indeed, it would be consequential.

I think we have to look at this and decide. I'm not sure that the minister or his government will be in a position, under this act, to remedy the consequences that flow from it. If employers simply decide to look for other remedies, I don't believe that there will be consequences that will fall under the purview of this legislation. The people whom you purport to serve will be the victims of that.

L. Fox: While the minister was out on his urgent business, we had several discussions about what a dependent contractor was and what an independent contractor was, and how this clause, in my view, changes an independent contractor to a dependent contractor. Just so I can get your response to this, let me use the same corporation that you used in the House yesterday, Mr. Minister, and that is the Plateau Mills corporation. In fact, there are independent loggers who log solely for the Plateau division of Westar Timber. As I perceive this legislation, they have now become dependent contractors. In their own minds they are very independent individuals, but because of the direct

[ Page 4417 ]

relationship with a unionized company, they will now become dependent contractors, in my view.

Hon. M. Sihota: They would not automatically become dependent contractors. They would only if: (a) they wished to; (b) they met the definition of dependent contractor -- if they are the sole employee of that employer in Vanderhoof, then I think they probably would -- (c) and they want to certify. Let's not forget that under the existing legislation, if there was a bargaining unit there, they could do that in any event and then seek to be placed within that bargaining unit.

L. Fox: I recognize that if a corporation and the employees wish to, then it will happen. But what happens under this legislation is something further. If the IWA decides that it's not going to accept logs unless they're from a dependent contractor that is unionized, the minister will have to agree that under this legislation that could happen.

Hon. M. Sihota: We're getting into an issue that we can't get into, which is secondary boycotts. But then that only assumes that there's a provision in the agreement that deals with that kind of issue.

L. Fox: I guess that was a form of yes, hon. Chair; it can happen under this legislation, and it's most likely to happen under this legislation. In any case, therein lies my problem that I was speaking of earlier. We are now forcing unionization from the top down on a small business and a small sector of the business that is providing all the jobs and the growth in this province. Even though many individuals, as you will recall, suggested I was totally wrong when I referred to the change that was happening with this legislation from independent to dependent, I'm pleased that the minister substantiated the fact that I was correct. I'm pleased, although disappointed, to understand that the rationale behind this section is to unionize a sector that has never before had unionization forced on it. If it so wished, it has been free from being forced into a collective unit.

Earlier our leader, the member for Peace River South, was talking about truckers. The minister should understand that those truckers are not working for the sawmill. In most cases those truckers are hired by the contractor. They're now placed in a dependent position. You should also understand that there are many times of the season when, due to weather conditions, truckers all over this province are free to move and fill the void in an area. I've seen truckers many times in the northern part of the province who are from the southern part of province because there's a need, due to pressing weather conditions, to get the logs out within a tight time frame so the sawmill and those union workers can work through the summer months.

I suggest to the minister that this clause is going to limit that flexibility. It is going to hinder the very people that he's looking to protect. It's going to hinder their opportunities to work through the summer months, given the pressures of the climate that we face in northern British Columbia.

Hon. M. Sihota: By the way, I did watch you on TV. You looked far more agitated then than you are now. You are far calmer in your presentation.

The scenario that you outlined, including the matter of top-down organizing -- I think that's the way you put it -- could well have existed, under the previous Social Credit legislation, right up until 1987. If you were a member then, you would certainly not have spoken to the effects then, and you would have been nowhere nearly as motivated by the level of fear that unnecessarily motivates you now.

As with a lot of other matters in this debate, there's just a touch of unnecessary paranoia. I'm sure that as this legislation develops and is interpreted people will come to realize that some of the fears you think are there will not have been realized.

C. Serwa: The minister continues to refer to a test. Perhaps the minister could elaborate on what would constitute the appropriate test. Obviously it's not in the legislation. I would presume some sort of direction would be included in the regulations, but it's really critical that in discussing section 28, I have some comprehension of what constitutes the actual test.

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 1 of the act actually provides the answer: a person who is "in a position of economic dependence on, and under an obligation to perform duties for, that person more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of independent contractor." That's the test.

C. Serwa: That's a fairly broad definition. It is actually a definition of a dependent contractor, but it really doesn't constitute a test. Economic dependence -- that doesn't relate to how many days in a year the individual has to work for the employer. It may dedicate one piece of equipment which he is the owner-operator of. It doesn't relate to the amount of income that he gets; it's just the broad-brush economic dependence. I don't think that's good enough for a test. There must be either a time of employment or some measurement of the significant portion of income relating to it. It has to be much more closely defined, rather than this broad-brush type of definition.

Hon. M. Sihota: This is the same test that existed under Bill 19. I'm sure the hon. member supported it then, and I'm sure he will support it now.

C. Serwa: I note the reference to Bill 19, and I again reemphasize for the knowledge of the minister that in this particular case we're talking about something dramatically different. We're talking about an individual independent unit being allowed to certify. That is the significant difference. And from that significant difference evolves this particular debate. I know that the minister understands that.

[5:30]

The minister must know that probably what brought this issue to a very high profile is the logging truck situation in the central section of the province and the move by the IWA to endeavour to certify the owner-op-

[ Page 4418 ]

erators in order to negotiate a higher fee structure for hauling logs.

Now the truckers themselves, who under this legislation will become dependent contractors, work primarily in the interior of the province for non-union independent contractors. The coastal operations of the forest industry are traditionally union, both in the manufacturing sector as well as in the woods. In the interior we have unionization in the manufacturing sector, but normally the logging operations are entirely non-union.

Let's presume that we have a small logging contractor employing ten men, perhaps in a variety of jobs, and that hauling from this small logging contractor are two logging truck owner-operators. If these two owner-operators signify that they wish to become classified as dependent contractors, does that automatically make the independent logging contractor a union firm?

Hon. M. Sihota: As I understand your question, it would depend on the extent of dependency. It's hard for me to answer the question on that basis, because it would pivot around the determination the board would make. I don't want to say too much about the test that should apply, apart from stating the definition, which I have already stated.

C. Serwa: Then I have the concern on that response.... We have contractors who own logging trucks. They're individual businessmen in the province who meet the test. There are only two. You have an independent logging contractor who has ten or 15 employees. All of sudden, from what the minister says, the firm is completely unionized. Does that mean that all the other logging contractor's employees must then become members of the IWA?

Hon. M. Sihota: They wouldn't necessarily have to be members of the IWA in that kind of scenario. They're free to accept the union they want as a part of their certification.

C. Serwa: I understand that -- I just use the IWA because of its association with the forest industry; it could be certification with any union. According to the minister's response, by the desire of the two formerly independent truck operators who now classify themselves as dependent, they can then actually leverage and unionize the independent contractor's whole operation.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are a number of points here. First of all, it depends on whether or not they're dependent contractors and on whether or not the board so rules. Let's assume that they so rule, and they establish themselves as dependent contractors. Then they've got every right to engage in collective bargaining. It's not a matter of levering an individual employer; it's a matter of respecting the rights of employees to engage in collective bargaining. That is a principle that I take it nobody in this House has ever disagreed with.

C. Serwa: Again, I agree with the principle of employees.... There's no difficulty there. The difficulty I have is with the example that I just gave, because that is a classic example of what happens in the interior of the province. We do not normally have large, independent contractors logging; they have different types of shows. But it's a complete, comprehensive unit that contracts to move the logs from the forest right to the dump site at the mill. These are non-unionized firms. The transport is by logging truck. We have the situation -- it's still not clear in my mind -- in which the two members in this ten-or 15-man operation have the opportunity, once they declare their dependency and once the board accepts that, to force unionization on the rest of the independent contractor's operation. Is that not so?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. Let me just go through this. Let's just assume that they meet the test of dependency and that the board gets you there. Then they themselves are a bargaining unit of two dealing with that employer. That sawmill operator can engage the services of non-unionized workers. If those workers want to organize, they'd have to go through the certification process established under section 23 of the act. You couldn't force the others to be unionized; they'd have to go through the certification process.

C. Serwa: I thank the member for his explanation, and the assurance that leveraging couldn't transpire -- that it's a separate unit. It's a little bit hard for me to understand, though, how you can have part of an operation formally unionized and the other part of it not unionized. That's the area that's really grey to me. I have difficulty understanding that. You've created a situation where the employer per se is now a union operation with respect to a part of his operation. The indication you're giving me is that the same unionized employer now doesn't have to deal with his other employees on a union basis. That seems like an anomaly to me. But the minister is consistent in his response there.

Hon. M. Sihota: It happens all the time. Let me just give you a simple example. You have a mill. Let's say it's certified by the IWA, but the sales staff or office staff, for example, may not be unionized. That happens; I think we've all seen that in our life experience. I think if you think it through we've probably encountered it more often than we realize.

W. Hurd: Earlier today in the chamber we had a fascinating discourse from the hon. member for North Coast with respect to section 28. He, in the course of his somewhat rambling assessment of this particular section, made numerous references to questions that he had about whether or not this particular section of the act in fact went far enough in protecting the rights of dependent contractors. I just wonder if the minister had an opportunity to note those questions, and whether he is prepared at this particular time to share with the House his answers to those rather legitimate points raised by the hon. member for North Coast.

[ Page 4419 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I have already responded.

W. Hurd: I don't recall specifically in the debate this afternoon whether the minister has responded to those questions. Since I'm not convinced they were responded to, and since I think they were an important part of and could contribute vitally to this debate, could the minister consider standing this section of the bill aside for further debate until such time as the questions raised by the hon. member could be addressed to the satisfaction of the committee? I think they were legitimate points raised by a member of his side of the House, and they deserve a somewhat better response than what's been offered by the minister so far.

C. Serwa: I have a concern with what we're bargaining here at the present time, and I know that I've listened to the minister say that anything can be bargained.

When we're talking labour legislation, we're really primarily concerned with wages and working conditions of employees. In section 28 we have now created a situation where dependent contractors appear to be able to bargain for equipment rates. It may be ton-mile rates or flat rates, but it seems that we have created an opportunity to bargain heavy equipment rates. This has never really transpired before in the province. But a dependent contractor who has, let's say, two units can fundamentally hold up a small operation for ransom, and the owner-operators have no opportunity to defend themselves from this. There's no opportunity for the free market economy to flow. The relativity of that is that productivity doesn't enter into it. We fix a rate, and to support that rate we reduce our productivity, so that we have to have more money per unit -- for example, per thousand board feet hauled, or whatever.

There doesn't seem to be any sensible balance in section 28 to encourage responsible bargaining, especially when you're bargaining for something that is much broader than wages and working conditions of employees. You will get a dependent contractor who can haul logs from point A to point B at, say, $50 per thousand board feet because he's a good operator. He looks after his equipment; he handles it right. You can get another dependent contractor who can't do it for $70 per thousand board feet. There's no ability that I can see within this legislation to come up with any sort of responsible position. Once a person has been selected as a dependent contractor, you can't replace them with a more responsible operator. I have a great deal of difficulty with that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think you should take a moment and talk to my good colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds, who has probably negotiated these kinds of agreements for years.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: And my good colleague from Mission-Kent, who always wants to be acknowledged in these debates for his contribution.

Let me say this: those kinds of matters have always been the subject of negotiation in British Columbia. You can negotiate those kinds of rates, and there's often a lot of creativity in the negotiation, hon. member. It's not unusual to have those issues dealt with.

C. Serwa: Hon. Chair, perhaps the minister could provide me with one or two examples of where individuals -- entrepreneurs, dependent contractors -- have been unionized and have negotiated labour rates with firms that employ them as dependent contractors.

F. Randall: For the information of the members, the Road Builders' Association in this province has negotiated equipment rental rates, particularly for trucks, for maybe 20 years, as far as I can remember. There are contractors in this province who are currently certified for dependent contractors. One that comes off the top of my head is Jack Cewe Ltd., which is a painting company. They negotiate with the Teamsters union for truck rates. There's a couple of others. I can't remember the names offhand. So there has been bargaining for equipment rates for many years by a major association in this province. It's easy enough to get a copy of the collective agreement, and the rates are spelled out right in the agreement.

It's also important to note that the legislation requires, in all probability, a merge. Where there's already a certification for employees operating company equipment, they probably would merge the dependent with that, but where that didn't exist, there would be a cert for dependent contractors. If there's already a certification there, undoubtedly the board would determine that, but they would obviously look at merging.

Most dependent contractors work by the hour. They're there by the hour, and they negotiate hourly truck or equipment rates. That's the common practice; it's been going on for many years. If I recall, the Ministry of Highways also has equipment rental rates. They put out a book. When they hire equipment, there are already established equipment rental rates in the book. So Highways will hire....

[5:45]

Interjection.

F. Randall: There are rates set by the Ministry of Highways, and Crown corporations have rental rates around what the market would be to rent equipment. So it's going on all the time in the province, and I don't really see a major problem with it, because there have been lots of negotiations on rates. Those people still have to bargain a rate for their equipment.

C. Serwa: I'm familiar with heavy construction rates and especially with the rates that the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Transportation has had and some of the global rates set by the British Columbia Construction Association. But what we're talking about here is an independent, single unit setting rates and bargaining for those rates -- this is what section 28 does -- not collectively, not bargaining with a broad section

[ Page 4420 ]

of the industry where things would average out. We're talking about a single individual unit being given that opportunity to bargain with their own employer. That fundamentally is the concern.

Hon. Chair, noticing the lateness of the hour and the wish of the minister to carry on with some important business, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: I see that the member opposite has left, but I want to advise the House that the Minister of Labour will be absent from the chamber tomorrow morning. The Attorney General, who, of course, has a lot of experience in this regard, will be here with staff to answer questions on the labour code, I'm sure to your satisfaction.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We should be able to do 50 sections.

Hon. G. Clark: Unquestionably briefer. I just want to advise members of the House so that they're not surprised when it happens.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move this House do now adjourn.

The Speaker: The member for Okanagan West on a point of order.

C. Serwa: My point of order is simply this, hon. Chair. Perhaps the most independent individual ministry in government is the Attorney General's ministry. Although the minister is very competent and confident of his ability, for him to have to address this type of legislation would, I think, diminish his responsibility as the Attorney General in the province.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that that is not a point of order for the Chair to consider. The motion is now before you to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada